Walmart said Wednesday that it will stop selling military-style semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s.
Walmart (WMT) spokesman Kory Lundberg said the move is in response to slumping demand.
Generally speaking, gun sales have been strong this summer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted 1.6 million background checks in July for all gun sales, not just semiautomatic weapons. That's up from 1.4 million total checks in July of 2015.
Background checks aren't a direct indicator of gun sales, since they are not required for some sales at trade shows and between individuals. But they are a good barometer for the market.
AR-15s have been used in mass shootings including Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., and gun control advocates have long been fighting to restrict the sale of these weapons.
Walmart made the announcement on the same day that two television journalists were murdered on live television by a man wielding a handgun, but the retailer did not mention the shootings.
Walmart CEO Douglas McMillon had indicated he might do this in a June 23 interview with CNNMoney.
"Our focus in terms of firearms should be hunters and people who shoot sporting clays, and things like that," said McMillon in June. "So the types of rifles we sell, the types of ammunition we sell, should be curated for those things."
When asked at the time if he would curtail sales of semiautomatic guns, McMillon said "yes."
"We want to serve people who hunt and fish and we want to have a great sporting goods department," he said.
My Wal-Mart only sold one in .22, for plinking and varmint hunting, and it was overpriced. I've seen them in 5.56, but its more rare. No huge loss of sales on their part, just political posturing.
The rationale was that the market is saturated, rather than political pressure. I believe it; you can get an entry level AR for like $500 now, and there's only so long you can prime the market with "OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS" panic buying. Walmart guy is also right that the AR15 really doesn't fit with the rest of the stuff they sell super well; .223 is not really a great hunting round for anything other than varmints and wild pigs.
I wonder if this will mean a sale on the Ruger 10/22 - I've wanted them for a while but can't quite bring myself to buy one.
Only reason to get an AR from Walmart anyway was when they have Colts on sale for Black Friday. Any other time and you can get them cheaper elsewhere.
The reasoning is strange though. Many people use semi-autos for hunting. The quote from the spokesperson covers ALL semi-auto guns. The Ruger 10/22 is perhaps the most popular semi-auto in America, they gonna stop carrying that?
The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?
Up to them, not like I shop at Walmart anyway. People of Walmart website is NOT exaggerrating the type of people you have to deal with in that store...
More than likely, Wal-Mart just isn't selling enough of them so they're focusing on what they sell the most of. That's my guess, anyway. On the radio this morning the news said something like less than a third of all Wal-Marts sell that gun anyway.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: My Wal-Mart only sold one in .22, for plinking and varmint hunting, and it was overpriced. I've seen them in 5.56, but its more rare. No huge loss of sales on their part, just political posturing.
This. WalMart bragging about not selling semi-auto rifles is like a wife of 30 years bragging about not ____ing your ____.
Well I do have to agree, I think it's a smart move to keep the "scary black assault rifle mass murdering 30 round clipazine monsters" away from the general public so they can sleep safely knowing that they won't be gunned down while shopping .
Plus if someone really wants to get educated on safe responsible firearm usage, I'd rather have them go to a place where people know what they are talking about. Because my experience at Wal-Mart was borderline depressing, I had to walk the guy behind the counter through everything. I almost wanted to get behind there and take over.
Anyways I think overall it is a good move and like others have said, there are plenty of places to get better deals and information with more options.
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Well I do have to agree, I think it's a smart move to keep the "scary black assault rifle mass murdering 30 round clipazine monsters" away from the general public so they can sleep safely knowing that they won't be gunned down while shopping .
On the contrary, I think it was a good idea for them to carry "scary" rifles (whatever that means) in a mainstream store to demonstrate to ignorant people that these guns don't just start murdering people of their own accord and that they are actually quite a common item.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Thank you for highlighting your lack of understanding with this quote. We appreciate the clarification, and can thusly ignore any more comments you have on American firearms laws and protections.
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Not really, but thanks for clarifying your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the matter.
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
and thankfully you brits have no place in the argument. Your opinion is yours to share but for the sake of not starting gak, your opinion is invalid so keep it to yourself.
Well I do have to agree, I think it's a smart move to keep the "scary black assault rifle mass murdering 30 round clipazine monsters" away from the general public so they can sleep safely knowing that they won't be gunned down while shopping .
Plus if someone really wants to get educated on safe responsible firearm usage, I'd rather have them go to a place where people know what they are talking about. Because my experience at Wal-Mart was borderline depressing, I had to walk the guy behind the counter through everything. I almost wanted to get behind there and take over.
Anyways I think overall it is a good move and like others have said, there are plenty of places to get better deals and information with more options.
~Chief
I don't really care. People in another country, who have particular cultures and motives I do not understand, can sort out their own stuff. I was just saying that, as already evident, this thread's going down the route all gun threads go down.
I don't really care. People in another country, who have particular cultures and motives I do not understand, can sort out their own stuff. I was just saying that, as already evident, this thread's going down the route all gun threads go down.
Walmart decides to quit selling AR-15, other modern sporting rifles
Walmart said that it is in the process of pulling modern sporting rifles such as the AR-15 from stores this week, instead focusing more on selling other sports and hunting firearms.
The decision is related purely to lack of customer demand, says Walmart spokesman Kory Lundberg, not the spate of shootings that have occurred in the past year, including one Wednesday in which two TV journalists were killed during a live interview near Roanoke, Va. Lundberg says the decision was made earlier this year.
"It’s based on what customers are looking for and what they were buying when they come into Walmart," he says, adding that modern sporting rifles, or MSRs, were sold in less than a third of Walmart's stores. "It’s very similar to what we do with other products. If there’s not customer demand there, we’ll phase it out."
Walmart started making the transition on store shelves this week, with plans to stock more weapons such as shotguns instead. Walmart does not sell handguns except through special order through some stores in Alaska. Walmart still sells ammunition for handguns and modern sporting rifles though, Lundberg says.
Modern sporting rifles are semiautomatic weapons that are among the most popular firearms on the market, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Though Walmart says the decision is not political, it comes at a time when public shootings have fueled a national debate about gun control and the sale of firearms.
They say it isn't political, and its just a lack of sales. I don't buy the first part, otherwise they would have just phased them out without a peep, like any other product.
On the other hand, they have the cheapest price I've ever seen for new shotguns and Remington 700s, so I personally don't care about ARs
Well I do have to agree, I think it's a smart move to keep the "scary black assault rifle mass murdering 30 round clipazine monsters" away from the general public so they can sleep safely knowing that they won't be gunned down while shopping .
On the contrary, I think it was a good idea for them to carry "scary" rifles (whatever that means) in a mainstream store to demonstrate to ignorant people that these guns don't just start murdering people of their own accord and that they are actually quite a common item.
I can see where you are coming from, but unfortunately being in the bay area of California, here we are a little too far gone in terms of the general public. In my experience, if you aren't raised in a gun friendly house that actually teaches you a skillset, acountability and basic gunhandling saftey, theres a very slim chance you'll ever understand or want to understand what it is to be a responsible gun owner.
And scary black rifle is often the way the news here portrays any black military looking firearms, preying on the general publics ignorance. You could hold up a M4 styled .22 and they would think that's a fully automatic military grade weapon of mass destruction.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: I was just saying that, as already evident, this thread's going down the route all gun threads go down.
Yes, unfortunately, and it was destined to do so from the outset.
As long as everyone follows the site rules, we can have a million threads where posters who actually care about and know about firearms dispute posts made by posters who apparently don't. And as already pointed out:
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
I would not say their 2nd Amendment is an unnecessary relic. With how much violence there is in American society compared to European societies, I think they are justified in their weapons (of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place). I know I'd want to have a weapon if I ever were to go there. Judging from the responses of Americans in this and previous threads, it seems to be a pretty ingrained part of their culture.
I don't think you or I can really understand it.
Sorry but- here's the definiton for your 2nd Amendment:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
Point being?
"Regulated" in the language of the time refers to being well-equipped and trained. The Militia (both organised and unorganised) is composed of the people. It is saying that in order for a country to be free, its populace must be well armed and proficient in the use of those arms, and therefore the government is not allowed to infringe on the Citizenry's ability to keep and bear arms.
Personally I don't see why Walmart sell guns at all. That in itself worries me. Perhaps there is a major difference between US and UK supermarkets, but I wouldn't want to buy a gun from ASDA (Walmarts UK arm).
As long as everyone follows the site rules, we can have a million threads where posters who actually care about and know about firearms dispute posts made by posters who apparently don't.
I think your confusing "care about" and "enjoy". Just because people are anti guns does not mean they don't care about them. This is one of the major pro gun issues. Assuming that people who want gun controls know nothing and want all guns banned. The U.S. has a problem in that it lets the two extreams control the debate, and both use an argument of "your with us or against us". But the in the UK we have let the hard line anti gun movement have too much say.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruledin District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that;
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
By and large, ever since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, being in a militia has never been considered a relevant matter concerning the general right to own firearms. We've just never interpreted it that way as a matter of precedent.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
Glad you're not a teacher of US History. Your class would fall quite short.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Responsible gun owners are not the problem, it is the irresponsible ones.
Of whom we don't prosecute enough.
All those parents that have kids shooting themselves with guns laying around? They need to be prosecuted and held accountable for their irresponsibility.
It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.
There are (regardless if perception) many crimes stopped/prevented or at least the damage mitigated due to a victim/intended victim being armed or an armed person intervening.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.
And? I'm discussing the cause of violent crimes, which the quote I responded to suggested was due to guns.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Exactly. Especially since in recent years gun ownership has been going up while violent crime has been taking a nose dive worthy of a Stuka.
MWHistorian wrote: It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.
Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.
To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Loads of studies show that easy availability of weapons increases the amount of violence involving weapons, and makes the damage worse according to the effectiveness of the weapons.
Quite aside from shootings related to crimes, how's the rate of suicide by gun compared to other methods? Many people that get so desperate that they'd off themself won't go through with it if they don't have an easy method of doing so readily available. Like suicide rates going down in the UK after they started phasing out coal gas ovens, for example - it was a handy method and once it was gone people just decided to live on instead of killing themself.
MWHistorian wrote: It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now. I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere. People often forget this part of the 2nd A. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.
Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.
In their day private citizens and groups owned cannon and warships.
To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.
The staff at a WalMart is pretty damned likely to get the paperwork filled out, as the company has audit systems and is a big enough company that the Feds take interest to make sure they do so. The pimple-faced kid making $8 an hour can't ring up a gun unless the checks are done, the system WalMart has won't let him.
Iron_Captain wrote: of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place
I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.
Loads of studies show that easy availability of weapons increases the amount of violence involving weapons, and makes the damage worse according to the effectiveness of the weapons.
I mean, we can file that under "no frelling duh".
