Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on April 26, 2005, 11:13:22 PM
-
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - A state Senate committee approved a proposal Tuesday to put a serial number on every handgun bullet made or sold in California.
The measure cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 4-2 vote over opposition from manufacturers, firearms dealers and sport shooters.
The technology exists to laser-cut bullets with a number that police could use to trace who purchased bullets used in crimes, said Democratic sponsor Sen. Joseph Dunn.
Purchasers would pay up to a half a cent per bullet to fund record-keeping by the state Department of Justice. Vendors would pay up to $50 a year.
"We'll solve a lot of crimes if this becomes law," said Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
If approved by the Legislature, the law would take effect in July 2007.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBF2XRX08E.html
Only problem I see is for people who make their own bullets.
-
or running out of numbers...
come on, how many bullets are there really? do they seriously think they can track all of them?
how are they going to read a a number on a deformed bullet that is in the billions (has to be at least 1,000,000,000 bullets made in a year world wide)
1 digit off, and they possibly accuse the wrong person. it will never hold up
-
combination of numbers and letters can help, I'm sure this is meant for civillian ammo and not military "lets make a sh--load of them an hour" type.
-
ok then it's just 1,000,000
still alot of tiny digits to possibly be misread on a bullet deformed by penetrating bone of a victim,.
ever see one of those bullets fired into that gel to test ballistics? tell me they'll read that number clearly
whoo my first double post in a topic on vacation LMFAO. just popped in to see whats up.
don't worry, JB73 will be spamming the BBS with nonsence really soon (probably thursday night after a flight of drinking bloddy mary's ; )
-
What about those who cast and load their own rounds?
-
Would they put it on the bullet itself or on the casing?
-
Originally posted by JB73
or running out of numbers...
come on, how many bullets are there really? do they seriously think they can track all of them?
how are they going to read a a number on a deformed bullet that is in the billions (has to be at least 1,000,000,000 bullets made in a year world wide)
1 digit off, and they possibly accuse the wrong person. it will never hold up
yeah your right. didnt think about the deforming. But as for numbering it shouldnt be too hard being as they are microscopic.
more info...
NanoVia, LP [profile], an innovative leader in the development of next-generation high-speed microvia drilling technology, announced today its intent to further develop its patent- pending application & process for creating micro-embossing mechanisms for incorporation into rifles and handguns. Within a properly outfitted firearm, the embossing mechanism stamps each shell casing as bullets are fired. The shell casings then become a valuable forensic tool during an investigation.
Randy Rossi, director of the firearms division at the California Department of Justice, said tests have been carried out to see what happened when a marked bullet was fired.
Of 200 rounds fired from close range into walls, car doors, bulletproof vests, rubber matting and a simulated human target, 181 slugs were recovered. All but one of them could be read with an electronic magnifying scope.
lol 200 rounds only recoverd 181 of them? hmmm
-
Of course this method will be perfectly well used to catch those WHO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Because obviously, all the criminals will put the serial number on their guns and their bullets.
-
Bunch of morons. So now I have to buy expensive US made ammo? fk that! I enjoy my russian made ~7-10c per bullet.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Of course this method will be perfectly well used to catch those WHO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Because obviously, all the criminals will put the serial number on their guns and their bullets.
Thats no joke, it will only deterr law abiders, not law breakers.
Besides, it's not that hard to machine your own gun, or your own bullets, or pour your own bullets, or use a shotgun, or build your own gun walking down the isles of your favorite hardware store, or make a multistack pipe gun from some crap you find in your basement, or make a tension bolt shooter, or make a firecracker gun.
I've been robbed a few times, most did not pack a state of the art firearm. Usually its nothing even worth putting a serial number on.
-
This is just a sly way of them taking your guns away. No one can aford legal bullets so law abiding citizens go unarmed.
AND criminals ignore the law.
Same as with all gun laws.
They KNOW exactly what this is going to do to gun ownership in Cali and thats exactly why these ****ing avacado liberal noodlesucking politicians do it.
-
wow....some bad complaints to a good idea. it's a 1/2 a cent per round.
You guys are forgetting this is laser etching. beleive it or not modern day forensics can reconstruct this.
think about it, if this solves ONE crime it's worth it. If ONE bastard gets locked up for shooting a little girl during a drive bye it's worth it.
It's not tracking gun owners.
Sports shooters and self defense types shouldnt have anything to worry about.
It's better than gun control. This is one of the best ideas I've heard of for curbing gun violence.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow....some bad complaints to a good idea. it's a 1/2 a cent per round.
.
It might be so if manufactures are in US, but I buy WOLF ammo and they are no way in hell going to do such an idiotic thing. That means, I have to buy expensive US made ammo, which is nearly twice the price I pay now.
Anyhow there’s nothing stopping anyone buying from out-of-state. This is stupid and pointless law which will further drain CA deficit.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow....some bad complaints to a good idea. it's a 1/2 a cent per round.
You guys are forgetting this is laser etching. beleive it or not modern day forensics can reconstruct this.
think about it, if this solves ONE crime it's worth it. If ONE bastard gets locked up for shooting a little girl during a drive bye it's worth it.
It's not tracking gun owners.
Sports shooters and self defense types shouldnt have anything to worry about.
It's better than gun control. This is one of the best ideas I've heard of for curbing gun violence.
Thats true, as long as it does not cap the usage or ownership of other firearms, or create a monopoly on ammunition by illegalising noncurrent stock, leaving a small handful of ammunition manufacturers in comliance with the new law. To me, it's not weather this law will work at catching a few criminals, but weather it will just create new crime. My guess is that it will open a black market for older ammo, and all of the crime related to the maintence of that system. It will also create a thriving enterprise for small illegal ammo manufacturing, not to mention the posibility of a law abiding citizen having his ammo stolen, or replaced by other serial numbered ammo. If this is not countered, the ability to frame someone may never be easier. We may also see a surge of mini shotgun usage.
I just hope that they thought this one through.
-
bout as bad an idea as putting serial numbers in/on fertilizers. :rolleyes:
-
Why do your politicians/lawmakers want to take these draconian steps? Do you mean to tell me that they don't buy the "more guns = less crime" argument? Say it isn't so! To read some of the posts on this board, one would think that argument was watertight. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Why do your politicians/lawmakers want to take these draconian steps?
they want to make everyone crooks, so they will have absolute corrupted power over all.
but it doesn't really matter.
one weapon, they will never be able to outlaw.
its the most devastating weapon, of all weapons.
think about it, maybe you'll figure out, what this weapon is. ;)
-
Originally posted by DieAz
one weapon, they will never be able to outlaw.
its the most devastating weapon, of all weapons.
think about it, maybe you'll figure out, what this weapon is. ;)
freedom of speech?
-
by "they"' I mean any and all Governments on the planet, and off planet.
freedom of speech, is not the answer.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Do you mean to tell me that they don't buy the "more guns = less crime" argument? Say it isn't so! To read some of the posts on this board, one would think that argument was watertight. :aok
Stain.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow....some bad complaints to a good idea. it's a 1/2 a cent per round.
It's better than gun control. This is one of the best ideas I've heard of for curbing gun violence.
None of the bad guys are going to change their behavior. Few, if any, of them go to the local gun shop and plop down 650 bucks for a Colt and a box of laser etched ammo. I'm suprised you don't see the problem with this idea. Gun laws only affect the legal gun owners. :rolleyes:
Woof
-
:rofl at the people's republic of california what kind of morons elect these folks anyways.
-
This may be a silly question but......
Bullets (the actual bullets) get deformed when fired, right? So the serial stamp is going to have to be on the shell casing.......and if the shell isn't ejected (ie 6 shooter) or the shooter stops to pick up his empty shell casings.......then how are they gonna identify this serial number?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Of course this method will be perfectly well used to catch those WHO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Because obviously, all the criminals will put the serial number on their guns and their bullets.
Do you think criminals make their own guns?
Remember, these are people who can't even hold down a job, in most cases. Initiative and industriousness do not characterise most drug addicts, gang members etc.
None of the bad guys are going to change their behavior. Few, if any, of them go to the local gun shop and plop down 650 bucks for a Colt and a box of laser etched ammo. I'm suprised you don't see the problem with this idea. Gun laws only affect the legal gun owners.
Of course most of them won't buy a laser etched gun from a gun shop. Figures show less than 20% of criminals in the US get their guns that way.
What most of them do is steal the gun the law abiding citizen has bought, or buy it from someone else who stole it.
Whatever the law abiding buy, that's the type of gun criminals end up with, because that's where the criminals get their guns.
As to ammo, criminals again either steal it, or usually just buy it.
Make a law that requires serial numbers and it will feed through to the criminal guns in time.
-
wouldnt it be easier just to have on file in some computer database a sample fired round from every gun made/sold?
Then you could at least track the round down to the guns original owner
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
What about those who cast and load their own rounds?
Just make possesion of one an act of terrorism, 25 to life should be about right.
shamus
-
well... gee... I have bullet molds for about 10 calibers right now and can make rounds out of wheel weights.. Are they gonna make bullet molds and reloading illegal?
yes beetle you are correct... democrats do not think that more guns equal less crime... like you... they are wrong. (you did notice that it was a know nothing about guns democrat that made the bill)
as for the bullet deforming the number.... sheesh... get a grip guys... do you think criminals will fire bullets that haven't had the numbers scraped off with a two second pass of a sharp pocketknife?
and gunslinger... are you old enough to remember the last democrat passed ammo law that was gonna catch all these baby killers? The law was that you had to show ID to purchase ammo and records were kept.... it lasted a decade or so and caught.... ta da.... ZERO bad guys.
The idea is to make it even harder for law abiding gun owners.
lazs
-
That's an interesting topic in number theory. Since billions of bullets are produced each year, how would you number them (i.e. what base number system would you use)? Who keeps track of all that information?
Sometimes its the simplest questions that provide show stoppers.
Regards,
Malta
-
beet said... "Why do your politicians/lawmakers want to take these draconian steps? Do you mean to tell me that they don't buy the "more guns = less crime" argument? Say it isn't so! To read some of the posts on this board, one would think that argument was watertight. "
Not only that beet but those self same democrats and women would now ban you from ever owning a firearm after your latest unfortunate incident. So really.... your opinion on firearms now bears even less weight (if that is possible).
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"
Not only that beet but those self same democrats and women would now ban you from ever owning a firearm after your latest unfortunate incident. So really.... your opinion on firearms now bears even less weight (if that is possible).
lazs
Hey we got that one here already...oh btw was passed when both houses were controled by, and the Governor was republican.
shamus
-
Swoop, it fully depends upon what the bullet is hitting. There are chances that the bullet is going to be untouched. There are also chances that the bullet is gonna be smashed and incredibly deformed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
think about it, if this solves ONE crime it's worth it.
No its not.
shamus
-
So... I put on my Rambo suit, paint my face in camo, smoke a little crack, etc in preparation for a big day of frolicking through society. I load my 4 weapons, that I traded an ounce of meth for, in the car.
I head out........then boom...it hits me. I haven`t got enough ammo. No problem. Wallly World is just around the corner. I run in and grab a few boxes of the latest laser imprinted ammo and continue merrily on my way.
Ummmm...yea.....right!
.....And Madonna is a virgin.
It's not tracking gun owners.
"Legal" gun owners is the ONLY thing it would track. Criminals intent on breaking the law and the ones who make a living from illegal activities don`t give a crap what rules and regs some group with over active imaginations, and very little knowledge on the subject they are adressing passes or comes up with.
The sad part is that most career criminals are a hundred times smarter than the morons coming up with the law to begin with.
I can just imagine this used in court against some average homeowner who has to shoot a burglar, rapist, etc for protection of his family.
The only thing I can think of offhand that equals this in pure stupidity would be the law that was passed here that stated that pot dealers had to purchase a tax stamp to do business.
Think about it...we are actualy paying morons like this to come up with this crap with our tax dollars.
-
now the smugglers can add ammo to their inventory of drugs and guns.
-
Originally posted by john9001
now the smugglers can add ammo to their inventory of drugs and guns.
They won`t have to be smuggled.
Too easy to make right in your own kitchen or garage, etc.
Another example of stupid laws being passed to invent and promote more illegal businesses.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes beetle you are correct... democrats do not think that more guns equal less crime... like you... they are wrong. (you did notice that it was a know nothing about guns democrat that made the bill)
But it's not only democrats who disagree that more guns = less crime. I do believe NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a Republican, and he is very anti gun. The NRA thinks he would like to see a complete ban of guns.
But Bloomberg certainly knows about cutting crime. Check out his website: http://www.mikebloomberg.com/accomplishments.cfm
Crime has declined 15% citywide in three years. 2004 was the third year in a row with fewer than 600 homicides, a feat which had not happened for 40 years. According to the FBI, NYC is the safest out of the country's 25 biggest cities.
- achieved by a mayor who does not believe in guns.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow....some bad complaints to a good idea. it's a 1/2 a cent per round.
It is half a cent per round to maintain the record keeping.
I guarantee it costs more than half a cent per round to stanmp every freaking bullet.
-
Yeah Guns,
This is Cali, nothing costs what our ultra melon politicians claim it will.
