Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Public Support for Increased Gun Control Measures

The gun control activists like to make the claim that “90% of Americans” support whatever new gun control scheme they’re pushing that week. However, if you look at the results of a reputable polling organization (like Gallup) the truth is very, very different.



The facts of the matter are that the hunger for stricter gun control in the United States is like a fad that has run its course — fewer and fewer people every year believe that gun control is a good idea. The numbers of supporters have been steadily dropping since 2002, and with the exception of a small spike in 2012 (just after the Newtown shooting) that trend has been steady. The real surprise is that the percentage of people who think gun control laws should be less strict has been steadily on the rise, and in 2014 that number tripled to 16%.

Gun control advocates claim that the vast majority of Americans support new gun control laws. In reality, 56% of Americans either want gun laws to stay the same or become less strict. “Common sense” indeed.

Against what this guy may claim the public view on lots of proposed gun control plans is overall positive. Gallup polls also ask people more specifics such as this poll last year



If gun control so unpopular than why do 60% people support reinstating the 1994-2004 assault weapon ban? 91% for univseral background checks?

Thought I would toss that in here for you guys to chew on.

Some other interesting links:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

 cincydooley wrote:
I dunno smacks. They might be buying them from the cartels whom our government sold them to.

I think that's very likely. I tried to read up on this, but it's not easy to research because it's a black-market trade. I found this article the other day, which was quite interesting.

If you lump together all the facts regarding, stolen guns, bought stolen guns, "borrowed" guns, it looks like something between 10-25% of legally bought guns work their way onto the black market. I don't think we need to read too much into it though, because criminals will get guns via the easiest method. The high saturation means that any or all methods are quite viable at the moment.

You would need to plug all the holes to see any change in the overall outcome.

 d-usa wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

It's not just this thread or this topic, it's cropped up before. It seems when some posters are on the losing end of an argument they pull the "well, you're a foreigner so your point is irrelevant" card, as if ideologies stop at the border, and seem to be wholly unaware of the irony of playing that card on a forum devoted to a British wargame.

Guilty of saying it my self, but it's also kind of funny that it is usually coming from Muricans, whom "Liberate" anyone who doesn't share their values.

Having said that, I will argue against taking guns away from people for two reasons:

A) If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it with a Gun, Knife, feck a Pen will kill someone if used right.
B) Guns are only a tool. A dangerous tool, to be certain, but a tool none the less. People whom don't follow laws will always have a gun if they want one, and taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens only puts them in danger (Because I don't know about you guys, but calling a cop usually takes an hour or two before they actually get to your house where I live).

But guns make it significantly easier to hurt people. Which is something that folks sometimes don't really like to admit. Sure, a bad guy can go on a knifing spree or run through a grade school and try to hammer kids to death, but having a gun increases the potential for damage and might be the push to decide to attack.

With that same argument I could also defend myself with a hammer, a rock, or a rusty nail. If I really wanted to try and defend myself I would use whatever tool I had available. But I carry a gun, because a gun makes it a heck of a lot easier to drop a bad guy than any of these other options.

I think sometimes the "it's only a tool" and "guns don't kill people..." talk can make gun owners look silly by ignoring just how big of a factor a firearm really is in a confrontation that includes it. So we need to be willing to admit that a gun can make it really easy to kill someone and that is is a powerful and dangerous tool. Which of course is also the reason we want to be able to have access to them so that we can use them to defend ourselves.

Murrysville, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A teenage boy wielding two kitchen knives went on a stabbing rampage at his high school in Murrysville, Pennsylvania, early Wednesday, before being tackled by an assistant principal, authorities said.
Twenty students and a security officer at Franklin Regional Senior High School were either stabbed or slashed in the attack, Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck told reporters.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/justice/pennsylvania-school-stabbing/


Just one example.

You can still do some serious damage with knives, just because the crowd is so tightly packed in a school between classes. Add in the teenager/human desire to walk towards a commotion rather than away, and people press in on it (Keep in mind that you do not hear a loud bang of a gun, and screams could be anything from a fight, stubbed toe, or a knife wound).

