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.
People OD with pills but a decent number survive. There aren't too many 2nd chances with guns. And it also backs up the STATISTICAL findings that guns in the home kill people in the home, rarely intruders.
this is cute. you have statistics that you want to use to demonstrate something and suicide statistics help that so you think they should be included. the fact that including something that most people dont think should be included simply because it makes your numbers look better isnt a valid reason to keep them in there.
its homicides that people care about with regard to this debate, not suicides.
The actual definition of an assault weapon is a firearm capable of producing fully automatic firing.
It takes a Type 7 FFL license with a class 2 rider for a person to be able to think about possessing post-86 FA guns, and it takes a LEO/GOV letter of interest for the licensee to even manufacture or buy one.
Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).
In order to legally own one, you must first find one that you wish to buy. For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to 19 May 1986. These are what are known as transferable NFA or Class III items.
Your next step will be to negotiate a price with the buyer. Most buyers have their prices set pretty firm and the going rate for a M16 varies by condition and model (M16A1, A2, AR-15 conversion, etc). A brand new, unfired, factory Colt M16A2 is going to run you about $18,000+ while a used AR-15 conversion will run you about $9,500-$13,000+. You will just have to shop around and look for the best deal out there.
Once you find one and negotiate a price you will need to pay the seller. Depending on if you are buying the item from out of state or not, you may also need to find a local Class III FFL/SOT to handle the transfer. NFA/Class III items CANNOT be shipped or carried across state lines without the proper prior approved paperwork. If buying out of state, you would need to have it transferred to a local seller who would then transfer it to you. Once you have found a FFL/SOT if needed, you will need to pay the seller. Unlike with other firearms where you can often do installment payments for years or put it on a credit card, most NFA sellers want full funds up front although some are willing to work with you and do half now, half when the paperwork comes back. At best, you are looking at half up front before he will even start the paperwork.
In other words an assault weapon is extremely expense to obtain, license and maintain. and is not the type of firearm we're speaking about here.
Shall I continue or have I left something out?
I didn't think so.
You are very correct. However, I feel the argument over the word "assault weapon" is nothing more than semantics on both sides to distract from the actual issue. I feel the root and the difference is what I stated in my post #35, magazine capacity.
While I can agree that a full auto is what could traditionally be classified as an assault weapon, I don't necessarily agree that the term does not include semi/burst weapons. The M16A2 and A4 are NOT fully automatic weapons, yet they are classified by the military as "assault rifles" and are covered under the Hughes Amendment. They feature semi-automatic fire or a 3-round burst with no option for fully automatic firing. I suppose one could argue that a 3-round burst is "automatic" fire, but it is certainly not "fully automatic" in the classic sense. Again, like most things gun, there are a lot of grey areas, semantics and definitions that need to be agreed upon. I personally do not consider a M16A2 or A4 to be "fully automatic" (though I believe conversion is relatively simple).
What is it again...figures lie and liars figure...or something like that...
Take the Pew article here and ask yourself why they are picking 1993 as the comparison year. Answer, that is the peak year for the US crime rate which has been falling every year since (well to be fair it dropped like a rock from 1993-2001 and then stabilized somewhat). They are taking the absolute height of the crime epidemic and comparing it to today. So, all crime is in fact down, not just gun related homicide. Also, for the record there is much debate on what is driving the decline, from more police and improved tactics to longer incarceration and "three strikes" laws to the end of the crack epidemic. Personally I lean towards the incarceration theory, more criminals behind bars and all that. Onto the topic at hand though...Pew presents three separate "decline percentages":
1. Homicide with a firearm - Down 49%
2. Violent crimes committed with a firearm - Down 75%
3. All violent crimes committed with or without a firearm - Down 72%
Number three is the interesting one because it shows the general downward trend. If anything, the firearm homicide rate is relatively higher now to the overall violent crime rate than it was in 1993. This is mirrored in the statistics that point out that non-firearm related homicides have declined 78% in the same period. Moral of the story, guns are an effective way to kill people if one is so inclined.
The Pew research is interesting because it goes on to point out that people don't realize how much lower crime is today than it was two decades ago. People, many of whom are pro-gun, have the belief that the country is a virtual "Wild West" and firearm ownership is necessary to protect ones family and property. If crime has declined so rapidly does this not call that argument into question?
Further on that point, crime has declined despite declines in gun ownership. It was mentioned in one of EB's articles and is something I have posted on many times. The number of households that report owning a gun has fallen to around 35% from a peak of nearly 80% in the 1950's. What has happened is that fewer homes have guns, but more homes have multiple guns. So, crime has dropped dramatically and at the same time the number of homes with a firearm has also decreased. I won't claim causation...
The other point that Pew missed is that people are mainly concerned with mass shootings not necessarily crime, which though down can always be improved on, IMO. Mass shooting statistics are another area of contention, while victims do to these are small compared to the pool of overall firearm homicides, the frequency of these incidents have increased dramatically in the past few years. We now average 3 mass shootings per year since 2007 and had a total of 7 in 2012. Now, I already stated my position on that and how pointless it is to legislate against those in a broad stroke, but that is what has people concerned and both sides of the debate are twisting that to their advantage. This unfortunately covers up the real ongoing issue of crime guns flooding city streets do to poor national standards in terms of background checks and registries.
