Gun control in US

Joe Manchen (D from WV with an NRA a rating) Monday came out in favor of gun control.... Today he says he's "not for banning anything" He just wants to have a discussion. And he's proud of the NRA. Obviously heard from his constituents.

 

 

Gallop says Americans are against further gun control.

 

 

Obama appointing joe Biden to a "committee" to come up with "solutions". All questions by press were about fiscal cliff not guns. (That's not a coincidence).

 

Stern roger and smith Wesson both up 8% today.

 

I'm more comfortable today.

Are we seriously comparing cars and swimming pools to guns?

 

(not directed to lee's article, but the responses to it that are ignoring the content)

 

Tunnel vision at its best, anyway, I guess we got some good info out of the thread but now I think it is just one sided and off topic,at least for me, it's reached its expiry date, thanks for playing

 

You missed the point of the article.

 

I did get the point.

Joe Manchen (D from WV with an NRA a rating) Monday came out in favor of gun control.... Today he says he's "not for banning anything" He just wants to have a discussion. And he's proud of the NRA. Obviously heard from his constituents.

 

 

Gallop says Americans are against further gun control.

 

 

Obama appointing joe Biden to a "committee" to come up with "solutions". All questions by press were about fiscal cliff not guns. (That's not a coincidence).

 

Stern roger and smith Wesson both up 8% today.

 

I'm more comfortable today.

 

A little comfort there. I did check today and most ammo distributors are sold out with the hope of getting new shipments march of next year. Wonder how much a 223 cartridge will be? Buck fifty for the cheap bulk stuff?

 

I did get the point.

Your response to it was a non sequitur, which typically would indicate otherwise.

Your response to it was a non sequitur, which typically would indicate otherwise.

 

So my statement is illogical? My comments are just my opinion. Comparisons like that generally carry more

than one agenda. I was just responding to what I perceive as a hidden agenda. I bet there is another graph

that contradicts this one. I don't make decisions based on graphs that can be and are manipulated by those

with a biased opinion.

There are a few interesting points to the article. I didn´t post it just because of the car fatality comparison(which nevertheless was mentioned a few posts ago by some members).

This is something a physician friend of mine sent me today:

 

 

Some clear thinking on a very uncomfortable topic

 

by SIMON BLACK on DECEMBER 19, 2012

 

 

 

 

December 19, 2012

Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

 

I think we can all agree that a man walking in to an elementary school and opening fire is deeply, deeply horrific. And in the gut-wrenching social introspection that comes afterwards, the desire to ‘do something’ is understandable.

 

These days, the role of government in the west has become so bloated that it’s commonplace for people to look to their political leaders when they want something done.

 

And politicians, who are bent on keeping their jobs, are keen to be seen as taking action.

 

And so here we are again, after another terrible tragedy which involved (a) death, and ( firearms, with calls to restrict firearm ownership, particularly high-powered assault rifles.

 

Again, in fairness, the reaction is understandable. Most folks have such an emotional response, they just want to do something… often without thinking through the long-term consequences or all sides of the issues.

 

Unfortunately, the root cause of such issues is often misdiagnosed, hence the response is ill-conceived. This is often how wars get started. Pearl Harbor. 9/11. Etc.

 

In this case, some nut job shoots up a school with assault weapons, so the response is to ban assault weapons. But is access to assault weapons really the root cause of the issue? Or, to paraphrase Chris Rock, are some people simply crazy?

 

History shows that there have been countless crazed psychopaths who kill wantonly, indiscriminately, without the use of assault rifles:

 

- Seung-Hui Cho, the 2007 Virginia Tech killer (he used two handguns)

- Luis Garavito, a Colombian mass murderer who killed hundreds of children with just a knife

- Mary Ann Cotton, a 19th century mass murderer in England who poisoned her victims

- Countess Elizabeth Bathory, a 16th century Hungarian who tortured and killed hundreds

 

Some people just aren’t wired right. It’s always been that way. Before firearms, before violent movies, before video games… there have always been crazy nuts.

 

Passing laws doesn’t change any of this. Government cannot protect us from all the bad people out there. Bathing travelers in radiation doesn’t make us any safer. Fondling children at airports doesn’t make us any safer. Invading foreign countries doesn’t make us any safer.

