Cut Crime - cut access to cheap guns

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's so ridiculous it's hilarious. If that were true, than murder would have been rare before the invention of firearms.

I believe that any sort of research will show you that murders were more rare before the invention of firearms.

Can you cite such a source?

Does this "fact" mean that collecting up the firearms will reduce the rate of murder, will the collection be successful, and will it eventually be worth the danger of doing so?

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
In fact, murder (then getting away with it) is more successful without a gun. Firearms are loud. Gunshots alert people.

That is among the most incorrect things I've ever heard. The key to getting away with murder is to make sure the person is dead.

Ummmmmmmmmm.......................if the person isn't dead, a murder hasn't occurred.

The reason silencers are Class III "weapons" is precisely because of the reasons I've stated above.

I'm a bowhunter as well as being a firearms hunter. I can attest that a strike in the torso with today's arrows is a virtual guarantee of death, whereas a handgun bulletwound in the same area is not such a guarantee. Further, the arrow is silent. In your example, the neighbors wouldn't have heard a thing.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I've been a news junkie for many years, and I have no idea what incident you are referring to. I'm assuming it was some sort of "assault gun" legislation. It is true that some extremist groups try to sensationalize issues. It is also true that less extreme gun-control advocates don't listen to that sort of thing. You obviously remember it much better than I. I vaguely remember that some of the NRA extremists tried to demonize the anti-gun people and ignore the part of defending why such guns were necessary to society.

Let's face it. Extremists make the news. People like you and I don't. We're boring.

There was a provision in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill which included an "assault weapons" ban authored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). It banned 19 weapons by name and 119 based on a combination of features (pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc...). The ban was totally unnecessary because crimes committed using these weapons were exceedingly rare (like 2% of crimes involving firearms - including non-violent crimes), and it came very soon after gun-control advocates were railing against cheap, easily concealable handguns (so-called Saturday night specials). The term "assault weapon" was very misleading, because there was a perfectly good definition of an "assault weapon" prior to 1994, and it always included the words "full-automatic". Real assault weapons were already very strictly controlled by a 1934 law, and very difficult and expensive to obtain (prospective owners generally have to have written permission by the local sheriff among other things).

I remember it clearly because gun control was the issue that got me into politics - I was obsessed with guns for a while, and had I gone to school today I'd probably have been suspended under some "zero tolerance" policy or another. I was a bit of a gun nut - I remember thinking for a while that the Francisco Duran Incident (he fired an SKS at the White House before being tackled by citizens - the incident lead to the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue for a while) was cooked up by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was especially outspoken in favor of the Assault Weapons ban (I was 13, I can be forgiven a conspiracy theory or two I think).

It wasn't that those weapons were necessary. They were hardly a huge problem and they were seen (rightfully I think) as an easy win, because most people had the same feeling - "nobody needs one of them things" - and it passed. I might add, this ban, the Brady Bill, and other gun-control measures during Clinton's first few years were a big reason the Dems lost control of Congress in 1996. Generally these weapons were owned by law-abiding people who'd never done anything wrong, and it was a case of the majority imposing its will on the minority. This wasn't a confiscation (which WAS done in some states, I might add, NJ and CA for instance), but only because the clause was struck out of the original language of the bill.

There was a lot of sensationalism surrounding the issue, primarily on the side of the ban (I recall seeing TV spots where silhouette pictures of the weapons scrolled through, and a phrase like "It's time to stop the nonsense" came up on the screen.) I recall seeing very emotional rants in favor of the ban by the members of Congress about this.

Clinton signed it into law in 1994, and I never forgave him for it. It was a big reason I voted against Gore in 2000 - because I was still of the mindset that I wouldn't vote for anybody who was involved with Clinton. I know it was infantile now, but who's politics aren't when they're 18?

Btw, I own one of the "assault weapons". It's never killed anybody, and it's never gotten up off the shelf on its own and sprayed bullets everywhere trying to kill me.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Polaris

There was a provision in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill which included an "assault weapons" ban authored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). It banned 19 weapons by name and 119 based on a combination of features (pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc...). The ban was totally unnecessary because crimes committed using these weapons were exceedingly rare (like 2% of crimes involving firearms - including non-violent crimes), and it came very soon after gun-control advocates were railing against cheap, easily concealable handguns (so-called Saturday night specials). The term "assault weapon" was very misleading, because there was a perfectly good definition of an "assault weapon" prior to 1994, and it always included the words "full-automatic". Real assault weapons were already very strictly controlled by a 1934 law, and very difficult and expensive to obtain (prospective owners generally have to have written permission by the local sheriff among other things).