This is just like Don peratas multible attempts at adding a stupid tax to each bullet.
The have failed to ban guns in the state, so now they are going to try and find a way to ban ammo. Or make it so costly no one will buy it.
Do not fool yourself into thinking these "Represenitives of the people" give a **** about crime. They want guns out of everyones hands.
Guns are bah Mkay?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
"Legal" gun owners is the ONLY thing it would track.
I can just imagine this used in court against some average homeowner who has to shoot a burglar, rapist, etc for protection of his family.
1)Why would "legal" gun owners have anything to worry about?
2) I think if some homeowner shoots someone they arent gonna need the numbers on the bullet to tell who fired the shot.
-
If MicroSoft made guns, the serial number would be a five part key like xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx. Later guns would have a slot for a disk, which you would have to insert to make sure your bullets were not registered to someone else. If using an XP gun, you would have to call M$ to get an activation code every time you took your gun apart for cleaning, and put it back together again. If you pulled the trigger, a popup flag would appear which asked "are you sure?".
-
^ you would also have to pull the trigger to engage the safety. Half the bullets in the magazine would go off for no reason at random.
Apple would make a gun that was lighter, easier to shoot, and more accurate but nobody would make ammunition for it.
-
Raider, for number one, this looks to be the start of registration. While it's not direct gun registration, it's a small step towards it. If you take a look through out history, gun registration is the first step towards gun bans.
Remember, us gun owners might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean that they aren't coming after us.
#2 is a very good point. If a home owner shoots a burglar, it's not going to be in question that he did it. Which presses the first point I made. If the homeowners won't be hiding their shooting, and the criminals are not going to be using the serial numbered bullets, what's the true purpose of this bill?
Paranoia usually comes from something...
-
Originally posted by Heretik
Apple would make a gun that was lighter, easier to shoot, and more accurate but nobody would make ammunition for it.
Or you could get a Linux gun, in which case the ammo would be free.
-
And what happens when a crackhead shoots someone with a 9mm bullet serial number 456789XX and so on, and impact makes the 4 into a 1, which just happens to be in a 9mm box some innocent guy shot off half of that weekend?
-
How about 1 cent per bullet to build new jails used ONLY to house anyone that commits a crime using a gun. Sentences to be a minimum of 5 years going up to life for the more serious crimes?
I'd pay that one.
It's this really curious idea.........punish the criminals, leave the law-abiding citizens along.
I kind of like that.
-
To make this work cali will have to outlaw all pistol ammo sold in the state by say 1/1/2007 without the serial number etching. And probably outlaw all componets sold in the state to. This will mean no internet sales to cali residents. Which will mean your car searched at the boarder for ilegal fruit and ammo.
Cap and ball 31. cal 4 inch barrel is not a bad personal defense wheapon if you learn how to use it.............
-
Originally posted by stantond
That's an interesting topic in number theory. Since billions of bullets are produced each year, how would you number them (i.e. what base number system would you use)? Who keeps track of all that information?
Sometimes its the simplest questions that provide show stoppers.
Regards,
Malta
All vehicles now have a 17 digit serial number, regulated by the Feds. Combination of letters and numbers. The permutations are huge.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Why do your politicians/lawmakers want to take these draconian steps?
Because we legalized political bribery (lobbying).
One corporation comes up with nearly useless technology and start wondering how to make money with it. "Oh gosh, we could make billions if that would be required by law! Let invest few $$ in our representatives, returns will be enormous!"
-
Yah, we could just put a 37 digit number on each bullet. Or maybe a 650 digit number even.
The very thought of it would keep criminals terrified.
Just like the failed ballistic fingerprinting of guns in Maryland and New York did. So far, not one crime solved by ballistic fingerprinting. Hoorah.
So, we get yet another feel-good, do-nothing law that only affects the law abiding citizens.
What's worse is some people think it is actually a smart idea.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, we could just put a 37 digit number on each bullet. Or maybe a 650 digit number even.
The very thought of it would keep criminals terrified.
Just like the failed ballistic fingerprinting of guns in Maryland and New York did. So far, not one crime solved by ballistic fingerprinting. Hoorah.
So, we get yet another feel-good, do-nothing law that only affects the law abiding citizens.
What's worse is some people think it is actually a smart idea.
Ya gotta remember Toad, thas all most legislation is now-a-days, is "feel good" legislation.
Like the Brady Bill stops criminals, or the hang guns bans, or any of the nonsense that has come out of California.
I remember and always keep it close to heart,
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1)Why would "legal" gun owners have anything to worry about?
2) I think if some homeowner shoots someone they arent gonna need the numbers on the bullet to tell who fired the shot.
I think you misread the post.
I said the LEGAL gun owners are the only ones it would track.
This being because the law abiding citizen would be the only one using such ammo.
-
Remember, these are people who can't even hold down a job, in most cases. Initiative and industriousness do not characterise most drug addicts, gang members etc.
Many of those people either cant find work or....they dont want to find work because they make more money via illegal activities. Ever hear of a zip gun? Zip guns were made by gangs by using car radio antennaes and firing .22 bullets through them. They were very dangerous to the user, but that didnt stop them from being used.
-
there is nothing they can do to a bullet that I can't undo and make untraceable in more than a few minutes at worst.
this is merely keeping track of law abiding citizens who buy ammo.
it is removing cheap ammo from california. making sure that less and less people enjoy shooting sports.
If even one crook were ever caught with this scam he would win "dumb crook of the year" award.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
To make this work cali will have to outlaw all pistol ammo sold in the state by say 1/1/2007 without the serial number etching. And probably outlaw all componets sold in the state to. This will mean no internet sales to cali residents.
That's easy to do... try buying a "jerry can" online and ship it to Cali. Good luck.
-
"But... but.. but..... it makes me FEEL like I'm doing something about crime!"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there is nothing they can do to a bullet that I can't undo and make untraceable in more than a few minutes at worst.
this is merely keeping track of law abiding citizens who buy ammo.
it is removing cheap ammo from california. making sure that less and less people enjoy shooting sports.
If even one crook were ever caught with this scam he would win "dumb crook of the year" award.
lazs
Even if the serial number is etched into the copper jacket it can be filed off fairly easily. This whole thing is a pretty silly idea.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think you misread the post.
I said the LEGAL gun owners are the only ones it would track.
This being because the law abiding citizen would be the only one using such ammo.
No I didn't. Why would you care if you are tracked for your ammo purchases if you aren't doing anything illegal?
You guys have no idea who would use the ammo or who wouldnt.
Like it was said earlier if it solved 1 murder it would be worth it.
As far as ballistic fingerprinting Toad, if it had included rifles and not just been for handguns the washington D.C. sniper would have been caught from the start.
Good so let the bad guys use unmarked ammo and then when we find their guns with the illegal ammo they can be confiscated.
As for the gun banning, you guys are kidding yourself. That would take a constitutional amendment and last i checked Republicans had plenty of guys in office. So relax.
-
Fear the slippery slope. ;)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No I didn't. Why would you care if you are tracked for your ammo purchases if you aren't doing anything illegal?
OK...so you think the cost and the hassles, all the tax dollars spent pushing this through is worth it to track the people who are allready law abiding? For what purpose?
Total moronic thinking by another name seeker who is being paid by us to do nothing about something that that don`t have a clue about. Makes perfectly good sense to me.
As far as being tracked from a personal stand point, I totaly disaprove and will avoid it in all cases possible. It sets a very dangerous presedence.
-
raider... you are not making any sense. Or at least I can't see it.
No one here fears that under the present laws... regestration and the government knowing you have something... anything... is a bad idea. What matters is if the law changes... Are you for a national ID or... say the government having access to your medical or library or internet surfing records? after all... so long as you are doing nothing illegal... how bout how much gas you buy and how many miles you travel a year and where you go?
It wouldn't solve any murders and even if it solved one the intrusiveness of it and POTENTIAL for future abuse... and the extreme inconvienience and expense would most certainly NOT be worth it.
How would ballistic fingerprinting have caught the DC sniper? How much is ballistic fingerprinting costing in canada and how many crooks has it caught so far? Ask them if it is "worth it".
sheesh... the bad guys use marked unmarked whatever ammo.... just like they use guns with serial numbers on em.... point is... the weapon is most often found.... it has serial numbers on it and distinctive lands and grooves.... it is never traced back to the crook. same for the bullets... You think they are gonna go to the sporting goods store and buy ammo in their name for their stolen gun?
gun banning is indeed a concern but not because it requires an amendmant... it is a concern because making things impossible to own is the same as a ban. it is incramentalism and unfair "targeting" of law abiding groups.
The aclu would fight any invasion into peoples privacy except this one tho.... wonder why?
lazs
-
Your guys think in decimal terms. A 64 bit binary number represents up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 possible numbers.
64bits can be made pretty dang tiny. Not big enough? Each additional bit doubles the previous maximum.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
OK...so you think the cost and the hassles, all the tax dollars spent pushing this through is worth it to track the people who are allready law abiding? For what purpose?
Total moronic thinking by another name seeker who is being paid by us to do nothing about something that that don`t have a clue about. Makes perfectly good sense to me.
As far as being tracked from a personal stand point, I totaly disaprove and will avoid it in all cases possible. It sets a very dangerous presedence.
all the hassles? lol Come on now. like i said it will allow you to confiscate guns from those who posess the "unmarked" bullets in them. Seems like that would be a lot of gang fire-arms to me.
As for being tracked, you have a drivers license? social security number? credit card? internet? you are already tracked. Its not like the damn bullets have gps in them. Sheesh
-
raider... think about it... When a gangbanger is caught with a gun it is allways confiscated... one, it is probly stolen... two, he doesn't have a licence to carry anb three... if he is a felon or convicted of domestic abuse(how likely is that ?)... he like, beet would have lost the right to have any firearm... none of these things would have anthing to do with the ammo.
but let's look at it this way... you seem to be saying that to solve even one crime... the expense and intrusiveness and potential for abuse is worth trying any sceme.
would you say that to stop one siime bag child molester it would be worth requiring everyone to show ID to get an internet connection and then pay say.... oh... half a cent or so (might cost a little more tho latter) for every internet site that you visit... the isp would charge this and be required to turn over those lists of sites visited to the government.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It wouldn't solve any murders and even if it solved one the intrusiveness of it and POTENTIAL for future abuse... and the extreme inconvienience and expense would most certainly NOT be worth it.
How would ballistic fingerprinting have caught the DC sniper? How much is ballistic fingerprinting costing in canada and how many crooks has it caught so far? Ask them if it is "worth it".
You think they are gonna go to the sporting goods store and buy ammo in their name for their stolen gun?
gun banning is indeed a concern but not because it requires an amendmant... it is a concern because making things impossible to own is the same as a ban. it is incramentalism and unfair "targeting" of law abiding groups.
lazs
how do you know it wouldn't solve any murders?
Because he used the rifle he purchased to do the shootings with.
That is exactly the point. Make it where they cant just go buy more ammo at the wal-mart. Make it more difficult for criminals to buy ammo.
Yes gun bans would require a repealing of amendment. There is no other way to do it. Its on the bill of Rights remember.
How does this in anyway make it impossible to own ammunition? And please don't say "cause it makes me paranoid". I mean a real reason.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
all the hassles? lol Come on now.
Yes the hassles. Come on now what?
You think this is accomplished by one person on a piece of notebook paper? Do you have any idea the cost, time and man hours this will take to shuffle this through umpteen hundred different processes? Do you know who will be paying the bill on this?
Noticed you avoided the question. I`ll ask it again. What benefit would come from a law that would only affect the allready law abiding citizen?
like i said it will allow you to confiscate guns from those who posess the "unmarked" bullets in them. Seems like that would be a lot of gang fire-arms to me.
As far as I know there is nothing preventing the confiscating of illegal weapons used by gangs or anyone else , as far as that goes, as it stands now. How`s that working out?
The idea of taking away and the confiscating of weapons of any kind, ammo or whatever used in illegal activities is a pure joke. It will never happen.
All this time and money would be more well spent in the prevention of crime BEFORE the facts and not AFTER the facts on some whimsical joke. Hiring and training of additional law enforcement comes to mind.
As for being tracked, you have a drivers license? social security number? credit card? internet? you are already tracked.
Yep and like I said, I avoid it in all cases possible. I`m not going to run out and get my social security number tattoed on my forehead either.
Its not like the damn bullets have gps in them. Sheesh
You aware of the proposal to put chips in handguns? Not nearly as far fetched as you seem to think bud.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Make it more difficult for criminals to buy ammo.
Impossible to do.
-
raider... ballistic fingerprinting has caught.... ZERO criminals... why would the DC sniper be any different?
you do have a slight point on making ammo somewhat harder for crooks to get... there simply would be so much less of it out there for anyone that it would make it slightly harder for the crook...
but... you didn't answer my question about internet use. How do you feel about my plan?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
As far as ballistic fingerprinting Toad, if it had included rifles and not just been for handguns the washington D.C. sniper would have been caught from the start.
That sir, is simple horse excreta.
First, Malvo stole the Bushmaster rifle from the Bull's Eye. So, IF they had ballistically fingerprinted the bullet from the Bushmaster and IF they got a match when they went to the Bull's Eye there would have been nothing to link the gun to Malvo whatsoever.
