Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[TonyJoey]

No, not at all.  You and others like you forget that out current system of background checks was devised by the NRA.

The NRA spent millions and went to court in numerous states trying to shoot down the Brady Bill. Then, with the NICS system they devised as a solution, they fought tooth and nail to deafeat a nominal fee for the NICS and have tried to have the FBI destroy its NICS records. In effect defunding and threatening the functionability of the background checks.

[guncrasher]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-highway-accident-kills-14/story?id=16834835#.UNj04qzyCSo

http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_6a9112b2-4dcc-11e2-8b95-0019bb30f31a.html

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=36135

which one of those had a guy who got on his car with the only intention of committing mass murder?


midway

[bustr]

bustr since most mass murdered are committed by white males, then let's get rid of all white males.  that would fix the problem.


midway

Then who would pay the taxes?

Minorities in the US have higher overal rates of multiple homicide yearly contributing to 65-70% of 9000 or so murders by guns opposed to the incidence of killings meeting your criterion. But, then it's not defenceless grade schoolers, defencless highschoolers, defenceless college young adults or defenceless patrons in no gun zones who are the multiple casulties generaly in the 9000 over this country's history in the last 50 years.

Though the "deaths by mother" cross the demographc lines and have agriggated more ongoing yearly deaths than the demographic you suggest banning. And with your logic we could solve a much higher death rate by banning complete other demographic groups of males and still get our taxes payed. White males are necessary to our country for that at least if we want to taked care of our least fortunate across all demographics. Regardless of the small aggrigate number of deaths by "young white male massacer" over the history of this nation versus the yearly ongoing murder rate by mothers and other demographics.

Maybe it's the insane fear of having to grow up and shoulder that tax burden that's driving those young men to commit these massacers. There's fewer of us every year to pay for more of everyone else now. That kind of IRS pressure could make almost anyone snap out of shear terror.

[Halo46]

"Hundreds of residents in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun."

http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

[guncrasher]

Then who would pay the taxes?

Minorities in the US have higher overal rates of multiple homicide yearly contributing to 65-70% of 9000 or so murders by guns opposed to the incidence of killings meeting your criterion. But, then it's not defenceless grade schoolers, defencless highschoolers, defenceless college young adults or defenceless patrons in no gun zones who are the multiple casulties generaly in the 9000 over this country's history in the last 50 years.

Though the "deaths by mother" cross the demographc lines and have agriggated more ongoing yearly deaths than the demographic you suggest banning. And with your logic we could solve a much higher death rate by banning complete other demographic groups of males and still get our taxes payed. White males are necessary to our country for that at least if we want to taked care of our least fortunate across all demographics. Regardless of the small aggrigate number of deaths by "young white male massacer" over the history of this nation versus the yearly ongoing murder rate by mothers and other demographics.

Maybe it's the insane fear of having to grow up and shoulder that tax burden that's driving those young men to commit these massacers. There's fewer of us every year to pay for more of everyone else now. That kind of IRS pressure could make almost anyone snap out of shear terror.

well you want to take care of the less fortunate while at the same time you advocate trying to get rid of all mothers.  are you contradicting yourself or you just advocate saving the white males while getting rid of all child bearing females?

do you understand now the silliness of your own post regarding banning mothers?  mine was posted along the same silliness lines as yours.

midway

[Shuffler]

Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.

That is because you limit yourself to just hunting.

[Shuffler]

@widewing  The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all).  His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder.  Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills.  Fortune favours fools, I guess.

The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point.  They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress.  This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds.  Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.

Brave?  Sure.  Smart?  No.  

I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through.  You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here.  However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.

Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer.  I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional.  No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer.  So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan.  If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.

Does this mean you would like to see the video if no one other than the thugs had weapons?

[Tank-Ace]

A life saved is a life saved. Why do you consider someone trying to reduce gun violence stupid? If you disagree with their beliefs on how gun violence would be reduced, fine, that's your prerogative, but calling them stupid for trying to reduce gun violence?