I won't deny that gun-control advocates, and especially politicians, tend to look for spectacular things to attack. In this, you might see their reasoning. After all, getting our gun problem under control is an incremental thing. The first step would seem to be removing those guns which have no legitimate use, either for hunting or protection. But yeah, there is always a lot of grandstanding by both sides. Everybody wants a good sound bite.

Originally Posted by Polaris

I remember it clearly because gun control was the issue that got me into politics - I was obsessed with guns for a while, and had I gone to school today I'd probably have been suspended under some "zero tolerance" policy or another. I was a bit of a gun nut - I remember thinking for a while that the Francisco Duran Incident (he fired an SKS at the White House before being tackled by citizens - the incident lead to the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue for a while) was cooked up by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was especially outspoken in favor of the Assault Weapons ban (I was 13, I can be forgiven a conspiracy theory or two I think).

Well, you seem to have recovered from your "gun nut" days. The truth is, when we are young, we tend to see things in much more black-and-white terms. You can call it being idealistic. I know I was much more idealistic then than I am now. I was also much more stupid. But the overall imprint seems to stay. I was a wild-eyed liberal in high school. I'm a more reasonable liberal today. I'm guessing you will evolve from being a "gun nut" to a gun rights supporter.

Originally Posted by Polaris

It wasn't that those weapons were necessary. They were hardly a huge problem and they were seen (rightfully I think) as an easy win, because most people had the same feeling - "nobody needs one of them things" - and it passed. I might add, this ban, the Brady Bill, and other gun-control measures during Clinton's first few years were a big reason the Dems lost control of Congress in 1996.

Maybe. The NRA drummed up a lot of support to defeat the Dems based on one-issue politics. They also had the one-issue religious right on their case about abortion. Republicans are the acknowledged masters of one-issue politics. But the Dems made lots of mistakes too. They're pretty incompetent sometimes.

Originally Posted by Polaris

Generally these weapons were owned by law-abiding people who'd never done anything wrong, and it was a case of the majority imposing its will on the minority. This wasn't a confiscation (which WAS done in some states, I might add, NJ and CA for instance), but only because the clause was struck out of the original language of the bill.

Well, the majority always imposes its will on the minority. Some people even think that is what a democracy is supposed to do. But I can't really see that the legislation has had a significant effect either way. I do think it is important for people to see the danger that guns pose to our society, but there ain't no quick fix.

Originally Posted by Polaris

There was a lot of sensationalism surrounding the issue, primarily on the side of the ban (I recall seeing TV spots where silhouette pictures of the weapons scrolled through, and a phrase like "It's time to stop the nonsense" came up on the screen.) I recall seeing very emotional rants in favor of the ban by the members of Congress about this.

And you don't remember any emotional rants against the legislation? LOL. I'd have to say you suffer from selective memory. But that is the way it works. An emotional rant you agree with is a thoughtful and reasoned position (another thing I realized as I lost my wild-eyed idealism.)

Originally Posted by Polaris

Clinton signed it into law in 1994, and I never forgave him for it. It was a big reason I voted against Gore in 2000 - because I was still of the mindset that I wouldn't vote for anybody who was involved with Clinton. I know it was infantile now, but who's politics aren't when they're 18?

You live. You learn. I'd say that if you realize this only six years later, then you are way ahead of the curve. Some people stay fanatics well into adulthood. (Tricky looks askance at Huntster).

Originally Posted by Polaris

Btw, I own one of the "assault weapons". It's never killed anybody, and it's never gotten up off the shelf on its own and sprayed bullets everywhere trying to kill me.

The thing I would be most worried about is if you got robbed. My father had all of his guns stolen once, and I'm quite glad there was no assault rifle among them. He had mostly shotguns and a couple of handguns. Since you have no intent of using your "assault weapon", you probably ought to keep it in a lock box, for your own benefit and (in my opinion) the rest of the world's. You can unlock it and show it to anybody who is interested.

But as you seem to admit, you have no real use for it, other than as a conversation piece. Or are you expecting a violent overthrow of the government?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polaris
Clinton signed it into law in 1994, and I never forgave him for it. It was a big reason I voted against Gore in 2000 - because I was still of the mindset that I wouldn't vote for anybody who was involved with Clinton. I know it was infantile now, but who's politics aren't when they're 18?

You live. You learn. I'd say that if you realize this only six years later, then you are way ahead of the curve. Some people stay fanatics well into adulthood. (Tricky looks askance at Huntster).

