[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;32418901][img]http://media.stratfor.com/files/mmf/e/0/e0bfe1b7321eea34045f17ac73feb84593116b85.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth]Source[/url]
Of 30,000 firearms seized, only 7,200 were submitted to the BATFE to trace. The BATFE was only able to trace 4,000 of those submitted. Eighty seven percent of the firearms which were submitted to the BATFE that the BATFE was able to trace the origins of were traced back to the United States. That's 87% of 13% of all the firearms seized.
The way the media spun it made it sound as if 90% of firearms found in the hands of Mexican drug cartels when in reality it's not even close. If you want to find out who the cartel's largest supplier of firearms is, look to the Mexican government.[/QUOTE]
Again I've admitted that that figure is an overestimate. But I'll maintain that US supply is an important one probably the most important one.
[quote=Mexico’s Drug Trafficking Organizations: Source and Scope of the Rising Violence]A recent report maintains that from the start of the Calderón Administration until February 2010, the Mexican government seized approximately 80,000 illegal firearms, and of those the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives determined that approximately 80% (62,800 firearms) came from the United States.[/quote]
62,800 is a huge number what ever way you swing it.
[url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=flyschy;32421446]Again I've admitted that that figure is an overestimate. But I'll maintain that US supply is an important one probably the most important one.
62,800 is a huge number what ever way you swing it.
[url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf]Source.[/url][/QUOTE]Well, considering the cartels have been duking it out with automatic weapons, rocket launchers and other weapons that are difficult to obtain in the United States, I'm doubtful. Perhaps their raids on patrolling soldiers?
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/world/main6352799.shtml[/url]
They're also bold enough to attack army bases. NOT ONLY THAT, but I know for a fact getting grenades in the United States, legally or illegally, is almost impossible. Actually, you know what? It is impossible to get [i]sixty functional hand grenades[/i]. You'd be caught by the time you got 20 rounded up, murphy's law would come and kick your ass. That being said, I really don't think their more impressive hardware (the important hardware) is coming from here at all, it's a ridiculous notion.
I just don't see why someone of sound mind, with good intentions shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon. In Britain our firearms laws are mostly knee-jerk reactions, the Hungerford Massacre caused our government to ban semi-automatic centre-fire rifles, the Dunblane Massacre caused the ban on handguns (though we can still get revolvers with ridiculously long barrel's and I think vet's can get them for humane dispatch). While the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres were terrible things, you shouldn't be able to take away the privileges of the majority based on the actions of the minority.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32420894]Registration won't stop crime, if someone has a registered weapon of any kind and he wants to commit a crime, because he has it available, he'll use it. If a terrorist has or can easily get a legal explosive device, the fact that it's registered won't stop him from using it in a terrorist act, because the whole point of terrorism is to garner media attention in any possible way that will make people afraid, and if people are afraid everyone with a grenade launcher is going to blow up a school, then the terrorist did his job.[/QUOTE]
Well then you're ignorant. An impossibly small number of criminals are okay with being caught for their crime. The other 99.275% of them would prefer to not be caught. So using a weapon that is registered to them to commit the crime would be out of the question.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32421446]62,800 is a huge number what ever way you swing it.
[URL="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf"]Source.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Considering how very wrong they were about the 80% argument before, I'm not inclined to believe them this time around. And again, so far the BATFE is the largest supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32420664]When you say that something should not be legal, the implication is that it should be [i]il[/i]legal. You mentioned that these devices have no civilian use - so? When you make any kind of law restricting access to something in any way, the objective should be to reduce crime while protecting people's rights and well-being to the fullest extent. But destructive devices are not used in crime of any type. The only reason a person would have to restrict them is if that person is afraid of them.
The same goes for so-called "assault weapons." Assault weapons, as gun-control proponents define them, are used in less than 1% of gun-related crime in the United States. Yet they are always the first weapons to be targeted by gun-control legislation. This isn't a logical ban supported by statistics and reason - this is a fear-induced kneejerk reaction.
