Gun Control - Whoop de Doo

lasposa425

I know I'm beating a dead hors, but Please watch this:

 

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo?xrs=synd_twitter

vlagrl29

that made me laugh especially at the end when it kept being turned around on him. "doh"

missymo

I know you're preaching to the choir with me, but I loved it.

MommyLiberty5013

I couldn't watch the whole thing...I was too embarassed for that man.

Waiting periods and background checks do make sense to me.

I just don't think limiting magazine capacities and weapon types makes sense (once you pass your background check and have waited the set time).

Here's why...

I'll give an example. On a hand gun that has a magazine (for the non-familiar, the magazine slides up into the handle of the firearm and clicks into place), there is a tiny button or lever to release the magazine once it is empty. It slides out on its own when the button is pressed and falls out and away from the weapon.

All a shooter has to do is grab another preloaded magazine in the non gun holding hand, shove it into the base of the gun's handle, it clicks into place, and the shooter can fire rounds.

This whole process (pressing button, empty magazine falls away, pop new magazine in) takes MAYBE 3 seconds, probably more like 2 seconds.

Real world example...VA Tech Shooting. Cho, the shooter, used only 2 hand guns. One of the guns, a Walther P22 Semi-Automatic, had a 10 round magazine capacity. He had nearly 400 rounds of ammunitition between the two firearms.

Obviously, he was adept at reloading.

Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold doesn't make sense when a person can have a dozen preloaded magazines.

Let's say I have 3 magazines that carry 15 rounds each. To fire all 45 rounds, I'd have to reload twice (assuming my gun is preloaded, which it would be if I were a shooter). That would cost me 4-6 seconds.

But what if I have a limit on my magazine capacity and I can only get my hands on magazines carrying 10 rounds each. To acheive a firing of 45 rounds, I'd need a total of 5, 10 round magazines. Assuming a preloaded gun, I would have to reload my weapon 4 times. And that would cost me about 8-12 seconds.

And...regarding firearms themselves...

Semi-automatic-only rifles, like the AR-15, that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire.

Please read the above paragraph carefully. An, AR-15 (probably the most popular hunting and sporting rifle) is semi-automatic and is not an assault rifle.

It only fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. ONE round. It is not a "machine gun" that fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled.

But, there is a lot of confusion in the media (propagating misinformation [shocking, I know]), about this fact.

Banning this weapon takes a viable hunting and sporting weapon away from people who legitimately need/use it.

In addition, this weapon was banned in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban. Columbine happened in 1999. The shooters used 2 shot guns and 2 hand guns...all four were non-banned weapons.

My point is that where there is a will, there is a way. Shooters intent on doing evil, will do so and will do it with the non-banned weapons they can get their hands on, like at Columbine.

All banning a weapon brand/make/model does is remove a legitimate source of protection, recreation, and livelihood from the hands of people.

lasposa425

You didn't watch the whole thing but expect me to read your novel? . I kid of course.  You and I are on the same page re checks and waiting periods. I get your other argument on bans.  Disagree with it but I understand your pov.

bellaleanne

MommyLiberty5013:

I couldn't watch the whole thing...I was too embarassed for that man.

Waiting periods and background checks do make sense to me.

I just don't think limiting magazine capacities and weapon types makes sense (once you pass your background check and have waited the set time).

Here's why...

I'll give an example. On a hand gun that has a magazine (for the non-familiar, the magazine slides up into the handle of the firearm and clicks into place), there is a tiny button or lever to release the magazine once it is empty. It slides out on its own when the button is pressed and falls out and away from the weapon.

All a shooter has to do is grab another preloaded magazine in the non gun holding hand, shove it into the base of the gun's handle, it clicks into place, and the shooter can fire rounds.

This whole process (pressing button, empty magazine falls away, pop new magazine in) takes MAYBE 3 seconds, probably more like 2 seconds.

Real world example...VA Tech Shooting. Cho, the shooter, used only 2 hand guns. One of the guns, a Walther P22 Semi-Automatic, had a 10 round magazine capacity. He had nearly 400 rounds of ammunitition between the two firearms.

Obviously, he was adept at reloading.

Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold doesn't make sense when a person can have a dozen preloaded magazines.

Let's say I have 3 magazines that carry 15 rounds each. To fire all 45 rounds, I'd have to reload twice (assuming my gun is preloaded, which it would be if I were a shooter). That would cost me 4-6 seconds.

But what if I have a limit on my magazine capacity and I can only get my hands on magazines carrying 10 rounds each. To acheive a firing of 45 rounds, I'd need a total of 5, 10 round magazines. Assuming a preloaded gun, I would have to reload my weapon 4 times. And that would cost me about 8-12 seconds.