I say that those in Congress who lobbied for the "assault" weapon ban are "fanatics." If you'd like to label me as "fanatical" in opposing them (as well as the people who support them), than yes; count me in.

Sorry. Somebody trying to disarm me "pulls my trigger."

[Oroborus]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not quite. That study's been done over and over again. If you want to kill someone, your chances of successfully pulling it off are much better if you use a gun than if you use other methods. Which makes sense, if you think about it. With a gun, you can drop me from across the street before I even know you're there. With a knife or a baseball bat, you more or less need to get into my face, which gives me a chance to either fight back or simply to run like a scalded cat.

As the NRA puts it -- "guns don't kill people, people kill people." But the real thing to point out is that "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. People without guns try with substantially less success to kill people."

I would say that mostly applies to people with little imagination. Going back to even the knife example. A quick plunge with a knife in a dark room. And yes I'm not arguing that it's not easier to cap someone from 200 yards away, I"m just saying if the murderer was highly intelligent and motivated they will make it happen. (and if they were just some idiot with a gun chances are they'd get cuaght anyway)

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Oroborus

I would say that mostly applies to people with little imagination.

Fair enough -- if you accept that most people have little imagination.

Quote:

Going back to even the knife example. A quick plunge with a knife in a dark room. And yes I'm not arguing that it's not easier to cap someone from 200 yards away, I"m just saying if the murderer was highly intelligent and motivated they will make it happen.

All right, let's spin out this line of reasoning for a while.

If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, then I'd still be at risk of being murdered by a "highly intelligent and motivated" person.

But if I don't wave that wand, then I'm not only at risk of being murdered by Dr. Moriarity, but also by some random gun-toting thug -- Jimmy "the Fish" Santorelli -- who is neither highly intelligent nor motivated.

It's hard to kill someone with a knife. Even "a quick plunge with a knife in a dark room" is more likely to leave me injured, but not dead, than shooting me with a gun. See the Zimmer study I cited above. Sure, you might be a US Marine bayonet instructor, but the random stranger probably isn't -- and this gets back to the Moriarity vs. Jimmy "the Fish" question, doesn't it?

Still sounds like an argument for waving that wand, doesn't it?

Quote:

(and if they were just some idiot with a gun chances are they'd get cuaght anyway)

... which I'm sure will comfort the little ones I leave behind.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Oroborus

I"m just saying if the murderer was highly intelligent and motivated they will make it happen. (and if they were just some idiot with a gun chances are they'd get caught anyway)

You think so? Take a look at this page on unsolved murders. They are not all gun crimes, but a pretty fair number of them are. And this is just one county in Florida. (There are links at the bottom of the page for other counties). If you think that using a gun means you will get caught, I am afraid you are mistaken. Unless all of the at-large murderers are highly intelligent and motivated.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I say that those in Congress who lobbied for the "assault" weapon ban are "fanatics." If you'd like to label me as "fanatical" in opposing them (as well as the people who support them), than yes; count me in.

Sorry. Somebody trying to disarm me "pulls my trigger."

Q.E.D.

Thanks, Huntster

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by drkitten

....If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, then I'd still be at risk of being murdered by a "highly intelligent and motivated" person.

The less intelligent would still be a threat, because now that the guns are gone, they're forced to use another weapon (unless you're willing to argue that once guns are gone, the less intelligent would then figure that murder is no longer possible).

Where's your imagination and intelligence?

Quote:

It's hard to kill someone with a knife.

You haven't seen the result of many knife attacks, have you?

Quote:

Still sounds like an argument for waving that wand, doesn't it?

Nope. Not to me.

Even if you did have a wand.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Q.E.D. ...

Sorry, but what does "Q.E.D." stand for?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Sorry, but what does "Q.E.D." stand for?

Look it up.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
I say that those in Congress who lobbied for the "assault" weapon ban are "fanatics." If you'd like to label me as "fanatical" in opposing them (as well as the people who support them), than yes; count me in.

Sorry. Somebody trying to disarm me "pulls my trigger."

Q.E.D.

Thanks, Huntster

You're quite welcome!

[Oroborus]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Fair enough -- if you accept that most people have little imagination.



All right, let's spin out this line of reasoning for a while.

If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, then I'd still be at risk of being murdered by a "highly intelligent and motivated" person.

But if I don't wave that wand, then I'm not only at risk of being murdered by Dr. Moriarity, but also by some random gun-toting thug -- Jimmy "the Fish" Santorelli -- who is neither highly intelligent nor motivated.