Laws should not ever be founded on paranoia - especially when they restrict people's civil liberties.[/QUOTE]
You're my new favorite poster.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;32424476]Well then you're ignorant. An impossibly small number of criminals are okay with being caught for their crime. The other 99.275% of them would prefer to not be caught. So using a weapon that is registered to them to commit the crime would be out of the question.
Considering how very wrong they were about the 80% argument before, I'm not inclined to believe them this time around. And again, so far the BATFE is the largest supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention a grenade launcher is impossibly large to conceal and honestly if you rob a store with a grenade launcher, there's probably not to many around, thus they'll be discovered.
The information I am about to provide is a paper solely through my own research for a history project on gun control I did a while back. Sorry about the pre-amble if it annoys you. Information is mixed between Canada and the United States of America. Some of the information may be outdated.
[quote]Gun control is also known as gun politics in which [i] “a set of legal issues surrounding the ownership, use, and regulation of firearms as well as safety issues related to firearms both through their direct use and through legal and criminal use.” [/i]
Gun politics can be broken down into different sectors, including: international, nation, state, community, individual, city, religious and corporate areas.
[Inter]national sovereignty, in which nations hold the power and the rights to police their own nations and protect their boundaries from surrounding nations. Nations that violate the code to arms control often face severe penalties.
Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) serves as the authorized law enforcer to investigate suspicion of weapon smuggling. Other national police and arm services, such as the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) who supports the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) to “aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the U.S. and used to commit acts of international terrorism…”
National legislation for Canada: Canada requires “all firearms to be registered with the Royal Canadian mounted Police and all firearm owners to be licensed with the Canadian Firearms Center.”
[b]Some History[/b]: Gun politics in Canada dates from the early days of Confederation, when Justices of the peace (‘a puisne (inferior) judicial officer appointed by means of commission to keep peace) could carry out charges to those who carried handguns with no reasonable charges.
Criminal Code of Canada amendments between 1890 and 1970 have increased gun control on firearms, while in the late 1970’s and the 1990’s, great changes in gun control occurred.
Canada’s law on gun control requires that a potential customer must be 18 years or older to purchase or maintain (legally) a firearm. A citizen of Canada who is younger than 18, but older than 12 may obtain a Minor’s License, which doesn’t allow them to purchase a firearm, but allows them to borrow a firearm unsupervised and purchase ammunition. Children under 12 years that are found to need a firearm in order to hunt or trap may also obtain a Minor’s License.
Removable bullpup (the actions and the magazine are located behind the trigger, allowing for increased barrel length, saving weight and increasing maneuverability) stocks are classified as prohibited (ie. Walther G22), which guns with an integrated bullpup (ie. PS-90 and IMI Tavor) are not subject to regulation.
As of January 1, 2001, all firearms in Canada must be registered with the Canadian gun registry.
To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearms, one must have a restricted license and be a member of a certified range.
Semi-automatics guns are subject to only carry 5 or 6 rounds, but the Lee Enfield and M1 Garand are exempt from this requirement.
Canada’s gun control laws also restrict the ability for security guards to be armed, except for those who are hired by armored car companies.[/quote]
Now we’re getting into studies at this point.
[quote]Over 5 million gun owning Canadians have not registered their firearms. A study in June 2000 showed that only 6.4 million Canadians registered their firearms, despite a 1974 estimate of over 10 million guns in Canada.
According to studies done violent crime increased significantly between 19xx and 1995 due largely to Bill 127, rather than to ???? ???? violent crime itself.
The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and since then has dropped in 1985 (2.xx per 100,000), 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) and 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. Considering this information, it is subject to believe that gun control in Canada and elsewhere have succeeded.
A study from ABC’s 20/20 shows Wikipedia another viewpoint in gun control in a segment called ‘Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime”.
“More guns lead to more violence,” says Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia. Tom Commerce believes otherwise; gun crime [he believes] has gone up since Washington’s Gun Law Pass…and he would be correct.
Since the actual bill passed in D.C., [b]the murder rate actually increased while America’s murder rate dropped.[/b]
The big controversial position on gun politics is that guns can also save lives, as shown by an example with Tom Commerce.