And...regarding firearms themselves...

Semi-automatic-only rifles, like the AR-15, that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire.

Please read the above paragraph carefully. An, AR-15 (probably the most popular hunting and sporting rifle) is semi-automatic and is not an assault rifle.

It only fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. ONE round. It is not a "machine gun" that fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled.

But, there is a lot of confusion in the media (propagating misinformation [shocking, I know]), about this fact.

Banning this weapon takes a viable hunting and sporting weapon away from people who legitimately need/use it.

In addition, this weapon was banned in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban. Columbine happened in 1999. The shooters used 2 shot guns and 2 hand guns...all four were non-banned weapons.

My point is that where there is a will, there is a way. Shooters intent on doing evil, will do so and will do it with the non-banned weapons they can get their hands on, like at Columbine.

All banning a weapon brand/make/model does is remove a legitimate source of protection, recreation, and livelihood from the hands of people.

Just have to say I agree with you. 

The more I have learned about "assault rifles," the less I am on board with a ban.

But background checks and waiting periods are a great idea.

I think that if people understand more about these types of guns they will understand that they're not much different from handguns, and are used in crime far less frequently than handguns. 

I'm one of those people who looks at the statistics and can't help but recognize that owning a gun makes you much more likely to become a victim of gun violence. But that's why I don't want a gun...that's a personal decision, and I hope that all gun owners understand that risk. But everyone has the right to make that decision for themselves.

MrsGoodkat

Even though I am for a ban on certain assault weapons, I would be okay if it never got passed. I will continue to fight for background checks, though.

lasposa425

ML - I have a question.  I hear this argument a lot re limiting magazine capacities.  You wrote:

"Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold doesn't make sense when a person can have a dozen preloaded magazines.

Let's say I have 3 magazines that carry 15 rounds each. To fire all 45 rounds, I'd have to reload twice (assuming my gun is preloaded, which it would be if I were a shooter). That would cost me 4-6 seconds.

But what if I have a limit on my magazine capacity and I can only get my hands on magazines carrying 10 rounds each. To achieve a firing of 45 rounds, I'd need a total of 5, 10 round magazines. Assuming a preloaded gun, I would have to reload my weapon 4 times. And that would cost me about 8-12 seconds."

Do you have any stats on how many times that actually happens in a home protection situation in states or places where there is such a ban on high capacity magazines? I'm not being facetious, I'm actually curious how many times that actually happens because it seems to be such a concern for many gun advocates.

GeraldoRivera

MommyLiberty5013:

I couldn't watch the whole thing...I was too embarassed for that man.

Waiting periods and background checks do make sense to me.

I just don't think limiting magazine capacities and weapon types makes sense (once you pass your background check and have waited the set time).

Here's why...

I'll give an example. On a hand gun that has a magazine (for the non-familiar, the magazine slides up into the handle of the firearm and clicks into place), there is a tiny button or lever to release the magazine once it is empty. It slides out on its own when the button is pressed and falls out and away from the weapon.

All a shooter has to do is grab another preloaded magazine in the non gun holding hand, shove it into the base of the gun's handle, it clicks into place, and the shooter can fire rounds.

This whole process (pressing button, empty magazine falls away, pop new magazine in) takes MAYBE 3 seconds, probably more like 2 seconds.

Real world example...VA Tech Shooting. Cho, the shooter, used only 2 hand guns. One of the guns, a Walther P22 Semi-Automatic, had a 10 round magazine capacity. He had nearly 400 rounds of ammunitition between the two firearms.

Obviously, he was adept at reloading.

Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold doesn't make sense when a person can have a dozen preloaded magazines.

Let's say I have 3 magazines that carry 15 rounds each. To fire all 45 rounds, I'd have to reload twice (assuming my gun is preloaded, which it would be if I were a shooter). That would cost me 4-6 seconds.

But what if I have a limit on my magazine capacity and I can only get my hands on magazines carrying 10 rounds each. To acheive a firing of 45 rounds, I'd need a total of 5, 10 round magazines. Assuming a preloaded gun, I would have to reload my weapon 4 times. And that would cost me about 8-12 seconds.

And...regarding firearms themselves...

Semi-automatic-only rifles, like the AR-15, that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire.

Please read the above paragraph carefully. An, AR-15 (probably the most popular hunting and sporting rifle) is semi-automatic and is not an assault rifle.

It only fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. ONE round. It is not a "machine gun" that fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled.

But, there is a lot of confusion in the media (propagating misinformation [shocking, I know]), about this fact.

Banning this weapon takes a viable hunting and sporting weapon away from people who legitimately need/use it.