Becaues it boils down to banning guns designed to look a certian way, when they aren't inherently more effective than any other semi-automatic weapon at the relevant ranges, and then thinking the killing will go away. AR-style rifles are not the problem. High capacity magazines are not the problem. Banning either would do essentially nothing to reduce the killings. Think so is stupid.

Its a knee-jerk, emotion-driven reaction, and that they can't step away from the fact that it was an AR-style rifle used and try to look for an actual solution makes them stupid.


I'm all for gun control. But it has to be intellegent, otherwise it does nothing while arguably infringing on rights. Worst of both worlds.

that is probably because with cars you dont go and kill 5, 10 or 15 people in one accident or premeditated attack.  how many train wrecks do we have?

 

and yet after one that kills a number of people there's always a "hysteria" to go find out why and make changes.

The day they start doing that, every pro-gun citizen will shut up. Guns aren't the issue, the issues are that nobody considered that glass won't stop someone intent on getting in, that no one at the school had any viable means of self-defense, and that the kid went nuts and felt like he had to kill 27 people.

That he used an AR-style rifle, or even a projectile weapon is entirely besides the point. Some plastic bottles and fuze, some BB's or ball bearings, and some gunpowder. Thats about all you need for a crude grenade, all of which is readily available. The fuzes are where you would run into problems, if you even do, and I can think of one time of year where they're sold on every other street corner.

same for factories that blow up, or oil rigs, or that drunk guy in the boat that damaged a lot of beaches in alaska.  whenever you have a single incident that causes a lot of damage or deaths, there's always a lot of yelling, shoving and screaming trying to find out what went wrong and try to fix it.

The issue is that the hysteria in those situations doesn't result in a call for infringment on constitutional rights.

to say that there's nothing wrong with guns is just as dumb as saying that all the blames are due to guns.

one more thing about your comment here:

"Untill there is the same demand for action against obesity, drunk driving, and all the other things that result in more deaths than firearms, theres no way to call those supporting extensive gun-control anything but stupid."

when was the last time somebody used obesity to commit mass murder.  Even suggesting that obesity should be "fixed" before "extensive" gun-control is just plain dumb.  even saying "extensive" gun control makes me laugh as I cant even imagine what the hell that means.  unless you are trying to figure out a way to be superfluous.

anyway like I said before suggesting getting rid of all guns is just as stupid as saying we dont need to regulate guns.

midway

I'm not saying we should deal with the fatties before we stop school shootings; I'm illustrating a point. The problem people have with shootings isn't so much that they take lives, lives are taken on a daily basis. The problem they have is that shootings are random, unexpected, typically commited by those with mental issues, and then widely publicized and used to stir up fear.

They aren't the biggest threat to children, or even the second biggest. They're merely the most random, and least out of our control. The result is that people panic, and think 'it could be my kid next!!!", and demand government try to control something that is largely out of anyone's control. There will always, always, always be ways to kill. Be it grenades, guns, or chlorine gas, something lethal will always be readily available.


Now again, fully support gun control.... provided its intellegent. I'm all for increased reulation on the sales of firearms. I'm all for mandatory cagalouging and checks of all semi-automatic long-arms, even if it means I have to go in to the county seat every 6 months, or even if it means someone gets to come into my house, and verify that I still have the Mini-30, and that it hasn't been modified to be fully automatic, or whatever they're worried about.

[SmokinLoon]

The NRA spent millions and went to court in numerous states trying to shoot down the Brady Bill. Then, with the NICS system they devised as a solution, they fought tooth and nail to deafeat a nominal fee for the NICS and have tried to have the FBI destroy its NICS records. In effect defunding and threatening the functionability of the background checks.