To play devil's advocate if that kid had been using a gun some of those people would have been dead.

 Blood Hawk wrote:


If gun control so unpopular than why do 60% people support reinstating the 1994-2004 assault weapon ban?

I'd argue because they have no idea what it actually does.

Legal under the old assault weapons ban


Illegal under the old assault weapons ban (but legal now)


They fire the same round, are both semi-automatic, same rate of fire, same accuracy, the same receiver, the same internal design and functionality, in terms of killing capability, they're identical.

The assault weapons ban was quite pointless for these reasons, not to mention such rifles are amongst the least used weapons to kill people with, blunt objects like bats are responsible for more deaths each year.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:

What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.

I honestly think it is because you advocate limiting or actually taking away a right. Your country may not have that right, and it may not be a right you think others should have, but in the US it is indeed a right. If someone advocated limiting a right you do have and consider a basic guaranteed right, you would probably (hopefully) argue against having that right taken from you. If the folks advocating taking that right were from outside your country and you felt they did not even understand the right and its importance, yet were still advocating for you to lose that right I suspect you may act in a similar manner.

Arguing is one thing, but I am seeing a venomous tone ITT. I -personally- think that if a right is flawed then its status as a right does not protect it from adjustment or even removal, but even if you argue it does it can still be questioned. The matter of whether to change the current gun rights status is obviously debatable, otherwise we would not constantly end up with big threads talking about it, so it is clear that the subject can be discussed- no side is obviously right or wrong. And nationality might seem important to you, but it is ultimately not relevant to the arguments someone uses, instead it only really affects which arguments someone uses. Saying that someone can't participate and contribute to the debate because they are not American is arguably genetic fallacy or ad hominem (depending on how it is formulated).

So... Just hug each other and everything will be OK?

Edit 1: Fixed formulation.

Edit 2: Fixed formulation (again).

 Vaktathi wrote:
such rifles are amongst the least used weapons to kill people with, blunt objects like bats are responsible for more deaths each year.

Not to nit-pick, but these kind of comparisons are a bit tired. What percentage of blunt object attacks end in fatality? Compare that to assault rifle attacks. It should be obvious which one is more dangerous, and needs to be more tightly controlled.

I agree that rifles are not the biggest issue though. Most crime is committed with hand guns. Hand guns are much easier to conceal, and probably just as deadly at close range.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
To play devil's advocate if that kid had been using a gun some of those people would have been dead.

Not necessarily. A bullet wound doesn't automatically kill any more than a deep stabbing wound does.

 Smacks wrote:

Not to nit-pick, but these kind of comparisons are a bit tired. What percentage of blunt object attacks end in fatality? Compared that to assault rifle attacks. It should be obvious which one is more dangerous, and needs to be more tightly controlled.

Two points: First, which may sound pendatic but is actually important, we are not talking about assault rifles, an assault rifle is select-fire and is a Class III NFA weapon capable of automatic fire. If it lacks that capability, it is not an assault rifle. This is a common mistake but it's an important one to correct.

Second, I'd say if the blunt objects are killing more people in total, but the assault rifles are killing a higher percentage, that would seem to indicate a much greater total proportion of attacks by blunt objects, constituting a larger issue in general.

Here are the FBI statistics on murders in the US for 2008 through 2012. Even if you account for the "firearms not stated" by redistributing that amongst the firearm types proportionally, rifles kill fewer people than hammers or bats, and significantly fewer than fists and feet. On average, if you redistriburte the "firearms not stated" proportionally and assume the ratio of rifle to pistol murders amongst that group is equal to those plainly stated, you get 430 rifle murders per year in a nation of 300something million people.

Significant restrictions on such weapons create a whole lot of bureaucracy, lots of law enforcement effort, increased cost and additional potential crimes (with accompanying legal, court, and incarceration costs), and lots of additional frustration for the citizen involved in firearms, for what are a very small number of murders, and it's hard to see where such efforts couldn't better be directed at other things that'll likely save more lives.