 

Neither will banning assault rifles. Bad guys will always find a way, either commandeering a killing machine illegally, or reverting to something more old school. As Lao Tzu once wrote, “The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

 

On that note, there’s a deeper issue that is seldom mentioned in the gun control debate. Yes, every year, innocent people die because of violence. But there is no greater mass murderer in history than government.

 

When a lone gunman kills 32 people at an elementary school, it’s a tragedy. When a government drops bombs on an elementary school by remote control drone, it’s collateral damage. No biggie.

 

Governments have a horrible track record of murder, pillage, and genocide, and they have the blood of millions of victims on their hands. The Founding Fathers in the United States knew this. And the premise of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is based on this idea.

 

Yes, people need protection against those who mean to do them harm. But occasionally, people also need protection from those who are sworn to protect them. Given history’s numerous examples of once stable nations descending into murderous rampages, it’s both foolish and intellectually dishonest to dismiss this point.

 

Some people argue, ‘well the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have assault rifles, which didn’t exist back then.’ Sure, maybe. But they also never intended for government to have nukes, drones, body scanners, or Homeland Security urban assault vehicles.

 

A well-armed populace is a major deterrent in keeping government responsible, as well as keeping bad guys away. Willfully giving up this advantage out of fear is a poor choice. It means that we have no other option but to trust the goodwill, and competence, of government agents to keep us safe.

 

There’s little that’s more important than the well-being of ourselves and our families. And when an entire society considers abandoning that responsibility, choosing instead to outsource it to corrupt bureaucratsand jack-booted thugs, this marks a major turning point that your nation is about to go down a very precarious road.

 

In total sincerity, perhaps it’s time to consider your options abroad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the Chris Rock video

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

 

- Edmund Burke

IMO more people need to start carrying guns to prevent / stop these things from even happening!

Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country- probably more stringent than anything the Federal government will pass....

 

And some of the worst mental health services...

 

You can figure out the implications of that on your own....

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412...=googlenews_wsj

 

While it isn't yet known whether Lanza was being treated, it is known that Connecticut is among the worst states to seek such treatment. It has among the weakest involuntary treatment laws and is one of only six states that doesn't have a law permitting court-ordered "assisted outpatient treatment." In study after study, AOT has been shown to decrease re-hospitalizations, incarcerations and, most importantly, episodes of violence among severely mentally ill individuals.

 

The author

 

Torrey earned his bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, from Princeton University, and his medical doctor's degree from the McGill University School of Medicine. Torrey also earned a master's degree in anthropology from Stanford University, and was trained in psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Joe Manchen (D from WV with an NRA a rating) Monday came out in favor of gun control.... Today he says he's "not for banning anything" He just wants to have a discussion. And he's proud of the NRA. Obviously heard from his constituents.

 

 

Gallop says Americans are against further gun control.

 

 

Obama appointing joe Biden to a "committee" to come up with "solutions". All questions by press were about fiscal cliff not guns. (That's not a coincidence).

 

Stern roger and smith Wesson both up 8% today.

 

I'm more comfortable today.

 

Manchin showed himself to be a complete ignoramus on guns. He said that no one needs an assault weapon, no one needs a 30-round clip, and that weapons like the AR-15 are weapons meant for combat. That he doesn't even know that there's no such thing as an assault weapon and that the proper terminology is magazine, not clip, and that a weapon "for combat" is no more lethal than a "hunting rifle," showed him to not be near as knowledgable on guns as he likes to pass himself off as, being a supposed stalwart gun rights proponent.

 

I was one of those people who contacted him. I wrote him a very polite, but detailed letter on his website, informing him of how and why he was wrong on the AR-15 and to please not support a ban on it. Don't know if he got it, but it shows if people collectively contact these politicians, they seem to listen.

Manchin showed himself to be a complete ignoramus on guns. He said that [...] weapons like the AR-15 are weapons meant for combat.

 

In your opinion, what are they meant for?

 

a weapon "for combat" is no more lethal than a "hunting rifle,"

 

In what context are you considering them equally as lethal? If they are as equally as lethal, why were they invented and used in lieu of hunting rifles in non-hunting situations?