In case you missed it, the Brady Bill "Assault Weapons Ban" was good for nothing.  Nothing was banned with exception to the new manufacture or importation of magazines of capacity over 10 rounds.  The AR15 was still built, it didnt have a flash suppressor and the stock on a carbine unable to be telescoped.  The NRA fought it because it was total and complete idiocy and when it expired the stats showed exactly what the NRA said would happen: no reduction in gun violence.  I'm not sure where you are getting your mud to sling at the NRA, they did not try and derail the NICS in any way shape or form.  Again, they are the architects of the system and they advocated a fee to be assessed on a state by state basis, not have it de-funded. Where are you getting this stuff???  

I still don't think you get it, the NICS system was devised by the NRA.  They devised and developed it.  What they fought for was the prohibiting of the FBI collecting of data from buyers on who, when, and what. If law enforcement ever need that info they would have to get a warrant and go to the local shop where the firearm was purchased because all the information is there on Form 4473 (as it was before NICS and as it still is).  Since it is a right for an individual to own a firearm in the USA it is in violation of the 4th Amendment for the FBI to keep and store any data used in that background check.  Also, it wasn't the NRA that stopped that from happening, it was the FBI themselves because they obtained an opinion from federal judges even before any of it was even heard in court.  

now take a seat.    

[TonyJoey]

I was talking about the Brady Act, not the assault weapons ban that was part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 94. They fought in NRA v. Reno against the six-month retention of background check data, which would have hampered the functionability of the program, but lost in that suit. They also fought and succeeded in preventing the FBI from charging a small user fee for the NICS, which would helped fund and maintain the program.  They've also tried to get rid of the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program, a database that has successfully worked in conjunction with the NICS in Virginia to keep people who shouldn't have guns attain them. 

In terms of policy prescriptions, I think there are definately some that don't involve "gun control" per se. For one, include people who commit violent misdemeanors and youth felons on the restricted list, as they are much more likely to commit a crime with a gun (but also give ways to regain the ability to possess a firearm, such as after x number of years without crime or something along those lines). Also extend the drug addiction limit to those who have been convicted of a drug sale or possesion further than a year previous, as they are also disproportionally likely to commit a crime. Lastly, raise the age that you are allowed to own a firearm to 21, as those 18-20 are also much more likely to be involved in gun violence. Another is to close the private-sale loophole that doesn't require a background checks and undercuts the Brady Act. What's the point of having background checks when you can choose to buy your weapon from an unlicensed dealer no problem. You could also relax concealed carry restrictions.  Overall this would mean less guns in the hands of bad guys and good guys with guns in more places.

[Infidelz]

who said that "its OK for the presidents men to give assault rifles to the Mexican cartels and kill US boarder agents"?

I cant find the post

My bad sorry, i do have some shortcomings. so to be clear, no one in here said anything about the present administration and their blown covert operation against the second amendment.  I Tend to use all the information i have at hand to get the strategic view.

I also have a habit of lumping all the loons and commies on the wrong side of an argument together into one group. I will work on that. Perhaps, you could take the time to educate yourself on what is going on? Might reduce your dandruff.

Infidelz

[Stellaris]

@widewing.  Point blank range, only three hits, two from behind, none center of mass.   Maybe this meets your standard, but I'd rather not have this level of marksman escalating holdups to shootouts.  He stopped the robbery.  Great.  He didn't make anyone safer, which is my point.

Anyway, as I keep saying,  I'm not here to take a position on US gun control.  For the record, I don't think it would make much difference either way.  You guys don't really have a gun problem, you have a violence problem, as evidenced by the fact that non-gun murders are also off-scale compared to every Western nation.  There's no easy ansmmwer to this, but the good news is that violence generally is in long-term decline.  As American society continues to evolve, gun rights and gun crime will both become non-issues, just as they are in frequently cited Switzerland.  Or even Canada.

[cattb]

While the debate rages, skuzzy is home  undoing the gift wrapper of his new ban hammer.

