I reckon we need more gun control laws. Seems around here the dope heads and thieves are getting low on potential sources of income that fight back and don't play fair. More government intervention will maybe give them an increase in income and make their "job" a lot easier and safer. I heard they were forming a union to justify tighter controls.
Getting Older and Changing Attitudes
- Thread starter jahwarrior
- Start date
- Status
MikeNice
Member
He didn't bash you. He simply replied with his opinion.
My opinion is that you need to do more research before making certain statements. America actually has a lower violent crime rate than many European countries and parts of Canada. In 2005 Scotland was considerred the most dangerous "developed" country in the world.
Brazil has a law that forbids selling handguns to any civilian and they have a higher gun crime rate than America. Hugo Chavez refuses to even let his country report the murder rate or gun crime rate. Despite amazingly strict laws (including bans in some areas) the crime rate has exploded during his tenure.
England still has over 7,000 firearm offenses per year. That is down from 10,000+ in the last reporting cycle. Their version of the "Unified Crime Report" stated that it was a reduction in the use of fake guns that changed the rate. In other words real guns are used in crimes 7,000 times a year despite the draconian restrictions they place on their "subjects." That doesn't include the increase in rape, sexual assault, assault, stabbings and other violent crimes.
Being informed goes a lot further than being opinionated. That is especially true when pouting and bad mouthing a highly respected moderator.
lizziedog1
Member
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I teach at a school for "bad" boys. When we discuss gun rights and the second amendment, they tell me it doesn't apply to them. On the streets they can get any gun they want, anytime they want.
The majority of our kids are under eighteen. Many of them are with us due to gun charges. Proof that gun laws are usless and worthless.
The majority of our kids are under eighteen. Many of them are with us due to gun charges. Proof that gun laws are usless and worthless.
OP
OP
jahwarrior
Member
i can attest to that. hell, when i was 16, i had no idea what the Second Amendment meant, besides being a part of the Bill of Rights. it's not something that discussed in detail in NYC public schools. all i knew was that if i wanted a gun for protection, all i had to do was talk to the Jamaican lady who owned the bakery down the street, and to bring money with me when i did.
Jonah71
Member
That is a very correct astute point of view. It may even deserve an "Amen!"
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not bashing at all, Dreamcast. Just pointing out some illogical notions here and wondering...given the gun laws already in effect...what would you have us do in order to quell the problem? Short of a complete ban, and shooting anyone caught with a gun...we've done about all that we can reasonably do.
Or, another way to look at it...
The only effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to keep them out of all hands...and even that won't work 100%.
Or, another way to look at it...
The only effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to keep them out of all hands...and even that won't work 100%.
JerryM
Member
From my youth I supported the 2A, and nearly all the time have belonged to the NRA. I cannot think of any change in my thinking.
I still think that the 2A is not without restrictions, and there are those who should not own or use firearms. I believe the restrictions regarding felons are good. Fully auto firearm restrictions are fine, and needed.
I believe that minimum age restrictions are needed, and that alcohol and guns do not mix.
So I have always believed those things, which most here will disagree with.
Regards,
Jerry
I still think that the 2A is not without restrictions, and there are those who should not own or use firearms. I believe the restrictions regarding felons are good. Fully auto firearm restrictions are fine, and needed.
I believe that minimum age restrictions are needed, and that alcohol and guns do not mix.
So I have always believed those things, which most here will disagree with.
Regards,
Jerry
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I absolutely believe in restricting gun sales to violent felons. I say "violent" because there are some truly silly infractions that can net you a felony rap.
But...
A law preventing felons from purchasing a gun from an FFL dealer won't keep said violent felon from getting a gun. It'll just keep him from getting one legally, and...as so many have noted...criminals don't pay much attention to laws. A criminal who wakes up on Saturday morning and decides that he wants a gun can probably have one before the sun goes down.
But...
A law preventing felons from purchasing a gun from an FFL dealer won't keep said violent felon from getting a gun. It'll just keep him from getting one legally, and...as so many have noted...criminals don't pay much attention to laws. A criminal who wakes up on Saturday morning and decides that he wants a gun can probably have one before the sun goes down.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
JerryM Said:
Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?
Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
@1911Tuner
A lot of guns are brought across the borders. I think if we were to improve border integrity, increase the mean population's educated level, maybe the severity of violent crime would be reduced, and it would become less of an issue.
I think, IMHO, that poor, unemployed are more likely to commit crime, and that we treat crime too softly. Two options here, increase the education level or make it more costly to commit crime.