The point I'm making has nothing to do with the tool used in violence. From guns to cars to bare hands, the root cause of violence isn't the tool used. We recently had a woman on the news for killing her husband by running over him (repeatedly) with her car. The car did not make her do that. Something inside her told her that was her best course of action. That ephemeral "something" is the root of her violence, not the SUV she used to break her husband's body.
My point was and continues to be that there "vicious cycle" of violence has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with a breakdown in the collective empathy of the people in the US where violence becomes the only solution to problems in the mind of some persons.
Another example: The Bath School disaster. A man detonated a series of bombs at his home and a school, because he was upset about tax hikes, his property being foreclosed and being defeated in an election. For a majority of people in that situation, the answer is not "blow up a crapton of people, including 38 children". For this particular a-hole, it was. The cause of the violence wasn't the bombs. The cause of the violence was a murderous a-hole.
MWHistorian wrote: It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.
Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.
To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.
No, but the Founding Fathers were familiar with private citizens owning their own warships and artillery. At the time Navy's were often largely made up of Privateers. It was also common practice for many military regiments to be entirely the property of the commanding officer, who employed his men out of his own pocket and was paid by the government for their services(typically based on how many men the regiment was comprised of and what type of regiment it was). They'd be shocked we didn't allow citizens to own warships and artillery, a firearm which shoots 30 rounds a minute would be even more of a shock that you consider it not to be proper for a citizen to carry(which is btw a pretty low rate for a semi-automatic. You should be able to get a minimum of 60 rounds a minute with a semi)
The concept of a professional national army was only just beginning to be a concept, and not a hugely popular one in the US at the time. The assumption at the time was very much that the citizens could own anything they damn well pleased. And usually better quality than the government could afford. The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.
Fair enough. I guess anti-firearm lobbyists do care about firearms inasmuch as they care about restricting private ownership of firearms. But as you (probably) suspected, I had in mind folks who have thought about firearms more broadly than the topic of banning them. As a matter of anecdote, the basis for most personal opinions if we're honest, I have found that there is a strong correlation between not caring about firearms (not being involved with collecting or using them as a sport and/or hobby) and supporting anti-firearm policy. So, I think this:
Steve steveson wrote: Assuming that people who want gun controls know nothing and want all guns banned.
is actually a pretty fair assumption. But you can test it out for yourself. You might notice that most anti-firearm lobbyists lead by claiming that it is time to have a "serious" or "reasonable" discussion about gun control -- of course this is a rhetorical tactic, setting up those who want to preserve private ownership of firearms as not being serious or reasonable or wanting to have a discussion. In fact, any authentically "serious" or "reasonable" discussion about gun control MUST begin with a comprehensive account of all gun control policies currently in place and whether they are being enforced. See how many anti-firearms forum users start with that or even broach the subject without being prompted.
In the US, gun control is to the Left what abortion is to the Right -- a hot button you constantly push to rile up your base regardless of the fact that you have no meaningful policy.
Grey Templar wrote: No, but the Founding Fathers were familiar with private citizens owning their own warships and artillery. At the time Navy's were often largely made up of Privateers. It was also common practice for many military regiments to be entirely the property of the commanding officer, who employed his men out of his own pocket and was paid by the government for their services(typically based on how many men the regiment was comprised of and what type of regiment it was). They'd be shocked we didn't allow citizens to own warships and artillery, a firearm which shoots 30 rounds a minute would be even more of a shock that you consider it not to be proper for a citizen to carry(which is btw a pretty low rate for a semi-automatic. You should be able to get a minimum of 60 rounds a minute with a semi)
I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.
Grey Templar wrote: The concept of a professional national army was only just beginning to be a concept, and not a hugely popular one in the US at the time. The assumption at the time was very much that the citizens could own anything they damn well pleased. And usually better quality than the government could afford. The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.
Yes, the paranoia of "guv'ment comin' ta git me!" was strong then. Of course, the government was more powerful then being a King with very little oversight or repercussion. Being mistrusting of a new government is understandable though, as it hadn't really been tried in such a way before. It was scary for the people. Probably just as scary for the government though
You do realize that mass shootings are incredibly rare right? They don't even account for any significant portion of gun deaths(which themselves are going down).
Basing sweeping legislation effecting millions of people on an incredibly rare event seems just a tad bit excessive don't you think? Especially when all the big school shootings were done with weapons acquired illegally, so more strict gun laws would have done nothing.
The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.
Not that myth again
Anyway, this thread has reminded me of something I've been wanting to do for a while: a discussion of SCOTUS's ruling on the Heller case.
There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.
For example, Pennsylvania was the only state pre-constitution days, that had a clause allowing people to own firearms for self-defence purposes.
And of course, James Madison wanted an opt-out clause for people who never wanted to join the militias, which suggests that the militias, and not a standing army, was to bear the brunt of defending the USA.
Which makes sense, when you've told one standing army where to go
But militias fell out of favour during the war of 1812 when a certain militia didn't defend a certain capitol city and a certain James Madison had to flee for his life. He wasn't keen on militias after that
whembly wrote: "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."
Where the hell are you getting those stats?
The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.
Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?
Lord Corellia wrote: All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."
I'll raise you a "Thousands of lives saved and rapes prevented, you can't take it from me".
But you don't see those on the news because it's hard to sensationalise to draw viewers, so naturally the public perception is skewed toward the anti-gun perspective because most people just watch the evening news on network television, see the shocking news stories that draw viewers and make money, and don't investigate further.
Just like the "gun violence" stats that antis like to quote actually include suicide, gang shootings, justified self-defense and police action, but they put it across as all being entirely due to mass-murderers to further their agenda.
whembly wrote: "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."
Where the hell are you getting those stats?
The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.
Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?
I need that firepower because I want to ensure I can actively engage my target(s) until the threat is eliminated. Do some basic research on self-defense shootings and you'll see that criminals, especially if under the influence of narcotics, don't roll over dead after 1 shot like in Hollywood movies.
Grey Templar wrote: You do realize that mass shootings are incredibly rare right? They don't even account for any significant portion of gun deaths(which themselves are going down).
Basing sweeping legislation effecting millions of people on an incredibly rare event seems just a tad bit excessive don't you think? Especially when all the big school shootings were done with weapons acquired illegally, so more strict gun laws would have done nothing.
Yes, I realize that they are rare. What purpose does it serve for an average Joe to have a weapon with a rate of fire that high? Doesn't accuracy fall drastically when you're trying to deal with that sort of recoil?
I think I know the answer: because we're allowed to. My aunt (by marriage) has a brother who owns a massive .50 cal sniper rifle. That he can legally own but can't legally fire anywhere within a hundred miles of where he lives. He has literally never fired this thing. What's the point of owning something if you can't use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
whembly wrote: "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."
Where the hell are you getting those stats?
The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.
Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?
Self-defense is a good reason. If someone is coming at you all hopped on Adrenalin one bullet isn't going to put them down unless you blow their heart or spinal cord out, and that is very unlikely.
Better to have and not need than need and not have.
This same weapon and scenario can apply to hunting too. If you get attacked by a wild, and or injured, animal you are going to need more than one round to drop it. The only way you can realistically drop anything in one shot is if you are aiming and your target is unaware of your presence. Neither is true in the case of bear/puma/boar/etc attack or a home invasion.
The second it takes you to reload could be the second you die.
There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.
No, no there isn't.
Yes, yes, there is
The Supreme Court and the actual text of the Constitution says you are very very wrong.
The supreme court, and a conservative judge, are trying to second guess the intentions of a man (James Madison) from 250 years ago.
The primary evidence from the time, and there's a lot of it, shows that Madison's intentions were to have the militia at the fore-front of national defence.
I cited the Pennsylvania constitution, the pacifist clause that Madison wanted as part of the 2nd, and the fact that having defeated the British army, the Americans were in mood to have their own standing army marching around.
Gun laws get complicated because of the post-civil war terror attacks on African Americans, and the clause in the 14th amendment that stopped the southern states from denying African-Americans access to firearms.
You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.
The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".
Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Lord Corellia wrote: Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?
If you live in a state that allows NFA registered weapons, and pay the $200 tax stamp and the ludicrous asking price for such weapons - a legal select fire rifle starts at around $20k USD and goes up from there - then nothing is stopping you from doing so.
Grey Templar wrote: You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.
The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".
Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Could blacks and women buy and bear arms back then?
Lord Corellia wrote: Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?
Why am I still arguing about this? That's a better question
Given that they've never been used in a crime, why not?
Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases. The only people who want automatic weapons are law abiding citizens.
Lord Corellia wrote: Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?
Why am I still arguing about this? That's a better question
Because government has infringed on the ability of Citizens to own and manufactur full-auto firearms for quite some time. As a result, legal full-auto firearms are rare and expensive, and require lots of paperwork to acquire.
If I could own one at a reasonable price, you bet I would.
Grey Templar wrote: You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.
The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".
Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Could blacks and women buy and bear arms back then?
No trolling on my part - just having a reasoned debate on the 2nd amendment. I understand that some Americans take their rights and freedoms seriously, and I respect that, but that doesn't mean to say we can't talk about these issues in a civil manner.
Settled law and moral law are two different things entirely. Just because SCOTUS ruled on something, doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion. After all, SCOTUS ruled on Dredd Scott, and ruled on separate but equal...
Completely different issue for sure, but proof that SCOTUS is not infallible.
Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd is his interpretation. Another judge in future could settle it another way.
Manchu wrote: Those are some interesting examples, you seem to be arguing for and against might is right in the same post.
Just making the point that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's 'right.'
I'm not comparing SCOTUS to Nazi Germany, because SCOTUS is governed by checks and balances, but you can't deny that SCOTUS is vastly different from its original conception and has become far too politicised over the years, which is never a good thing for a judiciary.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases.
They'd certainly steal full-auto weapons if they happened to find some during a burglary, but that's why there's requirements for how those things should be stored. Expensive stuff is good loot. But not so good to use for crime - "a man with a gun" already draws police, "a man with a machine gun" will bring in SWAT, FBI, ATF and all other sorts of nasty things. And ofc, dumping a 100$ handgun hurts a lot less than dumping a 20K$+ piece of hardware, even if it was stolen to begin with.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
That's the important part of the amendment right there.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases.
They'd certainly steal full-auto weapons if they happened to find some during a burglary, but that's why there's requirements for how those things should be stored. Expensive stuff is good loot. But not so good to use for crime - "a man with a gun" already draws police, "a man with a machine gun" will bring in SWAT, FBI, ATF and all other sorts of nasty things. And ofc, dumping a 100$ handgun hurts a lot less than dumping a 20K$+ piece of hardware, even if it was stolen to begin with.
Exactly. And even if they were legal to purchase freely, which would make them cheaper, they'd still be wildly impractical to use in a crime.
And its rarely $100 handguns. More like $40-50 if that. You can pick up a gun pretty damn cheap if you know the right people, being criminals who redistribute guns among other criminals.
