How would you control guns?

How should we regulate guns?

  • Total voters
    47
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
There are those among us who are desperate to redefine reality in order to suit their sensibilities or perceptions.
Indeed reality can be a major bitch to these hapless, misguided souls. :joint:




(Spearman’s rho equals -0.87, a strong negative correlation: more rifles, less homicide with rifles.)
Examining rates better compares growth in both gun ownership and population. The following graph compares the rate of victims shot with rifles (per 100,000 population) versus the rate of civilian rifle ownership (per 1,000 population for a more usable number). The rifle ownership rate increased 22% between 1991 and 2011, while the rifle homicide rate decreased 65%.

(Spearman’s rho equals -0.89, a strong negative correlation: higher rifle ownership, lower rifle homicide rate.)
In terms of crime data, the effective years for the Clinton “assault weapons” ban (banning scary-looking semi-automatic rifles) were 1995 through 2004. (September 13, 1994, was the enactment date, including over two-thirds of the FBI’s 1994 crime data; same for the sunset year, September 13, 2004.)
Focusing only on the three years following the ban’s sunset — and ignoring two spikes during the ban plus the increased rate right before the ban’s end — might make a case to low-information voters that the gun ban worked. But the longer the trend, the more reliable the result. Looking at time periods before, during, and after the Clinton ban show its questionable impact on murderers using rifles: While rifle homicide rates declined 45% during the 10-year ban period, they continued declining 31% during the 7-year post-ban period (see table below).

There’s no evidence gun bans work. The National Gang Crime Research Center concluded: “Gang members were significantly more likely to report it has been easier since the Brady Bill went into effect to acquire illegal guns.” There’s no evidence a gun ban stymied them, either. Both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that the Clinton ban impacted crime.
Why, then, the sudden push to ban semi-automatic rifles?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Walter9999 said:
I voted to limit the type of weapon and by that I mean you can have as many "cap and ball" muskets as you want, just like the founders talked about. This bullshit with automatic weapons is not what the founders had in mind when they discussed the right to bare arms. Imo
Click to expand...
If the founders had meant cap and ball muskets then they could have specified that in the document.

However, they were not as stupid as you are and realized that weapons like everything else in life would advance based on technology. Which is why they did not specify anything and said specifically "arms"
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
bwest said:
Fully automatics are illegal.
Click to expand...
FYI Full autos are not illegal. All one needs to do is pay the fee and do the paperwork and buy the gun. The problem is that government meddling has created ordinary "Legal" full autos that now sell for $20,000 a pop.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Walter9999 said:
I voted to limit the type of weapon and by that I mean you can have as many "cap and ball" muskets as you want, just like the founders talked about. This bullshit with automatic weapons is not what the founders had in mind when they discussed the right to bare arms. Imo
Click to expand...
No they had the foresight not to limit it by some definition. We have right to arm ourselves to the custom of the day.

Do you really think the Framers of this system thought that "arms" technology was stalled forever.

The Agenda has you by the throat. You need to breath. My dear fellow, think about it. The arms race was on. It wasn't the musket that that won the Revolution, it was superior tactics, a hardass will vs a waning one, and a new weapon, the squirrel rife. Death from afar.

And of course, cap and ball was not invented, so your argument is a flash in the pan. (sorry, cn, I couldn't resist)
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
I say limit ammo. Looking at this argument with a neutral view. If i was a political leader and had to make a regulation for gun safety i would definitely limit ammo.

1.) NRA and constitutional die-hards have no counter argument. There is nothing in the constitution about right to bear ammo. (unless they interpreted that directly, but hey? they had to make their own lead balls at the time)
2.) everyone can still keep their arms, People who claim they shoot for sport will have unlimited access at shooting ranges. If you need a whole box of ammo to hunt then you should work on your aim.
3.) Regulation of FMJ, Armour piercing, and obscenely hot rounds meant for combat should be controlled
4.) waiting period for ordering ammo which may indirectly give an unstable person some time to rethink their impulsive thoughts.

I just think ammo regulations can side step the whole argument being put up by gun enthusiast.

Also no restriction limit for people creating their own ammunition.( to counter people that say a gun is not an arm unless it has ammo) If they know enough to manufacturer their own ammo I feel they are wise enough about gun safety. But a certification / license could be helpful here to make sure no one is making rounds so hot they blow themselves up.
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
FYI Full autos are not illegal. All one needs to do is pay the fee and do the paperwork and buy the gun. The problem is that government meddling has created ordinary "Legal" full autos that now sell for $20,000 a pop.
Click to expand...

yep, not illegal to own just to manufacture. And the seller must have a special license . < basically just a huge tax for the government


my buddy told me about this site

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/

said they sell ammo buy the 5 gallon bucket. That many .22 would last forever.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
I say limit ammo. Looking at this argument with a neutral view. If i was a political leader and had to make a regulation for gun safety i would definitely limit ammo.

1.) NRA and constitutional die-hards have no counter argument. There is nothing in the constitution about right to bear ammo. (unless they interpreted that directly, but hey? they had to make their own lead balls at the time)
2.) everyone can still keep their arms, People who claim they shoot for sport will have unlimited access at shooting ranges. If you need a whole box of ammo to hunt then you should work on your aim.
3.) Regulation of FMJ, Armour piercing, and obscenely hot rounds meant for combat should be controlled
4.) waiting period for ordering ammo which may indirectly give an unstable person some time to rethink their impulsive thoughts.

I just think ammo regulations can side step the whole argument being put up by gun enthusiast.

Also no restriction limit for people creating their own ammunition.( to counter people that say a gun is not an arm unless it has ammo) If they know enough to manufacturer their own ammo I feel they are wise enough about gun safety. But a certification / license could be helpful here to make sure no one is making rounds so hot they blow themselves up.
Click to expand...
Yes, this certainly would protect the citizens from government tyranny.... Oh wait...