It's hard to kill someone with a knife. Even "a quick plunge with a knife in a dark room" is more likely to leave me injured, but not dead, than shooting me with a gun. See the Zimmer study I cited above. Sure, you might be a US Marine bayonet instructor, but the random stranger probably isn't -- and this gets back to the Moriarity vs. Jimmy "the Fish" question, doesn't it?

Still sounds like an argument for waving that wand, doesn't it?




... which I'm sure will comfort the little ones I leave behind.

Yes but then again removing all the guns at the same time puts you in more danger of being killed by Mr. Thugopalous. With guns you pretty much have fairly even odds (speaking generally) then you would unarmed. I.E I'd much rather be in a gun shoot out with a 250lb gorilla than try to take him on when he has a knife. You don't need to be a bayonet instructor to kill someone quickly with a knife. A passing knowledge of anatomy and the element of suprise would be enough. And even if its not a killing stroke it's not as if the guy is going to go Oh well I missed the first time guess I'll go away now. Nothing stopping them from stabbing you again.

I'm not saying I'm for or against it just that I don't think it's as cut and dry as you made it appear.


Oh and at Hunt, my browser lagged when I was posting so it didnt stick. I asked you if you thought the founding fathers really had automatic rifles on the mind when they signed the right to bear arms. Then I asked you to name one realisitic situation where a civilian would need an assualt riffle.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Huntster

The less intelligent would still be a threat, because now that the guns are gone, they're forced to use another weapon

But I'd be at substantially lower risk, because the less intelligent tend not to be able to kill people with "another weapon."

Quote:

You haven't seen the result of many knife attacks, have you?

Read the citations I presented above. If you don't like Zimmer's data, feel free to collect and publish your own.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Oroborus

Yes but then again removing all the guns at the same time puts you in more danger of being killed by Mr. Thugopalous. With guns you pretty much have fairly even odds (speaking generally) then you would unarmed. I.E I'd much rather be in a gun shoot out with a 250lb gorilla than try to take him on when he has a knife. You don't need to be a bayonet instructor to kill someone quickly with a knife. A passing knowledge of anatomy and the element of suprise would be enough. And even if its not a killing stroke it's not as if the guy is going to go Oh well I missed the first time guess I'll go away now. Nothing stopping them from stabbing you again.

That experiment's been done. Over and over and over again. See the citations above.

Quote:

I'm not saying I'm for or against it just that I don't think it's as cut and dry as you made it appear.

Shrug. I'm sure the appropriate criminology journals would be interested in your data, then.

[Oroborus]

Untill you whip out that magic wand and create the situation I won't be particuarly impressed by their conclusions.


EDIT: I just relised I said whip out the magic wand in a serious manner.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Oroborus

....Oh and at Hunt, my browser lagged when I was posting so it didnt stick. I asked you if you thought the founding fathers really had automatic rifles on the mind when they signed the right to bear arms....

No. They had in mind the common military firearms of the day.

The Supreme Court, in 1939, did too:

Quote:

.....Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court......

.....The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they (p.179)were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time......

Quote:

Then I asked you to name one realisitic situation where a civilian would need an assualt riffle.

1) In order to be in accordance with U.S. law:

Quote:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
The less intelligent would still be a threat, because now that the guns are gone, they're forced to use another weapon

But I'd be at substantially lower risk, because the less intelligent tend not to be able to kill people with "another weapon."

Sheesh! Such "logic."

The "less intelligent" can't kill you as efficiently as more intelligent can with any and all weapons, including guns.

A "less intelligent" person today with a gun doesn't practice with it. He/she might hold it like portrayed on silly gangsta' flicks (sideways, one hand) where they glean their "intelligence".

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You haven't seen the result of many knife attacks, have you?

Read the citations I presented above. If you don't like Zimmer's data, feel free to collect and publish your own.

Zimmer's data aside, with my own eyes I saw a man literally eviscerated with a single slash to his belly, from his upper groin to his sternum with an average sized knife. His intestines literally burst out of him. Nobody saw it coming. I don't know if he died, but I can attest that I was damned sure impressed and terrified.

Edged weapons have been used as combative weapons since before recorded history. By "less intelligent" people. I've even seen it.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Huntster

A "less intelligent" person today with a gun doesn't practice with it. He/she might hold it like portrayed on silly gangsta' flicks (sideways, one hand) where they glean their "intelligence".

Or they might, on the other hand, be single-minded about practicing and nothing else. After all, the military wants people who can be killers, but they don't require smart people. They want people they can train by repetition, then point them at the enemy. If you're looking for beserkers, then stupider is better.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Zimmer's data aside, with my own eyes I saw a man literally eviscerated with a single slash to his belly, from his upper groin to his sternum with an average sized knife. His intestines literally burst out of him. Nobody saw it coming. I don't know if he died, but I can attest that I was damned sure impressed and terrified.