Criminals we see in the movies robbing banks with SAWs and MP5s don't exist.
Actually, I agree. The sooner we get rid of AR-15s from Walmart shelves and replace them with Israeli made bullpups like the Tavor, the sooner I'll buy a gun at Walmart.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
That's the important part of the amendment right there.
No, the entire amendment, every word of it, is of equal importance. The minute anyone declares a part of an amendment is somehow more important than another part of it lessens that right. I do not say this in regards to this amendment in particular, but for all of them in general.
Actually, I agree. The sooner we get rid of AR-15s from Walmart shelves and replace them with Israeli made bullpups like the Tavor, the sooner I'll buy a gun at Walmart.
Have an exalt for that!
I would definitely love to have something of that quality more readily available, though it would require me to ignore my personal boycott of Walmart
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
That's the important part of the amendment right there.
No, the entire amendment, every word of it, is of equal importance. The minute anyone declares a part of an amendment is somehow more important than another part of it lessens that right. I do not say this in regards to this amendment in particular, but for all of them in general.
The first part is why we have the amendment, the second is that actual 'rule' contained within. Its a qualifier for the second half
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
He called you ignorant because you if you think that semi automatic rifles are a public safety threat, you're either not familiar with the statistics or too politically biased to be willing to base your conclusions on actual data. The only category of firearms that might have a meaningful effect on the crime rate are inexpensive handguns, and even removing those from sale or banning them won't really do anything to keep them off the black market. Either way, banning semiautomatic rifles to prevent crime would be like trying to ban red sports cars in an attempt to reduce traffic accidents. It's nothing more than a pointless political statement that doesn't really accomplish anything meaningful.
Alex C wrote: The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?
Hunting and sports, wasn't it? Means they'll probably just get rid of anything marketed specifically as "man-stopper" rounds.
Whats a man stopper round?
I don't know about "man stopper" rounds. But if I had to guess what Walmart means by "hunting ammo" I would think that they are talking about shotgun shells, .22 ammo, and other ammo that is marketed towards hunting instead of being marketed as SD rounds.
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore. We're citizens not subjects here. And as some fresh off the refugee boat relatives of mine said while reloading their rifles "Take that steenking English, and here's one for your Prussian friends too! That will teach you to make me flee to this mosquito infested godforsaken land! Vive Le Emperor! Quickly, someone get me more wine!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: Personally I don't see why Walmart sell guns at all. That in itself worries me. Perhaps there is a major difference between US and UK supermarkets, but I wouldn't want to buy a gun from ASDA (Walmarts UK arm).
As long as everyone follows the site rules, we can have a million threads where posters who actually care about and know about firearms dispute posts made by posters who apparently don't.
I think your confusing "care about" and "enjoy". Just because people are anti guns does not mean they don't care about them. This is one of the major pro gun issues. Assuming that people who want gun controls know nothing and want all guns banned. The U.S. has a problem in that it lets the two extreams control the debate, and both use an argument of "your with us or against us". But the in the UK we have let the hard line anti gun movement have too much say.
Most don't sell firearms, even in the South.
To the argument its sales-thats horsegak. On gun sites there've been notation of deep sales. Walmart's trying to dump them and get out. As another noted, fine by me. thats their purview and I make it a point to darken their door almost never as nothing they sell is made in the USA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: You mean words don't just mean what I assume they do??
I know right. If you had a teenager there used of words is...interesting.
"that so totes!" "what are you talking about. You don't need an umbrella, it hasn't rained here in three months. We're in a drought." "Dad just, Ga go sit on the sofa, rub Rodney's belly and quit talking." "Yes rub my belly!" "OH GOD RODNEY CAN TALK!!!!"
well that post went in a different direction didn't it.
Manchu wrote: Those are some interesting examples, you seem to be arguing for and against might is right in the same post.
Just making the point that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's 'right.'
I'm not comparing SCOTUS to Nazi Germany, because SCOTUS is governed by checks and balances, but you can't deny that SCOTUS is vastly different from its original conception and has become far too politicised over the years, which is never a good thing for a judiciary.
Nazis banned firearm ownership. Nazis, why does it always have ot be Nazis? I really hate those guys.
Ouze wrote: The rationale was that the market is saturated, rather than political pressure. I believe it; you can get an entry level AR for like $500 now, and there's only so long you can prime the market with "OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS" panic buying. Walmart guy is also right that the AR15 really doesn't fit with the rest of the stuff they sell super well; .223 is not really a great hunting round for anything other than varmints and wild pigs.
This is, I believe, the core of it. Once the post 2012 craziness died away, and the rifles were going for $500-700 instead of double that, and demand correspondingly dropped as well, it makes sense that they're dumping them.
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Well, it's a good thing we don't just discard the rights of citizens just because a foreign national things they're unnecessary.
Me oh my, do you not see how your line of thinking could be used against any and all rights and how absurd they look when applied to say, freedom of speech?
Probably pistol hollow-points and shotgun loads marketed as stopping bad guys instead of moose. .308 soft-nose should be safe since it's meant for hunting.
Alex C wrote: The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?
Hunting and sports, wasn't it? Means they'll probably just get rid of anything marketed specifically as "man-stopper" rounds.
Whats a man stopper round?
There doesn't seem to be a definition, but the Research president of G2 Research seems happy enough to refer to their R.I.P. rounds as "an effective one-shot manstopper".
Cliff Brown, G2 Research President, told The Blaze that excitement for the new round “went viral” after they visited the Las Vegas Shot Show in January, and published their research videos online.
“We went around and talked to several vendors and it knocked their socks off,” Brown said. “I’ve been in the ammunition business for many years and I wanted to create a round that would work well against a home intruder — there were so many stories out there about a woman trying to defend her home and having to shoot someone five or six times and they’d still come after her, we wanted to create an effective one-shot manstopper.”
So my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.
Henry wrote: my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.
So...... Hollywood rounds?
Well, hitting them anywhere might have been a bit too much. I doubt that shooting the toe off of your target is going to cause them to bleed out.
How one determines what level of force or effectiveness in causing trauma is required to upgrade a round to a "man-stopper" is beyond me. I just know that the old chaps I talked to early in my career would call the old 7.62 a man-stopper when compared with a modern 5.56.
Alex C wrote: Probably a similar method to determining "high-powered" rifles...
I guess my point was that terms like man-stopper, high power, assault rifle, high capacity, tactical (seriously, WhyTF is everything called tactical - you've spray painted some crappy "urban" camo design on it, or it looks like what you think you saw some special forces dudes using in some high budget, crap plot, explosion filled, dog egg film, doesn't make it "tactical"), may not have technical definitions, but they are terms that are colloquially used in reference to armaments.
A quick trawl of internet gun fan forums will show these terms being used by gun owners as well as opponents - the only people not using these terms are aficionados. Kind of like when a lexicographer points out that lake Windermere is a tautology - everyone knows, we just don't care.
(Or like when some regiment goon says the tired old "It's not a gun, it's a rifle. If you want a gun go and sign a howitzer out of the armoury!" Oh, how we laugh along with the regiment banter. Those long winter months in the regiment office must fly by with that humour)
Edit: just thought I'd give a little substance to back up the above. My regular weapon has an effective range of 300m and fires 5.56. It's ... ok as far as rifles go (wish I could get something left handed). Our sharp shooters fire a rifle with an effective range of 800m and fires 7.62. These are not sniper rifles, but higher power, higher calibre rifles. Compared with what I've got they are indeed high power and man stoppers. It's all subjective I guess.
Frazzled wrote: Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.
Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own. Eventually they named it Texas and invented Tex-Mex. Later they pussied out and let the Federal government of the US acquire it, mostly for the seasoned carnitas recipe.
Frazzled wrote: Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.
Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own. Eventually they named it Texas and invented Tex-Mex. Later they pussied out and let the Federal government of the US acquire it, mostly for the seasoned carnitas recipe.
OK if we're going to be accurate that branch didn't get to Texas until after Texas wussied out and let the Federal government join it, then chased some Comanche out of a perfectly serviceable horse plain to poorly farm crops that would one day be fought over by bikers in a titty bar. Later they would be best known for not ducking from a Yankee minie ball at Shiloh. And thats it. Thats why I'm Frazzled "My ancestors made it safe for a Twin Peaks in Waco" Jr.
Grey Templar wrote: Its no different than the terms "Assault Rifle", "High powered rifle", etc...
Its a word with no real meaning that anti-gun people like to toss around.
I believe the term you're looking for is assault weapon. Assault rifles are a distinct, real life object, with certain characteristics (selective fire, detachable mag, etc.) while an assault weapon is far more wishy-washy. According to the US Justice Department in 1994, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." That's vague. Assault rifles are not.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Class dismissed.
Lets look at the part you omitted, because that is the important par; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just to help you understand the Second Amendment (NSFW language)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.
The District of Columbia which has some of the strictest gun control in the country is also one of the most violent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Corellia wrote: Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.
We also didn't have cellphones, the internet, text messages, wireless warrant taps, etc. do you want to remove the right to free speech and right to a fair trial also?
TBF the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditional upon their participation in a well-regulated militia is no more "scholarly" than the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms arises from the danger posed to them by well-regulated militias. They're both just "plain meaning" interpretations.
Lord Corellia wrote: I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.
We obviously see things differently. I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.
I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.
Lord Corellia wrote: Yes, I realize that they are rare. What purpose does it serve for an average Joe to have a weapon with a rate of fire that high? Doesn't accuracy fall drastically when you're trying to deal with that sort of recoil?
An AR15 has very little recoil and is very easy to control. There have been incidents where an AR15 has been used to defed a group of multiple assailants. Now, in which school or other mass shooting was 60 people killed using a firearm?
Lord Corellia wrote: I think I know the answer: because we're allowed to. My aunt (by marriage) has a brother who owns a massive .50 cal sniper rifle. That he can legally own but can't legally fire anywhere within a hundred miles of where he lives. He has literally never fired this thing. What's the point of owning something if you can't use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
Ask him. He is responsible for the decision to own such a firearm, so he is the best placed to answer that question
Lord Corellia wrote: Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?
If you live in a state that allows NFA registered weapons, and pay the $200 tax stamp and the ludicrous asking price for such weapons - a legal select fire rifle starts at around $20k USD and goes up from there - then nothing is stopping you from doing so.
So long as you can also get a firearm manufactured before 1986
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Its no different than the terms "Assault Rifle", "High powered rifle", etc...
Its a word with no real meaning that anti-gun people like to toss around.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.
I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.
Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
- Ammosexuals
- Right wing fanatics
- Insurrectionists
- over compensation
- murders in waiting
- paranoid
etc.
Interesting that they take a completely different definition for mass shooting than most others.
What, 4 or more victims? Pretty sure that's the FBI definition (correct me if I'm wrong).