[Widewing]

@widewing.  Point blank range, only three hits, two from behind, none center of mass.   Maybe this meets your standard, but I'd rather not have this level of marksman escalating holdups to shootouts.  He stopped the robbery.  Great.  He didn't make anyone safer, which is my point.

Anyway, as I keep saying,  I'm not here to take a position on US gun control.  For the record, I don't think it would make much difference either way.  You guys don't really have a gun problem, you have a violence problem, as evidenced by the fact that non-gun murders are also off-scale compared to every Western nation.  There's no easy ansmmwer to this, but the good news is that violence generally is in long-term decline.  As American society continues to evolve, gun rights and gun crime will both become non-issues, just as they are in frequently cited Switzerland.  Or even Canada.

I completely agree with your second point. We really have a serious violence issue here in the US. The culture is broken... It's not gun related, although guns get used frequently. Take away legal guns and the violence would not subside whatsoever. Until we as a nation are willing to accept that and do what is required to change the culture, it won't get better. Think about this... The shooting rate in Dodge City at it's height was a tiny fraction of what it is in Chicago today. Everyone was armed. Most of Dodge City's shootings involved very young cow hands getting drunk and arguing. There was no systematic crime. There was no culture of violence like we see today.


I would argue that the presence of an armed felon waving a gun around is grounds for immediate action. Why? Perhaps they would not shoot or beat anyone if everyone cooperated. However, it's a mistake to assume that a brazen robber would not use his gun without provocation. It's a more frequent occurrence now that ever before. You must assume that if they have a gun, they will use it. Inasmuch as the gun-toting robber never even saw the man approach him... Even unarmed, one could have whacked him with a chair, and disarmed him. However, the old man had a gun, was not young enough to risk a fight. I figure the old guy was more angry than frightened.

To know where I'm coming from, I should provide an overview of my experience. I have a long background with firearms or all type...

1) I am well versed in the law. All gun owners should read and know the laws governing gun ownership and you rights to use a gun in self defense for where they live. There's no excuse for not knowing.

2) I'm just weeks short of 60 years old. However, I've been very well trained. Both in the military and later working with various Federal agencies and the DOD. I design shot counter sensors for various weapons, such as the M4/ M4A1 SOPMOD/M16, M9, Beretta 96, Sig 550 series rifles, Sig pistols (P226, P228), Mk.46, Mk.48, SCAR light, SCAR heavy, H&K 416, MP5/10, MP5 and so on. We tested on the Mk.19 and Mk.47 grenade launchers as well, although we only used inert training ammo (too bad, making big bangs is much more entertaining). I get to extensively test them on the weapons and have worked with SOCOM quite a bit. I've had opportunities to verify function in tactical exercises. I'm one of a very few civilians who has had a chance to play with the old Stoner 63. The SEAL armory at NSWC Crane still had some of these in the late 90s and probably still do. The Stoner 63 was the rifle to DOD should have procured instead of the M16, because it is simply a much better, more reliable weapon.

3) More than 45 years of firearms experience, and have competed with handgun (revolver and pistol), shotgun and rifle. I still do cowboy action shooting events when I can, but it's getting tougher to find the time recently. It usually involves two days of travel as I refuse to transport weapons via the airlines. I get to the range, indoors and outdoors, 4 to 6 times a month for several hours at a time. My last visit was this past Saturday, and I brought my new Savage 11/111 (.300 Win Mag) to zero a newly purchased Leatherwood 7-30x50mm Mil Dot scope at 200 yards (longest range near to where I live). Once that was done, I spent an hour plinking with a .22 cal Henry lever rifle... Much fun, that little Henry, and you can shoot for days for the price of 20 rounds of Hornady A-Max Match Ammo for the Savage (at $2 a round, you bore sight before going to the range).

[Tank-Ace]

Stellar is and wide wing have hit the nail on the head. Its not a gun issue, and really never has been. Its a violence issue, entirely independent of any and all firearms.

I have no idea why violence is such an issue, and I doubt anyone truly knows for sure.