[QUOTE=Zeke129;32404619]Do you happen to have a breakdown of where guns in Mexico come from? I'm interested.[/QUOTE]
Nothing official, because the Mexican government won't release serial numbers and things like that. But logic dictates that it makes more sense to buy more powerful weapons from countries where the dollar will go farther.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32404719]Nothing official, because the Mexican government won't release serial numbers and things like that. But logic dictates that it makes more sense to buy more powerful weapons from countries where the dollar will go farther.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter how far your dollar goes if the weapons aren't available. Here in the states you [I]can[/I] buy more powerful weapons.
Even disregarding this, I'm not too keen on your "logic dictates x" in a subject this unclear.
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;32387481]In my opinion, gun laws should be far more strict. But let's just ask a rhetorical question: Do you even need guns? Because if criminals don't have guns, you don't need guns in the first place to defend yourself.
I have seen people using the argument "even if you ban guns criminals will get guns" really often. I am pretty sure a one-time gas station robber couldn't be able to get a gun to commit that crime, since they are illegal/very hard to get, and I somehow doubt that petty robber would go find a weapon smuggler for himself or buy one from the black market.
Here, in Hungary, crimes committed with the use of guns make national news, since they are that rare.[/QUOTE]
Well if some one has a illegal weapon and they know it , strict or not they would lose. So it is just best to let people own guns, so if some one with a illegal weapon tries to hurt someone, he/she can defend themselves.
I feel like we should regulate guns like we regulate vehicles. Every type of gun you purchase, you must first qualify for it with marksmanship, handling, maintenance, etc., just like how you must obtain a motorcycle, car, and truck license. I definitely would draw the line at strictly ballstic weapons, though - explosive ordnance is something no civilian should be allowed to own, because ultimately it has no practical application for self-defense.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32404579]A small percentage. Most of the weapons they have are stolen from the police/military or shipped in from other latin countries.
Why spend $800 on a Bushmaster semi-auto AR-15 when that can buy 2 or 3 full auto Norinco AK-47s?[/QUOTE]
I looked it up.
[quote=Science daily]Ivestigators have traced 90 to 95 percent of weapons in Mexico to the US[/quote]
[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729074158.htm]Source.[/url]
I checked their source as well which says this figure is likely an over estimate but that US supply is still the most important.
Others come from central america, China/Russia and from the Mexican military but it's difficult to get a good idea of relative importance of these three supplies.
[url=http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/265.abstract]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=spacedooky;32406034]I feel like we should regulate guns like we regulate vehicles. Every type of gun you purchase, you must first qualify for it with marksmanship, handling, maintenance, etc., just like how you must obtain a motorcycle, car, and truck license. I definitely would draw the line at strictly ballstic weapons, though - explosive ordnance is something no civilian should be allowed to own, because ultimately it has no practical application for self-defense.[/QUOTE]
Nobody actually buys explosive ordnance even when they can, at least not any appreciable amount of people. If people wanted to actually blow shit up, it's terribly simple to make considerably powerful explosives from easily acquired materials, and not much harder again to acquire explosives intended for construction demolition.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;32400257]I'm replying to this, but I feel the need to voice my opinion on this.
Buying a gun in this day in age doesn't meet you're planning on ending someone's life for your own safety, not at all. A vast majority of gun owners buy and collect guns for the same reason other hobbyists do: For fun. Guns are fun to shoot out at a range or in your massive secluded property. If you're an avid hunter, you'll most likely own a gun or two to take down prey. Not only that, but guns make excellent collectors items and wall hangers.
Also, the reasoning that "ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE USED TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE" is absolutely true, sure, but that doesn't mean all gun owners are psychopaths who plan to gun down innocent people. Thousands are killed every year due to guns in the US, and I doubt that all of those murderers were members of the NRA.[/QUOTE]
This.
There also seems to be this misconception among people who have never been exposed to firearm culture that all people that want a concealed carry weapon/self defense, are rednecks that just want to cowboy up and carry a gun and are hoping that they will get a chance to shoot someone. This is not the case.
The amount of responsibility that comes with being a CCW licensee in most parts of the world is staggering. And the misconception that they want to cowboy is wrong, most CCW licensees tend to have a better situational awareness of dangerous situations than the average person, and will take steps to defuse or AVOID a situation from coming to a head. Drawing down is usually the last resort, and many people with a CCW will probably live out their life without ever having to fire a shot in self defense. More often than not, the presence of a firearm is enough to deter most would be assailants.
Look you're carrying, walking down a street late night and you see a group of shady men down the street, you don't just keep walking through them because "i got a gun, anyone fucks with me im going to shoot them", you cross to the other side of the street, or otherwise take steps to avoid a confrontation. Because contrary to popular belief nobody WANTS to get into a situation were they have to defend themselves, that is nerve wracking shit.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;32387481]In my opinion, gun laws should be far more strict. But let's just ask a rhetorical question: Do you even need guns? Because if criminals don't have guns, you don't need guns in the first place to defend yourself.