[quote] “We were walking down the street and this group of young men, they stood up, followed us and told us, “We’re going to kill you…” and “They’ll never find the bodies…” and I turned around and showed them my pistol…and merely having a weapon and being able to display it when I was threatened saved my life.” –Tom Commerce[/quote]
Most people would think that it’s illegal to carry guns around in America, but it’s not. Today, in America, in about 40 states, it IS LEGAL to carry around a concealed handgun [b]and statistics show that in those 40 states there is no more crime or violence than with states where guns are restricted.[/b]
The town of Kennesaw, Georgia went even further and passed a law REQUIRING ever household to have a gun. Statistics show that no increase in crime was ‘put forth’.
Lt. Craig Graydon of the Kennesaw Police Dept. states, [b]“After the ordinance was passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime, especially violent crime. Even townspeople say that they like the law and Kennesaw is a very peaceful place to be. “It makes people think twice before they make a decision.”[/b]
When interviewing maximum security prison mates, they fear an armed ‘victim’ much more than the police because “when you try to rob someone you don’t know, it makes it much harder.” Gun laws don’t even apply to them anyway, they don’t obey them.
[quote][b] “I’m not worried about the government sayin’ that I can’t carry a gun. I’ma carry a gun anyway.”[/b] –A Maximum Security Felon[/quote]
When robbers broke into an old couples home, Raymond yelled, “Get the gun! Get the gun!” Joyce did and when the robbers saw it, they ran away. Joyce says, [b] “Just having a gun changes the balance of power…”[/b]
Even a more controversial idea: some Virginia Tech. students say that they wish students are allowed to carry guns.
Five years ago at the Appalachian School of Law, that’s exactly what did happen. Hearing shots, 2 students ran to their cars, got their guns and helped restrain the shooter until the police arrived.
Tom Commerce says, [b] “One of the things a gun does is it equalizes ‘unequals.’”[/b]
Gun control isn’t actually crime control according to the National Academy of Science, who has reviewed hundreds of studied and [b] “could not document a SINGLE gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder.”[/b]
Tom Commerce gives us an example to roleplay: “Which would you rather have if someone breaks into your house? A handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want and they’ll get there…and they’ll take a picture of your dead body, but they can’t get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you.”
Of course, in the end, this study cannot necessarily be transposed to Canadian culture as Canadian culture and U.S.A. culture differ greatly. The study was to show the widespread variety of gun control and how studied have proven that gun control is not necessarily needed or is just a big bunch of hooey.
[b]Canadian Controversy:[/b] Gun ownership and rates of suicide involving guns. Martin Killias suggests that more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide. Rich et al., however, found that while having higher gun restrictions, the amount of suicide by gun had no fluctuation, because of substitution in other methods. For example, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates while private firearm ownership is almost non-existent.
[b]Resisting Tyranny:[/b] Totalitarianism governments often try to disarm their citizens and only allow those who support them to own and possess guns.
[b]Self Defense:[/b] One of the biggest controversial issues in gun control. Opinion editorialist John Lott has written a book called, “More Guns, Less Crime” in which he identifies a correlation between gun control legislation and in which criminals confront citizens. His book also shows that an increase in unemployment is statistically associated with a crime drop and that a small decrease in the population that is black, female and between the ages of 40-49 would result in a big decrease in homicide. This data comes from all 3,504 of the U.S. counties.
Lott’s suggestion, as one told by ABC’s 20/20, is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, deterring potential criminals who may not know who is carrying a gun.
The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, found that “A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.”
[b]Domestic Violence:[/b] Gun advocates suggest that the strongest available evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates come in studies of domestic violence. In a study by Arthur Kellermann, he surveyed all in-home homicides in 3 cities of about half a million people each over 5 years, and found that the risk of a homicide was slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present.
Critics of Kellermann’s work (namely, John Lott, Gary Kleck, etc.), point out that, it intentionally ignores crime found outside of the home, and it is a study more of domestic violence rather than of gun ownership. Critics also say that guns are used to protect property, save lives, and deter crime without killing the criminal, which as Lott and Kleck agree, accounts for a major part of defensive gun uses.