 

there's no such thing as an assault weapon

 

Please explain (unless you plan to get into silly semantics)

 

 

Genuinely curious about the points you are trying to make.

Crazy run on AR stuff right now folks. I just came home from my friends Class 3 shop and he sold 30 billet lower receivers today, with another 10 on gunbroker. He raised the price from $150 to $230 to $260 on GB and he's still selling them! An average/regular day is 1-3, total. This AM he checked his distributor for LPKs and they had 1100. At 2pm they had zero. He raised the price of his LPKs by $20 while I was chatting with him. Nuts.

 

In your opinion, what are they meant for?

 

 

 

In what context are you considering them equally as lethal? If they are as equally as lethal, why were they invented and used in lieu of hunting rifles in non-hunting situations?

 

 

 

Please explain (unless you plan to get into silly semantics)

 

 

Genuinely curious about the points you are trying to make.

 

 

 

Last question First.

 

The term "Assault Weapon" was coined by the Violence Policy Center (an anti gun group). The term has no commonly accepted definition. There is no consistency of what constitutes an "assualt weapon" either from state to state, or nationally... When they try to ban "assault weapons", its based on a series of cosmetic features that makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW THE WEAPON OPERATES..., Each law lists different features as the "evil" ones... A "flash hider" or a "Bayonet Lug" for example.... The term was INTENTIONALLY created as a PR project to characterize ALL MODERN FIREARMS IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. "ASSAULT (a crime) WEAPONS" Sort of the same as "Cop Killer Bullets" (Also dont exist and never have).

 

Its akin to vegetarian groups, calling lean beef trimmings "PINK SLIME" and the media running with it....

 

Or better than that, if Westboro Baptist started referring to homosexuals as "AIDS TRANSMITTERS" and the media decided that would be the term they would use from now on.

 

 

 

 

First question: The AR15 is meant for the same purpose ALL firearms are... SHOOTING STUFF. Whether it be PAPER, ANIMALS, STEEL, or HUMANS. A gun, is a gun, is a GUN, and each is equally lethal as any other...

 

 

 

Why were they invented and why does the military use them instead of other older designs: First of all, they ARE NOT in use by the military.... That would be the M16/ M4... They look similar... But they AREN'T! The M16 is a MACHINE GUN... It fires FULL AUTO, and has been BASICALLY ILLEGAL to purchase since the 1980s... The M16 was adopted over the M14 (not an "assault rifle" but twice as powerful) because it fires a lighter round, (meaning troops could carry MORE of them on hikes) they are MODULAR (more on this later) and they have a "One Size fits all" aspect that no other gun does... Pretty important when you have to have one gun that works for soldiers who range in size from 5'0" to 6'8".... (more on this later). So why do civilians want a toned down version of that? Why didnt we just keep using old fashioned bolt action hunting rifles for everything?

 

For the same reason you dont drive a 1919 Model A. They are THE MODERN weapon design... They make SHOOTING more accessible to MORE PEOPLE... They are LIGHTER, because they are made out of modern materials... THEY ARE MODULAR, meaning you can replace various parts QUICKLY AND EASILY, and customize the rifle for a particular purpose, and the STOCKS adjust for various sized shooters.... I, my wife, and my son can ALL FIRE THE SAME GUN... All we need to do is ADJUST THE STOCK (Which is one of the "evil Features" that Government wants to outlaw).. The bolt action hunting rifle was designed when WOMEN didnt VOTE, let alone SHOOT GUNS... They are just not as versatile as the AR.

 

But they are so much more powerful, RIGHT? NO!!!! In fact, the .223 caliber cartridge is MUCH LESS POWERFUL than the typical hunting round (the .308).

 

But theyre not used for HUNTING? YES THEY ARE!!!! That is just another LIE by the anti gun crowd... HUNTERS USE THESE GUNS ALL THE TIME!!! They are great for VARMINT (Coyotes, Squirrels, Small game)... I wouldn't go after a deer with one, but I know people do... I wouldnt simply because I believe if you are going to hunt, you have an ethical duty to kill the animal in one shot... I cant guarantee that with a .223 So I err on the size of too much power.