EDIT: The FBI has definitions for mass murder, not shootings, upon further digging. However, shootings, at least in my opinion, doesn't require fatalities; getting shot has more effects than just death.
...Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
...
I wouldn't have thought of 'gun nut' as a slur. I mean I'm a book nut, and I call myself that. I know people who call themselves gun nuts, and they certainly don't seem to think it's a slur. I guess it would depend on who's saying it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I wouldn't have thought of 'gun nut' as a slur. I mean I'm a book nut, and I call myself that. I know people who call themselves gun nuts, and they certainly don't seem to think it's a slur. I guess it would depend on who's saying it.
When it is being spoken with someone who has utter contempt for those obeying the law peacefully it isn't typically a phrase meant to be cordial
I haven't heard gun owners called that, but I have heard firearm fetishists referred to in such a way. Many gun owners are responsible, well meaning people. On the other hand you have the people that are not and that many of those titles apply to. Thinking in a bifurcated manner probably puts someone on the list I imagine as the actual issues are more complex than just "guns good" and "guns bad".
Manchu wrote: I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.
To the educated, I believe the term is "Bibliophile"
Honestly, I think that this, like so many other things really does depend on the source. Not to equate the two, but I see it as kind of how certain crowds use the N-word. In one setting, it's completely cool, it's somehow, inexplicably not a put-down. But if someone from outside that social circle says it, people are ready for Armageddon. If a guy who owns a bunch of guns calls him/her self a "gun nut" he's usually around like minded people, and will quite often take some kind of offense when "dem librals" call him a "gun nut" as a slur.
Manchu wrote: I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.
You have obviously never met my family.
It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.
Manchu wrote: I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.
You have obviously never met my family.
It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.
So... would you say something like "People in glass houses sink ships?" or "don't cross the road if you can't get out of the kitchen?"
Manchu wrote: I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.
You have obviously never met my family.
It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.
So... would you say something like "People in glass houses sink ships?" or "don't cross the road if you can't get out of the kitchen?"
Hitting targets to begin with is hard, hitting moving ones is even harder. Plus the caliber on those "scary black rifles" is fairly pathetic compared to EASILY accessible bolt actions such as the Mosin Nagant. Put 5.56X45mm into somebody's torso and they may very well survive. 7.62x54mm? Yeah you are probably dead all things considered. Plus semiautomatic rifles aren't even used in crime all that much due to them being RIFLES. You can't exactly smuggle a rifle through the public unless you either seriously modify the gun by cutting away the barrel and stock (and still needing a longcoat to hide it) or putting it in the trunk of your car, and pulling it out from a hundred meters or less of the thing you want to shoot. They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.
I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.
Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
- Ammosexuals
- Right wing fanatics
- Insurrectionists
- over compensation
- murders in waiting
- paranoid
etc.
Typical things Liberals are called
-Idiots
-Hippies
-Commies
-Socialists
-Granola Eaters
Stoners
-Dumb college students
etc
It goes both ways
I've always found the irony of this one so delicious... Especially coming from someone who either didn't graduate high school, or barely got a GED
Agreed to some extent. On the other hand I met plenty of people with very shortsighted world views as an undergrad, grad student and postdoc working in a STEM field too.
Seems like "education" (at the undergrad level in soft studies) != intelligence.
Wait a second, if Walmart stops selling me guns where else am I going to use a reaching stick to buy an AR-15 from the comfort of my rascal? I'll be dammed if I have to actually walk into a gun store.
Kilkrazy wrote: Disability legislation will compel gun shop owners to create accessibility ramps and wide doors for mobility scooter borne shoppers, so don't worry.
That's already a thing in many areas. Seriously, it really is.
Wyzilla wrote: They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.
Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.
It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular. The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.
Just as a side issue, there's a common assumption that murder is about other types of crime. It only accounts for about half of murders. But as you say above most of the killings were with pistols - while rifles were so small as to be almost a rounding error.
I don't know how many pistols there were in Australia when this happened (I think the federal buyback was a million pistols, and you still have like 300k?) , but I think that may not be tenable in the US, with 110 million handguns.
I truthfully am not sure what can be done to prevent mass shootings, but I certainly agree that banning or reducing access to select rifles based on aesthetic properties or magazine capacity probably won't help in any significant way. I'd tend to agree that easy access to firearms in general tend to increase violent crimes but then you have places with very stringent gun control that still have very high gun violence, so... eh. Maybe those places are outliers.
Of course, I also believe that Walmart was being truthful when they said it was sales that prompted this rather than other factors.
Because people might transform their mobility scooters into mini-tanks (like a Dalek) to protect themselves from criminals, and say they have the 2nd amendment right to do this
Ouze wrote: I don't know how many pistols there were in Australia when this happened (I think the federal buyback was a million pistols, and you still have like 300k?) , but I think that may not be tenable in the US, with 110 million handguns.
Sure, you'd never see an Australian style buy back in the US because there's just so many guns out there. You'd also never see controls as stringent as Australia (and to an extent this is a good thing, our gun laws are quite needlessly difficult in many places).
So any kind of US regulation wouldn't see the sudden change that happened in Australia, but I think the effect just of tighter restrictions on pistols would go a long way. Even just keeping a tab on who's buying pistols, so you know who's purchasing them legally then constantly having them 'stolen' to ship them in to black market would go a long way.
I truthfully am not sure what can be done to prevent mass shootings, but I certainly agree that banning or reducing access to select rifles based on aesthetic properties or magazine capacity probably won't help in any significant way.
Yeah, not sure what can be done to stop mass shootings, but banning scary guns won't help. People talk about mental health services, but that feels like something of a cop out to be honest. It might just be one of those things that you have to live with. And I think the bigger issue is the constant stream of murders that don't reach the headlines, and most of them are done with pistols.
I'd tend to agree that easy access to firearms in general tend to increase violent crimes but then you have places with very stringent gun control that still have very high gun violence, so... eh. Maybe those places are outliers.
You'll never see a neat correlation between gun control and murder, especially not on a city by city basis because crime is due to many factors. Drugs, poverty, education and a bunch of other factors are also major major factors.
Despite the scarcity of guns we still had something of a spree of shootings in Melbourne through the late 90s and 00s, basically a turf war over ecstasy.
Of course, I also believe that Walmart was being truthful when they said it was sales that prompted this rather than other factors.
Yeah. Walmart hasn't exactly made pleasing the more left wing part of the country a part of their business strategy.
Lord Corellia wrote: I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.
We obviously see things differently. I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.
And the militia was any male over age 18.
It was quite interesting to learn that James Madison wanted a pacifist clause inserted into the 2nd amendment, which supports the argument that the Militias would be the prime defenders of security in the USA, but Madison was overruled due to the horse trading that was going on at the time.
A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.
Wyzilla wrote: They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.
Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.
It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular.
To be fair, this effectively banned or extremely heavily restricted most types of firearms. and this meant that anything but bolt action rifles and small rimfire weapons are exceedingly difficult to obtain at all, at least as far as I am aware.
The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.
One must note that the rate of killing with firearms decreasing in and of itself may not necessarily be significant, unless that rate of decline is significantly higher than the general decrease in murder rates (otherwise it just means that people are using different weapons). I don't have that data in front of me so I don't know what the reality is, but just thought I'd caution about simply using the "firearms deaths" number, in and of itself.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, this effectively banned or extremely heavily restricted most types of firearms. and this meant that anything but bolt action rifles and small rimfire weapons are exceedingly difficult to obtain at all, at least as far as I am aware.
Well, every gun became restricted, effectively. Pistols and semi-auto rifles are difficult to get, you need a good reason or a lot of patience. Other weapons aren't that hard to get, but the licensing is high and stupidly bureaucratic, it'd be nice if that was relaxed.
One must note that the rate of killing with firearms decreasing in and of itself may not necessarily be significant, unless that rate of decline is significantly higher than the general decrease in murder rates (otherwise it just means that people are using different weapons). I don't have that data in front of me so I don't know what the reality is, but just thought I'd caution about simply using the "firearms deaths" number, in and of itself.
The murder rate itself has declined steadily, but it's basically unknowable to determine how much of that was due to guns, because the rate of firearm murder wasn't that high beforehand, and the murder rate was in decline already.
What is telling is the sharp decline in stolen weapons, that's dropped by more than half. Probably a lot of that is due to stronger databases tracking who's purchasing firearms, so it's now really foolish to buy guns then have them 'stolen', selling them to the black market.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.
Yeah, I suspect a lot of the people who argue that we need to go with a strict, literal reading of the constitution, and eliminate everything not specifically provided for (meaning the EPA, and the Department of Education) don't realize under this theory, the Army would also need to disbanded. I think the founding father were pretty clear on how bad an idea they thought standing armies were, and by the fact they explicitly called for the creation of a Post Office and left nothing whatsoever for a standing army.
Of course, in 2015 that's no longer a good idea. Conscript armies thrown together on the fly haven't been unworkable in forever. It's almost like the founding fathers knew they they needed to have a flexible document that allowed for societal evolution.
Wyzilla wrote: They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.
Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.
It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular. The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.
Just as a side issue, there's a common assumption that murder is about other types of crime. It only accounts for about half of murders. But as you say above most of the killings were with pistols - while rifles were so small as to be almost a rounding error.
Plus if you want something to defend your home with- you'll want something akin to an AR-15 or Shotgun instead of a puny handgun. The appeal of handguns as items of self defense purely spawns because other people may also have handguns on the street. As you mentioned in Down Under... remove that and the need for handguns in the first place virtually dries up. The only practical application of handguns that I know of besides defending against other handguns is keeping something like a .357 or .44 on your hip when hunting mean game like Boar in case the rifle fails to kill it.
Typical things Liberals are called
-Idiots
-Hippies
-Commies
-Socialists
-Granola Eaters
Stoners
-Dumb college students
etc
It goes both ways
You are assuming that I believe two wrongs make a right. When you say "It goes both ways" you also shows your belief that only those who lean right own guns.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.
Yeah, I suspect a lot of the people who argue that we need to go with a strict, literal reading of the constitution, and eliminate everything not specifically provided for (meaning the EPA, and the Department of Education) don't realize under this theory, the Army would also need to disbanded. I think the founding father were pretty clear on how bad an idea they thought standing armies were, and by the fact they explicitly called for the creation of a Post Office and left nothing whatsoever for a standing army.
Of course, in 2015 that's no longer a good idea. Conscript armies thrown together on the fly haven't been unworkable in forever. It's almost like the founding fathers knew they they needed to have a flexible document that allowed for societal evolution.
That would be incorrect,
The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies. Arguing such is as incorrect as trying to argue the second should only apply to muskets and not modern day weapons. When people talk about a literal reading they mean specifically the differences between enumerated powers and reserved powers. Raising and supporting an army is quite clearly an enumerated power of the federal government.
Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
However the popular will does not exist.
Thank goodness.
To avoid being attacked your best bet is good situational awareness. However, when that fails, un-concealing your concealed handgun can go a long ways towards stopping the attack, often without having to fire a shot.
As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
However the popular will does not exist.
Thank goodness.
To avoid being attacked your best bet is good situational awareness. However, when that fails, un-concealing your concealed handgun can go a long ways towards stopping the attack, often without having to fire a shot.
As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.
I have a box full of .380s that were about $50 - $100 a piece, but other than that...yea no way. I shot a Ruger target pistol so much the frame finally cracked. I would give that up for $250.
CptJake wrote: As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.
My .357 Rhino cost about $800 after all taxes and fees.
Jerram wrote: The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.
Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?
You can easily just resign all the paperwork every 2 years.
Example would be WWII military service. Believe is was for "Duration of"
As for the two years it reminds me of Gettysburg scene of the two year contract group joining Chamberlain regiment.
Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOSIIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOSIIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play
They're always 8 years (unless you re-up for Indef). It may be 2-3 on active, but you are considered IRR until the full 8 is up, and they can call you back based on that.
Jerram wrote: The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.
Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?
You can easily just resign all the paperwork every 2 years.
Example would be WWII military service. Believe is was for "Duration of"
As for the two years it reminds me of Gettysburg scene of the two year contract group joining Chamberlain regiment.
Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOSIIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play
Maybe easy was a poor word choice.
Anyway, you could satisfy it by just doing a paperwork change every two years to renew the armed forces. Its not like it would necessitate a total disbandment every two years.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
However the popular will does not exist.
$250. That's hilarious. That $250 can go feth itself. A very basic glock costs double that.
The only people who will participate in one are already law abiding citizens. The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.
CptJake wrote: And lets be serious, 'Buy Back' in his context is a polite way of saying confiscation, but with a tiny bit of remittance. It is still done coercively.
feth tyranical ideas like that.
Easy guys. Not everyone in the world has our Freedoms!
The only people who will participate in one are already law abiding citizens. The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.
Grey Templar wrote: The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.
Well they might turn in YOUR guns for their cash.
Aye, this you have right. If they have a box full of stolen cheap handguns and are offered 250$ for each piece the criminals may well offer up a lot of them. It just needs to be a voluntary drive where you're not taken in and prosecuted for "returning" a gun. We've had some of those here too, since there were a lot of war trophy guns etc floating around.
KABUL — It’s not exactly Cash for Clunkers — more like Cash for Cache.
A Defense Department program under which Afghans can tip off foreign forces about hidden mines or weapons and get money in return has paid out nearly $200,000 in its first three months, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said in a statement Friday.
Since Oct. 1, about 150 Afghans have cashed in on the incentives, which range from $50 to $10,000 for information that leads to weapons caches or “the disruption of enemy activities,” ISAF said.
Recent tips from “Operation Jaeza,” or reward, have led to the discovery of 43 rockets, 40 recoilless rifle rounds, 40 mortars, five anti-tank missiles, several anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, and anti-aircraft weapons, it said.
The program assures people who provide tips their anonymity.
“This program helps international forces protect innocent civilians who might become victims of terrorism,” said the program’s spokeswoman, Navy Capt. Jane Campbell. “It also provides citizens a channel to fight back against violent attacks without placing themselves or their families in danger.”
“This is a program we fully support,” said Zarguna Hammeed, a representative of the Women of Paktia rights group.
“People who discover information about improvised explosive devices should stop and report it,” she said in the statement. “The money offered helps families as they help protect others by reporting the IEDs.”
IEDs are the weapon of choice for insurgents in the war-ravaged country.
The number of known IEDs placed by insurgents in Afghanistan has nearly tripled since 2007, as has the number of coalition forces killed and wounded by the blasts, according to figures kept by international forces.
Similar cash-for-weapons programs have been instituted by the U.S-backed government in Iraq, including one started in 2004 under which Shiite militia members got paid for turning in weapons.
Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ordered the government to give an Iraqi citizen a reward of $85,000 last week for a tip-off that a Syrian was about to set off a car bomb in western Baghdad.
He has offered a the same reward for anyone who gives similar information.
The only people who will participate in one are already law abiding citizens. The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.
Oh criminals will turn their guns in at buy backs. Because they get money for disposing of a firearm that was used in crime.
No, they almost always run the serial number on the gun at the end of the day, maybe even run a ballistics test if its the caliber used in a crime.. Your prints are all over a gun that shot someone, that you gave the police for a 40 of beer and some Taco Bell
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: No, they almost always run the serial number on the gun at the end of the day, maybe even run a ballistics test if its the caliber used in a crime.. Your prints are all over a gun that shot someone, that you gave the police for a 40 of beer and some Taco Bell
Buy backs have in the past been done on the understanding that it was cataloged as being used in crime, but not used as evidence. The thinking being that it was better to get the gun off the street
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: No, they almost always run the serial number on the gun at the end of the day, maybe even run a ballistics test if its the caliber used in a crime.. Your prints are all over a gun that shot someone, that you gave the police for a 40 of beer and some Taco Bell
Buy backs have in the past been done on the understanding that it was cataloged as being used in crime, but not used as evidence. The thinking being that it was better to get the gun off the street
I've had cops tell me they run the serials after a buyback. We had one last year and my neighbor is a county sheriff's deputy. It's amazing what you hear after a few beers.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: No, they almost always run the serial number on the gun at the end of the day, maybe even run a ballistics test if its the caliber used in a crime.. Your prints are all over a gun that shot someone, that you gave the police for a 40 of beer and some Taco Bell
Buy backs have in the past been done on the understanding that it was cataloged as being used in crime, but not used as evidence. The thinking being that it was better to get the gun off the street
I've had cops tell me they run the serials after a buyback. We had one last year and my neighbor is a county sheriff's deputy. It's amazing what you hear after a few beers.
EDIT: missed out on a few words there.
That's what I meant when I said it was cataloged as being used in crime.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
However the popular will does not exist.
Yep, it’s the popular will that’s the real issue. Even if you blanched at the cost of buying back all those guns, you could simply ban new sales and watch time quickly reduce the existing stock.
Really, the bigger issue is political will, as you say. Guns are a 30 billion dollar manufacturing industry. No-one is going up against that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: And lets be serious, 'Buy Back' in his context is a polite way of saying confiscation, but with a tiny bit of remittance. It is still done coercively.
Actually there’s constitutional protections that require adequate compensation. And if the Australian experience is a reasonable measure, government would rather hand over too much than chance losing a court case and being made to hand over more money (or worse, see the scheme abandoned).
You’re much more likely to see loads of old & heavily worn, even unusable guns being handed back for full market value than anything else.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Hrm, I dunno if they could get away with a buyback at $250 each. Given that most handguns sell for ~$350+ for compact handguns and $500+ for "duty" handguns, with many popular models going for $700-1200 routinely, $250 is going to feel to most to be a lowball offer.
Yep, it’s the popular will that’s the real issue. Even if you blanched at the cost of buying back all those guns, you could simply ban new sales and watch time quickly reduce the existing stock.
Eh...probably not. You'd drive up prices, but there's a lot of handguns in circulation, about a hundred million. That's a huge quantity. At the same time, guns can last a very long time, especially if they aren't having tons of rounds run through them. There are gobs of first world war weapons out there in functional condition, often having seen more than one conflict, and there are weapons being used in non-insignificant quantities in conflicts today that are 60, 70, 80, 100 years old or more. Be they Stg-44's in Syria, Mosin-Nagant rifles in Ukraine, SMLE's in Afghanistan, PPSh-41's in Iraq, 1950's era AK's in Nigeria, etc. Just perusing online firearms sales sites for a couple minutes, I can find functional handguns of both design and manufacture dating back to the 1890's like Mauser C96's and Nagant revolvers.
If we're talking over a hundred million guns, that existing stock isn't going to disappear quickly. It's going to drive prices up, and you may see some sort of impact from that, but that's probably about it. You'd have to resort to confiscation to lower the number of weapons available in any realistic amount of time.
Really, the bigger issue is political will, as you say. Guns are a 30 billion dollar manufacturing industry. No-one is going up against that.
That number is somewhat misleading, that number reflects the "economic impact" of the industry (which includes taxes, job creation, etc), which can be a somewhat murky number. US civilian firearms sales revenues are about ~$6 billion/year with some fluctuation (with the top 3 producers, Freedom Group/Ruger/Smith & Wesson, netting about 1/6th of that total combined). That's small fry when we're talking industries in the US. Alcholol sales in the US are 35x that, while there are multiple individual tobacco companies who's revenues exceed $30 billion (and a total industry *profit* of more than $35 billion in the US alone), and people are absolutely going up against tobacco.
The size and might of the firearms industry is somewhat overstated, and its supposed economic might is not something that's really a huge factor.
Vaktathi wrote: If we're talking over a hundred million guns, that existing stock isn't going to disappear quickly. It's going to drive prices up, and you may see some sort of impact from that, but that's probably about it. You'd have to resort to confiscation to lower the number of weapons available in any realistic amount of time.
You make a fair point, though I’m not sure if the 70 year life of some historic weapons can be used as a real indicator for most pistols. Those are generally kept by enthusiasts, who have the skill and dedication to maintain them, but most of the 100 million pistols out there aren’t held by enthusiasts. How many were purchased for self-defence? How many are owned by people who regularly use them for target shooting and other fun, but who lack the skill of an historic collector?
I think your point is right that the decline in weapons will be a long one (and I suspect many owners will start learning better maintenance skills, or firing their pistols less often once they know a replacement can’t be bought). I was thinking it would be ten or more years before a material decline was seen.
As you rightly say, the first and most significant impact will be in price.
The size and might of the firearms industry is somewhat overstated, and its supposed economic might is not something that's really a huge factor.
Being 1/35 of the scale of alcohol does not make you small. It makes you a smaller giant.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.
Yeah, I suspect a lot of the people who argue that we need to go with a strict, literal reading of the constitution, and eliminate everything not specifically provided for (meaning the EPA, and the Department of Education) don't realize under this theory, the Army would also need to disbanded. I think the founding father were pretty clear on how bad an idea they thought standing armies were, and by the fact they explicitly called for the creation of a Post Office and left nothing whatsoever for a standing army.
Of course, in 2015 that's no longer a good idea. Conscript armies thrown together on the fly haven't been unworkable in forever. It's almost like the founding fathers knew they they needed to have a flexible document that allowed for societal evolution.
I remember one guy here in the OT (who didn't last very long) that went on and on about how we need a strong standing army based here in the United States to secure our borders from external threats while at the same time claiming to be a "devout Jeffersonian."
sebster wrote: You make a fair point, though I’m not sure if the 70 year life of some historic weapons can be used as a real indicator for most pistols. Those are generally kept by enthusiasts, who have the skill and dedication to maintain them, but most of the 100 million pistols out there aren’t held by enthusiasts. How many were purchased for self-defence? How many are owned by people who regularly use them for target shooting and other fun, but who lack the skill of an historic collector?