I have seen people using the argument "even if you ban guns criminals will get guns" really often. I am pretty sure a one-time gas station robber couldn't be able to get a gun to commit that crime, since they are illegal/very hard to get, and I somehow doubt that petty robber would go find a weapon smuggler for himself or buy one from the black market.
Here, in Hungary, crimes committed with the use of guns make national news, since they are that rare.[/QUOTE]
Please stop using this flawed logic of "my country doesn't have problems, so yours shouldn't either"
There are countries where gun control will excel, and there are countries with strict gun control where it doesn't do shit. More often than not people are too focused on the "gun" and not the "crime" part of the equation.
Here in Australia even, where since the port arthur massacre, gun control has been extremely strict, there was a 3-4 year period where it would've seemed like gun control was successful, then firearm related violent crimes spiked to higher levels than it was pre-ban, dipped again, and very recently we've had a string of armed robberies on casinos, where people were injured despite complying with the orders of the robbers. In this case, the control of legally registered and owned firearms has done nothing to stop the movement of black market weapons.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32404539][url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105848207]The cartels are getting their weapons in the US[/url], to be fair.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for bringing this up because this is a question I've been pondering myself, what can the US do that would help the Mexican government and people while not reintroducing that POS Assault Weapons ban?
[QUOTE=Mabus;32389038]Excellent generalisation there pal. I'm very pro-gun, and many people in certain parts of Europe are.[/QUOTE]
i'm very pro-gun aswell.
Here in Switzerland almost everyone owns atleast 1 gun here. More than 2.3 million guns are owned by normal citizens.
Even I have an Assault rifle, and go to the local shooting range every week.
-
[QUOTE=flyschy;32406154]I looked it up.
[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729074158.htm]Source.[/url]
I checked their source as well which says this figure is likely an over estimate but that US supply is still the most important.
Others come from central america, China/Russia and from the Mexican military but it's difficult to get a good idea of relative importance of these three supplies.
[url=http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/265.abstract]Source.[/url][/QUOTE]
That report has already been proven wrong. It was nowhere near that high, and that was only a percentage of weapon serial numbers that Mexico provided to the ATF, which is said to be less than 36% of weapons they have actually confiscated.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html[/url]
And who knows how many of those were due to the ATF Gunwalker program.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;32406935]Thank you for bringing this up because this is a question I've been pondering myself, what can the US do that would help the Mexican government and people while not reintroducing that POS Assault Weapons ban?[/QUOTE]
Closing the BATFE would be a start.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32407631]That report has already been proven wrong. It was nowhere near that high, and that was only a percentage of weapon serial numbers that Mexico provided to the ATF, which is said to be less than 3% of weapons they have actually confiscated.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html[/url]
And who knows how many of those were due to the ATF Gunwalker program.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Closing the BATFE would be a start.[/QUOTE]I'm curious...the guns on the streets of Baltimore (or whatever other crime ridden city, like Detroit,) where would they be coming from?
[QUOTE=faze;32407638]I'm curious...the guns on the streets of Baltimore (or whatever other crime ridden city, like Detroit,) where would they be coming from?[/QUOTE]
That's part of why Norincos are banned from import, they were found to be supplying Chinese street gangs.
In all likelihood, at one point they were probably legally acquired but later illegally transferred by some means, whether an illegal sale or theft. Some of them may have also been smuggled into the country by various mobs internationally with "connections" in the arms trade.
I know most of the guns used for crime here are "imported" from the US and never registered in the Canadian gun registries.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32407732]That's part of why Norincos are banned from import, they were found to be supplying Chinese street gangs.
In all likelihood, at one point they were probably legally acquired but later illegally transferred by some means, whether an illegal sale or theft. Some of them may have also been smuggled into the country by various mobs internationally with "connections" in the arms trade.
I know most of the guns used for crime here are "imported" from the US and never registered in the Canadian gun registries.[/QUOTE]I also heard a lot of assault weapons came from LA. Apparently a few box cars were abandoned and were found to be containing weapons and TONS of ammo. This fueled the initial bloods/crips movement.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;32390243]I'm not really sure about this issue. Guns are heavily regulated here in Australia, and[B] here in the news it is rare to actually find a story reporting that someone injured / killed someone with a gun,[/B] compared to the United States where such a story would be published every few days. The population of the United States is fifteen times larger than Australia (roughly), but for every story where a gun has injured / killed someone down here in Australia, there would have been at least 50 if not around a 100 similar reports in the United States.
US society might be poorer than Australia, but I am not an expert on the issue. As far as I know, we are a safer place and we might owe that to heavy restrictions on gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. Do you even pay attention to the news, really?
Ignoring the recent string of casino robberies, there have always been petrol station robberies, there's been armed crime fucking FOREVER in the seedier parts of Sydney, armored car robberies, etc.
Granted it's no where near the scale of America, but A) we don't have as large a population B) the violent crime rates in Australia are generally fairly low, all things considered. But it's not like it doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=faze;32400584]
I have a Zastava PAP. Brand new, all Zastava parts, and straight from Serbia. Also has a chrome lined barrel. :)[/QUOTE]
lol yeah, I don't know anyone who has a legit Russian AK47
WASRs, Zastavas, everything else. But no Russian AK47s
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;32401130]No, but they are used for long range target shooting/hobby shooting]
Why ban a .50 cal? What criminal is seriously going to go out and buy a $2000 dollar rifle and a bunch of $5 EACH bullets to commit a crime with?