I think, however total anarchy of guns is plain stupid, because in Coban, Guatemala, almost everyone I saw had some rifle, to defend themselves against drug cartels. In Coban, for the week I was there over 60 people were killed, 55 of them civilians. There were two major shootouts between criminals in the hills north of the city resulting in multiple military and police casualties. Armoured cars are more common than cars in the city and every bank has 4 guards, two with M16A2s and two with Mossbergs. Gun laws are in place but not enforced, because many local police themselves cannot enforce laws that must be followed for survival...
I personally am thankful that I live in a developed nation where it is nowhere near as dangerous.
A lot of guns are brought across the borders. I think if we were to improve border integrity, increase the mean population's educated level, maybe the severity of violent crime would be reduced, and it would become less of an issue.
I think, IMHO, that poor, unemployed are more likely to commit crime, and that we treat crime too softly. Two options here, increase the education level or make it more costly to commit crime.
I think, however total anarchy of guns is plain stupid, because in Coban, Guatemala, almost everyone I saw had some rifle, to defend themselves against drug cartels. In Coban, for the week I was there over 60 people were killed, 55 of them civilians. There were two major shootouts between criminals in the hills north of the city resulting in multiple military and police casualties. Armoured cars are more common than cars in the city and every bank has 4 guards, two with M16A2s and two with Mossbergs. Gun laws are in place but not enforced, because many local police themselves cannot enforce laws that must be followed for survival...
I personally am thankful that I live in a developed nation where it is nowhere near as dangerous.
Steve CT
Member
This is probably going to be unpopular, but:
1) I am OK that not just anyone can legally purchase a firearm, especially a handgun, in my state, Half an hour watching the "shoppers" at the firearms counter of the local Cabela's is proof enough for me.
2) The person who wants a firearm to commit a crime will not be bound by the legalities of acquiring a firearm, and unfortunately the consequences for the illegal use of firearms are far too lax.
3) If I am a law abiding citizen, there should be no unreasonable restriction on my ownership of firearms. I know the definition of "reasonable" will always be difficult, but a full auto firearm is not inherently any more dangerous than a semi auto.
4) Firearms safety should be a required subject in school, in the same way that "health" safety is mandatory.
I don't have a perfect answer, and I'm not sure one exists.
1) I am OK that not just anyone can legally purchase a firearm, especially a handgun, in my state, Half an hour watching the "shoppers" at the firearms counter of the local Cabela's is proof enough for me.
2) The person who wants a firearm to commit a crime will not be bound by the legalities of acquiring a firearm, and unfortunately the consequences for the illegal use of firearms are far too lax.
3) If I am a law abiding citizen, there should be no unreasonable restriction on my ownership of firearms. I know the definition of "reasonable" will always be difficult, but a full auto firearm is not inherently any more dangerous than a semi auto.
4) Firearms safety should be a required subject in school, in the same way that "health" safety is mandatory.
I don't have a perfect answer, and I'm not sure one exists.
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
^ Not at all I think thats a well rounded opinion. BTW welcome as I havent seen you here
I think point 4 is valid. Education of safe handling would prevent children from unintentionally discharging parent firearms.
I think point 4 is valid. Education of safe handling would prevent children from unintentionally discharging parent firearms.
JerryM
Member
Hi Owen,
It is my view that if fully auto weapons were easy and legal to obtain the gang bangers would have them in large numbers.
Yes, one can get them illegally, but they do not seem to be readily available or too expensive for the gang bangers.
One can make all sorts of arguments, but that is my view. I do agree that one might fun to shoot, but I see no particular useful purpose, but instead the gangs and drive by shootings with full auto would be common, and they are not today.
I do not think they are needed for SD.
Regards,
Jerry
It is my view that if fully auto weapons were easy and legal to obtain the gang bangers would have them in large numbers.
Yes, one can get them illegally, but they do not seem to be readily available or too expensive for the gang bangers.
One can make all sorts of arguments, but that is my view. I do agree that one might fun to shoot, but I see no particular useful purpose, but instead the gangs and drive by shootings with full auto would be common, and they are not today.
I do not think they are needed for SD.
Regards,
Jerry
Sam Cade
Member
Your house weapon of choice is of course a J.C Higgins 20ga single barrel break down? It is all that is needed.
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
I personally would go with a short barreled S12 and 10 round mag, buck and ball.
Sam Cade
Member
You are ok with a 5 round magazine limit on modern rifles?
In Hong Kong you can get 15 years or so for possession of a Red Ryder BB gun.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Quote:
>A lot of guns are brought across the borders.<
Oh. Guns are being illegally brought into the US from Mexico and Canada...
Hmm...
Now, that's an interesting theory. Care to expound?
+1 on securing the borders, though.
Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.
>A lot of guns are brought across the borders.<
Oh. Guns are being illegally brought into the US from Mexico and Canada...
Hmm...
Now, that's an interesting theory. Care to expound?
+1 on securing the borders, though.
Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
@Sam
For all the benefits on living in Canada I have no problem. Guns are far from the top of my list of priorities. And that 5 round limit is only on semi autos, most of mine are bolt action anyways, and if I want more just get a Garand. The US is becoming far too politically minded and cities here are becoming extremely dangerous at night. See previous post regarding vancouver's safety at night.
@1911Tuner
I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized.
The AKM and the MP5Ks were not registered, and it was concluded that they may have originated in Mexico.
Note when I mean secure borders I don't mean anti immigrant, we need good workers like them but they definitely need to become lawful green card holders or citizens.
For all the benefits on living in Canada I have no problem. Guns are far from the top of my list of priorities. And that 5 round limit is only on semi autos, most of mine are bolt action anyways, and if I want more just get a Garand. The US is becoming far too politically minded and cities here are becoming extremely dangerous at night. See previous post regarding vancouver's safety at night.
@1911Tuner
I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized.
The AKM and the MP5Ks were not registered, and it was concluded that they may have originated in Mexico.
Note when I mean secure borders I don't mean anti immigrant, we need good workers like them but they definitely need to become lawful green card holders or citizens.
JerryM
Member
Hi 1911,
[Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.]
Maybe, but I do not remember of a full auto being used in my area, and I live about 50 miles from the border. We can always make an argument about criminals getting guns, and they can, but I am not aware of any full auto weapons being used by local gang bangers.
For me there is a trade off as to usefulness and criminal use. I consider that the negative side greatly overshadows the unlimited ownership side.
I realize we will disagree, but that is my view.
Thanks for the reply.
Jerry
[Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.]
Maybe, but I do not remember of a full auto being used in my area, and I live about 50 miles from the border. We can always make an argument about criminals getting guns, and they can, but I am not aware of any full auto weapons being used by local gang bangers.
For me there is a trade off as to usefulness and criminal use. I consider that the negative side greatly overshadows the unlimited ownership side.
I realize we will disagree, but that is my view.
Thanks for the reply.
Jerry
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Quote:
>>I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized. <<
Well, yeah. I guess that people who have 200 million worth of pot in the field can afford those kinds of weapons. Your average teenage gang banger can't.
And Los Zetas is importing FA weapons on what scale? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? A few automatic weapons for specialized use hardly constitutes a mass influx.
There's a lot of widespread misunderstanding concerning hand-held full auto weapons...held mainly by people who don't understand them, and have never actually used them.
In untrained hands, they're not all that effective. Even in trained hands, they're limited on what they can accomplish unless you herd people into an enclosure and pack'em together like sardines before you open up.
Wielded by an individual, they're mostly used for suppressive/indirect fire or for breaking up concentrations of people who are getting together to mount an assault. For general slugging it out...they suck pretty bad in the deadly department. Of course, there's something to be said for hosing down an area and hitting non combatants safely asleep in their beds ...but there's still more air out there than there is meat.
Aimed fire is far more of a threat to those whom you choose to kill. There were some very good reasons that most of the M14s that were used in the early days of our involvement in Vietnam had the selector locks installed for general issue.
>>I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized. <<
Well, yeah. I guess that people who have 200 million worth of pot in the field can afford those kinds of weapons. Your average teenage gang banger can't.
And Los Zetas is importing FA weapons on what scale? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? A few automatic weapons for specialized use hardly constitutes a mass influx.
There's a lot of widespread misunderstanding concerning hand-held full auto weapons...held mainly by people who don't understand them, and have never actually used them.
In untrained hands, they're not all that effective. Even in trained hands, they're limited on what they can accomplish unless you herd people into an enclosure and pack'em together like sardines before you open up.
Wielded by an individual, they're mostly used for suppressive/indirect fire or for breaking up concentrations of people who are getting together to mount an assault. For general slugging it out...they suck pretty bad in the deadly department. Of course, there's something to be said for hosing down an area and hitting non combatants safely asleep in their beds ...but there's still more air out there than there is meat.
Aimed fire is far more of a threat to those whom you choose to kill. There were some very good reasons that most of the M14s that were used in the early days of our involvement in Vietnam had the selector locks installed for general issue.
Sam Cade
Member
Which cities are those, specifically?
Violent crime has been going down in the US for decades.
I remember that story....and it doesn't match what you just said. At all.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08172010/569077
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
For the record...
I believe that a minimum age requirement for unsupervised possession and use is okay...but there was a time that it didn't really hold. I remember heading off into the woods with a .22 in pursuit of squirrel stew when I was 10 years old...and nobody thought a thing of it when they saw me walking down the road with a rifle.
I absolutely believe that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.
The "No guns for Felons" law is fine, but it's pure PR, and doesn't work. You can't legislate those things that people are determined to have or do. There's a list of street drugs and controlled pharmaceutical substances that are illegal to have and hold...but that doesn't stop people any more than the Volstead Act stopped people from drinking.