[b]Civil Rights:[/b] Jeff Snyder is the best known spokesman to put forth the view that gun possession is a civil right and thus, arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase crime are beside the point.
[quote] “I am not here engaged in…recommending…policy prescriptions on the basis of the promised or probable results [on crime]…Thus these essays are not fundamentally about guns at all…They are foremost, about…the kind of people we intend to be…and the ethical and political consequences of decision [to control firearms]” –Jeff Snyder[/quote]
My position on gun control is based on the statistics received from all the studies done and real-life examples and stands that: Gun control is not exactly necessary. Sure, restricting guns may show otherwise. When having a gun, it makes people think twice before they make a rash decision, because you’d never know who had a gun and who didn’t.
Of course, people must abide by the law and not start shooting up everyone and everything they see, just because they can. Rather, only law-abiding citizens with a clean criminal record should be allowed to have guns. After all, it makes them feel safer and according to statistics, it usually is safer and statistics [usually] never lie.[/quote]
Keep in mind, my views on gun control has evolved over the years, but still match closely to certain points found in the research paper.
Sorry if it doesn’t relate 100%, but I hope it provides some insight and comparison to different ideologies.
My view of gun control is like rating films/games, Here in the UK Guns are incredibly illegal, Yet there are still lots of gun-related murders in central london, Those who want games underage will get them regardless of laws. Criminals who want guns will want them regardless of laws.
-
[QUOTE=Ridge;32424476]Well then you're ignorant. An impossibly small number of criminals are okay with being caught for their crime. The other 99.275% of them would prefer to not be caught. So using a weapon that is registered to them to commit the crime would be out of the question.
[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ, it depends on the crime. Small crime likely not, but most big shootings are for media attention, and at that point it ends up gaining more attention if it's a legally owned and registered weapon that's used in a mass shooting, because then there'll be all the petitions and protests about banning guns because of the shooting. It's the same thing if a terrorist plans on killing people, he wants as much media attention as possible, and a registered weapon will get that extra bit of attention and will breed that extra bit of fear, because the media will tend to portray gun owners as evil sociopaths in training if even 1 killer uses a legally owned gun.
That, and how is having the gun registered going to make it any easier to catch the person? If someone's tight on cash and they already have a gun, and are thinking of robbing, let's say, a gas station, they're not going to buy another gun that's illegal, they're going to use what they already have. They may try and sand off the serial numbers, but they're not going to go get a new, illegal gun if they already have a legal one. No camera in any convenience store or gas station will be able to catch the serial numbers on a pistol, and no store clerk is going to be in a sound enough state of mind during a robbery to try and memorize any serial number they may or may not see on the gun. Even if they get the model of the gun, in a city there could be tens, even hundreds of thousands of people with that same kind of gun, it'd be next to impossible to check every single one of them, it'd make the cops look terrible to the media and gun rights groups would have some really nice fuel to use against registration at that point, which is the last thing the police want, for the registries to look completely useless, which has happened up here in Canada with the long gun registry. People realized it does no good to stop shootings after someone killed 4 cops with a legally owned long gun and that it's cost us millions of dollars, has terrible security, and really does nothing to stop crime.
Registration does no good to stop a crime, because a registry won't magically stop someone from using that weapon for illegal and harmful purposes if they really want to, despite what most of the anti-gun lobbyists think.
I think you may have just been a little quick about calling ignorance, especially since I'd barely explained my end of the argument against registries by that point.
Regarding the issue we were talking about earlier for repeat offenders and bail and such, here is another example...they let the offender out on bail when he was endangering the lives of the flight crew, and the lives of people on the ground. He didn't even get an attempted murder charge.
[url]http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/09/21/teen-arrested-after-state-police-helicopter-spotlighted-with-laser/?utm_source=home&utm_medium=dl&utm_campaign=teen-arrested-over-laser-incident[/url]
There definitely should be some sort of background check to confirm that the owner of the weapon, is indeed mature enough to use it responsibly.