In addition, this weapon was banned in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban. Columbine happened in 1999. The shooters used 2 shot guns and 2 hand guns...all four were non-banned weapons.

My point is that where there is a will, there is a way. Shooters intent on doing evil, will do so and will do it with the non-banned weapons they can get their hands on, like at Columbine.

All banning a weapon brand/make/model does is remove a legitimate source of protection, recreation, and livelihood from the hands of people.

Real world example: Tuscon/Gabby Giffords shooting. The gunman had extended magazines and was able to fire off a lot of rounds before being stopped. But he was stopped not with guns by the three armed citizens in attendance, but by someone tackling him when he had to stop to reload.

It doesn't sound like it, but two or three seconds is an eternity in a situation like this. 

 

I am interested to know who legitimately NEEDS a 30 round magazine for hunting or self-defense. If you need more than 10 or 15 rounds to defend your home, you're doing something wrong. And if you need 30 rounds to go hunting, well, WTH kind of animals are you hunting?? 

I mean, really. Cops don't even carry those magazines. Why do civilians need them? 

GeraldoRivera

My point is that where there is a will, there is a way. Shooters intent on doing evil, will do so and will do it with the non-banned weapons they can get their hands on, like at Columbine.

So please explain to me why Australia has had ZERO mass shootings since they banned these weapons and has seen a 60% decline in the homicide rate. Please explain to me why other nations have the same (or even higher) rates of violent crime yet have extremely low gun homicides and gun crime. And why mass shootings at schools, houses of worship, movie theaters and shopping malls, etc. are once in a lifetime events for other developed nations, while they're once a month or once a week events here in the US? 

MommyLiberty5013

"AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009."

Whether or not you agree with the writer's position on gun bans versus no gun bans, the stats paint the picture.

In addition, this is from WND.com and was written in 2000.

"After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were
forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for
destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting
Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called ?assault? weapons or
military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort
cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association
representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer
country, the nation?s crime statistics tell a different story:

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed
  300 percent;
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been
  dropping steadily;
• There has been a reported ?dramatic increase? in home burglaries
  and assaults on the elderly.

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996
shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the
continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000
persons, ?a safe society by any standards,? said Tidswell. But such low
rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John
Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.

Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian
Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 ? a 200
percent increase.

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure
of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny
fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held
firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. ?In the State of
Queensland,? for example, the report said only ?80,000 guns have been
seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction.?

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns
collected came from licensed gun dealers.

Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The
report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, ?one type of
gun specifically targeted by the new law,? have been imported and sold
throughout the country..."

In addition, here are crime stats in the U.S. from 1960 through 2011. The source is the FBI, crime reports.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

It appears that the rate of violent crimes has actually been falling since 2006 in a steady manner and the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004. Also, murder rates have seen a marked decrease since 2006 as well. And, these murder rates have not been this low since around 1969!

GeraldoRivera

I am on my phone so I can't post links right now but needless to say, I don't consider FreeRepublic or WND to be especially reliable sources of information.

MommyLiberty5013

GeraldoRivera:

I am on my phone so I can't post links right now but needless to say, I don't consider FreeRepublic or WND to be especially reliable sources of information.

Fair enough. But, where did your stats come from?

MrsGoodkat

AprilH81:

Okay, IF a gun control bill passes and is signed into law and law abiding citizens turn in any guns that are now illegal, what happens to the criminals?  Do you think that they are suddenly going to say, "Wow, I shouldn't have this gun so I 'm going to give it to the police."  I doubt it.  Criminals don't CARE if the gun/magazine they have is illegal when they steal or kill.  They just want to make sure they have more firepower than their potential victim.  

The Bill of Rights guarantees US citizens the right to own guns. It does not give the government power to say under what circumstances we can have guns, or how much ammunition we can have.  Felons and the mentally ill are the only people who should be banned from owning firearms in my opinion.

AFAIK, if people already own the guns, they don't have to turn them in. At least that's how it is here with the new laws.

GeraldoRivera

Just going to take some of these one by one: 

  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Flat out not true: 

1995 Australian crime statistics: 

http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB2.pdf

Firearms were used in 31.8% of murders and 27.5% of murder attempts.

 

 

 

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

These are not "gun-involved crimes". And in fact:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by Subject/1301.0~2012~Main Features~National crime statistics~63

The majority of sexual assault (98%), kidnapping/abduction (89%) and robbery victims (61%) did not have a weapon used against them in the commission of the offence. 

 But besides that, it's not even accurate:

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf 

 The number of victims of robbery in 2010 is the lowest on record since 1996, with 14,582 victims. Robbery victim numbers peaked in 2001 with 26,591 victims.

? Sexual assault victim numbers have been decreasing since 2008, by approximately four percent per year.