It's feel good legislation designed to make people feel that they government is doing something. The plain truth is that it just isn't, and more laws won't change a thing.
Remember the '94 assault weapon ban when magazines greater than 10 rounds couldn't be sold to the general public? I saw more 20 and 30-round magazines change hands during that period than ever. The only thing that the law changed was the prices.
I believe that a minimum age requirement for unsupervised possession and use is okay...but there was a time that it didn't really hold. I remember heading off into the woods with a .22 in pursuit of squirrel stew when I was 10 years old...and nobody thought a thing of it when they saw me walking down the road with a rifle.
I absolutely believe that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.
The "No guns for Felons" law is fine, but it's pure PR, and doesn't work. You can't legislate those things that people are determined to have or do. There's a list of street drugs and controlled pharmaceutical substances that are illegal to have and hold...but that doesn't stop people any more than the Volstead Act stopped people from drinking.
It's feel good legislation designed to make people feel that they government is doing something. The plain truth is that it just isn't, and more laws won't change a thing.
Remember the '94 assault weapon ban when magazines greater than 10 rounds couldn't be sold to the general public? I saw more 20 and 30-round magazines change hands during that period than ever. The only thing that the law changed was the prices.
I never saw anything wrong with education programs as a requirement for getting concealed carry permits. Here in NY we implemented that step, then the local judge limited the number of spaces that were available in the training programs. Needless to say, that gave him the reason he wanted to decline to approve permits. He hid behind the excuse that education was important to anyone who wanted to own handguns. Too much dishonesty. You can't believe anything these people are telling you.
As far as the previous posts not "matching". I think people get into writing with Google searches. Then attempt to match the findings with what point they are trying to make. Lots of times it doesn't work.
As far as the previous posts not "matching". I think people get into writing with Google searches. Then attempt to match the findings with what point they are trying to make. Lots of times it doesn't work.
Charleo0192
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 182
I have to disagree. If everyone, or a good majority, owned a firearm and were allowed to carry it around, I think you'd see a lot less violence. People tend to think their actions over much more when they have something riding on the line, especially their life.
In my opinion, as long as another person has a gun, I want one too. Even if the world were so lucky or unlucky to have no guns, which ever way you see it, I'd still want one just because I enjoy shooting them.
sorry if I got to off topic, I just felt I had to comment on this.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
JerryM,
Your philosophy seems to be based in the collectivist method of treating EVERYBODY like a criminal gang banger in order to control the lowest common denominator. If you want to use that method to keep guns out of the hands of the typical gang member why not just make it illegal for all minorities to own guns? Or all males under 40 from owning guns? Or all people who make less than 50K a year or don’t have a college degree from owning guns?
But that would be unfair to the majority of individuals who fit this profile but never would use a gun in a crime right?
Machine gun laws are no different. They treat the otherwise law abiding citizen as a criminal before the fact based on the potential to commit crime simply for possessing a tool.
Our system of justice is supposed to be based on the presumption of innocents with the burden of proof on the accuser. Gun laws presume guilt based on potential for future criminal action with the burden of proof placed on the innocent. In other words, a person with some unapproved type of gun is considered a criminal because of what he MIGHT do with it. Would you want someone locked up for being black, Hispanic, young, poor or male because they fit the profile of a gang member and MIGHT become one?
No?
Then why would you advocate locking up people for having a full-auto firearm because it fits the profile of a “gangster weapon”? Crime is an ACTION, not a tool and people should be presumed innocent until their actions prove otherwise.
Your philosophy seems to be based in the collectivist method of treating EVERYBODY like a criminal gang banger in order to control the lowest common denominator. If you want to use that method to keep guns out of the hands of the typical gang member why not just make it illegal for all minorities to own guns? Or all males under 40 from owning guns? Or all people who make less than 50K a year or don’t have a college degree from owning guns?
But that would be unfair to the majority of individuals who fit this profile but never would use a gun in a crime right?
Machine gun laws are no different. They treat the otherwise law abiding citizen as a criminal before the fact based on the potential to commit crime simply for possessing a tool.
Our system of justice is supposed to be based on the presumption of innocents with the burden of proof on the accuser. Gun laws presume guilt based on potential for future criminal action with the burden of proof placed on the innocent. In other words, a person with some unapproved type of gun is considered a criminal because of what he MIGHT do with it. Would you want someone locked up for being black, Hispanic, young, poor or male because they fit the profile of a gang member and MIGHT become one?
No?
Then why would you advocate locking up people for having a full-auto firearm because it fits the profile of a “gangster weapon”? Crime is an ACTION, not a tool and people should be presumed innocent until their actions prove otherwise.
- Status
Similar threads