And yet, for all your wide experience, that is not a common occurrance.

Where did you see this, by the way? It sounds like he was killed by a trained soldier.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Edged weapons have been used as combative weapons since before recorded history. By "less intelligent" people. I've even seen it.

I'm sure you have. You seem to run in a crowd of very violent people. I'd bet that most of us here have never seen a person murdered, but you seem to have several experiences.

Of course, you couldn't possibly be talking about wartime experiences, because we all know that killing the enemy is not the same as murder. Right?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I won't deny that gun-control advocates, and especially politicians, tend to look for spectacular things to attack. In this, you might see their reasoning. After all, getting our gun problem under control is an incremental thing. The first step would seem to be removing those guns which have no legitimate use, either for hunting or protection. But yeah, there is always a lot of grandstanding by both sides. Everybody wants a good sound bite.

Any firearm can be used for protection. And many of the so-called "assault weapons" could be used to hunt. The 7.62x51mm round (.308 Winchester) is a common deer hunting round. The same bullet is fired out of the FN/FAL and HK-91 (both of which were on the ban by name) and a Remington 700 bolt-action hunting rifle. Getting the gun problem under control is a good thing. Banning weapons that aren't a problem from people who wouldn't use them to cause problems is just using crime prevention as an excuse to move toward incremental gun prohibition - not crime prevention. These guns do have a legitimate use. They are collectibles, or plain just fun to shoot - I prefer semi-automatics for this reason, myself. And I find it insulting to hear a politician tell me I can't be trusted with one because he wants to pander to a group of radicals who are afraid of an inanimate object.

Originally Posted by Tricky

Well, you seem to have recovered from your "gun nut" days. The truth is, when we are young, we tend to see things in much more black-and-white terms. You can call it being idealistic. I know I was much more idealistic then than I am now. I was also much more stupid. But the overall imprint seems to stay. I was a wild-eyed liberal in high school. I'm a more reasonable liberal today. I'm guessing you will evolve from being a "gun nut" to a gun rights supporter.

I've always been a gun rights supporter. What gets me riled up (and I assume the same is true for a lot of gun rights supporters) is that anti-gun people are very frequently anti-gun owner as well. I don't go out of my way to insist people own guns, so I get defensive when someone tries to tell me I shouldn't have them - any of them.

Originally Posted by Tricky

Maybe. The NRA drummed up a lot of support to defeat the Dems based on one-issue politics. They also had the one-issue religious right on their case about abortion. Republicans are the acknowledged masters of one-issue politics. But the Dems made lots of mistakes too. They're pretty incompetent sometimes.

No arguments here.

Originally Posted by Tricky

Well, the majority always imposes its will on the minority. Some people even think that is what a democracy is supposed to do. But I can't really see that the legislation has had a significant effect either way. I do think it is important for people to see the danger that guns pose to our society, but there ain't no quick fix.

The legislation didn't have an effect because there was next to nothing TO affect. That's like saying a bill outlawing killer attack elephants had no significant effect. And anyway, the ban sunshined 2 years ago.

Originally Posted by Tricky

And you don't remember any emotional rants against the legislation? LOL. I'd have to say you suffer from selective memory. But that is the way it works. An emotional rant you agree with is a thoughtful and reasoned position (another thing I realized as I lost my wild-eyed idealism.)

I'm sure there were emotional rants on my side too. I probably made some of them. But since I agreed with them at the time I didn't see them as emotional rants. I only noticed it when it was the other side's idiocy.

Originally Posted by Tricky

The thing I would be most worried about is if you got robbed. My father had all of his guns stolen once, and I'm quite glad there was no assault rifle among them. He had mostly shotguns and a couple of handguns. Since you have no intent of using your "assault weapon", you probably ought to keep it in a lock box, for your own benefit and (in my opinion) the rest of the world's. You can unlock it and show it to anybody who is interested.

I did have 2 guns stolen (by a friend, who was later shot by another friend who he was in the process of chasing with a night stick into his own house). I don't have children and never will, and I like to keep my weapons loaded, though not chambered. If I'm ever indoors and someone tries to break in, I don't want to have to worry about remembering the combination to a lock box. When I'm not home though, a safe would be a good idea. I just can't afford one and I don't know if my floor would even handle it.

Originally Posted by Tricky

But as you seem to admit, you have no real use for it, other than as a conversation piece. Or are you expecting a violent overthrow of the government?