As for EB's statistics, I think you rightly called him out. I would never include suicides in the "gun victim" count. People who will commit suicide will find a way. A gun just happens to present itself as a good tool to get the job done. Much like I pointed out in our Pew homicide data. Guns are afterall a tool that just happen to be really good at their intended purpose.
Whereas I agree with much of what you wrote, I must also add the reasoning most likely behind the statistical increase in mass shootings.
In the opinion of a large portion of the American population, myself included the mental healthcare in this country is abysmal to say the least.
As a result of budget deficits and an ever increasing thought process that detaining the severely mentally ill against their will was somehow likened to locking up someone without cause.
The severely mentally ill since the seventies have been released to fend for themselves on the streets.
Here is an excellent piece on the history of why we did such a thing;
This has continued almost unabated with New York Governor Cuomo proposing a massive population release of 6000 mentally ill from facilities in New York State close to a year ago.
Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter along with Colorado Theater shooter James Holmes had a history of mental instability yet they fell through the cracks to commit heinous, horrible crimes.
The key to controlling a tool such as a firearm is to approach the individual obtaining one as opposed to banning the tool outright.
A hammer can kill a person as a gun can kill a person, just in a different way.
To those that wish to ban all firearms; You take away my ability to defend myself and my family while a police officer is 10 minutes away from a crime scene situation the blood on you hands from that person shooting me and or my family should be sufficient enough to cause you great anguish resulting from your position.
The bad guy will always ALWAYS have a gun available to them but those that obey the law will not if the gun grabbers get their way.
this is cute. you have statistics that you want to use to demonstrate something and suicide statistics help that so you think they should be included. the fact that including something that most people dont think should be included simply because it makes your numbers look better isnt a valid reason to keep them in there.
its homicides that people care about with regard to this debate, not suicides.
So if we take out suicides we still have many thousands of murders that developed countries with sane gun laws don't have. Because freedom!
Whereas I agree with much of what you wrote, I must also add the reasoning most likely behind the statistical increase in mass shootings.
In the opinion of a large portion of the American population, myself included the mental healthcare in this country is abysmal to say the least.
As a result of budget deficits and an ever increasing thought process that detaining the severely mentally ill against their will was somehow likened to locking up someone without cause.
The severely mentally ill since the seventies have been released to fend for themselves on the streets.
Here is an excellent piece on the history of why we did such a thing;
This has continued almost unabated with New York Governor Cuomo proposing a massive population release of 6000 mentally ill from facilities in New York State close to a year ago.
Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter along with Colorado Theater shooter James Holmes had a history of mental instability yet they fell through the cracks to commit heinous, horrible crimes.
The key to controlling a tool such as a firearm is to approach the individual obtaining one as opposed to banning the tool outright.
A hammer can kill a person as a gun can kill a person, just in a different way.
To those that wish to ban all firearms; You take away my ability to defend myself and my family while a police officer is 10 minutes away from a crime scene situation the blood on you hands from that person shooting me and or my family should be sufficient enough to cause you great anguish resulting from your position.
The bad guy will always ALWAYS have a gun available to them but those that obey the law will not if the gun grabbers get their way.
"My taxes are too high! I don't want the nanny state paying for mental health services."
And i thought the law that gun luvers kind of approve of is extensive background checks. IIRC the Georgia shooter was in trouble before. And it's easy to make straw purchases anyway. Only good solution is a lot fewer guns, not more.
Whereas I agree with much of what you wrote, I must also add the reasoning most likely behind the statistical increase in mass shootings.
In the opinion of a large portion of the American population, myself included the mental healthcare in this country is abysmal to say the least.
As a result of budget deficits and an ever increasing thought process that detaining the severely mentally ill against their will was somehow likened to locking up someone without cause.
The severely mentally ill since the seventies have been released to fend for themselves on the streets.
Here is an excellent piece on the history of why we did such a thing;
This has continued almost unabated with New York Governor Cuomo proposing a massive population release of 6000 mentally ill from facilities in New York State close to a year ago.
Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter along with Colorado Theater shooter James Holmes had a history of mental instability yet they fell through the cracks to commit heinous, horrible crimes.
The key to controlling a tool such as a firearm is to approach the individual obtaining one as opposed to banning the tool outright.
I do not disagree that mental healthcare and lack thereof for many people is part of the reason for the increase in incidents of mass shootings. No arguments from me on that count. The bolded statement is an interesting one though. I agree that the key is to approach the individual obtaining one moreso than the tool involved. However, does this not provide a basis for the need of universal background checks and registries? While my point was about straw purchases at gun shows for criminals, these guns also can and do flow to people with mental health issues. So, there is a duality here. Why are so many pro-gun organizations and people vehemently opposed to universal background checks and registries? Why should anyone be able to buy a gun virtually no questions asked at a gun show?
Quote:
A hammer can kill a person as a gun can kill a person, just in a different way.
