Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys overpaid for shotguns and hunting rifles and people took the offer for it? Wow that is hard to imagine. I would sell my shotgun to someone for 4x then take the cash and buy another one and pocket the rest.
Australia never had a gun violence problem and you reacted to a statistical anomaly (tragedy) with an emotional response and not a rational one.
that is the difference between our societies.
Australians overwhelmingly hate and fear guns. Americans worship them like a second religion.
Most Australians have never even SEEN a gun, let alone handled one.
700,000 guns were voluntarily sacrificed and the outcome was....
Nothing.
Except that there has been zero gun massacres ever since. ZERO in 16 years.
Imagine that America; no Columbine, no Sandy Hook, no Fort Hood, no kids arrested with an arsenal and a plan...for 16 years and counting.
The hunters are still hunting, we still win medals in shooting at the Olympic Games, folks still have their gun collections and the ability to visit shooting ranges to use them.
Australians overwhelmingly hate and fear guns. Americans worship them like a second religion.
Most Australians have never even SEEN a gun, let alone handled one.
700,000 guns were voluntarily sacrificed and the outcome was....
Nothing.
Except that there has been zero gun massacres ever since. ZERO in 16 years.
Imagine that America; no Columbine, no Sandy Hook, no Fort Hood, no kids arrested with an arsenal and a plan...for 16 years and counting.
The hunters are still hunting, we still win medals in shooting at the Olympic Games, folks still have their gun collections and the ability to visit shooting ranges to use them.
Gun control does not mean a ban.
I just love how, in spite of the plethora of statistical research, reasoning, and insurmountable evidence surrounding this issue you just continue to beat the same dead horse. I will respond to your other posts when I have time. By the way, do you think a dead person cares if they die by a gunshot or get burned to death?
In the meantime, this should make for an interesting read.
I just love how, in spite of the plethora of statistical research, reasoning, and insurmountable evidence surrounding this issue you just continue to beat the same dead horse. I will respond to your other posts when I have time. By the way, do you think a dead person cares if they die by a gunshot or get burned to death?
In the meantime, this should make for an interesting read.
Here is a study with a different take that has mixed results:
A study by the Department of Justice found that, after the ban, the share of gun crimes declined by 17 to 72 percent across the cities they studied (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage). That decline, however, was largely offset by increased use of “large-capacity magazines,” firearms that hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition. Those manufactured prior to 1994 were exempt from the law.
“The failure to reduce LCM [large capacity magazine] use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports,” the authors conclude.
An Australian gun reform law in 1996, which took pre-ban guns off the market as well, looks to have had more striking effects. Researchers in the British Medical Journalwrite that it was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”
I'm a gun owner who believes in some reasonable controls to limit the damage caused by mentally ill people or by those who suffer some temporary insanity under stress. Limiting magazine capacity is one way--and yes I know someone can train to switch magazines quickly, I'm a Viet Nam vet---but it gives a couple of seconds for people to run or hide and there's always the possibility of jamming a magazine (it sure happened in Nam under stressful fire conditions).
And in addition, there is absolutely no need for keyholing (tumbling) ammunition. It is designed to kill human beings, plain and simple. You want to defend your home, do it with a shotgun--criminals aren't looking for a gun battle when they attempt home invasion--and there is a much better chance of hitting your target with a shotgun that has the choke wide open. Pistols are really unreliable unless you are going to the range five days a week. We had a lieutenant in Nam open up with his .45 on a VC less than five yards from him. He emptied his whole clip and didn't hit the VC once---who then ran off into the bush.
So, two ways to LESSEN violence--we are never going to stop it no matter how stringent the laws--limit magazines to say five or six rounds, and make it illegal even to OWN keyholing ammunition. The magazine limitation will take years to show promise, but the ones in existence will become more expensive and they do wear out. Keyholing ammunition is basically cop-killer stuff, and I believe our police departments all over the nation would appreciate that ban.
Here is a study with a different take that has mixed results:
A study by the Department of Justice found that, after the ban, the share of gun crimes declined by 17 to 72 percent across the cities they studied (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage). That decline, however, was largely offset by increased use of “large-capacity magazines,†firearms that hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition. Those manufactured prior to 1994 were exempt from the law.
“The failure to reduce LCM [large capacity magazine] use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports,†the authors conclude.