Actually, I shoot all the time. My weapons do get a fair amount of use at ranges. And I live in a bad area (my income doesn't allow me to escape from it quite yet), so I consider a firearm just part of the territory. Granted that particular firearm isn't a military-style semi-auto (actually it's either a .44 special revolver or a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun due to wall-penetration concerns), but I like to be prepared for anything.

[pipelineaudio]

I dont want to be pedantic, but I am pretty sure there is a VERY fuzzy understanding of "assault weapon" going on here

the definition from the ban was "a gun that looks scary"

Look at the list, there is stuff on there as kooky as "pistol grips"

Oh yes, when theres a pistol grip involved it is MUCH more deadly

Anyhow, I am all for banning RPG's and people who have babies and personal nuclear weapons, but the whole "assault weapons " nonsense is just silly

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I dont want to be pedantic, but I am pretty sure there is a VERY fuzzy understanding of "assault weapon" going on here

the definition from the ban was "a gun that looks scary"

Look at the list, there is stuff on there as kooky as "pistol grips"

Oh yes, when theres a pistol grip involved it is MUCH more deadly

Anyhow, I am all for banning RPG's and people who have babies and personal nuclear weapons, but the whole "assault weapons " nonsense is just silly

That's basically right, in a nutshell. None of those guns operated any differently from an M-1 rifle, except for the box magazine.

As I said before, there was a perfectly good definition of "assault weapon" before the politicians screwed it up for political capital and a chance to pretend like they were doing something about crime.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
A "less intelligent" person today with a gun doesn't practice with it. He/she might hold it like portrayed on silly gangsta' flicks (sideways, one hand) where they glean their "intelligence".

Or they might, on the other hand, be single-minded about practicing and nothing else. After all, the military wants people who can be killers, but they don't require smart people. They want people they can train by repetition, then point them at the enemy. If you're looking for beserkers, then stupider is better.

Don't know much about the military, do you?

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
Zimmer's data aside, with my own eyes I saw a man literally eviscerated with a single slash to his belly, from his upper groin to his sternum with an average sized knife. His intestines literally burst out of him. Nobody saw it coming. I don't know if he died, but I can attest that I was damned sure impressed and terrified.

And yet, for all your wide experience, that is not a common occurrance.

Where did you see this, by the way? It sounds like he was killed by a trained soldier.

In California, long ago.

No, the guy wasn't a trained soldier. He was a chollo. He essentially slashed open a man who couldn't answer his dumb question because the man was deaf. He gave him no indication of the evil he was about to perpetrate, and after doing it, he simply walked away while the man fell to the street with his intestines spilling out.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
Edged weapons have been used as combative weapons since before recorded history. By "less intelligent" people. I've even seen it.

I'm sure you have. You seem to run in a crowd of very violent people. I'd bet that most of us here have never seen a person murdered, but you seem to have several experiences.

I don't run in such a crowd, but I grew up in a very violent atmosphere, then went to war as a soldier. Afterwards I came to a frontier, with a fair amount of violence.

Quote:

Of course, you couldn't possibly be talking about wartime experiences, because we all know that killing the enemy is not the same as murder. Right?

It's supposed to be, but murder is possible in a war zone.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Polaris

That's basically right, in a nutshell. None of those guns operated any differently from an M-1 rifle, except for the box magazine.

As I said before, there was a perfectly good definition of "assault weapon" before the politicians screwed it up for political capital and a chance to pretend like they were doing something about crime.

The OP is about simply cutting the availability of cheap guns to cut crime. This appears to work.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The OP is about simply cutting the availability of cheap guns to cut crime. This appears to work.

From your cited link:

Quote:

Seven years ago Badger Outdoors, a gun shop in West Milwaukee, Wisconsin, stopped selling $70 handguns, known as "Saturday night specials", after a government study revealed it was the nation's leading supplier of guns that were later recovered from criminals.

A $70 handgun is a piece of junk. I personally have no problem if crappy firearms disappeared. However, from my experience with this issue, any move by those who want to reduce the supply of firearms inspires suspicion.

So, if criminals find it easier to buy them than to steal better quality handguns, I have a couple of questions:

1) How are "criminals" legally buying these weapons from a licensed FFL? If they're already criminals, they can't legally buy them.

2) How do you prevent the manufacture and sale of lousy firearms? Ban poor quality?

Quote:

Now, follow-up research shows that the move singlehandedly reduced the supply of new guns to criminals in the city by 44 per cent.

I find this difficult to believe.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The OP is about simply cutting the availability of cheap guns to cut crime. This appears to work.