Second, California Department of Justice study tested 800 guns and got incorrect matches 62 percent of the time. So it is HIGHLY doubtful that a correct match would have been made in any event.
So, go ahead, enlighten me. Explain your statement and show me how ballistic fingerprinting would have caught Malvo "from the start".
Bet you can't.
-
HHHMMM so they can't solve crimes with serial numbers on weapons but they can with numbers on bullets. Yeah right. :rolleyes: The administrative task of keeping track of all the numbers would be a nightmare.
-
Yet, a recent report by the Maryland State Police's forensic-sciences division shows that the systems in both states have been expensive failures. New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 per gun sold.
But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime. To put it bluntly, the program "does not aid in the mission statement of the Department of State Police."
A recent study by the State of California points to further practical difficulties with ballistic fingerprinting. The study tested 790 pistols firing a total of 2,000 rounds.
When the cartridges used with a particular gun came from the same manufacturer, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time. When the cartridges came from different manufacturers, the failure rate rose to 62 percent.
And this study does not even begin to address problems caused by wear, so the real-world failure rate can be expected to be much higher.
Hawaii has had both registration and licensing of guns for several decades.
In theory, if a gun is left at the crime scene, licensing and registration will allow the gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have probably spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii. But despite this massive effort, there has not been a single case in which police claimed that licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying a criminal.
The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it is because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded.
Second — and more important for ballistic fingerprinting — would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. The guns that are recovered at the scene are not registered.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
they want to make everyone crooks, so they will have absolute corrupted power over all.
but it doesn't really matter.
one weapon, they will never be able to outlaw.
its the most devastating weapon, of all weapons.
think about it, maybe you'll figure out, what this weapon is. ;)
Beetle's breath?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
wouldnt it be easier just to have on file in some computer database a sample fired round from every gun made/sold?
Then you could at least track the round down to the guns original owner
waste of time and money, simple crown job will make all file records null and void.
and still can't track it.
Rino; LMAO, maybe. :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Your guys think in decimal terms. A 64 bit binary number represents up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 possible numbers.
64bits can be made pretty dang tiny. Not big enough? Each additional bit doubles the previous maximum.
Like I said Vehicle Serial numbers are 17 digits. The possible permutations are 294,300,971,827,200,000,000.
I think we won't run out of numbers soon.
-
You'll have plenty of numbers.
What you'll never have is a valid reason for them.
-
Yep, I agree.
Lots of very good reasons for not going forward with this law. I wonder though.
Does anyone have an idea how we can prevent gun violence?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Whatever the law abiding buy, that's the type of gun criminals end up with, because that's where the criminals get their guns.
Please state your source.
As to ammo, criminals again either steal it, or usually just buy it.
Once again... you certainly seem to have a lot of "facts" at your disposal.
Make a law that requires serial numbers and it will feed through to the criminal guns in time.
Think about this man... THEY FILE THE SERIAL #'s OFF. How can you think in such a head in the sand manner? Don't you ever watch Law and order? :rolleyes:
Woof
-
yep defending freedom and rights is a great thing for some of you as long as it is a freedom you like.
Raider179
You're a law abiding guy is it ok for the government to track every purchase you make? Your not braking the law right? So what if the government sees the porn you buy etc?
This is just another BS cali law, like their BS gun safety tests that halved the number of models of firearm you can buy in the state cause the gun makers do not want to pay the stupid test costs for every model. It was a clever way for the freedom hating liberal avacados in the Cali legislature to ban guns.
I am sure if this gets passed they will make the standard so costly ammo makers either will not bother or the cost will be so high it will double or tripple the cost of ammo.
Just more stupid crap from this worst run state in the country.
-
As must be painfully obvious to those who actually shoot and know something about firearms, this law was concocted by people who DON"T know anything about them.
Where are they going to laser these magic numbers where they cannot be effected by the firing of the bullet itself? If they are on the cylinder of the projectile they may well be scraped off by the rifling.
Engraving them across the nose of the projectile wouldn't work for obvious reasons. Oops, pardon me. I forgot that the obvious isn't always obvious. The nose is the first part of the bullet to go to pieces upon striking an object. If fired at a high enough velocity it will not only mushroom but may well fragment into numerous pieces. To find the magic numbers, you would have to retrieve all of the fragments. ALL of them.
Engraving them on the base of the bullet is unworkable as well. The base is subjected to temperatures from explosive gases which reach thousands of degrees fahrenheit. I can't imagine that the numbers would remain unaffected by such extreme heat.
Besides, put enough pressure on the criminals and purps responsible for the vast majority of shootings in the U.S., and they'll just switch to shotguns.
Let's see 'em engrave all THOSE pellets.
-
You want to Stop gun crime?
Start with making laws that punish the people who use them in a crime. Make it life to use a gun in a crime.
legalise drugs and take that away from the gangs and maybe they will stop killing each other.
And do something about bad parent/parents. How the criminals are raised is the heart of the problem. On top of the lack of opertunity crappy schools in these areas give these kids.
know one wants to talk about that though. It easy to point at a gun and say "guns are bad Mkay"
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Let's see 'em engrave all THOSE pellets.
Anything is possible with senators like Feinstein...
-
Whatever the law abiding buy, that's the type of gun criminals end up with, because that's where the criminals get their guns.
--------------------------------------------------
Please state your source.
There are many sources that point to this.
Surveys amongst prisoners, FBI crime reports, even John Lott. (Lott claims around 50% of all guns in criminals hands were stolen, iirc)
The Dept of Justice surveys in federal and state prisons in 1997 found that 14% of criminals bought their gun from a dealer, gun show etc, 40% got one from family or friends, 30% bought their gun from a criminal contact, 10% stole the gun they later used in crime themselves.
The FBI reported an average of 180,000 handguns stolen per year in the late 80s and early 90s. I believe the figure has gone down a bit since then, but the FBI still reports over 1 million unrecovered stolen firearms in the last decade, the majority handguns, iirc.
Where do you think these guns go? Think the criminals are throwing these away, and making themselves zip guns instead?
Nearly every gun used in crime in the US was legally manufactured or imported into the US, before getting into the hands of criminals, either before or after being sold to a legitimate buyer.
The guns aren't coming in from abroad, and they aren't being made in illicit factories.
As to ammo, criminals again either steal it, or usually just buy it.
-----------------------------------------------
Once again... you certainly seem to have a lot of "facts" at your disposal.
You think they are making their own ammo? Why? Why not do what criminals usually do, steal, or use the proceeds from crime to buy.
What's the point of going to extreme lengths to aquire ammunition when it's so easily available?
Think about this man... THEY FILE THE SERIAL #'s OFF.
Actually, they normally don't, which should tell you just how organised most criminals are.
But I was refering more to new technology than a sime stamped or engraved serial number, like the suggestion the gun could automatically stamp the cartridge case every time it fires. (Note I am not arguing about the technology, I have no idea if it works or not, I was just disputing the fact that some seem to believe criminals guns are somehow not related in any way to legal guns, as if they come from a entirely seperate supply chain)
Many of those people either cant find work or....they dont want to find work because they make more money via illegal activities.
Take a look at the average IQ of prisoners. These are not intellignet people, by and large. They don't usually have a good work ethic, either, otherwise they wouldn't have taken to crime.
Ever hear of a zip gun? Zip guns were made by gangs by using car radio antennaes and firing .22 bullets through them. They were very dangerous to the user, but that didnt stop them from being used.
Which sort of highlights the point. Zip guns were crap, dangerous. You'd have to be pretty stupid to use one. The point I was replying to was:
Of course this method will be perfectly well used to catch those WHO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION. Because obviously, all the criminals will put the serial number on their guns and their bullets.
That implied criminals were making their own guns. They don't, of course, and when they did they used to make rubbish like zip guns.
You want to Stop gun crime?
Start with making laws that punish the people who use them in a crime. Make it life to use a gun in a crime.
Great idea. It's given me a foolproof plan for stopping murders.
We'll make murder illegal, and give long prison sentences to anyone who carries one out. We could even execute some of them.
That will stop them, no doubt. No-one is going to commit murder if they know they'll go to prison, or even be executed, for it.
We can get rid of all other crime as well. We'll make it illegal to commit crime, then the criminals will stop.
You can rely on it if you like, but I'll still continue to lock my car, and my front door at night.
I'd rather not rely on the criminal to choose a better way, I'd rather try to physically stop him committing crimes.
-
Nashwin
Just because a gun is used in a crime does not mean someone dies or is murdered.
Don't be a simpleton.
My way is:
Even if the criminal does not hurt anyone but uses a gun when committing a crime he goes away for at least 20 years, it may not prevent other criminals from committing crimes but the ones who get pinched and go to jail wont be out in 6 years to do it again.
-
Stopping stupid proposed laws like these is one of the reasons I belong to the NRA. You can't battle lunacy with reason, it won't work. I figured someone had to say that.
Regards,
Malta
-
For once I disagree with you!
You are not going to file off a laser etched round, not without some real work. We laser etch all our tools and they are a pain to de-etch.
I'M JUST GOING OFF THE INFO THE ARTICLE GIVES:
this doesnt look like it costs much
There isn't any new laws to ban non-etched ammo
if you guys are this avid about not helping law enforcement enforce current gun laws and/or finding people who use guns for crimes (they are the reason liberals want to take your guns away in the first place) then why do you even buy guns with serial numbers on them?
Sure there's going to be a lot of rounds that are fired in crimes that arent going to have this on it but that doesnt mean that some criminal isnt' going to get careless and use one that does.
-
The more expensive it becomes to own firearms, hunt, plink, go to the range to practice, the fewer new firearms owners there will be in each generation. Eventualy the 2nd amendmant will be a nice but useless line in the constitution. By that time only criminals and wealthy Liberals will own guns and ammo. It's a gimmic to control access to ammo through the free market. A back door gun ban. California is making it so that only people with discretionary income to waste or criminals will have firearms.
Our Life and Liberty is not for the conveinience of cops. The police are in violation of the constitution in their function as a standing army(paramilitary), but thats another argument. Laws are not tailored for the ease of cops to make their jobs less troublesome. If that becomes the case then we become ruled by the whim of 900,000 men in uniform. Thats on avererage one man with a gun dictating to 3000 tax slave subjects in the U.S. If you make the governments job easier, you give up one more grain of freedom.
-
"We'll solve a lot of crimes if this becomes law," said Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
This is an obviously untrue and politically motivated statement. Serial numbers on bullets would only provide information in homicides or other shooting related crimes that used large caliber handguns with serial number labeled bullets. Robbery, rape, extortion, burglery and any crime committed with a firearm other than a large caliber handgun would be unaffected.
Laser etching a number on a copper jacketed 9mm would add more than 1/2 cents per round in cost. I expect the price of the ammunition would double or triple. The cost of the laser system, modifications to bullet processing, inventory, quality assurance, and a staff to keep track of these numbers would all be very expensive. That is before the cost of tracking the rounds after manufacture is addressed. Now the manufacturer and his distributors must keep records of where the rounds came from, went, and when.
Ok, say someone is killed by a serial numbered bullet. The investigators follow the information trail back to Bubba's fish&tackle. How long must Bubba keep track of who the bullets were sold to and when? Must Bubba now have a subclass of an FFL? How many forms of ID must you have to buy bullets? Is an 'instant background' check necessary? What if you give ammuntion away, or lose it, or sell it, or it gets stolen?
This idea is not a 1/2 cent per bullet increase in the cost per round. Nor is it practical. I also wonder, from a purely technical aspect, where could you put a serial number that would stay intact? I have to question whether a laser etched number on the base of a conventional bullet would survive. Have they tried this? Maybe a special 'serial number plate' would be necessary.
Regards,
Malta
-
bustr you are a very silly man... :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
After reading this GOD I LOVE TEXAS!
-
I got me an old Rockcrusher reloading press and lots of brass, dies and bullets. It's been in storage for quite a few years but if California passes this law I'll get rich selling unmarked ammo to gangbangers. I might even toss in a blunt with every 100 round purchase.
:D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
We laser etch all our tools and they are a pain to de-etch.
Not all rounds are jacketed or semi jacketed. De-etching a lead round would be simple enough. We aren't talking Titanium here... it's generally lead or copper. :rolleyes:
Woof
-
if you guys are this avid about not helping law enforcement enforce current gun laws and/or finding people who use guns for crimes (they are the reason liberals want to take your guns away in the first place) then why do you even buy guns with serial numbers on them?
The Libs I know have many reasons to take away guns but most do not have anything to do with crime.
It's all crap like.
Civilised societys do not have guns.
Or guns are bad(and I am a huge *****)and I dont like them so no one should have them cause they are bad.
Hunting is mean and we don't need to do that so we don't need guns.
Guns are just to make people feel more manly and since I am a metrosexual, all men should be so they dont need guns.
It is a right they do not like or care about so they want it taken away. (Not all, just the anti gun libs, I know a fairly high number of libs who love guns, just not enough to vote republican)(not that the so called republicans are that much better, thank you arny for banning .50 cal rifles you muscle headed over acting avacado!)
Crime may be a part but why then do they always focus on laws that **** with the law abiding and do nothing to stop crime!