I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Hrm, I dunno if they could get away with a buyback at $250 each. Given that most handguns sell for ~$350+ for compact handguns and $500+ for "duty" handguns, with many popular models going for $700-1200 routinely, $250 is going to feel to most to be a lowball offer.
...
So offer $500 per gun, or if you like, do a graded offer ranging from $100 to $1,00 depending on the model of gun and accessories. The basic point is that getting rid of pistols would not collapse the US economy, if you wanted to do it.
You make a fair point, though I’m not sure if the 70 year life of some historic weapons can be used as a real indicator for most pistols. Those are generally kept by enthusiasts, who have the skill and dedication to maintain them but most of the 100 million pistols out there aren’t held by enthusiasts. How many were purchased for self-defence? How many are owned by people who regularly use them for target shooting and other fun, but who lack the skill of an historic collector?
Your average historical collector is not a qualified gunsmith, and, unless we're talking relatively high end pieces, most weapons probably aren't treated much differently from those kept in practical use. By the same token, most people don't treat their weapons like garbage either, especially if they're self defense weapons. Many handguns will function flawlessly without cleaning for far more rounds than their owners will ever put through them. If weapons are simply properly cleaned or even minimally taken care of they'll outlast their owners unless their owners are putting many thousands of dollars worth of ammo through them.
Various modern handguns have been subjected to testing of over 250,000 rounds (~$50k of ammo if you're using super cheap stuff) with infrequent cleaning and still function. They last a really long time
I'm sure we'd see some sort of effect at some point, but it'd take decades to really see some sort of major effect, and a lifetime to probably see any noticeable number of guns removed from circulation, more probably you'd see more guns in the hands of fewer people trading at higher prices would be my guess over time.
Being 1/35 of the scale of alcohol does not make you small. It makes you a smaller giant.
Hrm, I won't say they're a cottage industry, but they're hardly an economic giant. They're not big enough to bring anything near the pressure to bear that many think it can.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Hrm, I dunno if they could get away with a buyback at $250 each. Given that most handguns sell for ~$350+ for compact handguns and $500+ for "duty" handguns, with many popular models going for $700-1200 routinely, $250 is going to feel to most to be a lowball offer.
...
So offer $500 per gun, or if you like, do a graded offer ranging from $100 to $1,00 depending on the model of gun and accessories. The basic point is that getting rid of pistols would not collapse the US economy, if you wanted to do it.
Yes, I agree, the monetary cost isn't insurmountable if the will were there.
If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.
Hrm, I dunno if they could get away with a buyback at $250 each. Given that most handguns sell for ~$350+ for compact handguns and $500+ for "duty" handguns, with many popular models going for $700-1200 routinely, $250 is going to feel to most to be a lowball offer.
...
So offer $500 per gun, or if you like, do a graded offer ranging from $100 to $1,00 depending on the model of gun and accessories. The basic point is that getting rid of pistols would not collapse the US economy, if you wanted to do it.
It would when lots of those pistols start being used on the people trying to take them.
Seaward wrote: I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
That's interesting, thanks. It makes sense to hear that guns are lower maintenance these days, though I'd never thought of it.
I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
I think that depends on the type of gun. You have to consider how many moving parts the gun has.
A revolver will last way longer than a semi-automatic for the same reason they almost never jam. Less parts means less things to go wrong. And you become reliant on those replacement parts too.
And any gun that's stored in a reasonably dry place would be perfectly usable for an almost indefinite amount of time, at most it might need a tiny bit of cleaning. Same with ammo.
Unless a gun is horribly abused, like letting it rust over, its not going to become unusable just with time.
Vaktathi wrote: Various modern handguns have been subjected to testing of over 250,000 rounds (~$50k of ammo if you're using super cheap stuff) with infrequent cleaning and still function. They last a really long time
Fair enough then. Thanks for taking the time to explaining this.
I'm sure we'd see some sort of effect at some point, but it'd take decades to really see some sort of major effect, and a lifetime to probably see any noticeable number of guns removed from circulation, more probably you'd see more guns in the hands of fewer people trading at higher prices would be my guess over time.
The other factor I just thought of is if this law gets talked about, you'd see a massive spike in gun sales before it is passed. So you'd get a massive spike in the number of pistols out there. That, combined with the much longer life expectancy of a pistol than I realised means banning new sales will probably solve nothing, and may actually the problem worse in the short to (possibly) medium term.
The price would possibly be a controlling factor, but how much I don't know. And without the stock of guns declining that fast, the price wouldn't keep growing, meaning that impact wouldn't be that great either.
Hrm, I won't say they're a cottage industry, but they're hardly an economic giant. They're not big enough to bring anything near the pressure to bear that many think it can.
Sure. I've always belonged to the group that suspects their assumed voting power is much less than presumed, but still, it's a big enough industry to be really tough to take on. You mentioned tobacco earlier as something people aren't afraid to take on, but tobacco is actually the classic example of how hard it is to take on an industry. I mean that's a product that doesn't give the power to do harm, it straight up kills people through it's regular, expected use. And despite that regulation against the industry is almost designed to do nothing to actually hurt industry profits.
Fun story - if you time travelled back to 1960 and told you could pick one single product to put all your money in, the best pick by a very long way, based on the dividends you would be paid and the capital growth you'd receive from then until now... tobacco.
Seaward wrote: I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
That will depend on the pistol and the owner, I guess. Something nice from a high-end manufacturer? Sure, it's going to be well-made and the owner will clean and take care of it. But those el-cheapo 120$ pistols that end up with criminals are likely to be crappily built, ill maintained and probably less reliable than a 70-year old Hi-Power straight out of the box.
The other factor I just thought of is if this law gets talked about, you'd see a massive spike in gun sales before it is passed. So you'd get a massive spike in the number of pistols out there. That, combined with the much longer life expectancy of a pistol than I realised means banning new sales will probably solve nothing, and may actually the problem worse in the short to (possibly) medium term.
That would seem to be the track record we've seen with things like "assault weapons" bans.
Sure. I've always belonged to the group that suspects their assumed voting power is much less than presumed, but still, it's a big enough industry to be really tough to take on. You mentioned tobacco earlier as something people aren't afraid to take on, but tobacco is actually the classic example of how hard it is to take on an industry. I mean that's a product that doesn't give the power to do harm, it straight up kills people through it's regular, expected use. And despite that regulation against the industry is almost designed to do nothing to actually hurt industry profits.
Fun story - if you time travelled back to 1960 and told you could pick one single product to put all your money in, the best pick by a very long way, based on the dividends you would be paid and the capital growth you'd receive from then until now... tobacco.
That's not a bad point, though to be fair, i don't think regulation is really intended to harm tobacco industry profits, but rather mitigate the negative effects of the product, and tobacco profits are what they are despite dramatic declines in the number of smokers as a percentage of the population.
Seaward wrote: I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
That will depend on the pistol and the owner, I guess. Something nice from a high-end manufacturer? Sure, it's going to be well-made and the owner will clean and take care of it. But those el-cheapo 120$ pistols that end up with criminals are likely to be crappily built, ill maintained and probably less reliable than a 70-year old Hi-Power straight out of the box.
There aren't very many of those anymore, the "saturday night specials" are long gone by and large, the closest you'll get is something like a $200 High Point 9mm (yes, different from a Hi-Power), and even one of those will last a decent amount of time and few thousand rounds.
The reason why tobacco industry profits have held up is simply because sales have increased massively outside the western world, compensating for the reduction in smoking in the west.
To be fair to western governments, it isn't their job to tell places like Mali and China what to do with their public health.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not a bad point, though to be fair, i don't think regulation is really intended to harm tobacco industry profits, but rather mitigate the negative effects of the product, and tobacco profits are what they are despite dramatic declines in the number of smokers as a percentage of the population.
Yeah, but the issue isn't just that they aren't trying to harm industry profits, they're actually doing what they can to minimise smoking while trying to impact smoking profits as little as possible. So when you see any kind of anti-smoking regulation start up, cigarette companies will start up with rhetoric about killing the industry and lots of job losses, and then the new laws will be pared back or abandoned.
There aren't very many of those anymore, the "saturday night specials" are long gone by and large, the closest you'll get is something like a $200 High Point 9mm (yes, different from a Hi-Power), and even one of those will last a decent amount of time and few thousand rounds.
Interesting. Do you know what drove the change? Did some form of regulation make the cheaper weapons unavailable or simply not worth it, or was it some kind of natural market change, like a more discerning consumer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why tobacco industry profits have held up is simply because sales have increased massively outside the western world, compensating for the reduction in smoking in the west.
Smoking in the US is in decline, but the decline more or less plateaued, and the overall decline was nothing like what was expected. When the link to cancer was becoming undeniable, people talked about tobacco having one last generation to sell its product to.
That's why smoking turned out to be such a great return, shares in the industry were massively discounted because people thought they had one generation of sales left, but regulation never came down as hard a people thought it was going to, and no-one realised that teenagers were stupid enough to start smoking.
To continue the smoking tangent, legislation is still being produced on smoking. The latest proposal in the UK is to ban smoking in public open spaces like streets and parks.
Lots of people are switching to e-cigs, prompting calls for legislation on vaping. Some buildings have already introduced bans on vaping that mirror the legal bans on 'real' smoking.
Seaward wrote: I'd expect modern pistols to last longer, on average, than their septuagenarian counterparts, and modern pistols are drastically less maintenance-intensive than your 1911. Everything on today's polymer guns is interchangeable and pretty easy to do drop-in replacements with, and parts are cheap.
That will depend on the pistol and the owner, I guess. Something nice from a high-end manufacturer? Sure, it's going to be well-made and the owner will clean and take care of it. But those el-cheapo 120$ pistols that end up with criminals are likely to be crappily built, ill maintained and probably less reliable than a 70-year old Hi-Power straight out of the box.
I wouldn't expect something from Jimenez Arms to hold up for seventy years, but your average, run-of-the-mill, ridiculously popular and prolific $500 Glock 19? Absolutely, unless you're putting thousands of rounds through it. Parts will break, but those parts are exceptionally easy to replace, because there is no shortage and won't be for decades to come.
Kilkrazy wrote: To continue the smoking tangent, legislation is still being produced on smoking. The latest proposal in the UK is to ban smoking in public open spaces like streets and parks.
Lots of people are switching to e-cigs, prompting calls for legislation on vaping. Some buildings have already introduced bans on vaping that mirror the legal bans on 'real' smoking.