An Australian gun reform law in 1996, which took pre-ban guns off the market as well, looks to have had more striking effects. Researchers in the British Medical Journalwrite that it was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.â€
First, thanks for your service! My uncle was in Vietnam as well. Second, the source for the article is a 4 page summary that basically says the following.
1. "Assault" rifles aren't the preferred gun of criminals.
2. The majority of crimes involving guns don't use large magazines.
3. Criminals use large cap magazines more often than they use "assault" rifles.
4. If a criminal is going to engage in gun crime there is a 2% (other studies actually say 1%) chance they will use a military style rifle.
5. Large cap magazines are used in crime 14% - 26% of the time
5. 74% -86% of the time a normal magazine is used
6. Most criminals prefer pistols using regular magazines.
7. Pistols produce 3% of gunshot victims, which result in 5% of gun shot deaths, when more than 10 shots are fired.
No link to the study is provided nor is additional info available about the other gun shot victims.
"Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles."
"Large capacity magazines are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban."
"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."
"Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
I'm a gun owner who believes in some reasonable controls to limit the damage caused by mentally ill people or by those who suffer some temporary insanity under stress. Limiting magazine capacity is one way--and yes I know someone can train to switch magazines quickly, I'm a Viet Nam vet---but it gives a couple of seconds for people to run or hide and there's always the possibility of jamming a magazine (it sure happened in Nam under stressful fire conditions).
And in addition, there is absolutely no need for keyholing (tumbling) ammunition. It is designed to kill human beings, plain and simple. You want to defend your home, do it with a shotgun--criminals aren't looking for a gun battle when they attempt home invasion--and there is a much better chance of hitting your target with a shotgun that has the choke wide open. Pistols are really unreliable unless you are going to the range five days a week. We had a lieutenant in Nam open up with his .45 on a VC less than five yards from him. He emptied his whole clip and didn't hit the VC once---who then ran off into the bush.
So, two ways to LESSEN violence--we are never going to stop it no matter how stringent the laws--limit magazines to say five or six rounds, and make it illegal even to OWN keyholing ammunition. The magazine limitation will take years to show promise, but the ones in existence will become more expensive and they do wear out. Keyholing ammunition is basically cop-killer stuff, and I believe our police departments all over the nation would appreciate that ban.
The basic premise I'm operating under is, why should we limit rights when we are trying to address a statistical anomaly (spree killers)? Especially when we consider that they can make bombs, use a different gun, and every study shows an increase in crime following tighter gun controls. I can't comment on the ammo you mentioned.
Locking all the men up will be more effective than gun control. When was the last time a woman engage in mass murder? (1 more than 10 years ago) Practically everyone that commits mass murder and to a lesser extent violence is a man.
Are we wanting to address violence or spree killers? Mental illness plagues both, but a spree killer doesn't really care about the method? Shotgun to sword to pipe-bomb to car bomb. Also, can't you make large clip magazines in your garage though?
"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects"
First, thanks for your service! My uncle was in Vietnam as well.
"Large capacity magazines are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban."
The basic premise I'm operating under is, why should we limit rights when we are trying to address a statistical anomaly (spree killers)? Especially when we consider that they can make bombs, use a different gun, and every study shows an increase in crime following tighter gun controls. I can't comment on the ammo you mentioned.
Shotgun to sword to pipe-bomb to car bomb. Also, can't you make large clip magazines in your garage though?
Thanks for your thoughts re: Nam. Long time ago, and no one was thanking us then!
LCM's aren't needed for hunting, they aren't needed for home protection--so what are they needed for? They are needed by drug lord criminals and folks with mass murder on their minds. How willing would you be to ride in an aircraft with only a 3% chance of crashing? And, yes, the percentages are 3% x whatever percent of being involved in a gun crime are. But I worked as an actuary, so odds are all I ever calculated. If I can make it one bit safer without really stepping on someone's "right" to hunt or fire on a range, then I'm for it.
Keyholing ammunition is designed to "tumble" inside the body. No sensible hunter would use one because it destroys too much tissue in game. What convinced me was a statement I heard on the news by an Emergency Room physician who said the number of gunshot wounds wasn't as troubling to her as the extreme damage caused by keyholing ammo. Those people, if they live, almost always live with disabling effects for the rest of their lives.
Now the real gun nuts want not only keyholing ammo, but LAWS, bazookas, .50 caliber machine guns, and, I suppose, if they could afford it, a small tactical nuke. But none of those are necessary for home protection while they actually ARE the kind of weapons you would need to defend yourself from a government takeover. The only people I'm worried about taking over the government are the very people that want to own these crazy weapons.