Did you hit your head Guns??
First this and then the Firefly thread? My god man!!
-
How ****ing redicules
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Does anyone have an idea how we can prevent gun violence?
After thouroughly considering this weighty problem, the only solution I could come up with is to punish law-abiding gun owners. So I guess I'm now a Liberal Democrat.
-
Course You could just chuck your guns away! Then all this upset angst, hassle, about the damn things would end! There might even be less chance of getting shot by ammo with or without serial numbers!:lol
I know I know you won't do that because its all great in America with your guns and everywhere that doesn't have or need them is crap and filled with (insert derogatory term here)!
:rolleyes:
Ok i'll leave you to your gun masturbation.
See yah
-
If You're a law-abiding citizen then what harm would serial numbers in bullets do?
Or are You having something to hide?
-
Originally posted by Staga
If You're a law-abiding citizen then what harm would serial numbers in bullets do?
Or are You having something to hide?
I have all kinds of things to hide....... but none of them have anything to do with bullets. How are we supposed to get rid of guns? Some law abiding folks might turn them in (I wouldn't) and exactlly zero criminals would. Maybe if we make them totally illegal like they did in NYC then we can stop the problem like they did. :D
Woof
-
Originally posted by Staga
If You're a law-abiding citizen then what harm would serial numbers in bullets do?
If you're a law abiding citizen who owns an ammo manufacturing business then it'll drive you out of business if you don't have the half a mil to retool your equipment to comply with the new law.
If you're a law abiding citizen who pays taxes then your taxes will rise, however slightly, to pay for the enforcement of these new regulations.
If you're a law abiding citizen who enjoys shooting sports then your hobby will get much more expensive.
If you're a criminal who gets his guns and ammo from the junkie burgular on the black market then this law will have no effect on you.
-
If you're a law abiding citizen who enjoys shooting sports then your hobby will get much more expensive.
If you're a criminal who gets his guns and ammo from the junkie burgular on the black market then this law will have no effect on you.
Surely these 2 statements are contradictory?
If the cost to law abiding citizens goes up, the number of law abiding citizens with guns will probably go down, which means the junkie burgular will have less guns to steal, which means the supply will go down, which means the price to the criminal goes up.
(This is the principle behind most laws targetting supply of guns, of course, and is also used as a justification for unecessary controls that do nothing but drive up prices)
-
speaking of masterbation... Skyprancer... would you be willing to show id and regester to get an internet connection? You would then have the server by federal law, track your every move on the internet. you would be charged 1/2 cent for every site that you visited (it might cost a little more to administer so it might go up "slightly" later on to 20 or 30 cents a site).
All these records would be kept on you and it would all be worth it if... if it saved just ONE child from a child molester. What is a "little expense" and a tiny loss of privacy compared to the life of.... EVEN ONE CHILD? As a bonus.... most sex sites would simply shut down do to lack of browser activity.
MT asks a good question and I believe that I (and many others) have the answer.
I believe that it is time to get tough on gun crime. I believe long mandatory sentances for SERIOUS gun crime are in order. Using the gun in the commision of a crime should be so heinous that it will not be worth it.
an example is the postal service. The penalty for tampering with mail is way too high for the rewards. Interstate trafficing in stolen goods.... many examples are out there.
No penalty is 100% but... they all cut the crimes targeted by a large percent.
You have to ask yourself... if it is possible to reduce gun crime by a large margin with penalties.... Why aren't the anti gun people advocating it?
lazs
-
and nashwan... you admit that the only way the law works is by punishing law abiding... in other words, you note that if less people are able to afford guns or get through the red tape then there will be a smaller pool of them?
do you advocate huge fees and restrictions on motorcycles to cut down on useless motorcycle deaths? How bout swimming?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I know I know you won't do that because its all great in America with your guns and everywhere that doesn't have or need them is crap and filled with (insert derogatory term here)!
Like a beacon in the night. A regular neon sign.
-
hey skyprancer... I don't tell anyone they have to have a firearm... I do my best to make sure that it is their choice tho..
Just as the founders wanted.
Just like I don't do anything to shut down the sites you like to visit.
lazs
-
and nashwan... you admit that the only way the law works is by punishing law abiding
Not punishing, restricting. Just as people are restricted in the speed they can drive, even if they are very good drivers, pilots have to get licences, aircraft have to be registered, some businesses are subject to regulation, require permits, etc.
Cars are all subject to registration, I don't recall any of your threads here bemoaning that fact.
Why is the registration and licencing of a car, and notifying the authorities of it's transfer acceptable to you, but the same system for guns unacceptable?
I mean, if you drive around without a unique number affixed to your car where the police can clearly see it, you'll be stopped, but somehow it's unaceptable if your bullets can be traced?
It's acceptable to have the costs of transport increased by registration and lciencing, but not guns?
As a point of principle, if a cheap and workable system of ammunition tracing was technically available (say a microscopic plate embedded in each bullet), would you be against it? In principle, forget the technical details.
(And it seems to me they might be able to embedded rfid chips into bullets at fractional cost soon)
in other words, you note that if less people are able to afford guns or get through the red tape then there will be a smaller pool of them?
Isn't that just logic?
do you advocate huge fees and restrictions on motorcycles to cut down on useless motorcycle deaths?
I'm not advocating anything, just adding my thoughts.
But no, I would not "advocate" trying to cut down the number of motorbikes that way. Motorbikes are transport, and without transport more people will die, not less.
I'm in favour of licencing motorbike riders, to ensure they are competent, and registration of motobikes. I think both things are pretty sensible.
-
"Just like I don't do anything to shut down the sites you like to visit."
And what does this mean? care to explain? Be careful before you slander me!
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Surely these 2 statements are contradictory?
If the cost to law abiding citizens goes up, the number of law abiding citizens with guns will probably go down, which means the junkie burgular will have less guns to steal, which means the supply will go down, which means the price to the criminal goes up.
So basically your goal is to make firearms ownership economically prohibitive for all but the wealthy?
:rolleyes:
-
the automobile comparrison breaks down tho nashwan.
guns and cars both have serial numbers that they carry around.
Both operators are expected to obey laws that might endanger others even tho some operators have more skill than others. but...
car owners are not expected to regester their gas consumption nor to have a monitoring device in the vehicle that reports the way it is used.
To do so whould make cars prohibitively expensive for a lot of people....
less cars on the road would mean less accidents however.
less people visiting porn sites would mean less porn sites and less chance for child molesters..
more restrictions on motorcycles and recreational water use would mean less people being able to afford to injure or kill themselves..
It seems your attitude is extremely selfish and you wish to restrict only those activities that you have little or no interest in.
You are the kind of person that I fear the most... The church lady of voters.
skyprancer is another perfect example... banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would outrage him even tho they are simply a leathal toy that the rest of us pay for in higher insurance rates.... but.... he is too busy to see his own ox is in danger of being gored.
lazs
-
Suprise suprise suprise.
Skydancer is posting to a thread and spouting nothing but his typical inane mindless, BS.
:rolleyes:
-
people tend to fear powerful things that they know nothing about.
lazs
-
"banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would outrage him"
Yep it would Lazs. During the eighties bikers in the UK had more new laws and barriers to getting a licence put on us by the gov than any other road user. In addition whilst the Eurocrats thought it perfectly acceptable to tear round the autobahns in 300hp cars they tried to limit motorcycles to only 100bhp. Thankfully due to Triumph building the 147bhp monster I currently ride, the UK gov told em to bog off. It did p*** me off at the time. Add to that the bigger insurance premiums we pay and you have at least the attempt to do just what you say.
Whats this got to do with gun laws? bugger all !:lol :lol
I think you lot are mad having the level of gun ownership you do, you think I'm mad seemingly to ride a bike ( a bit odd since you do too but hey!)
-
Why do you participate in gun threads when you clearly disdain them and or know nothing about guns or gun laws in the US?
-
Florida law:
use a gun in a crime=10 years
shoot the gun during a crime=20 years
if you hit someone when you shoot the gun during a crime=25 to life, depending on how good your aim is.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
For once I disagree with you!
You are not going to file off a laser etched round, not without some real work. We laser etch all our tools and they are a pain to de-etch.
I'M JUST GOING OFF THE INFO THE ARTICLE GIVES:
this doesnt look like it costs much
There isn't any new laws to ban non-etched ammo
if you guys are this avid about not helping law enforcement enforce current gun laws and/or finding people who use guns for crimes (they are the reason liberals want to take your guns away in the first place) then why do you even buy guns with serial numbers on them?
Sure there's going to be a lot of rounds that are fired in crimes that arent going to have this on it but that doesnt mean that some criminal isnt' going to get careless and use one that does.
I'm guessing you don't regularly fire your tools out of a cannon
into solid objects though...just a thought.
-
So basically your goal is to make firearms ownership economically prohibitive for all but the wealthy?
No, I don't have a goal. I'm just posting on a BBS, that's all. Just discussing effects.
All I did was point out that if you reduce guns in circulation, by whatever means, less guns get stolen, which means less get supplied to the market by that route.
We can argue all you like whether new supply routes will take over, but I don't think even lazs would argue with the premise that more expensive guns = less gun owners = less stolen guns.
As to my "goal", if I were trying to advance one it would be for gun registration and safe storage laws, which are the 2 best methods of stopping guns getting into the hands of criminals.
car owners are not expected to regester their gas consumption nor to have a monitoring device in the vehicle that reports the way it is used.
Is there a suggestion that guns have such a device? Of what sort? Sounds a bit science fiction, to me.
less cars on the road would mean less accidents however.
A a cost of less people going places. Like work, the doctor's, shopping etc. All of which contribute to reducing life expectancy and standard of living.
less people visiting porn sites would mean less porn sites and less chance for child molesters..
I don't see anything wrong with porn sites, and I don't see any connection between porn and child molesters. (And neither does anyone else, apart from a few nutters on the far left/womens rights wing, or on the far right/God bothering wing.
more restrictions on motorcycles and recreational water use would mean less people being able to afford to injure or kill themselves..
Adults should be free to risk their lives with whatever sports they like.
It seems your attitude is extremely selfish and you wish to restrict only those activities that you have little or no interest in.
Not at all.
I believe people should be free to do what they want. I also believe in placing reasonable restrictions on dangerous objects, to try to increase public safety.
As examples, in the US there are laws governing crash testing of cars, including pedestrian safety. Why should a "law abiding" safe driver have to pay extra for a car that is less likely to injure a pedestrian? Why should he be "punished" like that? Why should law abiding people be required to pay for VINs to be stamped on major car parts?
Life is full of such restrictions, exempting guns is a bit silly.
You are the kind of person that I fear the most... The church lady of voters.
No need to be afraid of me. I don't have the power to take anybody's gun, have no intention of trying to get any power to take people's guns, and wouldn't take people's guns even if I did have the power.
skyprancer is another perfect example... banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would outrage him even tho they are simply a leathal toy that the rest of us pay for in higher insurance rates.... but.... he is too busy to see his own ox is in danger of being gored.
Motorbikes are very rarely lethal to anyone but the people who ride them. Certainly they kill less third parties than cars.
And I doubt they push up your insurance rates, that's not how a market economy works. Otherwise insurers who didn't susidise motorbike claims with car owner's premiums could charge the car owners less, and put the other insurers out of business.
-
BTW lazs, you didn't say whether you are opposed to registration numbers on bullets in principle, if a cheap safe and reliable system could be implemented.
-
More to the point, why implement registration numbers on bullets unless a useful system could be implemented?
Item one would be the experience of New York and Maryland.
But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime. To put it bluntly, the program "does not aid in the mission statement of the Department of State Police."
Why waste time, effort and money on something that has no utility in solving the crimes?
Item two would be the very basics of gun serial numbers and registration.
In theory, if a gun is left at the crime scene, licensing and registration will allow the gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have probably spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii. But despite this massive effort, there has not been a single case in which police claimed that licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying a criminal.
The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it is because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded.
Second — and more important for ballistic fingerprinting — would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. The guns that are recovered at the scene are not registered
[/b]
Put the effort and money where it will do some good. The one thing that has been effective in lowering gun crime has been -suprise- punishing gun using criminals. Project Exile is one example.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yes the hassles. Come on now what?
You think this is accomplished by one person on a piece of notebook paper? Do you have any idea the cost, time and man hours this will take to shuffle this through umpteen hundred different processes? Do you know who will be paying the bill on this?
Noticed you avoided the question. I`ll ask it again. What benefit would come from a law that would only affect the allready law abiding citizen?
As far as I know there is nothing preventing the confiscating of illegal weapons used by gangs or anyone else , as far as that goes, as it stands now. How`s that working out?
The idea of taking away and the confiscating of weapons of any kind, ammo or whatever used in illegal activities is a pure joke. It will never happen.
All this time and money would be more well spent in the prevention of crime BEFORE the facts and not AFTER the facts on some whimsical joke. Hiring and training of additional law enforcement comes to mind.
Yep and like I said, I avoid it in all cases possible. I`m not going to run out and get my social security number tattoed on my forehead either.
You aware of the proposal to put chips in handguns? Not nearly as far fetched as you seem to think bud.