 

 

Finally... I dont think its a stretch to say I probably know more about GUN LAWS, if not guns in general than anybody else on this board...

 

I LITERALLY CANNOT TELL THR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GUN THAT WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE 1994 AW BAN, and ones that were legal... THATS HOW STUPID THESE LAWS ARE....

 

 

Pay special attention to 3:43 and up.

 

 

 

You will hear a whole lot of the following :"Sure, this law wont stop anything, but at least we can get the most lethal weapons off the streets". 1. There is no gun thats more lethal than another.... Dead is Dead. 2. There will ALWAYS BE A "Most lethal gun" to these people, and once they ban one, they will move to the next.... THAT WAS THE PLAN IN 1994 (when I foolishly supported the AW ban) and its the plan NOW.

But, not only do I NOT know what these features are, but here is the author of the bill...

 

One thing that people who talk about "military gun" versus "hunting gun" seem to think is that you need a special kind of extra lethal gun to kill people, but hunting guns meant for killing animals are otherwise ho-hum. What these people fail to realize is that biologically-speaking, a human being is an animal. It's a high-functioning animal, but biologically still an animal. So a gun that can be used to kill a human can most definitely be used to shoot an animal so long as it isn't sizably larger and heavier than a human. And a gun that can be used to kill any kind of large animal can most definitely be used to kill a human.

 

And the practice of adopting military guns for hunting purposes goes back to the days of the Revolution. Sometimes the inverse happens as well, for example the military and law enforcement use a version of what is a very popular bolt-action hunting rifle, the Remington 700, for use as a sniper rifle. The Army and law enforcement use a version called the M24, the Marines use a version called the M40.

 

Some guns are used across the board, for example shotguns. Shotguns are used in everything from hunting to home defense to law enforcement to military.

 

 

WOW! Gunbroker.com is slow as hell right now.

WOW! Gunbroker.com is slow as hell right now.

 

Wallmart sold out....

 

 

No... I dont mean theyve joined the Brady Campaign.... I mean THEY HAVE NO INVENTORY LEFT....

 

 

I would venture a guess, a million or more guns have sold in the last five days....

Wallmart sold out....

 

 

No... I dont mean theyve joined the Brady Campaign.... I mean THEY HAVE NO INVENTORY LEFT....

 

 

I would venture a guess, a million or more guns have sold in the last five days....

 

 

Yep, just got back from Cabelas and the racks are empty, wow!

As far as gun control goes, here is my take on what we will see in the years to come: Us older guys (Roman), haha will not really be affected. We already have

our guns and the government knows better than to try and take them. It won't be our kids but our grandchildren

will live in non gun culture. The government will tax, regulate, require permits, require schooling, continuing education, etc to the point where it is too much of a hassle

for them to own a gun. Us older guys will pass our guns down to our offspring and those guns will be worth a fortune because the guns of the future will pale

in comparison for the civilian. So 2 or 3 decades from now I think we will live in a semi gun free enviroment. Actually we wont be living but our heirs will be.

Quite frankly Im pretty sure I dont want the upcoming kids and their kids with guns. Most of them can't even pour piss out of a boot much less handle the

responsibility of gun ownership. Never seen so many ignorant kids. I was taught by my father how to take care of a gun, gun safety and we went on hunting

trips. Had a lot of respect for what the firearm could do and how it was to be handled. This young generation coming up does not have a clue except how to

play angry birds and text on their phones. Their hobbies are doing nothing and being gamers and couch potatoes. So just wait, in time the government will

have control over everything you do but I am glad I will not see it. We have a very weak generation coming.

As far as gun control goes, here is my take on what we will see in the years to come: Us older guys (Roman), haha will not really be affected. We already have

our guns and the government knows better than to try and take them. It won't be our kids but our grandchildren

will live in non gun culture. The government will tax, regulate, require permits, require schooling, continuing education, etc to the point where it is too much of a hassle

for them to own a gun. Us older guys will pass our guns down to our offspring and those guns will be worth a fortune because the guns of the future will pale

in comparison for the civilian. So 2 or 3 decades from now I think we will live in a semi gun free enviroment. Actually we wont be living but our heirs will be.