And I pointed out the inconsitancy in the gun-control effort which stopped trying to ban cheap, inexpensive handguns and shifted the focus on large, expensive, frequently rare rifles.

[a_unique_person]

Which may or may not be true, but is beside the point.

[Huntster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
The OP is about simply cutting the availability of cheap guns to cut crime. This appears to work.

From your cited link:

Quote:

Quote:
Seven years ago Badger Outdoors, a gun shop in West Milwaukee, Wisconsin, stopped selling $70 handguns, known as "Saturday night specials", after a government study revealed it was the nation's leading supplier of guns that were later recovered from criminals.

A $70 handgun is a piece of junk. I personally have no problem if crappy firearms disappeared. However, from my experience with this issue, any move by those who want to reduce the supply of firearms inspires suspicion.

So, if criminals find it easier to buy them than to steal better quality handguns, I have a couple of questions:

1) How are "criminals" legally buying these weapons from a licensed FFL? If they're already criminals, they can't legally buy them.

2) How do you prevent the manufacture and sale of lousy firearms? Ban poor quality?

[snooziums]

Actually, firearms are the most humane method of suicide there is out there, and the least painless.

Hanging requires a massive height, overdosing usually does not work or requires stuff that is not easily obtained, using a vehicle puts others at risk, jumping puts others at risk, it is impossible to shoot oneself with an arrow, and so on.

So, unless we want a program that safely provides anyone access to their right to suicide, then hand firearms should be allowed.

(Note that I did not say "gun," as that term brings back memories of basic training).

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I believe that any sort of research will show you that murders were more rare before the invention of firearms.

Heh. The same research shows that before blacks were free, the murder rate was low. Heard that one on Stormfront.

What I found was that 100 years ago and more, crime statistics weren't the science they are today. You would be hard pressed to find national statistics prior to the creation of the FBI, for example.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I'm a bowhunter as well as being a firearms hunter. I can attest that a strike in the torso with today's arrows is a virtual guarantee of death, whereas a handgun bulletwound in the same area is not such a guarantee. Further, the arrow is silent. In your example, the neighbors wouldn't have heard a thing.

I see. But a gun is concealable. I think people would notice a guy walking around with a bow and arrow.

A more realistic analysis of abdomen wounds:

Quote:

Point Blank, by Gary Kleck, pg 165, citing a study by Wilson and Sherman, 1961:

“At least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds (’all were penetrating wounds of the abdomen’), and found that the mortality rate in pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds and 13.3% for butcher knife wounds.

The study is in Annals of Surgery Vol 153 pp 639-649 “Civilian Penetrating Wounds of the Abdomen” by Wilson and Sherman. It covers stab (5% mortality) and gun shot wounds (17% mortality) to the abdomen.

Quote:

(1a) People who died before reaching hospital are NOT counted. In the discussion following the paper it is stated that “the preponderance of stab wounds is more apparent than real because a significant percentage of patients wounded by gunshot die before reaching the hospital.”, so this will make the mortality rate for gunshot wounds appear to be less.

And as for the head:

Quote:

(1c) Mortality rates for wounds to other parts of the body may well be very different. For example, a low velocity weapon like a knife is far less likely to penetrate a skull than a high velocity projectile.

Link.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Heh. The same research shows that before blacks were free, the murder rate was low. Heard that one on Stormfront.

What I found was that 100 years ago and more, crime statistics weren't the science they are today. You would be hard pressed to find national statistics prior to the creation of the FBI, for example.

Yeah, I was wrong about that. Such statistics would be impossible to verify. Besides, it is hard to say what could be called a "murder" under different social settings. Is killing peasants of a rival serfdom murder, or is it war?

Still I stand by my assertion that fewer guns would mean fewer deaths, even in the US where violent crime is so much greater than in most other Western nations. Obviously, I can't prove that without actually reducing the number of guns nationwide and seeing what happens to the murder rates. But I'm willing to try that experiment.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm a bowhunter as well as being a firearms hunter. I can attest that a strike in the torso with today's arrows is a virtual guarantee of death, whereas a handgun bulletwound in the same area is not such a guarantee. Further, the arrow is silent. In your example, the neighbors wouldn't have heard a thing.

I see. But a gun is concealable. I think people would notice a guy walking around with a bow and arrow.

True. That is why many want handguns banned, because their concealable, and that's why they're more prevalent in use for crime.

For pure killing efficiency, a centerfire rifle or bow/arrow are better offensive weapons.