I answered the question earlier but I guess you didnt read it. If it solves 1 homicide or prevents 1 its worth it. Hassle or not. BTW you are aware they have computers now right? Don't need paper for it.
Chips in handguns I have seen. From what I hear law enforcement is waiting until they work properly every time.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... think about it... When a gangbanger is caught with a gun it is allways confiscated... one, it is probly stolen... two, he doesn't have a licence to carry anb three... if he is a felon or convicted of domestic abuse(how likely is that ?)... he like, beet would have lost the right to have any firearm... none of these things would have anthing to do with the ammo.
but let's look at it this way... you seem to be saying that to solve even one crime... the expense and intrusiveness and potential for abuse is worth trying any sceme.
would you say that to stop one siime bag child molester it would be worth requiring everyone to show ID to get an internet connection and then pay say.... oh... half a cent or so (might cost a little more tho latter) for every internet site that you visit... the isp would charge this and be required to turn over those lists of sites visited to the government.
lazs
You dont need a license to carry if you are in a car. All you have to do is not keep it concealed and tell the cops you have it.
comparing the internet to guns is a little bit of stretch but I will bite. No problems with the list. As I don't do anything I am worried bout the Government finding out I really dont give a rat's bellybutton if they check it out if it helps catch some molesters.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That sir, is simple horse excreta.
First, Malvo stole the Bushmaster rifle from the Bull's Eye. So, IF they had ballistically fingerprinted the bullet from the Bushmaster and IF they got a match when they went to the Bull's Eye there would have been nothing to link the gun to Malvo whatsoever.
Second, California Department of Justice study tested 800 guns and got incorrect matches 62 percent of the time. So it is HIGHLY doubtful that a correct match would have been made in any event.
So, go ahead, enlighten me. Explain your statement and show me how ballistic fingerprinting would have caught Malvo "from the start".
Bet you can't.
He stole it huh? you sure about that? Sounds to me like he bought it under the counter.
According to an ATF search warrant affidavit, a June 2000 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms audit found that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply could not account for 160 of the firearms that had been in its inventory. Another inventory review, conducted shortly after the rifle used in the killings was traced to the same store, revealed 78 guns could not be accounted for.
The affidavit shows that the gun-sales paperwork, which under federal law must be maintained and kept in order, was disorganized and hundreds of records were missing.
An analysis of ATF records also showed that between 1997 and 2001, Bull's Eye sold guns used in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults.
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02126.html
btw your right about ballistic fingerprinting not helping in the case. I must have misread something. I withdraw my remark.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You dont need a license to carry if you are in a car. All you have to do is not keep it concealed and tell the cops you have it.
comparing the internet to guns is a little bit of stretch but I will bite. No problems with the list. As I don't do anything I am worried bout the Government finding out I really dont give a rat's bellybutton if they check it out if it helps catch some molesters.
You have no control over what the government thinks is illegal or legal during a fishing expidition. So when you give your right to privicy away so cavalierly, you are giving away your right to the assumption of innocent untill proven guilty. Every time one person gives away the right to privacy like you just did, you make it that much harder for the rest of "We the People" who understand what is fundimentaly at stake.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
waste of time and money, simple crown job will make all file records null and void.
and still can't track it.
Rino; LMAO, maybe. :)
Then you should have to have your gun retested on a yearly basis. And if it is altered other than by normal wear, guess you should lose your gun. That is something I would be happy to let my taxes pay for.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
bustr you are a very silly man... :rofl :rofl :rofl
Sorry Maverick,
You want I should beat around the bush for a few pages worth and make it a Liberals Polemic Fantisy so we can sit around and circle whang it for another few pages?
-
Originally posted by bustr
You have no control over what the government thinks is illegal or legal during a fishing expidition. So when you give your right to privicy away so cavalierly, you are giving away your right to the assumption of innocent untill proven guilty. Every time one person gives away the right to privacy like you just did, you make it that much harder for the rest of "We the People" who understand what is fundimentaly at stake.
You know what I am willing to let go of a little "privacy" if it will catch a friggin child molester, terrorist, murder, rapist, etc. Sorry you don't feel the same.
-
Actually, no I don't know what you mean.
Does this mean for 1 child you would sacrafice the freedom and privacy of the rest of us? Please be very specific, and not so general when you speak for other than your own rights.
Police departments and government agencies are populated by human beings. That means 100% they conform to the human norm on ego, selfishness, lawlessness, etc........ Their first order of business will always be to perpetuate their interests, job longevity, paycheck, personal agendas. Just like you and I do where we are employed.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You know what I am willing to let go of a little "privacy" if it will catch a friggin child molester, terrorist, murder, rapist, etc. Sorry you don't feel the same.
of course, the fact that theres easier and less intrusive ways to go about finding these people means nothing.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Actually, no I don't know what you mean.
Does this mean for 1 child you would sacrafice the freedom and privacy of the rest of us? Please be very specific, and not so general when you speak for other than your own rights.
Police departments and government agencies are populated by human beings. That means 100% they conform to the human norm on ego, selfishness, lawlessness, etc........ Their first order of business will always be to perpetuate their interests, job longevity, paycheck, personal agendas. Just like you and I do where we are employed.
Does that mean for 1 child you wouldnt? I was pretty specific about what I said. I used the word "I" but I can try to be more specific than that. How about "me"?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
of course, the fact that theres easier and less intrusive ways to go about finding these people means nothing.
Really? How do you propose catching an online predator without going through their internet stuff? Guess you can just tell who they are? What about using the net to read up on home-made bombs? Those are the kind of things I have no problem with losing some privacy over if it will save a life or prevent an abduction,rape, murder whatever.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Really? How do you propose catching an online predator without going through their internet stuff? Guess you can just tell who they are? What about using the net to read up on home-made bombs? Those are the kind of things I have no problem with losing some privacy over if it will save a life or prevent an abduction,rape, murder whatever.
same way we do it now, get there IP, locate them and go from there, this does not require any loss of personal privacy only that of companies providing the service.
as for homemade bombs, i do beleive most websites have connection logs.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Sorry Maverick,
You want I should beat around the bush for a few pages worth and make it a Liberals Polemic Fantisy so we can sit around and circle whang it for another few pages?
I have no freaking idea of what thought you were trying to convey with this collection of words.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
same way we do it now, get there IP, locate them and go from there, this does not require any loss of personal privacy only that of companies providing the service.
as for homemade bombs, i do beleive most websites have connection logs.
And how do you propose finding out whose IP's to go after?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Then you should have to have your gun retested on a yearly basis. And if it is altered other than by normal wear, guess you should lose your gun. That is something I would be happy to let my taxes pay for.
Well... I've got 17 handguns and 6 long guns. I hope you would pay for the retesting...and my time, gas etc. :rolleyes:
Woof
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Really? How do you propose catching an online predator without going through their internet stuff?
Well... my Wife works for the local Sherif's Dept. They have an online task force that trolls chat rooms etc. They even have a young looking female deputy talk to them on the phone and Meet them at the BUST.
Works pretty well.
:)
Woof
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Well... I've got 17 handguns and 6 long guns. I hope you would pay for the retesting...and my time, gas etc. :rolleyes:
Woof
Well mandatory testing so no problem using tax dollars to pay for it. Your time and gas? yeah right.
as for the online thing that is a pretty good way to do it.
-
No end to the folks eager to waste someone else's money, is there?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No end to the folks eager to waste someone else's money, is there?
Let me get this right, You were against letting shiavo die because there was a chance she might not be brain dead, you are against letting women have abortions for whatever reason they choose because its not known when a fetus becomes a human, yet you are against anything to do with guns that might possibly help stop or catch a murderer, except for more jail, (which doesnt stop the crime because its already been committed)? Is that all right? Seems very hypocritical to be so pro-life and anti-anything that has to do with lowering the number of murders by firearms. Just an observation though.
By the way I pay taxes so its my money as well.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
car owners are not expected to regester their gas consumption nor to have a monitoring device in the vehicle that reports the way it is used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a suggestion that guns have such a device? Of what sort? Sounds a bit science fiction, to me.
Did you even bother to read the post before you started spouting this BS?
-
"Why do you participate in gun threads when you clearly disdain them and or know nothing about guns or gun laws in the US?"
Know what GtORA2 you are right! I'm off. Too boreing by half!
:lol
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Then you should have to have your gun retested on a yearly basis. And if it is altered other than by normal wear, guess you should lose your gun. That is something I would be happy to let my taxes pay for.
Tell you what slick, you pay me for my time and expense for
your rediculous gun control efforts and maybe I'd care if you
were happy or not.
-
Please do get it right. It seems that's very difficult for you.
Originally posted by Raider179
Let me get this right, You were against letting shiavo die because there was a chance she might not be brain dead,
[/b]
No, you have that wrong.
I was for letting the parents take care of her as long as they wished as long as they did it with private funds.
So, obviously you failed to understand my position on that.
you are against letting women have abortions for whatever reason they choose because its not known when a fetus becomes a human,
[/b]
No, you have that wrong too.
If you actually read what I said, you'll find I said the woman has the right to choose. I personally think she'll be held to account by a higher power, but that's just my opinion.
I also said she should have the right to pay for her choice without using public funds... just like the Schiavo parents. Private funding for choice.
Lastly, I did say it is impossible to know when a fetus becomes human. Try to refute that if you like.
yet you are against anything to do with guns that might possibly help stop or catch a murderer,
[/b]
Incorrect again. I'm against anything that is clearly not going to work. Serial numbers on bullets is one of those things.
You doubt it? You don't know you're own government. At one time I held an FFL and sold firearms. I kept records. When I closed the business, I had to send all records to the BATF.
Theorhetically, if a gun I sold was found at a crime scene, they'd ask the manufacturer for the name of the distributor it went to. Then they'd ask the distributor which retailer it went to. Then they'd ask me who I sold it to and I would reply THEY had the records. The icing on the cake is that BATF has NEVER catalogued the records turned in by FFL dealerst that stopped selling. They have them all in various warehouses but they are not sorted by date, dealer, state or any other means.
In short, this would be a dead end.
But YOU think the serial numbers on bullets would be different.
It's laughable. We've had recordkeeping on gun serial numbers for nearly 40 years but it hasn't impacted gun crime to any significant degree. Now, suddenly, bullet registration will help.
I'm amazed at the gullibility of people when it comes to this topic. I guess the root cause is simply ignorance of how things work in real life.
(which doesnt stop the crime because its already been committed)?
[/b]
But registering serial numbers of bullets WILL stop the crime before it is committed? Please explain how that will work.
anti-anything that has to do with lowering the number of murders by firearms.
[/b]
Wrong again. I'm just anti-stupid feelgood ideas supported by people that apparently don't do any research or think the idea through.
By the way I pay taxes so its my money as well.
Fund all the non-workable ideas you like....privately. I'd prefer they spent money on things that do work.
-
Toad is a pompous plonker!:lol :lol
Sorry just had to do that. He won't care he's got me on ignore anyhow. right back to that JD.:lol
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I answered the question earlier but I guess you didnt read it. If it solves 1 homicide or prevents 1 its worth it. Hassle or not. BTW you are aware they have computers now right? Don't need paper for it.
The point was here slick that I think you have no idea what costs and how many steps and people something like this takes.
Solving one homicide is a good example you came up with. One would be about the limit that could be expected and even then the key word is "solved", meaning after the fact. The money and effort would better spent on "prevention" before the fact in the first place. All this outrageously stupid law will do is add additional costs to the law abiding gun owner, add more hassles on the very ones who can prevent crime and then will fade away into oblivion with time, money and effort lost.
Chips in handguns I have seen. From what I hear law enforcement is waiting until they work properly every time.
Which will be never just like this assanine attempt we are discussing.
Career criminals will not be carrying weapons with chips nor will they be using ammo with laser imprinted serial #s.
The entire idea is totaly aburd and would be laugable if it wasn`t for the fact that some people out there actualy is spending law abiding tax payers money to fund this crap.
The other thing that definetly makes it unlaughable is the uninformed and totaly lacking in the common sense department people that support such utter stupidity.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Suprise suprise suprise.
Skydancer is posting to a thread and spouting nothing but his typical inane mindless, BS.
:rolleyes:
Hehe.
Yep, that`s a real shocker allright.
I`m looking for my nitro tabs now. :D
You know it`s really been surprising to me lately to see someone living in another country show so much obvious jealousy towards the U.S. and spend so much time worrying and just plain biatching about what goes on in this country. Must be one hell of a dull place where he lives.
-
Jackal
I think it more along the lines of mommy and daddy didn’t pay enough attention to him as a kid.
So he posts crap here for the attention.
He may say something intelegent once a week, but that’s being generous
-
personally, I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place, By not allowing for the possibility of a repeat offender to exist.
The idea of serial#s on bullets is great, but i'm still not certain of what that may entail.
I've heard that the UK has a DNA bank for all it's citizens, and that it works well. If it does, I'm all for that. It may help lessen the need for more stringent actions in other areas. That is if we can decide what to do with criminals after they are caught.
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
The idea of serial#s on bullets is great, but i'm still not certain of what that may entail.