[QUOTE=jbthekid;32430915]There definitely should be some sort of background check to confirm that the owner of the weapon, is indeed mature enough to use it responsibly.[/QUOTE]I'm not convinced that background checks = maturity.
Fire arms should be owned in USA.
Reason: American cops don't do shit on time.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32420303]no, explosive weapons should not
grenade launchers should not.
etc. etc.
only purpose of those weapons is to KILL large groups of people. Hence they have no application in any civilian use.[/QUOTE]
Explosives =/= guns
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32425977]I beg to differ, it depends on the crime. Small crime likely not, but most big shootings are for media attention, and at that point it ends up gaining more attention if it's a legally owned and registered weapon that's used in a mass shooting, because then there'll be all the petitions and protests about banning guns because of the shooting. It's the same thing if a terrorist plans on killing people, he wants as much media attention as possible, and a registered weapon will get that extra bit of attention and will breed that extra bit of fear, because the media will tend to portray gun owners as evil sociopaths in training if even 1 killer uses a legally owned gun.
That, and how is having the gun registered going to make it any easier to catch the person? If someone's tight on cash and they already have a gun, and are thinking of robbing, let's say, a gas station, they're not going to buy another gun that's illegal, they're going to use what they already have. They may try and sand off the serial numbers, but they're not going to go get a new, illegal gun if they already have a legal one. No camera in any convenience store or gas station will be able to catch the serial numbers on a pistol, and no store clerk is going to be in a sound enough state of mind during a robbery to try and memorize any serial number they may or may not see on the gun. Even if they get the model of the gun, in a city there could be tens, even hundreds of thousands of people with that same kind of gun, it'd be next to impossible to check every single one of them, it'd make the cops look terrible to the media and gun rights groups would have some really nice fuel to use against registration at that point, which is the last thing the police want, for the registries to look completely useless, which has happened up here in Canada with the long gun registry. People realized it does no good to stop shootings after someone killed 4 cops with a legally owned long gun and that it's cost us millions of dollars, has terrible security, and really does nothing to stop crime.
Registration does no good to stop a crime, because a registry won't magically stop someone from using that weapon for illegal and harmful purposes if they really want to, despite what most of the anti-gun lobbyists think.
I think you may have just been a little quick about calling ignorance, especially since I'd barely explained my end of the argument against registries by that point.[/QUOTE]
It's irrelevant. Your argument is hinging on the point of agenda fueled acts of terrorism. Which happen rarely and if the person is THAT intent, it really is irrelevant whether gun control is in place or not. The only difference is with gun control in effect there probably won't be someone who has the means to stop him during a mass shooting. Besides, even in those events registered weapons aren't typically used.
Registration does help, I don't think you really understand how ballistics evidence works. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_fingerprinting[/url]
I think we have the right to own our weapons. I mean, its great for self defense incase of home invasion, and making all weaponry illegal wouldn't stop the criminals from illegally obtaining them anyways. Smuggled through borders etc.
While pure propaganda, I do like this tune related to the debate:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU[/media]
Also, I favor the rights of a citizen to own firearms.
I am very surprised that GunFox hasn't posted here, he should know what's up with gun control.
[QUOTE=teslacoil;32435021]I am very surprised that GunFox hasn't posted here, he should know what's up with gun control.[/QUOTE]
I think he's tired of proving the same point over and over and over again to the same people and disproving the same stupid arguments for the hundredth time.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32435068]I think he's tired of proving the same point over and over and over again to the same people and disproving the same stupid arguments for the hundredth time.[/QUOTE]
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
I'm probably reiterating what somebody's already said here, but a lot of people believe that if gun ownership is legalized, more criminals will own guns. While I'm not going to dispute that, those who want them for malicious purposes will already have them illegally.
Penalties for having an unlicensed/registered weapon should be kept the same as they are now.