But once again, we are involved in a crisis where no one will give an inch (because the other side will take a mile). It's why we are ineffective politically, ineffective as a culture, and ineffective in solving our societal problems. Without compromise there is only conflict---and sooner or later it WILL become violent.
P.S. I dont want anyone coming after me with any weapon. But if I had no choice, I'd rather they had a pipe or a knife if I'm unarmed. At least I got a chance to run away or pick up something to defend myself with--but not against an AR-15
LCM's aren't needed for hunting, they aren't needed for home protection--so what are they needed for?
"Need" simply isn't an issue. To argue need is to admit it is necessary to justify owning these things, and to accept that if you consider my need insufficient or unconvincing, the item should be banned.
Quote:
Keyholing ammunition is designed to "tumble" inside the body.
There's no such thing as "keyholing ammunition". Keyholing is a flaw (famously present in the original M-16 with the ammo issued for it) resulting from a combination of barrel, bullet, and powder charge. It may increase damage when it hits, but it also reduces accuracy.
"Need" simply isn't an issue. To argue need is to admit it is necessary to justify owning these things, and to accept that if you consider my need insufficient or unconvincing, the item should be banned.
There's no such thing as "keyholing ammunition". Keyholing is a flaw (famously present in the original M-16 with the ammo issued for it) resulting from a combination of barrel, bullet, and powder charge. It may increase damage when it hits, but it also reduces accuracy.
Well, thanks for proving the point in my previous post cause there is no "need" for these either:
Now the real gun nuts want not only keyholing ammo, but LAWS, bazookas, .50 caliber machine guns, and, I suppose, if they could afford it, a small tactical nuke. But none of those are necessary for home protection while they actually ARE the kind of weapons you would need to defend yourself from a government takeover. The only people I'm worried about taking over the government are the very people that want to own these crazy weapons.
All anyone wants is the right to outfit their own army. And the same people are adamant about our government keeping other countries from doing the same thing.
Might as well teach K-2 how to shoot guns, then by third grade require them all to bring their own weapons to school or pick one up at the principal's office and return it at the end of the day. We won't need to raise taxes to put guards in schools, there are thousands upon thousands of confiscated weapons at police departments to provide schools with the "free" weapons they need. Then the little rascals could protect themselves.
And if you say you wouldn't allow some people to have weapons, regardless of age, then we are not talking about NO restrictions, just what restrictions. If you wouldn't allow someone to own a small nuke, then once again we are not talking about NO restrictions, just what restrictions. Ya can't have it both ways.
Thanks for your thoughts re: Nam. Long time ago, and no one was thanking us then!
LCM's aren't needed for hunting, they aren't needed for home protection--so what are they needed for? They are needed by drug lord criminals and folks with mass murder on their minds. How willing would you be to ride in an aircraft with only a 3% chance of crashing? And, yes, the percentages are 3% x whatever percent of being involved in a gun crime are. But I worked as an actuary, so odds are all I ever calculated. If I can make it one bit safer without really stepping on someone's "right" to hunt or fire on a range, then I'm for it.
Ah, but all we know is that when a pistol is used and more than 10 shots are fired the 3% victim rate reflects a 5% mortality rate. We know nothing about what type of magazine was used, or what the stats are for other types of firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Now the real gun nuts want not only keyholing ammo, but LAWS, bazookas, .50 caliber machine guns, and, I suppose, if they could afford it, a small tactical nuke. But none of those are necessary for home protection while they actually ARE the kind of weapons you would need to defend yourself from a government takeover. The only people I'm worried about taking over the government are the very people that want to own these crazy weapons.
Technically you can own automatic and explosive weapons, but it's heavily regulated, taxed and it's demonstrably different than all other weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
But once again, we are involved in a crisis where no one will give an inch (because the other side will take a mile). It's why we are ineffective politically, ineffective as a culture, and ineffective in solving our societal problems. Without compromise there is only conflict---and sooner or later it WILL become violent.
Politics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
P.S. I dont want anyone coming after me with any weapon. But if I had no choice, I'd rather they had a pipe or a knife if I'm unarmed. At least I got a chance to run away or pick up something to defend myself with--but not against an AR-15
Depends on your perspective. On the one hand, a criminal with a gun is a bad scenario, but at least you have a chance to identify him and defend yourself. On the other, if a criminal builds explosives it would take longer, but do more damage and you might not identify him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's always another take
