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.
I know there are women who buy guns solely so they can stand in front of the mirror and be a Charlie's Angel. They never go to the range more than once, and their gun never gets cleaned. I also would not share a home with a scary or mental gun freak.
When my first hubby died and I was single, I dated a guy who found my gun safe. He asked me about it, I told him, he wanted me to do the Ghandi thing if someone breaks into my home, and I explained I am ALWAYS for peace first. He never called me again though when I told him if someone breaks into my house, and my dog is not a deterrent, I am going to try to shoot him. It wouldn't have worked anyway. He was a Democrat and I am not. Guns are absolutely not for everyone. I don't hold it against someone if they do not want a gun, and I hope someone does not hold it against me if I do.
Thanks for all your links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
It's not the articles and studies that matter. It's reality. And in reality, any woman who wants a gun in the house is going to have to balance the risks and benefits for herself. But personally I do not own a gun, and I would not share a home with someone who kept his or her gun(s) in the home.
Assuming it is real, it is an interesting memo. But, that memo does not say "everything the president wanted wouldn't work." Did you actually read it?
It appears to evaluate different gun control measures in a self-described "cursory" manner---- why they may have succeeded or failed, and what needs to be done to make them more effective. The results are mixed. But they certainly do not argue that gun control efforts are useless, quite the contrary.
It is real and I have read it many times. For the things Obama wants to do to work they would have to do mass confiscation. So at this point everything they want to do is feel good legislation that won't make a difference.
It is real and I have read it many times. For the things Obama wants to do to work they would have to do mass confiscation. So at this point everything they want to do is feel good legislation that won't make a difference.
That's your conclusion, not the conclusion of the report. And yes, I do think the National Institute of Justice has a less biased view of this issue than you.
It is real and I have read it many times. For the things Obama wants to do to work they would have to do mass confiscation. So at this point everything they want to do is feel good legislation that won't make a difference.
the only thing mass confiscation will do in the USA is start a war. one that neither democrats nor washinton dc will ever be able to control, and one they shall lose as well.
1st civil war, the government had a cause to bring the union together, now they would have nothing at all.
we need to stay together so we can tax the people more is not a cause.
the only thing mass confiscation will do in the USA is start a war. one that neither democrats nor washinton dc will ever be able to control, and one they shall lose as well.
1st civil war, the government had a cause to bring the union together, now they would have nothing at all.
we need to stay together so we can tax the people more is not a cause.
The report is not advocating mass confiscation, nor is the White House. But you're welcome to your irrational fears and fantasies.
That's your conclusion, not the conclusion of the report. And yes, I do think the National Institute of Justice has a less biased view of this issue than you.
So here it is spelled out, unless they confiscate guns or magazines, the proposed laws won't work. I've bolder it to make it easier for you to read ellemimt
Magazines
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability
to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously
owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an
extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions
would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in
circulation. This would take decades to realize.
Gun show loophole (universal background checks) Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks
Contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.
Assault Weapon Ban
Guns are durable goods. The 1994 law exempted weapons manufactured before 1994. The exemption of pre-1994 models ensures that a large stock, estimated at 1.5 million, of existing weapons would persist. Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides
The report is not advocating mass confiscation, nor is the White House. But you're welcome to your irrational fears and fantasies.
go look up dianne feinstein on youtube and her wanting all of america to turn in all firearms. she is a senator, and she has the ability to actually make it happen.
so it is not irrational fears or fantasies, because politicians are trying to make it happen.
Take the issue of a limit on high capacity magazines.
The report clearly says, to quote:
"There is reason to believe that reducing the availability of large capacity magazines could have an effect on the total number of homicides.
In five cities studied closely found no change in the criminal use of large capacity magazines during the ten year ban.
However, a Washington Post analysis for Virginia continued the analysis where the research team left off. The data indicate that the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010. "
That was after a BAN of large capacity magazine guns, not confiscation.
go look up dianne feinstein on youtube and her wanting all of america to turn in all firearms. she is a senator, and she has the ability to actually make it happen.
so it is not irrational fears or fantasies, because politicians are trying to make it happen.
That is one politician and I have not seen anything she has proposed recently actually go through.
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.