There should be tight restrictions on the number of weapons and respective magazines that can be owned at one time. No civilian is going to need more than 1 or 2 mags for legitimate purposes (Depending on the weapon). I also expect if firearm ownership were to be legalized in Britain, magazine capacities would be severely limited. After the airport bomb scares, I'd seen armed police at airports with 5 round magazines for their G36s, and they're the cops, so I doubt they're going to let civilians have anything with larger capacities.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;32435396]I'm probably reiterating what somebody's already said here, but a lot of people believe that if gun ownership is legalized, more criminals will own guns. While I'm not going to dispute that, those who want them for malicious purposes will already have them illegally.
Penalties for having an unlicensed/registered weapon should be kept the same as they are now.
There should be tight restrictions on the number of weapons and respective magazines that can be owned at one time. No civilian is going to need more than 1 or 2 mags for legitimate purposes (Depending on the weapon). I also expect if firearm ownership were to be legalized in Britain, magazine capacities would be severely limited. After the airport bomb scares, I'd seen armed police at airports with 5 round magazines for their G36s, and they're the cops, so I doubt they're going to let civilians have anything with larger capacities.[/QUOTE]
they MAKE 5 round magazines?
while I can understand that it's because people don't want a person to stab a cop, take his gun, and start shooting, 5 round mags seem rather... extreme
you could just do it the french way and not keep the mag in the rifle while patrolling populated areas.
Also I don't get why restrict the number of weapons and magazines you can own at the same time?
Most gun owners keep their guns locked up, so theft is not an issue.
If one's going to go shoot up a mall, they could use a fuckin M1A and stripper clips to bypass that restriction.
crazy people will always find ways to kill people, restrictions don't really help that.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;32435396][B]There should be tight restrictions on the number of weapons and respective magazines that can be owned at one time. No civilian is going to need more than 1 or 2 mags for legitimate purposes (Depending on the weapon).[/B] I also expect if firearm ownership were to be legalized in Britain, magazine capacities would be severely limited. After the airport bomb scares, I'd seen armed police at airports with 5 round magazines for their G36s, and they're the cops, so I doubt they're going to let civilians have anything with larger capacities.[/QUOTE]
How is that going to solve anything? Like always criminals will get their hands on firearms, they'll just as easily get their hands on magazines. All that would be doing is keeping magazines out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not to mention the argument that "no civilian is going to need more than 1 or 2 magazines for 'legitimate' purposes" is completely invalid considering it can be applied to pretty much anything, and as a gun owner, having a weapon with only 1 spare magazine feels like a liability. It's also a massive inconvenience when using your firearm for sporting purposes to be reloading the same magazine constantly. If anything banning how many magazines a person can own will just lead the the market being flooded with actual high capacity magazines, and not the media's pussy definition of a high capacity magazine.
Also, HK doesn't even manufacture 5 round magazines for the G36.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;32435396]I'm probably reiterating what somebody's already said here, but a lot of people believe that if gun ownership is legalized, more criminals will own guns. While I'm not going to dispute that, those who want them for malicious purposes will already have them illegally.
Penalties for having an unlicensed/registered weapon should be kept the same as they are now.
There should be tight restrictions on the number of weapons and respective magazines that can be owned at one time. No civilian is going to need more than 1 or 2 mags for legitimate purposes (Depending on the weapon). I also expect if firearm ownership were to be legalized in Britain, magazine capacities would be severely limited. After the airport bomb scares, I'd seen armed police at airports with 5 round magazines for their G36s, and they're the cops, so I doubt they're going to let civilians have anything with larger capacities.[/QUOTE]
No, just no, i'm comforted to know if some major shit goes down, my neighbor has a fuckton of ammo and guns to keep about 5 dozen people armed and safe, fuck pussy 5-round mags. I like being safe and knowing people can properly defend themselves.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32435839]they MAKE 5 round magazines?
while I can understand that it's because people don't want a person to stab a cop, take his gun, and start shooting, 5 round mags seem rather... extreme
you could just do it the french way and not keep the mag in the rifle while patrolling populated areas.
Also I don't get why restrict the number of weapons and magazines you can own at the same time?
Most gun owners keep their guns locked up, so theft is not an issue.