Well, in that case I have SEVERAL really, really, good and effective ideas. I'd like your monetary support immediately and I'll tell you what those ideas entail after I get a few mill... er, after I work them out in detail.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Jackal
I think it more along the lines of mommy and daddy didn’t pay enough attention to him as a kid.
I think it may have been the old head drop routine. :rofl
He may say something intelegent once a week, but that’s being generous
I must have been out sick on them days. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, in that case I have SEVERAL really, really, good and effective ideas. I'd like your monetary support immediately and I'll tell you what those ideas entail after I get a few mill... er, after I work them out in detail.
Yes, I figure it is a bit like communism, it looks good on paper, but does not take into account human nature.
-
it's silly beyond belief, they'd be better off taxing ammo to fund abortions, it's a far better means of controlling crime.
-
LMAO at this one.
Remember when I told you if you didn't find a happy medium between the pro and anti gun groups you'd start getting whacko knee-jerk laws trying to be passed... noooooooooo you guys didn't believe me.
-
Long before this board existed, all we got from the other side was whacko kneejerk ideas.
Just look through this thread and see people actually getting sucked in by this one.
It'll never end. There's no accomodating crazy people. They only come up with crazier and crazier ideas.
Torque may be on to something, but I'd make it mandatory reversible chemical sterilization for everyone between the ages of 10 and 30. That ought to slow things down. We can let it run for 20 years and adjust as necessary.... oh, yah.. .and put tiny microscopic chip serial numbers on every spermatozoa and egg after age 30. It'll be worth the cost.
-
Vulcan
This is nothing new. Cali politicoes do this **** all the time.
-
I never did see any explanation on how bullet serial numbers were going to prevent crime BEFORE it happens, but is this the post-crime scenario?
Liquor store clerk catches one between the eyes. They dig the bullet out and it is F340583076334, a Federal 9mm solid.
They call Federal and learn Federal sold that bullet (in a box of 50) to Western Firearms Distributors. They call WFD and find out the rounds went to Joe's Gun Store. They call Joe's and they tell him the box was purchased by Jack Rabbit.
The squad cars pull up around Jack Rabbit's house and they cuff him, stuff him and sweat him downtown. Jack says he sold all his spare 9mm ammo at a garage sale. Doesn't remember who bought that box.
The cops check Jack's 9mm and the ballistics don't match. Then what?
OR.. Jack claims that after stopping at Joe's, he went to the hardware store, leaving the ammo in a plain brown bag in the car. He came back, the bag was gone. He didn't report it because it was only $20 worth of goods.
The concept is totally flawed.
-
As you point out constantly mr Jackal its an American BBs
Inevitably we discuss American issues! not rocket science is it?
Want to discuss British issues? Feel free.
Jealousy? Pah.
Ouch that lump on my head never did go away:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
man...
so raider... soviet russia was very safe for children and people (except from their government). Would you accept that level of control to achive that level of safety.
nashwan. traking every bullet puirchased with the users ID is indeed the same as having to regtester to buy gas and having a device that tells how fast and where you are going would solve crime.
motorcycles do indeed kill about 3000 people a year and not all of them are the rider. they are useless and pretty much unregulated compared to guns.
you admit that taking cars out of the hands of people would make for less crime and death but say that we can't do that because it would inconvience people and make us less productive and be a hardship. I agree.
firearms prevent from 1-3 million crimes a year(FBI stats). who knows how many lives saved. I would venture that someone killed or raped or burgled or beaten because the new laws prevented him from having an effective weapon.... I would venture to say that would be a "hardship".
And skyprancer.... the point of the motorcyle example (yes I own and one and fight to keep themand fight regulation) the point of it was to show you how narrowminded you are..
your brand of death and destruction is your gawd given right but you become a pissy church lady when it comes to things that you don't care about. Height of hypocracy and.... just plain stupid... the expression "hoisted on his own petard" was custom made for you. You are too narrowminded to see that agreeing to restrict others makes you vulnerable to the next little pissant that doesn't like what you are doing (motorcycles) and the government laughs because the get more and more control.
lazs
-
forget it lazs, he's too old to reverse the brainwash.
-
and... to answer nashwans question... I am against making it mandatory to laser etch bullets and to have to sign for em.
If it is not mandatory then it is simply useless. If I can still buy cheap russian or surplus ammo and I can still buy or make cheap reload componenhts then.... I have no problem with voluntary etching.
I fail to see how the more expensive laser etched ammo would ever get sold tho. I can't believe that you wouldn't see it as something that would eventually be mandatory.
I guess my answer is... if it is the choice of the manufacturer then it really is none of my bussines. If he want's to charge me for it or sign for it... well... I won't be doing bussines with him.
lazs
-
I gues as we live in different countries Lazs the comparisons don't work.
Motorcycles are pretty heavily regulated here. You have to go through three tests before you can even ride one. Then when you've passed if you are 21 or under you can only ride something with 33hp for two years. Add to that the fact you have to wear a helmet, and our roads are festooned with a remote speed camera system ( thanks holland! )
You can see regulations to stop you topping yourself are pretty tight. Now I know you guys won't give up your guns and it'd be damn near impossible to institue a gun ban in USA now. But that don't stop me from thinking that somewhere down the line you guys got it a bit wrong on that issue. ( granted you have many things right and some much better than us ) But Guns no thanks.
Its called the freedom to have an opinion!
Besides, should I be dranged enough to use my motorcycle as a weapon to harm others I'd most likely end up dead myself or in another form of wheeled transport! If I used a gun to do that I'm not sure the same would happen. So thats why I think there is a difference. Motorcycles and guns are not the same thing at all. A dangerous fool with a motorcycle is firstly a danger to him or herself. A dangerous fool with a gun is a potential mass murderer.
Quite a different thing huh?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I gues as we live in different countries Lazs the comparisons don't work.
Motorcycles are pretty heavily regulated here. You have to go through three tests before you can even ride one. Then when you've passed if you are 21 or under you can only ride something with 33hp for two years. Add to that the fact you have to wear a helmet, and our roads are festooned with a remote speed camera system ( thanks holland! )
You can see regulations to stop you topping yourself are pretty tight. Now I know you guys won't give up your guns and it'd be damn near impossible to institue a gun ban in USA now. But that don't stop me from thinking that somewhere down the line you guys got it a bit wrong on that issue. ( granted you have many things right and some much better than us ) But Guns no thanks.
Its called the freedom to have an opinion!
Besides, should I be dranged enough to use my motorcycle as a weapon to harm others I'd most likely end up dead myself or in another form of wheeled transport! If I used a gun to do that I'm not sure the same would happen. So thats why I think there is a difference. Motorcycles and guns are not the same thing at all. A dangerous fool with a motorcycle is firstly a danger to him or herself. A dangerous fool with a gun is a potential mass murderer.
Quite a different thing huh?
I've been arguing pro drugs and anti guns on the 'net for years.
And over the years; I've learnt that the arguments for the two are pretty much the same.
_IF_ guns don't kill people; but people kill people; _THEN_ drugs don't kill people; people kill people.
In the end; both come down to personal responsibility; which is something that most law makers are uncomfortable with.
Because if you judge people personaly responsible for their action; then there's a whole middle tier of civil servants out of a job; and a whole swath of lobbyists fresh out of ideas on how to control other people's lives.
As a motorcyclist; what do you think of the helmet law??
-
Originally posted by Toad
I never did see any explanation on how bullet serial numbers were going to prevent crime BEFORE it happens, but is this the post-crime scenario?
Liquor store clerk catches one between the eyes. They dig the bullet out and it is F340583076334, a Federal 9mm solid.
They call Federal and learn Federal sold that bullet (in a box of 50) to Western Firearms Distributors. They call WFD and find out the rounds went to Joe's Gun Store. They call Joe's and they tell him the box was purchased by Jack Rabbit.
The squad cars pull up around Jack Rabbit's house and they cuff him, stuff him and sweat him downtown. Jack says he sold all his spare 9mm ammo at a garage sale. Doesn't remember who bought that box.
The cops check Jack's 9mm and the ballistics don't match. Then what?
OR.. Jack claims that after stopping at Joe's, he went to the hardware store, leaving the ammo in a plain brown bag in the car. He came back, the bag was gone. He didn't report it because it was only $20 worth of goods.
The concept is totally flawed.
Your right. the program would never work unless it was a nationally instituted mandatory policy.
prevention would take the form of the ******* criminal who is too stupid or dumb and go to use his own I.D. to buy the bullets. Realizing they want his I.D. he says forget it and leaves. You gave an example where the owner did not show personal responsibility. If he sold his ammo he would have to report it. If it got stolen he would have to report it. Yeah it probably wouldnt be some wide-reaching crime-stopping/solving idea, but I will say that it might be better than absolutely nothing.
So to finish out your right. It won't do anything as long as its just in California but at least they are trying to do something about all the murders they have.
Lazs I believe that would be extreme. But if you want to say we would turn into the USSR because of a little privacy loss I suggest you take another look at the bill of rights. Did the USSR have one of those?
-
raider... my point is that you are willing to give up freedom and choice (at least someoneelses freedom) for the chance of security... Where does it end? I am sure that there is something that you like to do that could be taken away in the interest of security.
skyprancer... I have no problem with you having an opinion. I have all the problem in the world tho when you feel that you are right in taking away peoples rights. I think that your example of the the heavy regulation for motorcyles is wrong.. you can't kill yourself on one with 33 hp? or someone else.... so what if it is illegal to carry a passengter.... If you own the bike then there is the POTENTIAL for you to do so and ki8ll them... or kill a child... that is what you are talking about with guns... the POTENTIAL. There are allready laws against abusing or harming innocent people with firearms...
Firearms deaths are a big deal.... fully investigated and punished whereas motorcycle accidents are just.... accidents.. even if someone dies.
My point is that I am willing to see 3000 people here a year die and many more thousands maimed in order for people to enjoy the absolutely useless sport of motorcycling. I call it freedom..
You, hypocritically, are not willing to see a few thousand people here killed by firearms even tho they are far from useless and probly prevent more deaths than cause.
so what makes you feel that your brand of death and destruction is your right and that people wishing to enjoy shooting or defend themselves should not have any rights?
do you really think the government is the entity to determine who or who shouldn't have firearms rights? even tho more people have been killed by their own governments than have ever been killed by private citizens. Our founders realized this and made the right to keep and bear arms the second most important amendment.
lazs
-
I checked the constitution... which of those amendments says "right to cheap bullets"?
-
No where, thats a cool idea MT first we can tax bullets at $1 each, and then later we can expand it to the printed page!!
Comrade Lenin would be proud of you
-
yeppers.... if every word of your free speech was a buck then would you have free speech? I would say that prohibitively expensive bullets would fall under "infringed".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
No where, thats a cool idea MT first we can tax bullets at $1 each, and then later we can expand it to the printed page!!
Comrade Lenin would be proud of you
What exactly is a cool idea cuz?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Your right. the program would never work unless it was a nationally instituted mandatory policy.
[/b]
It won't work even if it is a nationally instituted mandatory policy.
The nationally instituted mandatory policy of ID'ing firearms buyers and tracking GUN serial numbers doesn't work. I gave you just one example above. Did you read it?
prevention would take the form of the ******* criminal who is too stupid or dumb and go to use his own I.D. to buy the bullets.
[/b]
You do realize the stats right now say that the vast majority of GUNS used in crimes are stolen right? You somehow think ammo will be different?
Do you know any teens that use fake ID to buy booze or get into nightclubs? Do you really think the criminal class is not as creative as young college kids?
Lastly, you do understand that homemade, professional quality bullets are extremely easy to cast from tire wheel weights? That one can do a few hundred in an hour or so?
You gave an example where the owner did not show personal responsibility.
[/b]
This country does not require personal responsibility. Not in drunk driving, not in on-demand abortion, not in anything really. There is always a concocted reason and a lawyer who will defend the right to be irresponsible.
If he sold his ammo he would have to report it. If it got stolen he would have to report it.
[/b]
OK, he reports it stolen. Then what? How does that STOP a crime from happening? The ammo is GONE. Further, who does he report it to? As I pointed out BATF doesn't even know where the GUN REGISTRATION records are.
Yeah it probably wouldnt be some wide-reaching crime-stopping/solving idea, but I will say that it might be better than absolutely nothing.
[/b]
Yes, let's waste BILLIONS on an idea that at the very, very, very best might be better than nothing.
There are ideas that work. They punish criminals. Project Exile for one; you might want to check that out.
So to finish out your right. It won't do anything as long as its just in California but at least they are trying to do something about all the murders they have.
[/b]
Actually I'm right that it won't do anything on a national scale either. What California is doing is as effective in stopping crime as repainting the California legislative buildings mauve.
You want to actually DO something? Then target and punish the criminals.
The Kansas City Gun Experiment used intensive police patrols directed to an 80-block hotspot area where the homicide rate was 20 times the national average. Patrol officers seized guns by frisking individuals who were arrested and by making plain view sightings of firearms during routine traffic violation or safety stops. Traffic stops were most effective in locating illegal guns, with 1 gun found per 28 stops.