Edit:
Hell, the only criminal incident I can think of that even INVOLVED a .50 cal weapon was when Marvin Heemeyer put one on his Killdozer (and it wasn't even fired)[/QUOTE]
uhhh hitmen perhaps? makes perfect sense. If you want to assassinate someone .50 caliber is the way to go (I'm pretty sure .338 as accurate as it is, can't penetrate through as much bulletproof glass), only problem is disposing of the weapon.
Then again hitmen could probably get those weapons on the black market anyways.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=kaukassus;32406943]i'm very pro-gun aswell.
Here in Switzerland almost everyone owns atleast 1 gun here. More than 2.3 million guns are owned by normal citizens.
Even I have an Assault rifle, and go to the local shooting range every week.[/QUOTE]
Swiss people are weird.
They give assault rifles with ammo to everyone (who qualifies), in event of an invasion
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32409615]lol yeah, I don't know anyone who has a legit Russian AK47
WASRs, Zastavas, everything else. But no Russian AK47s
uhhh hitmen perhaps? makes perfect sense. If you want to assassinate someone .50 caliber is the way to go (I'm pretty sure .338 as accurate as it is, can't penetrate through as much bulletproof glass), only problem is disposing of the weapon.
Then again hitmen could probably get those weapons on the black market anyways.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Swiss people are weird.
They give assault rifles with ammo to everyone, in event of an invasion[/QUOTE]The common full auto AK here in the USA is the Valmet. They run about 12 grand.
[QUOTE=faze;32409637]The common full auto AK here in the USA is the Valmet. They run about 12 grand.[/QUOTE]
yeah... cheaper than a H&K still.
Those things are REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Only their pistols are reasonably priced.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32409663]yeah... cheaper than a H&K still.
Those things are REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Only their pistols are reasonably priced.[/QUOTE]Yeah, MP5's are expensive.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32409615]uhhh hitmen perhaps? makes perfect sense. If you want to assassinate someone .50 caliber is the way to go (I'm pretty sure .338 as accurate as it is, can't penetrate through as much bulletproof glass), only problem is disposing of the weapon.
Then again hitmen could probably get those weapons on the black market anyways.[/QUOTE]
you have [i]no idea[/i] what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=faze;32409679]Yeah, MP5's are expensive.[/QUOTE]
please don't flood the thread with gun chat. This is a debate board. Not a chat room.
[QUOTE=faze;32409679]Yeah, MP5's are expensive.[/QUOTE]
even their semi-auto long guns are pretty expensive and crap looking compared to FN's
PS90, FS2000, etc
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32409689]you have [i]no idea[/i] what you're talking about.
please don't flood the thread with gun chat. This is a debate board.[/QUOTE]
yeah the entire hitman argument isn't really relevant to gun control in the US, I was just throwing it out there.
It's more relevant in south america where those weapons actually are used for that purpose, but gun control is a joke there anyways.
and I don't think that you can really say that .50 calibers are never used in crimes.
.50 caliber weapons were used by the IRA to kill policemen, through bulletproof glass.
sure it's terrorism, but it's also a crime.
In the U.S. guns are supposed to be held by the citizens in order to prevent the government from using the military to suppress the people.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32412448]In the U.S. guns are supposed to be held by the citizens in order to prevent the government from using the military to suppress the people.[/QUOTE]Exactly, but that is already being done.
[QUOTE=faze;32412460]Exactly, but that is already being done.[/QUOTE]
one of the stupid arguments around the second amendment is that it's current implementation is in line with those of the constitution.
Banning assault weapons puts citizens at a disadvantage to the military.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32412636]one of the stupid arguments around the second amendment is that it's current implementation is in line with those of the constitution.
Banning assault weapons puts citizens at a disadvantage to the military.[/QUOTE]I disagree with the second statement.
1. Assault weapons are perfectly legal. There are only a few extra hoops to jump through to get them.
2. Fully automatic weapons are not always as accurate as semi automatic or bolt action. I can be much more accurate with my Mosin than I can spraying bullets out of an AK.
[QUOTE=faze;32412668]I disagree with the second statement.
1. Assault weapons are perfectly legal. There are only a few extra hoops to jump through to get them.
2. Fully automatic weapons are not always as accurate as semi automatic or bolt action. I can be much more accurate with my Mosin than I can spraying bullets out of an AK.[/QUOTE]
1. not in all states
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32413278]1. not in all states[/QUOTE]Example being which state? California doesn't count.
[QUOTE=faze;32413331]Example being which state? California doesn't count.[/QUOTE]
was going to say california, lol
chicagoland area
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32413497]was going to say california, lol
chicagoland area[/QUOTE]Illinois doesn't count either. Both states have always been anti-gun. Illinois is finally getting around to looking at their CCW laws.
Lol but I love Illinois' Castle Doctrine. You can shoot anyone in your house if you SUSPECT that get are going to commit ANY FELONY.
A lot of states have that doctrine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