If one's going to go shoot up a mall, they could use a fuckin M1A and stripper clips to bypass that restriction.
crazy people will always find ways to kill people, restrictions don't really help that.[/QUOTE]
Hunting laws state a maximum capacity of 5 rounds for rifles, 3 for shotguns.
Many weapons have 2 round mags because 3rds is the maximum capacity in Germany. 2 in the mag +1 in the chamber.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32436120]Hunting laws state a maximum capacity of 5 rounds for rifles, 3 for shotguns.
Many weapons have 2 round mags because 3rds is the maximum capacity in Germany. 2 in the mag +1 in the chamber.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the G36, a military weapon that is fully automatic and normally accepts 30 or 100 round magazines.
5 round magazines exist for applications where they are practical, ofc.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32436549]I was talking about the G36, a military weapon that is fully automatic and normally accepts 30 or 100 round magazines.
5 round magazines exist for applications where they are practical, ofc.[/QUOTE]
My bad, missed that part of the discussion.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;32433391]It's irrelevant. Your argument is hinging on the point of agenda fueled acts of terrorism. Which happen rarely and if the person is THAT intent, it really is irrelevant whether gun control is in place or not. The only difference is with gun control in effect there probably won't be someone who has the means to stop him during a mass shooting. Besides, even in those events registered weapons aren't typically used.
Registration does help, I don't think you really understand how ballistics evidence works. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_fingerprinting[/url][/QUOTE]
Did you read my second paragraph? Also, I think you're overestimating ballistic fingerprinting. To start, the most common calibres in the world for handguns are .22LR, 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP. Most guns chambered in these calibres nowadays look exactly the same. When a gas station/convenience store robbery occurs, seldom is there ever a shot fired, and neither the clerk, nor the cameras, are going to catch any serial numbers. All it's going to see is an M1911 or Glock style pistol. In the even a shot is unlikely fired, ballistic fingerprinting is still useless. Why? Several reasons;
1) Registries don't keep a record of the ballistic fingerprint of every individual gun. That means there is on database to check from to see which exact gun fired it and who owned it, the world doesn't work like CSI.
2) It's unlikely someone will be robbing a store with an uncommon calibre gun. Without suspects, of which there will be none if the person isn't stupid, you can't go and check every single gun in that calibre in any given city, that gives the cops a bad image and takes up far too much time and resources, not to mention a judge would never grant the warrant for a search like that on no grounds.
3) Even if they went to that oppressive extreme, they could get several positive results, because...
4) ...It's not as accurate as people believe. After use, a gun's ballistic fingerprint could change, it would be unreliable.
5) They could re-bore the gun. This means taking a drill lightly to the barrel to re-do/ruin the rifling. This means it won't produce the same ballistic fingerprint, there's almost no way to check what the print was before, it's almost unnoticeable, can be done by anyone with a drill, and if I'm not mistaken is perfectly legal, just stupid.
There are so many ways to get around a registry that even for petty gun crime you don't need an illegal weapon, and that proves a registry is useless. That, and the main reason it's there is to "prevent" gun deaths for shootings or to catch the shooters doing it, and the long gun registry has NEVER, in the decade it's been around, helped to catch someone from what I've heard, nor has it stopped or stunted gun crime, and I also can't recall a time the pistol registry here has helped either, and that's been around since 1938.
Registration leads only to confiscation, the Norinco Type 97 here in Canada is proof of that, the RCMP randomly changed it's classification one day and confiscated them from everyone who owned one. There's a lawsuit going on, because the RCMP isn't being very forthcoming as to why they changed the classification. Registration doesn't help stop crime, it only harms the legal gun owner.
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32435839]they MAKE 5 round magazines?
while I can understand that it's because people don't want a person to stab a cop, take his gun, and start shooting, 5 round mags seem rather... extreme
you could just do it the french way and not keep the mag in the rifle while patrolling populated areas.
Also I don't get why restrict the number of weapons and magazines you can own at the same time?
Most gun owners keep their guns locked up, so theft is not an issue.