Gun crimes, including drive-by shootings and homicides, declined significantly during the 29-week experimental period between July 1992 and January 1993. Drive-by shootings dropped from 7 to 1 in the target area, while increasing from 6 to 12 in a comparison area. Overall gun crimes dropped 49 percent (169 to 86) and criminal homicide declined 67 percent (30 to 10) from the 29 weeks before the patrols to the 29-week experiment period.
However, there was no effect on other crime indicators, including calls for police service, calls about violence, property or disorder crimes, and total offense reports within the target area.
Significantly, there did not appear to be a displacement effect (i.e., gun crimes did not increase in any of the seven surrounding patrol beats).
You might also want to Google up the Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire and Project Exile which involves a number of different cities.
These programs all have one thing in common. A person is held directly responsible for his decision to break gun laws that are already on the books. He ends up in jail very quickly.
Personal irresponsiblity with firearms lands one in jail.
That is probably considered "too tough" by many but it works.... unlike an unworkable and foolish bullet serial number program.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What exactly is a cool idea cuz?
Tp restrict 2nd ammendment rights by making bullets more expensive.
It follows that gun use would be reduced if bullets were regulated to a very high price.
They are saying the same thing could be done to restrict 1st amendement rights by heavily regulating the price higher of every page printed in a newspaer or book or every cd printed.
Same thing basically.,
-
Lazs correct me if I'm wrong but crazy guy with gun shoots other people with little immediate risk to himself. Very dangerous for the rest of us! agreed?
Ok crazy guy on bike might well take out passenger or passer buy, though he''d more effectively do that in an SUV! but On the bike he would also take out himself. The fear of getting yourself killed injured acts as a pretty good control to going completely crazy on a bike and killing others. And for those that do at least the nutter gets it too.
The nutter with the gun gets to blow away whoever with no or little risk to himself.
Your argument would stand up better if you linked badly driven cars or Suvs to the gun toting mad man.
The Motorcyclist being vulnerable is far less likely to take out somebody else. Infact if you look at stats, *( not sure about US admitedly ) over here most motorcycle accidents particularly in built up areas are the fault of other road users. Vulnerability tends to temper behavior or at least make for much more skilled road users as regards motorcyclists.
big difference.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
As you point out constantly mr Jackal its an American BBs
Inevitably we discuss American issues!
"WE" may discuss American issues, but I have yet to see YOU be able to "discuss" anything.
You have just posted some perfect examples above.
You go off on some long winded, smoke and mirrors, "maybe he will forget what was being discussed" venture in text that completely avoids the point being made and holds absolutely no content.
I guess the next move will be to start adding pictures with no relevance and continualy increase the size in each post. At least that has been the trend so far. Impressive.
Want to discuss British issues? Feel free.
As has been explained to you before, I could care less about the interworkings of the country in which you live.
Besides that, I still have grass growing in the yard. Much more interesting.
Jealousy? Pah.
Ummm Hmmmm. lol
That became quite clear quite some time back.
You make it ever so obvious.
Like I said before this idea would be totaly laughable if it weren`t for the cost and the fact of who will pay to fund this bit of 3 Stooges masterpiece and the fact that some people are so uninformed on the subject, lacking a grain of common sense and would actualy bite off into such uttery moronic paper shuffling.
-
skyprancer.... dead is dead. Matters not if it was a nut with a gun or a ego filled nose picker killing his buddy or girlfriend on a 150 hp bike.
The punishment for killing someone (murder) is allready the same for a bike or a gun. The difference being that some states have tacked on mandatory sentances for gun crimes (a good thing)
if someone kills the passenger on a bike it is just an "accident" even tho the bike is much more dangerous than a car.
I got nothing against bikes or mountain climbing or swimming but they are all dangerous and kill and maim people with very little benifiet to the people who don't do them.
I am saying that you go after the guns and then when they come after your toy of a motorcycle you will be getting what you deserve..
not what I deserve tho. You want to be hollier than tho and chuck rocks at people then don't do it from your glass house.
motorcycles are useless, dangerous toys that needlessly kill and cost us all huge sums of money.... your game is very vulnerable.
At least firearms are protected by the constitution and very useful.
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
The nationally instituted mandatory policy of ID'ing firearms buyers and tracking GUN serial numbers doesn't work. I gave you just one example above. Did you read it?
[/b]
You do realize the stats right now say that the vast majority of GUNS used in crimes are stolen right? You somehow think ammo will be different?
Do you know any teens that use fake ID to buy booze or get into nightclubs? Do you really think the criminal class is not as creative as young college kids?
Lastly, you do understand that homemade, professional quality bullets are extremely easy to cast from tire wheel weights? That one can do a few hundred in an hour or so?
[/b]
This country does not require personal responsibility. Not in drunk driving, not in on-demand abortion, not in anything really. There is always a concocted reason and a lawyer who will defend the right to be irresponsible.
[/b]
OK, he reports it stolen. Then what? How does that STOP a crime from happening? The ammo is GONE. Further, who does he report it to? As I pointed out BATF doesn't even know where the GUN REGISTRATION records are.
[/b]
[/B]
It doesnt work huh? Well here is one case from the ATF...Oh and I read your story I thought you made it up as an example, not an actual case.
This investigation began in March 1996 when a
firearm recovered from a Washington, DC
youth, charged with illegal possession of a
firearm, was traced by the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Police Department, after the ATF National Laboratory successfully raised the serial number. The paper trail led to a gun
dealer in Missouri and later to a Nashville, Tennessee, gun trafficker who sold 200-300 guns on the streets of the Nation’s capital. To date, 138 semiautomatic firearms originally
sold by the Missouri Federal firearms licensee
have been recovered in crimes in the Washington,
DC. area ranging from nine murders to
kidnapping, robbery, attempted murder, armed
assault, drugs, and burglary. One of those
firearms was used by a gang member to fatally
wound a patient being transported to the
hospital for treatment of wounds inflicted
minutes earlier by the same gunman. On June
2, 1997, the Nashville gun trafficker pled guilty
to Federal firearms trafficking charges. On
August 22, 1997, he was sentenced to 60
months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised
release by the United States District Court in
Nashville, Tennessee. During sentencing, the
Federal judge referred to the defendant as a
“dealer in death.”
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf
Notice the parts about raising the serial numbers and the paper trail. Got a gun trafficker off the streets whose firearms were used in at least 9 murders.
2) show me where the stats say about stolen guns that because I can not find it. Link please. And by the way the gun that led to this case being solved was stolen. It's funny how they still solved the crime huh? kinda throws that argument in the toilet.
3)Yes most common criminals are idiots. Ever seen America's dumbest criminals?
4)How many criminals make their own bullets. I would guess its not very much.
5)You talk a lot about responsibility but you don't seem to want to require any responsibility when it comes to fire-arms.
6)Appartently they DO know where the records are, see the example I just gave you came off their website.
-
You missed the point. they often catch unscroupulous dealers... well... not often but... that would not have prevented nine murders.
Guns and ammo are allmost allways stolen when used in crime so you trace it back to... to who? the police lots are full of stolen guns that were confiscated.
The dumb ones don't have to make their own bullets they just have to use the ones that came with the stolen gun they bought.
Serial numbers are rarely the main cause of catching someone.... but, I have no problem with guns having serial numbers... they have had em allmost from the beggining. Legal owners use em to trace the history of a gun and I believe it cuts down on theft.
On serial number per gun is a lot different than a gun that shoots possibly hundred of thounsands of rounds in it's life having every single round it fires serial numbered... that is like a serial number on every gallon of gass or quart of oil you use for the life of your car.
lazs
-
Note they could not trace the guns past the illegal distributor. Obviously, the serialized bullets would be the same.
Note also, that in opposition to your idea that such plans PREVENT crime, this chain of events occurred after murders had been committed.
So your idea that this will prevent crime is silly.
Note that the guns were not traced to idividual owners. They were traced only to the distributor level. The guns found were already in the hands of criminals who had obtained them illegally.
It would be just the same with ammunition. In short, it makes little difference.
You found one example out of how many million gun crimes since the GCA of 1968?
2) show me where the stats say about stolen guns that because I can not find it. Link please.
[/b]
From Americans for Gun Safety website:
It is rare for a firearm to go directly from a gun store into the hands of a criminal. In the latest published analysis on crime gun traces, ATF reported that in 88% of the firearm traces for crimes committed in 2000, the person charged with a gun crime was not the original purchaser of the firearm from a licensed gun store.25
ATF does not keep statistics on how many of the firearms traced
to crime were previously reported stolen. But surveys of prison inmates and an analysis of gun trafficking investigations indicate that stolen firearms, though not the principal source of black market guns, are a major source
88% DO NOT purchase a gun through the "legal" channels that require the paperwork you have so much faith in for solving crimes.
And by the way the gun that led to this case being solved was stolen. It's funny how they still solved the crime huh? kinda throws that argument in the toilet.
[/b]
You really don't cogitate much do you?
Here, from your own clip:
This investigation began in March 1996 when a firearm recovered from a Washington, DC youth, charged with illegal possession of a firearm
Would they have ever caught the distributor WITHOUT first catching the kid with the illegal stolen gun? Serial numbers and registration don't prevent crime. They are an "after the fact" item.
Yes, this led to catching an distributor that didn't follow federal law. He could just as easily been caught sooner if BATF had any kind of routine records inspection. The problem is the BATF is a joke as well.
The serial numbers and registration did NOTHING to prevent crime. Which, if you recall, is what you earlier claimed serializing bullets would do.
To recap, serial numbers had NOTHING to do with the street crime. They were only useful in catching an illegal distributor which a simple routine BATF inspection would have done much earlier. Except the BATF is too undermanned to do much inspectiong.
But waste a few billion on bullet serialization... the BATF couldn't possibly use more agents.
4)How many criminals make their own bullets. I would guess its not very much.
[/b]
It's so easy even you could do it. So I'm certain criminals could handle it should the need arise. I seriously doubt serializing bullets would cause an ammo shortage amongst our criminal element, but if it did they'd need a bullet mold, a heavy saucepan, a stove burner and some old tire weights.
In short, they could if they had too and they could very easily.
5)You talk a lot about responsibility but you don't seem to want to require any responsibility when it comes to fire-arms.
[/b]
Spoken like someone who has no idea of what responsibility and accountability really means.
You will find that I think irresponsibility should be discouraged in non-criminal activities (like abortion) and punished in criminal activities (like gun crime).
I am strongly in favor of Project Exile. It holds the responsible persons responsible and punishes them accordingly.
What I am severely against is holding someone responsible if that someone has no responsibility in the matter. Think on this and it will come to you.
For example, Project Exile has no adverse impact whatsoever on law abiding citizens.
Punish the Guilty, leave the innocent alone and free to do as they choose. It's a tough concept for you, I'm sure.
6)Appartently they DO know where the records are, see the example I just gave you came off their web
[/b][
Your example completely validates what I said although you don't realize it.
I said the guns are easily traced from manufacturer to DISTRIBUTOR and on to FFL license holder.
However, records of transfer from FFL license holder to citizen are difficult to trace in most instances and impossible in many. ~8% of criminals purchase their guns from legal gun dealers.
For example, I am certain they don't know where the records I sent them are. They have no filing system. How? I called them and asked them if they got them when I sent them. I sent them registered mail so I would have PROOF they got them. I called them a month later...no record. I called them a year later...no record. I called them at 5 years... no record of receipt. There's about 150 "untraceable" guns right there.
Bottom line: you can set up all the expensive bureaucratic boondoggles you like. In comparison to hiring cops and punishing the actual CRIMINALS (what a concept... that responsibility/accountablity thing you have so much trouble with) the boondoggle money is essentialy wasted.
Simple choice: spend money on "feel good" pointless paper shuffles or hire cops, prosecute criminals and imprison them.
But, hey... if doing nothing at an exceedingly high price makes you feel good... well, that's all that matters, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Tp restrict 2nd ammendment rights by making bullets more expensive.
It follows that gun use would be reduced if bullets were regulated to a very high price.
They are saying the same thing could be done to restrict 1st amendement rights by heavily regulating the price higher of every page printed in a newspaer or book or every cd printed.
Same thing basically.,
Never suggested anything of the sort... you guys need a reading refresher course.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I checked the constitution... which of those amendments says "right to cheap bullets"?
Balderdash, MT. Dont' dodge.
How about:
I checked the constitution... which of those amendments says "right to cheap books, newspapers and magazines"?
-
Balderdash??? I'm sorry but if you're gonna use words like "balderdash" I'm outta this thread. I can't laugh and argue at the same time.
And ..... No where does it say cheap magazines. And... nothing keeps the govts. from taxing periodicals. I pay a sales tax on every book I read. I bet the glue that is used to bind the book is regulated too.
I'm just wondering how I got on the side of bullet numbering is a good idea.
-
I could be more coarse if you like, but unlike some of the folks of considerably lesser intelligence than yourself in this thread, I respect you.
I'm wondering how you got on the side of serialization of bullets as well.
You're far more intelligent than that.
-
That is absolutely amazing. I give you a case that catches a gun distributor, whose guns were being illegally used, often to commit murder and you say getting him off the streets doesnt prevent crime. I could care less if it traces all the way to the damn guy. Getting an illegal arms dealer off the street is good enough crime in itself.
Only 1 example, lol I thought you said there were none? SO obviously there are more than none, and I have a feeling a lot more. So you can forget that old it doesnt do anything junk you are spewing.