I find bans on smoking in public spaces (streets and parks) utterly ridiculous... the "science" doesn't really hold up. I read one article from a group of unaffiliated scientists (as in, they weren't paid by tobacco, or the anti-tobacco groups) that, in their study they found that the effects of 2nd hand smoke is non-existent beyond a 6 ft. radius from the smoker.
Also, with the e-cig thing... as ridiculous of a notion as I find the whole thing, I do kind of agree with places that have banned tobacco products in their places. IMO, it's less a "this is a new technology and we're afraid of it, so ban it" thing, and more of a "no tobacco means no tobacco. Period" thing. I know the school I just left had this policy, and the school I'm going to has a policy even more draconian (the one I left had a designated smoking area. The school I'm moving to has no smoking area, and is designated a "tobacco free campus" so if you do any of that stuff you're SOL)
I also think the public smoking bans are a little ridiculous especially when predicated upon "secondary smoke".
If you ban it on the basis of the toxic litter it tends to generate in public spaces, that's a little bit better, but still fairly lame. Littering has better remedies (ticketing, available waste receptacles) , and we don't ban other items just because they are common sources of litter.
I went to an smoking casino recently, and we had to leave pretty soon. It was super hard to breathe in there even as a former smoker. It can be pretty overpowering in confined areas.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not say their 2nd Amendment is an unnecessary relic. With how much violence there is in American society compared to European societies, I think they are justified in their weapons (of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place). I know I'd want to have a weapon if I ever were to go there. Judging from the responses of Americans in this and previous threads, it seems to be a pretty ingrained part of their culture.
I don't think you or I can really understand it.
The phrase that springs to mind that "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
The actual expression is "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
Fortunately, guns aren't all we have. We have many tools for different problems. Guns are a solution to a specific set of problems, and its important to have the right tool for the right job.
Grey Templar wrote: The actual expression is "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
Fortunately, guns aren't all we have. We have many tools for different problems. Guns are a solution to a specific set of problems, and its important to have the right tool for the right job.
You can't really blame him. People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.
Similarly it's very hard for people from non permissive countries to associate gun ownership with "freedom" and "rights", which I believe can lead to friction.
Kilkrazy wrote: To continue the smoking tangent, legislation is still being produced on smoking. The latest proposal in the UK is to ban smoking in public open spaces like streets and parks.
Lots of people are switching to e-cigs, prompting calls for legislation on vaping. Some buildings have already introduced bans on vaping that mirror the legal bans on 'real' smoking.
Yeah, and here in Oz we just made advertising cigarettes so tightly controlled that you can't even put nice colours on the packets. Smokers have reported that without the nice packet the cigarette actually tastes worse, which is really weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: You can't really blame him. People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.
I think there’s a lot of weird ideas on both sides. On the one hand, people outside the US have such a hyper-violent image of the US – Iron Captain said he’d want a gun to feel safe there, and if I recall correctly he’s from Russia so that’s kind of hilarious.
On the other side, you have a lot of Americans who really have no idea that the US is actually has a lot more murders than other developed countries. In probably 90% of the gun control threads I have to repeat the same basic stats to some disbelieving Americans.
Back in 2008 when Obama first got elected and then later in 2012 after the Sandy Hook shooting there was a run on AR15 type rifles and other semiauto rifles that people suspected could be targeted by another "assault weapon" ban. This also led to a run on ammunition as people sought to stock up and/or find good deals on rifles and ammo as an investment that could be resold on the secondary market for profit. WalMart was a popular store for ammo and ARs because when everyone else was raising prices to reflect increased demand WalMart kept their prices the same. People would flock to WalMart anytime they heard they had ammo or ARs in stock and buy them out in a day. My local WalMart had to enact a policy limitting people to only 1 or 2 boxes of specific calibers so the supply would last.
Now, the market has calmed down, there are multiple options for people who want to spend $500-$700 on an AR15 or spend less and buy the parts and build it themselves. Ammo, while not as cheap and abundant as it used to be is much easier to get too. When WalMart was selling $700-800 ARs when everyone else had jacked their price up to $1000+ they sold out their stock no problem. Now, the ARs don't fly off the shelves at WalMart so they're not going to invest the money in carrying them anymore. That's standard practice for the retail giant in all their departments. If it doesn't sell they don't waste shelf space on it.
WalMart isn't taking a political stance on anything here. WalMart still sells rifles and ammunition and individuals can still buy more than enough of both to be fully equipped to commit all kinds of crimes if they so chose.
We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.
Hordini wrote: People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.
Well, that's true for a lot of things thanks to the ages-old "bad news sell". You won't see international headlines when a responsible gun owner stops a robber without shooting him fifteen times, but the rare school shooting rampage or crazy guy who baits a burglar so he can justify killing him do make headlines. "I've had a gun for 20 years and never had to pull it" - what kind of news is that?
Prestor Jon wrote: . Now, the ARs don't fly off the shelves at WalMart so they're not going to invest the money in carrying them anymore. That's standard practice for the retail giant in all their departments. If it doesn't sell they don't waste shelf space on it.
WalMart isn't taking a political stance on anything here. WalMart still sells rifles and ammunition and individuals can still buy more than enough of both to be fully equipped to commit all kinds of crimes if they so chose.
We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.
I don't remember them making a statement to the press about removing that weird shape of tupperware that never sold. Or when they phase out old Lego sets, or gaming consoles, or any other product. They wanted everyone to know what they were doing. How is that not political?
Spetulhu wrote: Well, that's true for a lot of things thanks to the ages-old "bad news sell". You won't see international headlines when a responsible gun owner stops a robber without shooting him fifteen times, but the rare school shooting rampage or crazy guy who baits a burglar so he can justify killing him do make headlines. "I've had a gun for 20 years and never had to pull it" - what kind of news is that?
What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.
What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.
"Not shooting fifteen times" was perhaps too much hyperbole, my bad. I meant situations where no one was shot at all, or the gun owner didn't even have to point the gun at someone. Self-defense shootings make the news too and they don't really make it look better when, for example, some kid with a knife is shot over a pair of shoes.
What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.
"Not shooting fifteen times" was perhaps too much hyperbole, my bad. I meant situations where no one was shot at all, or the gun owner didn't even have to point the gun at someone. Self-defense shootings make the news too and they don't really make it look better when, for example, some kid with a knife is shot over a pair of shoes.
Was it before or after he said "Do you have one of these?!" situation?
MWHistorian wrote: It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.
Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.
To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.
They also didn't know about the internet but Freedom of Speech does and should still apply to that.
The purpose of the 2nd A was as a check and balance to the government. Modern weapons are needed for that. Saying "all you need is a musket" is ignoring the entire purpose of the 2nd.
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
Out of genuine curiosity, why would you say this?
Folks like the Talibs and Jaish al-Mahdi seemed to hold their own against conventional forces...
And we are currently seeing cops getting gunned down by punks with hand guns and little to no organization.
It took days for state and fed troops to get control of neighborhoods during the LA riots, and that was not really an organized rebellion by any means (again, mostly punks intent on looting which means they were not very actively targeting authority and infrastructure and were not very well organized or led or trained.) David Koresh and his followers held off the Feds for quite a while, and did so while in a state of siege where they had given up freedom of maneuver and initiative.
I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.
They'll have infringed upon our rights enough by then to make it easier than it would be now, I'm sure. All in the name of "common sense" and "safety".
But yes, there are many folks who would oppose such a thing with whatever means they have.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.
Out of genuine curiosity, why would you say this?
Folks like the Talibs and Jaish al-Mahdi seemed to hold their own against conventional forces...
And we are currently seeing cops getting gunned down by punks with hand guns and little to no organization.
It took days for state and fed troops to get control of neighborhoods during the LA riots, and that was not really an organized rebellion by any means (again, mostly punks intent on looting which means they were not very actively targeting authority and infrastructure and were not very well organized or led or trained.) David Koresh and his followers held off the Feds for quite a while, and did so while in a state of siege where they had given up freedom of maneuver and initiative.
I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.
Because the likelihood of our government oppressing us to the point where rebellion is the solution is zero-none. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be useful if oppression led to rebellion (although at that point, they already would have done away with the 2nd so the point is moot), I'm saying there is not way that will happen. Even if they tired, I'm sure the vast majority of out soldiers would defect in any case.
That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.
a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.
and
b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.
a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.
and
b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.
a. They're trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. I'd say they're attacking the Constitution. And its impossible for a country to become totalitarian or is America somehow exempt from this?
b. That's why we're opposed to gun control. It's the first step.
As evidence, I submit every dictatorship ever. Saying it would never happen in America is the exact type of complacency that would allow it to happen.
Second, while yes, a totalitarian government would try to disarm the citizens, it would be easier said than done. Of course, it can be done slowly. Like through the legislation that gets constantly proposed by left leaning people, chipping away a little bit at a time.
But even if you get it passed, you're going to actually have to go out and find all the guns. That is pretty much going to be a physical impossibility in a country the size of the US. People will just hide their guns away if that happens.
a. Of course not, it's just so unlikely to not even be a factor. I don't see other strong democratic countries with mass gun control (UK, Japan, ect. ) turning into dictatorships any time soon, do you?
b. False equivalence. Just because two groups would do the same thing, does not mean they have the same goals.
That being said, I'm not pro-gun control, I'm just saying that the 2nd's original intent doesn't really mean much anymore. I'm not even saying it should be repealed just that it isn't important for the purpose it was orignally.
Edit: Also, do you guys seriously thing that gun control groups are doing what they doing for the purpose of disarming the citizenry to impose dictatorships.? Because if so, that's hilarious.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.
a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.
and
b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.
I think you mean TRY to disarm the citizenry. And the point being made is THAT may prove pretty difficult and is one of those 'straws' many can see as breaking the camel's back. And why the incremental infringement (and atempts at further infringement) of the 2nd is so darned disgusting and worrisome to many. 'Who needs a 30 round magazine?' 'Who needs anything other than a gun for hunting?' 'If your a legal and law abiding gun owner why can't you be reasonable and accept some type of national firearms registry?'.
Until world peace is achieved and you can say with 100% confidence that no stable government will ever become unstable saying its lost its original purpose is false.
Just because its unlikely doesn't mean its necessary.
The odds of me having a car crash is very low. Yet I am still required to carry insurance to cover the possibility. Thats what the 2nd amendment is, insurance.
Co'tor Shas wrote: a. Of course not, it's just so unlikely to not even be a factor. I don't see other strong democratic countries with mass gun control (UK, Japan, ect. ) turning into dictatorships any time soon, do you?
b. False equivalence. Just because two groups would do the same thing, does not mean they have the same goals.
That being said, I'm not pro-gun control, I'm just saying that the 2nd's original intent doesn't really mean much anymore. I'm not even saying it should be repealed.
England and to a lesser extent, (but still drastic) America are slowly eroding rights and spying on their own citizens. They're not kicking down doors with jackboots, but if they know everything about you, they won't have to.