If one's going to go shoot up a mall, they could use a fuckin M1A and stripper clips to bypass that restriction.
crazy people will always find ways to kill people, restrictions don't really help that.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes they pin them. aside from the G63 being banned here, if anyone does have one from pre-ban, if they had a 30 rounder, they had to have it pinned at 5. Semi-auto rifles in Canada, that are centre-fire, are restricted to 5 rounds in the magazine, however pistols can have 10. Seems really stupid to me. I know they make 5 round mags for several guns that usually have capacities of around 30 just for sale up here.
Sorry that is retarded. If ballistics forensics was as direly ineffective as you are making it out to be, it would've never had so much money wasted on it and have so much work done in the field.
Secondly please produce the statistics that show registered firearms being commonly used in violent premeditated crimes, more specifically, statistics that show registered firearms being used more significantly than illegally acquired firearms.
More over, again, it's irrelevant. It's cheaper and generally less time consuming to acquire a black market firearm than to go through firearm registration and/or a waiting period. And the point comes up again, if you are determined to commit a crime with a firearm, you ARE going to get one regardless of the law, you've made a committed decision to perform a major crime, so you don't really give a fuck if you don't have a legal firearm or not.
The only differing factor is that in an environment where people aren't allowed to defend themselves with the use of a firearm, it is far more likely that no-one will be able to stop you. Relying on the police for protection is ineffective, I don't think anyone can even argue that.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;32437072]Sorry that is retarded. If ballistics forensics was as direly ineffective as you are making it out to be, it would've never had so much money wasted on it and have so much work done in the field.
Secondly please produce the statistics that show registered firearms being commonly used in violent premeditated crimes, more specifically, statistics that show registered firearms being used more significantly than illegally acquired firearms.
More over, again, it's irrelevant. It's cheaper and generally less time consuming to acquire a black market firearm than to go through firearm registration and/or a waiting period. And the point comes up again, if you are determined to commit a crime with a firearm, you ARE going to get one regardless of the law, you've made a committed decision to perform a major crime, so you don't really give a fuck if you don't have a legal firearm or not.
The only differing factor is that in an environment where people aren't allowed to defend themselves with the use of a firearm, it is far more likely that no-one will be able to stop you. Relying on the police for protection is ineffective, I don't think anyone can even argue that.[/QUOTE]
You know most of your points prove a registry is useless for another reason, that criminals aren't likely to register the firearms.
I was not saying or implying most firearms used in crimes are legally acquired, I was merely pointing out how ineffective a registry thereof would be at preventing a legal firearm from being used in a crime. Most people who go through that process won't commit a crime, but it was a demonstration of how ineffective the registry would be at stopping the crime or catching the criminal if the unlikely event of a legal gun being used if a crime were to happen.
Crooks, usually, don't buy legal guns, therefore they're not on a registry, and the registry is therefore not stopping crime. This means all it is doing is wasting money and keeping tabs on everyone who has a gun so that when/if the government wants to confiscate all of them, they know who to go to.
Ballistics is actually a lot about recreating the scene of the crime, but it is effective when you have suspects. But only when you have suspects. As I said, with how many guns there are, they can't just pinpoint the exact gun, model, and owner without having a sample of the bullet fired from the firearm on hand to compare it to, and the government doesn't keep that information, or ask for/require it under any registry I've ever heard of, and asking every gun owner in a municipality to surrender their firearms for ballistic inspection is out of the question, they'd never get authorization, and several guns could have the same rifling fingerprint. When you can get the suspect's firearm to compare it to, it could be quite effective, but if there is no suspect, you have nothing to compare it to, and having the ballistic fingerprint of the gun is useless without something to compare it to. I also remember hearing of a story where someone nearly got away with murder because they had their pistol re-bored, the cops only caught them because they got a sample of a bullet they fired in their backyard that was in a mound of dirt they used as a backstop.
I think we've been on the same side, but not realized it. I'm not saying most crimes are committed with legal guns, I believe quite the contrary, but I was merely attempting to demonstrate how ineffective a registry is at stopping a legal gun owner from committing a crime, should he/she want to, thus demonstrating another reason a registry does not help.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