That is a link from a pro-gun website, like I said give me the atf link cause I am not buying your pro-gun site's bs.
And even if its true that still leaves 12% of crimes that would be solvable by proper paperwork, So your really hurting your own argument with these statistics.
LoL The distributor didn't follow federal law? Man he was selling guns to anyone who wanted one. I guess that doesnt count in crime prevention though. sheesh
You say they had nothing to do with preventing crime? Ok That is one Arms Dealer that is not gonna be able to sell to gangs anymore. You say that didn't prevent crime? How many more gangmember/murders are gonna buy guns from that guy? oh thats right ZERO. I call that crime prevention but I guess you dont.
Its funny how you look right past the tracing of the serial number leading to an illegal fire-arms dealer whose guns were being used in murders and rapes and then you say getting him off the street wasnt crime prevention.
Blows my mind. But then again you speak from so high up on that horse can't hardly hear you anymore anyway.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I could be more coarse if you like, but unlike some of the folks of considerably lesser intelligence than yourself in this thread, I respect you.
I'm wondering how you got on the side of serialization of bullets as well.
You're far more intelligent than that.
Imagine that another comment from the high horse. Man you really think a lot of yourself huh?
-
raider... it is just a really bad idea... The money spent and the restrictions it causes and loss of freedom is not worth the off chance that it may catch a really dumb crook or two... and.. even if it did.. if he is that dumb he probly won't be around long no matter what.
serial numbers on guns are fine... if it catches a lawbreaker or two now and then so much the better. I like em cause it let's me determine things like date of manufacture.
lazs
-
Hey Jackal...
So you don't like me!
Thats Ok you don't have to. But wouldn't it be far easier just to say that rather than witter on about me being jealous or some other load of old tosh.
As far as I can make out you don't debate either. All you do is reply to my every post with a load of thinly veiled twaddle about why you consider me a non person and my opinions utterly worthless. Hardly a reasoned debate is it?
Still nevermind its what I've come to expect.
Try getting to the point a bit quicker though then maybe you can just move on. Or we can ignore each other either way I don't realy give a stuff.
:rolleyes:
-
Don't take it personal. It's not like Jackal doesn't like you exclusive Zulu7, no one does.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... it is just a really bad idea... The money spent and the restrictions it causes and loss of freedom is not worth the off chance that it may catch a really dumb crook or two... and.. even if it did.. if he is that dumb he probly won't be around long no matter what.
serial numbers on guns are fine... if it catches a lawbreaker or two now and then so much the better. I like em cause it let's me determine things like date of manufacture.
lazs
Sorry Lazs but I just don't see how it causes restrictions for law abiding citizens and loss of freedom from having numbered bullets. makes no sense to me.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Imagine that another comment from the high horse. Man you really think a lot of yourself huh?
I don't think that much of myself.
No, it's just that I think so little of you and all the other gullible chowderheads that can't think critically.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Sorry Lazs but I just don't see how it causes restrictions for law abiding citizens and loss of freedom from having numbered bullets. makes no sense to me.
What makes no sense is wasting money on this instead of funding things that work like Project Exile.
But it doesn't suprise me that you can't see it.
-
Here Toad let me help you find facts.
From the ATF, notice how I include my link.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/generalfindings.pdf
Investigative tracing. For traces of crime guns
recovered from juveniles and traces involving certain
crimes, ATF agents, often working with State and
local law enforcement officials in YCGII cities, will
follow the gun through the chain of possession to an
illegal supplier by performing an investigative trace.
Investigative tracing uses interviews and other
investigative techniques to track the gun through the
entire chain of transfers to the criminal possessor.
Oh apparently they can and do trace the gun back through to the actual criminal possessor. Good thing they had that serial number or they might not known where to start.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think that much of myself.
No, it's just that I think so little of you and all the other gullible chowderheads that can't think critically.
Where are those gun fact numbers from the ATF that you quoted? oh you dont have them thats right. So at least I base my decisions on information while you base yours on anything that makes you feel right regardless of whether its actually correct or not.
-
Bottom line is crime drops faster through funding stuff like Project Exile.
Compare the stats on those projects to the stats on tracing guns. Which gets more criminals off the street, tracing guns AFTER a crime or locking up people who illegally hold guns before the commit a crime.
The obvious escapes you.
Waste all the money you like, you'll feel like you did something.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What makes no sense is wasting money on this instead of funding things that work like Project Exile.
But it doesn't suprise me that you can't see it.
That project exile oh yeah its real tough on gun crime. Whats the average length of incarceration again? oh wait i found it
Average sentence: 55.38 mos whats that 4 and a half years? wow
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/project_exile/html/proj_exile_niag_stat.htm
This is not too say I wouldnt like to see this program expanded but its not exactly the get tough program you claimed it was.
-
The Richmond, Virginia Project Exile program that cut the homicide rate in that community by 36% during the first year of operation.
Boston's three-pronged strategy of prevention, intervention, and enforcement for youth violence is paying off. Youth homicides have dropped some 80% citywide from 1990 to 1995, and in 1996 not a single youth died in a firearm homicide in the city. Violent crime in public schools decreased more than 20% in the 1995-1996 school year and over 150 drug dens have been closed through joint Federal-state-local cooperation.
Jacksonville:
From 1993 to 1996, murder committed by juveniles dropped 72%, the number of vehicle thefts decreased by nearly 60%, and rape and sex offenses were cut in half.
An evaluation of Jacksonville's juvenile justice system estimated that over 7,200 robberies, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts were prevented by incarcerating habitual juvenile offenders as adults during 1992-1995.
Note the common factor: putting criminals in jail.
Show me stats like that from tracing guns or bullets.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Richmond, Virginia Project Exile program that cut the homicide rate in that community by 36% during the first year of operation.
Boston's three-pronged strategy of prevention, intervention, and enforcement for youth violence is paying off. Youth homicides have dropped some 80% citywide from 1990 to 1995, and in 1996 not a single youth died in a firearm homicide in the city. Violent crime in public schools decreased more than 20% in the 1995-1996 school year and over 150 drug dens have been closed through joint Federal-state-local cooperation.
Jacksonville:
From 1993 to 1996, murder committed by juveniles dropped 72%, the number of vehicle thefts decreased by nearly 60%, and rape and sex offenses were cut in half.
An evaluation of Jacksonville's juvenile justice system estimated that over 7,200 robberies, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts were prevented by incarcerating habitual juvenile offenders as adults during 1992-1995.
Note the common factor: putting criminals in jail.
Show me stats like that from tracing guns or bullets.
1) Are you just afraid to post your links or what? You never link anything and you put it up there as fact. It might very well be, but I am thinking more its because you don't want us to read what the rest of those reports say.
2)hmm whats this?
The next study of Jacksonville, Florida employs much the same tactics. "From 1991 to 1996, more than 80 juveniles died as a result of firearm-related incidents. In 1992 alone, 454 youths were arrested for aggravated assaults." (Clinton) It mentions firearm-related incidents, not homicides. Firearm-related incidents includes a million different things, hunting accidents, suicides, household accidents, and since it lists the juveniles as the victims rather than the assailants who knows how many of those 80 were killed by adults. Also mentioned are the 454 youths arrested for aggravated assault, now switching to arrests rather than victims. Assault is vaguely classified and Franklin E. Zimring believes that "the willingness of police authorities to give greater priority to assaults has altered the classification of attacks across the board"(Zimring 46). Zimring believes that a change in how police deal with and classify assault is to blame for the large increase in aggravated assault by youth; no doubt the same reasons apply in Jacksonville. After describing some programs Jacksonville has implemented to combat the 80 firearm-related incidents Clinton provides statistics to prove their success. Although he chooses to use statistics related to murders committed by juveniles, clearly not the same statistics he used to open the Jacksonville example with Any good social scientist knows that if one intends to prove a direct correlation between two things one must use the same statistics before and after to prove it. It just does not make good scientific sense to use much different sets of numbers to prove the effectiveness of anti-crime programs, this is clearly and attempt by President Clinton to obscure the truth and push his agenda at all costs.
Not the same set of standard for the statistics? wow imagine that no wonder you left the link out.
3)Any reason all your data from jacksonveille murders is left hanging Before 2000? Here let me help you find statistics. Murder by fire-arm is up in jacksonville and has been on the rise for years. Although other fire-arm related crimes are down.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp
Using only juvenile crime to determine crime rates is foolish and you know better.
If you show me a single stat with links which you have not I might think about searching for the trace guns stats.
And where do you get they are putting more people in jail? Is that per capita? does it depend on population? Is it because there is higher crime. You make a lot of statements with nothing that backs them up.
-
Ok now for boston. I again love how your "statistics" stop pre-2000
lets see the numbers shall we?
Murder
1998-34
1999-31
2000-66
2001-60
2002-39
2003-41
2004-61
So as you can see the numbers are not exactly going down in the last 6 years. They are down overall from the late eighties to early nineties, when crime was bad everywhere. So are these programs no longer working or what is the reason for those years with 60+ murders in them?
http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/police/pdfs/Dec04.pdf
But please start using actual statistics and links.
-
Here is the decline in the murder rate nationwide during those years the "programs" did so well.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime1.pdf
1992= -3.8%
1993= -0.7%
1994= -5.5%
1995= -12.6%
So what I am saying was it actually Boston and Jacksonville's solution that helped lower crime or just actually part of a larger nationwide trend?
Here's more on your Boston "solution"
Christian Science Monitor
August 11, 2004
Already this year, the city has recorded more homicides than last year's total of 41. More worrisome still are the victims' ages: To date, 23 people under age 24 have been killed.
-
Check the funding for the programs post 2000. Can you think of any major event that may have changed law enforcement priorities after 2000?
It'll come clear to you.
-
:rofl Creamo, like I give a rodents behind!:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Hey Jackal...
So you don't like me!
Thats Ok you don't have to. But wouldn't it be far easier just to say that rather than witter on about me being jealous or some other load of old tosh.
As far as I can make out you don't debate either. All you do is reply to my every post with a load of thinly veiled twaddle about why you consider me a non person and my opinions utterly worthless. Hardly a reasoned debate is it?
Still nevermind its what I've come to expect.
Try getting to the point a bit quicker though then maybe you can just move on. Or we can ignore each other either way I don't realy give a stuff.
:rolleyes:
You gonna start the ole "make the bad man stop" routine again Zulu?
Geez....post a few giant pictures or something like you have been doing recently to try to hide the whining at least.
This is the second time you have tryed the "thinly veiled" line.
Bud I don`t know how to make it any clearer. It`s damn sure not veiled in any way.
Here`s your sign.
Now if you are through sniveling I`d like for the thread to continue.
I`m interested in how long it takes Raider to figure out the difference in "before" and "after" the fact.
-
harsher penalties work.. three strikes laws work. Name on gun control measure that worked.
assault weapon ban? before and after... same percent of "assault weapons" used in crime... safe storage laws? same amount of stolen guns and accidents and crime.
serial numbered bullets will cost the country and citizens and gun owners billions, will invade my privacy and limit my choice and will do little or nothing to stop crime... that is what I have against it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
will do little or nothing to stop crime...
lazs
That is what I have against it. The money is better spent in other areas. Heck, BATF is notoriously inefficient and the money would be better spent hiring more of them even!
Best of all, hire more cops.
-
Toad, what I have against it is that it'll drive small ammo manufactuers out of business trying to comply with the paperwork. The fact it'll be a fat ineffectual POS law that'll only make things worse means little to me, because the overwhelming majority of legislation coming out of Sacramento today is fat ineffectual POS legislation.
-
Hey Jackal you know me not though you are fond of telling me my own mind its getting realy dull. You are not a bad man just a useless pointy thing carry on if you must but be aware its the same tired old poop that you reply with every bloody time thats all. Realy that is all I can't be bothered with it any more.
Please continue the thread.
-
GTO said...
"Why do you participate in gun threads when you clearly disdain them and or know nothing about guns or gun laws in the US?"
skyprancer pouted out...
"Know what GtORA2 you are right! I'm off. Too boreing by half!"
but then... that was about a half a dozen of his posts back in this thread.
lazs
-
Air, I have it just the other way.
The main problem is the majority of legislation coming out of EVERY legislature today is fat ineffectual POS legislation. We need to break them of this habit. I think it was a large step backwards when becoming a representative of the people in government turned into a career. They should have real jobs and only meet about 3 months out of the year to do stuff. That'd solve half the problems right there.
Additionally, it's stupid to drive small manufacturers out of business over something that will have little if any effect on crime.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Hey Jackal you know me not though you are fond of telling me my own mind its getting realy dull. You are not a bad man just a useless pointy thing carry on if you must but be aware its the same tired old poop that you reply with every bloody time thats all. Realy that is all I can't be bothered with it any more.
Please continue the thread.
9 mile long sentence that says nothing.
Skylilter you really need to read what people are telling you here and try to get a grip.
The reason nobody here seems to like what you have to say is you have nothing to say.
Find a hole, crawl in it and pull the dirt in behind ya.
Life`s a batch, deal with it.
Lost my best bro today and don`t really give a rat`s *** about your incessant whining.