Handguns have two primary purposes:

1) Immediate defense
2) Concealable offense

I suggest that there are more good people in the world than bad people. If everyone carried a handgun for one of the two above purposes, guess what would be the end result?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Point Blank, by Gary Kleck, pg 165, citing a study by Wilson and Sherman, 1961:

“At least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds (’all were penetrating wounds of the abdomen’), and found that the mortality rate in pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds and 13.3% for butcher knife wounds.

The study is in Annals of Surgery Vol 153 pp 639-649 “Civilian Penetrating Wounds of the Abdomen” by Wilson and Sherman. It covers stab (5% mortality) and gun shot wounds (17% mortality) to the abdomen.

Quote:

Quote:
(1a) People who died before reaching hospital are NOT counted. In the discussion following the paper it is stated that “the preponderance of stab wounds is more apparent than real because a significant percentage of patients wounded by gunshot die before reaching the hospital.”, so this will make the mortality rate for gunshot wounds appear to be less.

That is interesting. Looks like a good study.

I subscribe to Marshall and Sanow's study on handgun lethality, but it doesn't take centerfire rifle or edged weapons into consideration.

Quote:

And as for the head:

Quote:

Quote:
(1c) Mortality rates for wounds to other parts of the body may well be very different. For example, a low velocity weapon like a knife is far less likely to penetrate a skull than a high velocity projectile.

No doubt about that.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Handguns have two primary purposes:

1) Immediate defense
2) Concealable offense

I suggest that there are more good people in the world than bad people. If everyone carried a handgun for one of the two above purposes, guess what would be the end result?

It would still most likely be weighted heavily to the negative side for two big reasons:

1) Criminals know they are going to use a gun. They have the element of surprise heavily in their favor, and that's very important. If two people have guns, the one that has his ready is going to win most confrontations. You could say, "Always be ready", but that would lead to more accidental deaths from people who were a little too ready.

2) A great number of murders are "crimes of passion", committed by people who were "overall" good, but succumb to their emotions. If they happen to have a gun available when those emotions are highest, the consequences can be tragic. I'm sure that many times have you heard a contrite defendant say, "I don't know what came over me," or "I don't know why I did it." And how many times have your heard people shocked when some "regular guy" commits a murder?

[a_unique_person]

As the saying goes, if you want to know who is most likely to kill you, look at who is eating breakfast with you.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

As the saying goes, if you want to know who is most likely to kill you, look at who is eating breakfast with you.

*whew* I'm glad I never eat breakfast. I had no idea it was so dangerous though.

[a_unique_person]

I was reading about one case here, about a daughter who killed her mother by stabbing her in the stomach in the kitchen. According to the daughter, it was an accident, she just turned around, with the knife in her hand, and oops. The cops weren't so sure. The kitchen knife is, apparently, the lawyers friend, a good source of revenue.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Yeah, I was wrong about that. Such statistics would be impossible to verify. Besides, it is hard to say what could be called a "murder" under different social settings. Is killing peasants of a rival serfdom murder, or is it war?

Or lynching a black man for looking at a white woman. Murder? Not in some jurisdictions in the old days. It was more of a photo op.

But I digress.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Huntster

True. That is why many want handguns banned, because their concealable, and that's why they're more prevalent in use for crime.

For pure killing efficiency, a centerfire rifle or bow/arrow are better offensive weapons.

I thought the whole point of the OP was to talk about cheap small handguns, and whether reducing access to them would reduce crime. Not about the killing efficiency of rifles vs. bow/arrow. Those two don't figure highly in crimes, do they?

Quote:

Handguns have two primary purposes:

1) Immediate defense
2) Concealable offense

I suggest that there are more good people in the world than bad people. If everyone carried a handgun for one of the two above purposes, guess what would be the end result? [/quote]

Wasn't there a town or somesuch in Florida or Texas somewhere where everyone is allowed to carry, and the crime rate dropped?

And I think there is a town in Michigan where they want to make a law that everyone must carry!

I'll see if I can find that.

Seems we have two philosophies here. One, ban handguns. The other, give everyone a handgun. Both believe that would reduce crime.

Interesting.

[Luke T.]

This is kind of funny.

Quote:

Guns Used in the Majority of U.S. Homicides

According to the government's most recent survey, a 2004 report from the Department of Justice, almost 450,000 victims of violent crimes that year said that they faced an offender with a firearm. Steve Inskeep reports on statistics about gun-related crimes.

NPR, May 30.

Quote:

Scottish Answer to Crime: Knife Control

In an effort to reduce the stabbings and slashings that stem from the country's "booze and blade" culture, Scotland is cracking down on the sale of swords, machetes, meat cleavers and other knifes. Knife violence accounts for almost half of the homicides in Scotland each year.

NPR, August 14.