This makes as much sense as Chesus, legal to grow, illegal to sell idea.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
I said from a neutral view

just trying to add to the op's wishes
Click to expand...
You are biased against stupid and poor people who cannot figure out how to go to the internet and learn how to make bullets and/or buy the equipment necessary to do so.

Mabye to add to your idea we make the info about how to make bullets illegal eh? Start an internet campaign to stamp out this knowledge.

The government will have a fucking field day with your ideas.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
I say limit ammo. Looking at this argument with a neutral view. If i was a political leader and had to make a regulation for gun safety i would definitely limit ammo.

1.) NRA and constitutional die-hards have no counter argument. There is nothing in the constitution about right to bear ammo. (unless they interpreted that directly, but hey? they had to make their own lead balls at the time)
2.) everyone can still keep their arms, People who claim they shoot for sport will have unlimited access at shooting ranges. If you need a whole box of ammo to hunt then you should work on your aim.
3.) Regulation of FMJ, Armour piercing, and obscenely hot rounds meant for combat should be controlled
4.) waiting period for ordering ammo which may indirectly give an unstable person some time to rethink their impulsive thoughts.

I just think ammo regulations can side step the whole argument being put up by gun enthusiast.

Also no restriction limit for people creating their own ammunition.( to counter people that say a gun is not an arm unless it has ammo) If they know enough to manufacturer their own ammo I feel they are wise enough about gun safety. But a certification / license could be helpful here to make sure no one is making rounds so hot they blow themselves up.
Click to expand...
How to form Militia if we don't have no bullets?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
By the way Ryan... I am not a gun enthusiast. I am a person that believes I have the right to defend myself and my family if and when the government cannot do it.

And therefore, any actions which abridge that right I will fight against tooth and nail. The assault weapon ban demonstrably did not work. It was repealed and now there is a suggestion for an even stricter ban.

I dont trust the government to protect me and that is where the issue arises about limiting my own ability to do it.

In the recent shootings the government FAILED to protect the people.... that is the problem, not the availability of guns. Why dont we address government incompetence?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
In the absence of evidence is one thing, but now there is solid statistics about how useful, day to day, guns are.
Rights will trump rules every time. We know the crime rates and the other facts that are ignored.

All that is coming out of this is a ban on a certain type of weapon. Who are we kidding besides ourselves?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
RyanTheRhino said:
I say limit ammo. Looking at this argument with a neutral view. If i was a political leader and had to make a regulation for gun safety i would definitely limit ammo.

1.) NRA and constitutional die-hards have no counter argument. There is nothing in the constitution about right to bear ammo. (unless they interpreted that directly, but hey? they had to make their own lead balls at the time)
Click to expand...
Morton Grove tried this in IL. It was found uncosntitutional. Also, how can you argue that starving guns is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment? What use is keeping&bearing an arm that won't operate?
2.) everyone can still keep their arms, People who claim they shoot for sport will have unlimited access at shooting ranges. If you need a whole box of ammo to hunt then you should work on your aim.
Click to expand...
And who decided that only shooting for sport is good/approved?
3.) Regulation of FMJ, Armour piercing, and obscenely hot rounds meant for combat should be controlled
Obscenely hot? What is that?
4.) waiting period for ordering ammo which may indirectly give an unstable person some time to rethink their impulsive thoughts.

I just think ammo regulations can side step the whole argument being put up by gun enthusiast.

Also no restriction limit for people creating their own ammunition.( to counter people that say a gun is not an arm unless it has ammo) If they know enough to manufacturer their own ammo I feel they are wise enough about gun safety. But a certification / license could be helpful here to make sure no one is making rounds so hot they blow themselves up.
Click to expand...
Why support or condone any sort of prohibition? cn
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
In the absence of evidence is one thing, but now there is solid statistics about how useful, day to day, guns are.
Rights will trump rules every time. We know the crime rates and the other facts that are ignored.

All that is coming out of this is a ban on a certain type of weapon. Who are we kidding besides ourselves?
Click to expand...
The Ratchet operates in defiance of the bolded. I cannot point to one country that, once it banned guns, un-banned them. cn
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
said they sell ammo buy the 5 gallon bucket. That many .22 would last forever.
Click to expand...
a 5 gallon bucket of .22 would last 2 weeks around here. When I am plinking, 10,000-20,000 rounds a day are very easy to accomplish. Just to break in my last SIG Sauer Mosquito took 5,000 rounds and I did that in a couple of hours. The SIG Mosquito is a POS BTW.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
thank goodness for AR15s with 120 round drums you don't know how often i am walking to the store and get ambushed by several dozen armed interlopers coming to take my life seems like it happens every day or every other day at least so therefore i carry my AR15 with my 120 round drum and if you try to make it so that i have to reload between taking out my enemies en masse you are taking away my rights and constitution *constitution it's not right unless i am able to shoot off my 100+ rounds before reloading and even that is stretching it i can afford thousands of dollars worth of firepower to vanquish my enemies daily.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
thank goodness for AR15s with 120 round drums you don't know how often i am walking to the store and get ambushed by several dozen armed interlopers coming to take my life seems like it happens every day or every other day at least so therefore i carry my AR15 with my 120 round drum and if you try to make it so that i have to reload between taking out my enemies en masse you are taking away my rights and constitution *constitution it's not right unless i am able to shoot off my 100+ rounds before reloading and even that is stretching it i can afford thousands of dollars worth of firepower to vanquish my enemies daily.
Click to expand...
ARs only used to cost several hundred, then Obama came and now they sell for 4 times what we paid for them. I sold some guns yesterday and made $8,900 in profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top