So... going back to the thread title for a minute.
I went to Walmart the other day because I got a PMR-30, and I wanted to see if they had any .22WMR. They did not, which wasn't super surprising because .22WMR has turned out to be fairly hard to find around here.
What was surprising was what else they didn't have: There were no 9mm +P (which they usually have at least some of), not a single round of 7.62x39, and very limited .223. Notably, I didn't see a wall sticker for 7.62x39, either - it appears they may have stopped carrying it. Additionally they seem to have substantially reduced the gun section of sporting goods. The only firearms were various shotguns and deer rifles - maybe 4 or 5 tops.
On the downside, Walmart was a very good source of ammunition for me; it was so cheap it ran about even with buying online even with shipping costs, and no wait.
On the plus side, there is no reason for me to ever go to Walmart ever again, which is nice because literally the only reason I ever go there is for ammo. I am quite averse to the store otherwise.
Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.
My Wal-Mart has .38. Thats it. They never have any other ammo (I saw 30-06 once). Which is weird because it is the only "general" store in my area. Even the Amish go there.
The only way I wish to imagine the guns being sold in walmart either has them filled in a giant pile in a cage like they sell giant rubber balls or in a vending machine where you normally see snack food or drinks and in japan possibly used panties because japan can be weird (cultural differences are great sometimes).
cincydooley wrote: Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.
Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.
I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.
Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.
Relic huh? Hows the powdered wigs going over there?
Vaktathi wrote: Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.
That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.
Vaktathi wrote: Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.
That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.
It doesn't really count unless you've been mugged 3 times and had your life threatened 5 times.
Vaktathi wrote: Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.
That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.
It doesn't really count unless you've been mugged 3 times and had your life threatened 5 times.
Vaktathi wrote: Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.
That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.
Fun fact, the very first manager of that Walmart was shot and killed in the parking lot by an angry customer. Even more amusing, the median income in the city where this Walmart is located is ~$92,000/year...
Back on topic, we picked up a cheap 'sit on' kayak at a local WalMart last Friday so we would have enough kayaks for my family and a few guests we had coming Sunday (up to 4 singles and one tandem now). It game me a chance to check out their guns and ammo. Guns were pretty sparse (a couple hunting riles, a .22 and a couple long/full stock shotguns) but ammo seemed to be pretty varied and plentiful.
Not sure if this one ever had Cool Black Gunz or not since I'm pretty new to this AO.
Grey Templar wrote: As evidence, I submit every dictatorship ever. Saying it would never happen in America is the exact type of complacency that would allow it to happen.
Second, while yes, a totalitarian government would try to disarm the citizens, it would be easier said than done.
People say this sort of a thing a lot. And it makes sense, if we assume that people are all sensible and would actively oppose their totalitarian government as soon as that government's malevolent intentions were made clear. But it never works like that in the real world. The abuses of government, generally justified with security or order, are often accepted or even given support by the population, especially by the people who tend to own guns. Governments don't need to take the guns, and so they don't.
I mean, you say that you submit every dictatorship ever, but then actually submit one. Go find a dictatorship that set about taking away the guns of its citizens. I'll wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: England and to a lesser extent, (but still drastic) America are slowly eroding rights and spying on their own citizens. They're not kicking down doors with jackboots, but if they know everything about you, they won't have to.
But that's the thing. The erosion of rights happens in countries with guns, and it happens in countries without guns. And there's no description of events in which the gun owner uses his weapon to fight our current style of government over-reach that doesn't make the gun owner sound like a complete loon.
The fightback against that erosion happens through activists and through the ballot box, if people can be persuaded to vote on that issue. The guns just don't help in any way.
sebster wrote: People say this sort of a thing a lot. And it makes sense, if we assume that people are all sensible and would actively oppose their totalitarian government as soon as that government's malevolent intentions were made clear. But it never works like that in the real world. The abuses of government, generally justified with security or order, are often accepted or even given support by the population, especially by the people who tend to own guns. Governments don't need to take the guns, and so they don't.
I think this is insightful. For example, when the US government set up a set of extrajudicial gulags where we imprisoned enemies of the state, a lot of people were horrified and upset... but, no one took up arms against it. After all, the government told us it was just the really bad people that were there (that this is the same government that can't run an efficient DMV or effective TSA is not considered). So I think it's probably pretty easy to boil that frog.
Ouze wrote: I think this is insightful. For example, when the US government set up a set of extrajudicial gulags where we imprisoned enemies of the state, a lot of people were horrified and upset... but, no one took up arms against it. After all, the government told us it was just the really bad people that were there (that this is the same government that can't run an efficient DMV or effective TSA is not considered). So I think it's probably pretty easy to boil that frog.
Yeah, people don't realise there's a point where you go from having a gun just in case government goes bad, to actually having to go out and shoot a policeman. And in addition, there's the issue that when things like extra-judicial gulags are set up, well they are obviously human rights abuses and all around gak things to do, but for a scary amount of people that's only obvious with the luxury of hindsight - in the moment loads of people assume those kinds of things are necessary.
Breotan wrote: I'm just amused that Walmart is claiming a drop in gun sales at the same time news articles are floating around touting a record sales year.
They're claiming a drop in sales in one type of gun, when there's been record sales in general. That kind of thing happens all the time.
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
sebster wrote: The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year
So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm
CptJake wrote: Yep. It mans a lot of good people were not harmed that likeley would have been.
This right here...
I just recently saw an article from the greater Dallas area, of a guy who used a firearm in a defensive situation. Including the "good" shooter, there were 6 people in the apartment, with 2 "bad guys" In this situation, there's one bad guy dead, and one already apprehended and looking at a number of charges; while at the same time, 6 people including 2 very young children are alive and well.
It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to wonder about the cases where a young kid has a CCL though, don't you have to be 18?
I'm not talking about CCLs specifically. I believe in most states you have to be 21 to have a CCW, or at the very least 18. I was referring to a few cases in which a kid has defended themselves or their siblings from a home invader when the parents were not home. In such a case a CCW wouldn't be necessary anyway.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Ah that would make sense. Although you'd have to be careful with that (young person having unsupervised access to gun).
Absolutely. And it's a nasty situation all around when something like what happened in the video I posted occurs. But it's better than the alternative of the kids being at the mercy of their attackers.
sebster wrote: The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year
So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm
Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.
If you actually go and read the study, you'll find it emphatically states the exact opposite of what you like to think.
"This new data... clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”
"For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm."
"In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides."
"When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.
It's a nice idea, but it's also pretty much a fantasy. As I quoted above, from the survey brought in by someone trying to argue for the effectiveness guns in stopping crime, in just 0.8% of attempted or completed property crimes was a gun successfully used. 99.2% of the time the crime went ahead just fine. There's what, a third of households in the US with guns? So it isn't a problem with there being not enough houses with guns in them.
While I can't say exactly why guns aren't much use in stopping crime, at a guess I'd have to say that any method of crime prevention that requires you being ready and able to respond at any given second is probably going to suck.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Ah that would make sense. Although you'd have to be careful with that (young person having unsupervised access to gun).
Absolutely. And it's a nasty situation all around when something like what happened in the video I posted occurs. But it's better than the alternative of the kids being at the mercy of their attackers.
Yep, I still remember one of the main stories in a book called "Seven Myths of Gun Control"... A California family had a firearm in their house, 3 kids (2 girls and a boy). Mom and dad popped out, literally 3 blocks away to a local convenience store, when someone broke into the house with the kids left home. The parents, aside from leaving the kids at home by themselves, had properly taught the 2 girls about firearms and safety. Girl 1 helped the boy (who was the youngest) and herself out of the house, through a window of one of the kids' rooms, and the two of them started trying to knock on neighbors doors, begging them to call 911 because of the intruder. Meanwhile girl 2, being effectively trapped inside the house, with the guy coming up the stairs bolted for parents room, where the pistol was. She shot him 3 times (IIRC, she shot 6 or 7 times total) thus saving her own life.
sebster wrote: The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year
So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm
Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.
No, it does NOT assume each would be a murder or a lethal shooting. It assumes that those 67k incidents prevented harm or loss to the intended victim. And I would bet in most of those 67k incidents the intended victim really did not KNOW how serious any harm potentially inflicted by the attacker would be. Frankly preventing my self or my family from being a victim of even a mugging is worth pulling a gun on some attacker. Depending on the specific actions/behavior, frankly it is worth dropping the attacker rather than risking what ever he/she may decide to do.
sebster wrote: The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year
So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm
Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.
Good thing that I never claimed either of the conclusions that you leapt to.
CptJake wrote: No, it does NOT assume each would be a murder or a lethal shooting. It assumes that those 67k incidents prevented harm or loss to the intended victim. And I would bet in most of those 67k incidents the intended victim really did not KNOW how serious any harm potentially inflicted by the attacker would be. Frankly preventing my self or my family from being a victim of even a mugging is worth pulling a gun on some attacker. Depending on the specific actions/behavior, frankly it is worth dropping the attacker rather than risking what ever he/she may decide to do.
Good point well made, thank you for posting what I was thinking.
sebster wrote: The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year
So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm
Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.
If you actually go and read the study, you'll find it emphatically states the exact opposite of what you like to think.
"This new data... clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”
"For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm."
"In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides."
"When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.
It's a nice idea, but it's also pretty much a fantasy. As I quoted above, from the survey brought in by someone trying to argue for the effectiveness guns in stopping crime, in just 0.8% of attempted or completed property crimes was a gun successfully used. 99.2% of the time the crime went ahead just fine. There's what, a third of households in the US with guns? So it isn't a problem with there being not enough houses with guns in them.
While I can't say exactly why guns aren't much use in stopping crime, at a guess I'd have to say that any method of crime prevention that requires you being ready and able to respond at any given second is probably going to suck.
You can treat firearm ownership as a constant throughout the US, there are states/regions with a high percentage of armed citizens and states/regions with a very low percentage of armed citizens. If you selected any number of citizens randomly in a state like NJ where it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit you wouldn't find anyone who is armed. If you selected the same number of citizens in a state like Florida that is a shall issue state for concealed carry permits you would find some armed citizens in the group. Several of our most populous states have extremely strict gun control laws that ensure the vast majority of the populace is unarmed meaning that criminals can commit crimes against citizens in those states with no fear of armed resistance. If the areas with the most people have the fewest armed citizens it's no wonder that few criminals are met with armed resistance.
Of course crime statistics have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment anyway. It's not written to combat burglary. If I want to own a firearm because fear for myself or my family I can, if I want to own firearms because I want to participate in 3 Gun or Cowboy Action shooting competitions I can, if I want to own firearms to shoot as a hobby or just because I think guns are cool, I can. It's my right. I need no justification to exercise it. The people that need to supply valid justification are those that want to infringe on that right, not the people that choose to exercise it.
.