Quite frankly Im pretty sure I dont want the upcoming kids and their kids with guns. Most of them can't even pour piss out of a boot much less handle the

responsibility of gun ownership. Never seen so many ignorant kids. I was taught by my father how to take care of a gun, gun safety and we went on hunting

trips. Had a lot of respect for what the firearm could do and how it was to be handled. This young generation coming up does not have a clue except how to

play angry birds and text on their phones.

 

IF something serious looks like its pending, (Ill let you know) I may do a few quickie "gun trusts" for folks before it goes into effect... (I already have one... ALL my firearms are in it) You no longer own your guns. Your trust does. You... Your wife... Your kids.... Their kids are the "beneficiaries"... You are the trustee in your lifetime.... Then one or more of your kids... ETC... No future transfers... No illegality... The family keeps the guns forever.

IF something serious looks like its pending, (Ill let you know) I may do a few quickie "gun trusts" for folks before it goes into effect... (I already have one... ALL my firearms are in it) You no longer own your guns. Your trust does. You... Your wife... Your kids.... Their kids are the "beneficiaries"... You are the trustee in your lifetime.... Then one or more of your kids... ETC... No future transfers... No illegality... The family keeps the guns forever.

 

 

I love the trust idea.

What about high capacity magazines? Any logic to banning magazines that hold more than a certain amount of bullets? Personally I like them because it means I have less downtime at the range while shooting...but that also happens to be anti-gun folks opinion as to why they are so "dangerous"...less down time while shooting, more ammunition for the shooter, etc. I guess if I was stuck with a 10 round magazine, I may complain about having to reload them too often, but in the end I believe I would look at it like my current view on class III weapons...I'd like to own one and it would be fun to shoot, but I'm not going to lose any sleep by not having one and I understand why additional hoops are necessary to own one.

 

Personally I love shooting. I enjoy the hobby. I grew up around guns (had my own .22 at age 6 and shot the hell out of it) and I don't fear them...I respect them. I don't enjoy hunting as I don't get any type of thrill on killing something, nor would I eat anything I killed, but I dont have issues with those who do enjoy hunting (except those folks looking to kill off wolves...no reason for that!). I also don't like carrying a gun every day. I feel more paranoid with a gun than without. When I carry I feel like danger is lurking around every corner and I'd better be vigilant to protect myself. I don't feel that way when I'm not carrying. Its interesting reading about how people in other countries view the U.S. and how some seem to feel that the U.S. is inherently unsafe. I dont feel that way at all...unless I carry. I LOVE the U.S. I dont feel like its a dangerous country and I dont feel like I am going to need to have a weapon at the ready at all times in order to protect myself or my family from some pending invasion, government crackdown, cracked out home invasion crew, etc. I have several guns for just such a possibility, but it often seems like the pro-gun crowd remains in a hyper-vigilant state for just such an occasion and uses that as an excuse to continue to push a pro-gun agenda, even if their lifestyle enables them to live in relative safety. And yes, I believe the anti-gun crowd does the exact same thing. Again, I'm not knocking those who chose to carry everyday and I believe that folks who carry are justified, it just makes me feel paranoid when I do, so I chose not to.

 

It seems like, in our country at the moment, everything has to be so black and white with little or no grey area...and there is a shit load of grey area. I hate efforts to push through knee jerk laws that ostracize something that has little or no causative effect. It makes no sense. And while I have heard and read tons of rhetoric, proposals, ideas this past week, I have to say (and I'm not trying to brown nose here ) that the best opinion on this whole thing, I've heard, comes from RD. Well reasoned and without all of the pretense that often accompanies "hot button" topics like this. So hats off to you RD on making this discussion more about reason than hyperbole...well done!

Roman those videos and your write-up were excellent and I thank you for posting them.

 

I placed an AR order on GunBroker the day of the tragedy because I'd been wanting one anyway and I knew the pricing would likely increase if I waited. I'm so glad I did, you can't find them anywhere now and if you can it's a premium price and you better be ready to make the deal on the spot or the next buyer will!

Thanks guys...