While both can kill, one is infinitely better at doing so than the other. I can stand 50 feet away and kill you with a gun. Chances are one shot may do the trick whereas a hammer may require multiple blows. If we are talking about a crowd of people like in a shopping mall, maybe I get one person with my hammer...but I could probably get dozens with the right gun. I won't call it a strawman, but it is a weak argument, IMO.
Quote:
To those that wish to ban all firearms; You take away my ability to defend myself and my family while a police officer is 10 minutes away from a crime scene situation the blood on you hands from that person shooting me and or my family should be sufficient enough to cause you great anguish resulting from your position.
I hear very few people arguing to ban all firearms, at least as a beginning position. The problem is that the rhetoric quickly ramps up and we have people pushed to extremes on both sides. FWIW, if we are talking statistics, the truth is that your family has a slightly greater chance of dieing from the gun in your home than does an intruder. However, that shouldn't unfluence the debate over guns in general, just peoples own personal choice over having one in their home. On that count, there is also a wide variety of living situations out there. If I lived in an area where police response would take 10-15 minutes on a good day, I would strongly consider keeping a gun in my home. Since I don't and the police respond in less than a minute to calls about drunken teenagers in the woods, I don't feel it is necessary. People who argue for a ban need to realize that there are places where having a gun isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.
That necessity though, doesn't mean that the right is universal and unlimited. I feel there are many things that can be done to reduce the risk of guns getting into criminals hands that have no real impact on peoples rights to own a gun.
Quote:
The bad guy will always ALWAYS have a gun available to them but those that obey the law will not if the gun grabbers get their way.
First off, don't ruin intelligent discourse with derisive terms like "gun grabber", it drags the conversation into the mud.
Secondly, yes bad guys will most likely always attempt to secure a gun if they can. The key therefore is to make it difficult and/or prohibitively expensive for them to do so. A recent article stated a .38 Special could go for as little as $25 on the streets of Newark owing to the huge supply of such guns out there. What we need to do is apply universal background checks and tie guns to their owners. I shouldn't be able to sell my gun to a friend in a parking lot...who then sells it to a guy he knows..who then sells it to a gang banger...who then kills someone in a drive-by. That kind of chain happens all the time and is even more egregious when the gun originates in another state. As long as their is no known "chain of custody" on firearms they will remain ridiculously easy for criminals to obtain. I have yet to meet a legal gun owner who could offer a reason why a registry would impede their right to own a gun.
A family member has a "slightly higher" chance of dying from a gun in the home (killed by accident or in anger) than by an intruder's gun? I'll bet it's 20 to one or more in favor of the beloved Family Gun doing the killing.
A family member has a "slightly higher" chance of dying from a gun in the home (killed by accident or in anger) than by an intruder? I'll bet it's 20 to one or more in favor of the beloved Family Gun.
This is one of the hardest statistics to validate in the whole gun debate. Here are the issues with both sides...
Anti-Gun - They claim that the risk profile is insanely lopsided, but they often include suicides in that number. That isn't a valid number, IMO. What is valid is accidental shootings and domestic violence homicides (any member of the household killing any member of the household with a gun owned by the household). When you add those together, they account for around 1,000 deaths a year. On the other hand there are about 200 "justified shootings" each year in the US. That makes the ratio about 5:1. However, that isn't the whole picture is it? There are obviously a certain number of homicides that are prevented do to the presence of a gun held by the potential victim. This is where the statistics get real crazy and I will touch on them in a moment. To complete this part, some statisticians argue that there are about 3x as many preventions as there are justified shootings. That bumps the number to about 1,000 vs. 800 in favor of gun killing a family member, hence why I said "slight".
Pro-Gun - There are several studies quoted by pro-gun groups that the presence of guns prevent on the order of 2 million crimes per year in the US. These studies have been questioned and IMO proven to be deeply flawed, but they are still widely quoted. Many of the studies had very loaded questions that help them derive the 2 million number. For instance instead of asking...
"Have you ever used your gun to prevent a crime?"
they would ask...
"Has your gun prevented crime?"
The first question is very direct, the second open to interpretation (these are not exactly what was used in some of the surveys, but you get the idea). People who own guns tend to be predisposed to the belief that owning one is a means to protect themselves from other people. Hence, many people would respond in the affirmative that their gun has prevented crime under the sincere belief that it's mere presence has in fact done so. Even on the better worded survey there was little differentiation between "using" the gun to prevent crime. No separation was made between confronting a knife wielding psycho in your foyer versus grabbing your gun when you heard a noise outside that was actually a hungry raccoon.
It is from these survey responses that a number of "crimes prevented by guns" was calculated out to 2 million instances or more per year. There is simply no way this number is remotely true. If it was we would all know someone (probably multiple someones) who has personally prevented a crime with their gun. I don't personally know anyone who has and I know many gun owners. I would venture that almost everyone else is in the same boat. I pointed this out in the gun forum on this site and not a single person admitted to knowing anyone who had actually prevented a crime/confronted a criminal with their firearm.
The problem is we will never have an exact number, just educated guesses and which guess you believe is influenced by your side of the debate. The reason it becomes so contentious on this topic is that it goes directly to the heart of the reason most gun owners justify their ownership.
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.