 

It's also not true that "sexual assault" is the equivalent term for rape, because it includes ALL sexual assaults, while the US's rape statistics only include forcible rape. 

 

• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
  

No. Well maybe if you only go to 2007, but if you go to 2010, you'll see that robbery actually dropped about 11%.

• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

I didn't check this, although I think it's true - but the above statistic is just wrong, so comparing it makes not much sense.

• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

I would like to know where this rape statistic came from, since the Australian crime data I've found counts all sexual assaults (forcible rape, statutory rape, other sexual assault) into one category, while the FBI only counts forcible rapes. It's impossible to compare these two to each other.

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Up from when? At any rate, the gun ban was passed in 1995. In 1996 there were 354 homicides. Since then, the rate has declined fairly steadily, and 2010 there were 260.  That's a 27% decrease. 

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

This is true - assaults have increased.

 

• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent

Not true.

Robberies, both armed and unarmed, have decreased. There were 16,372 in 1996 and 14,582 in 2010.  

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed
  300 percent;

Nope. The last ten years of murder in Victoria:

table { }td { padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-left: 1px; color: windowtext; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; vertical-align: bottom; border: medium none; white-space: nowrap; }.xl63 { font-weight: 700; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; border-width: 1pt medium; border-style: solid none; border-color: windowtext -moz-use-text-color; }.xl64 { font-weight: 700; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; border-width: 1pt 0.5pt; border-style: solid; border-color: windowtext; }.xl65 { text-align: right; }.xl66 { }.xl67 { border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: windowtext -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; }.xl68 { font-weight: 700; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: windowtext -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; }.xl69 { text-align: right; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: windowtext -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; }.xl70 { font-weight: 700; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: left; border-width: 1pt medium; border-style: solid none; border-color: windowtext -moz-use-text-color; }

Descrip	Statutory Reference	2002/03	2003/04	2004/05	2005/06	2006/07	2007/08	2008/09	2009/10	2010/11	2011/12
MURDER		120	125	108	135	100	98	103	124	84	91

source: http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=782

Offences Recorded by Offence Code 10 Financial Years

 

 

 

• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been
  dropping steadily;

Not true.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4l8DHpupxGsJ:aic.gov.au/documents/6/B/1/%7B6B1709A3-F1A6-47BD-9D33-D31074FC0478%7Dti61.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjPzfOJfxBZ0wdOgaIrXpbl-qILb3ixC5eqWXl-hKM0ictesZ1cqWY4iIfYZcB4hw5MQlouM6DCdbDs2L7p2PTxg9l4zlP4qngByJQihmJxXaoXPBYid1V55alL1jL5CrNME91j&sig=AHIEtbRVvHFacHSCHp284W1cEwAg2SjKBg

 

• There has been a reported ?dramatic increase? in home burglaries
  and assaults on the elderly.

The burglary claim is simply not true. There were 402,079 UEWI (the technical term for burglaries) in 1996. In 2010 there were 216,886.

 source:

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996
shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the
continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000
persons, ?a safe society by any standards,? said Tidswell. But such low
rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John
Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.

Yeah, and? So they decided that having a low homicide rate didn't mean they shouldn't try to do better. And this is a problem why? Is the argument that it's OK to have SOME homicides? 

Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian
Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 ? a 200
percent increase.

Um, okay? So what? 

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure
of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny
fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

And even with that small fraction, the ban STILL had a significant impact on gun crime and homicides.  

 

There are more points I didn't get to address, but I have to go. 

sandsonik

MommyLiberty5013:

 

This whole process (pressing button, empty magazine falls away, pop new magazine in) takes MAYBE 3 seconds, probably more like 2 seconds.

 Assuming you have the next cartridge in your other hand or VERY accessible, like on the outside of your clothing.   It seems like a lot of shooters would need to be more discreet than that....

MommyLiberty5013:

Real world example...VA Tech Shooting. Cho, the shooter, used only 2 hand guns. One of the guns, a Walther P22 Semi-Automatic, had a 10 round magazine capacity. He had nearly 400 rounds of ammunitition between the two firearms.

Obviously, he was adept at reloading.

And obviously we have a ammunition control problem as much as a gun control problem.

I think Chris Rock is right.  Don't ban guns. Charge $5,000 a bullet.

No one should be able to stockpile 1,000 bullets.  People are so worried about their guns being registered, but maybe it should be the ammo buys that are registered, so when an Adam Lanza or James Holmes tries to buy 2200 bullets in a couple of months, alarms start blaring in the guns and ammo store.  Sorry kid, you've reached your limit - and we'll be giving the cops a notice to keep an eye out for you.