I agree that rifles are not the biggest issue though. Most crime is committed with hand guns. Hand guns are much easier to conceal, and probably just as deadly at close range.

Indeed, handguns are what kills by far the most people, nearly 20x as many as rifles.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
such rifles are amongst the least used weapons to kill people with, blunt objects like bats are responsible for more deaths each year.

Not to nit-pick, but these kind of comparisons are a bit tired. What percentage of blunt object attacks end in fatality? Compare that to assault rifle attacks. It should be obvious which one is more dangerous, and needs to be more tightly controlled.

I agree that rifles are not the biggest issue though. Most crime is committed with hand guns. Hand guns are much easier to conceal, and probably just as deadly at close range.

The FBI doesn't track the total number of attacks, but they do track the total homocides.

Of which both blunt objects and "bare hands/human body" outpace rifles.

So no, it isn't tired. And it isn't tired because rifles, as you said, simply aren't used in said attacks.

And no, at close range hand guns are NOT as deadly as rifles, by simple virtue of both the rounds and the velocity being lower.

You can still do some serious damage with knives, just because the crowd is so tightly packed in a school between classes. Add in the teenager/human desire to walk towards a commotion rather than away, and people press in on it (Keep in mind that you do not hear a loud bang of a gun, and screams could be anything from a fight, stubbed toe, or a knife wound).

But he could have done more with a pump action and a couple pistols, and have done it easier.

There is a reason Indiana Jones brought his revolver to a sword fight!

 d-usa wrote:


There is a reason Indiana Jones brought his revolver to a sword fight!

Fun fact, this was actually because Harrison Ford sick and didn't want to act out the choreographed fight scene while filming that day

 Vaktathi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


There is a reason Indiana Jones brought his revolver to a sword fight!

Fun fact, this was actually because Harrison Ford sick and didn't want to act out the choreographed fight scene while filming that day

And he knows it's easier to shoot people than to do a sword fight

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
To play devil's advocate if that kid had been using a gun some of those people would have been dead.

Not necessarily. A bullet wound doesn't automatically kill any more than a deep stabbing wound does.

True, but an untrained schmuck with a knife is going to have a much harder time getting kills than the same schmuck with a gun especially if he is attacking a crowd. Guns just kill better.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Not to nit-pick, but these kind of comparisons are a bit tired. What percentage of blunt object attacks end in fatality? Compared that to assault rifle attacks. It should be obvious which one is more dangerous, and needs to be more tightly controlled.

Two points: First, which may sound pendatic but is actually important, we are not talking about assault rifles, an assault rifle is select-fire and is a Class III NFA weapon capable of automatic fire. If it lacks that capability, it is not an assault rifle. This is a common mistake but it's an important one to correct.

Yeah, sorry that was my bad. To my mind a military style assault rifle without full auto, is still an assault rifle (just without full auto). I understand that they are obviously very different in legal terms. Apparently I'm not alone in being a bit perplexed by what an assault "weapon" actually defines. But I'll try not to mix up the terminologies in future. It wasn't really a hugely important part of my point, so kudos for not leaving it at that...

Second, I'd say if the blunt objects are killing more people in total, but the assault rifles are killing a higher percentage, that would seem to indicate a much greater total proportion of attacks by blunt objects, constituting a larger issue in general.

Yes I would entirely agree. But, one problem existing does not excuse another. In equal measure guns are more dangerous, so you wouldn't want the problem to escalate. Ideally you'd want to keep a handle on both. I've noticed a lot of arguments try to deflect attention away from guns to other issues. Good examples are drink driving, knifes, suicides; but they could just as easily be economy, hunger or world-peace. Like somehow we can only solve problems consecutively in descending order of importance. It's good to have perspective, but in a topic about guns I think we should try to keep the focus on guns.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Not to nit-pick, but these kind of comparisons are a bit tired. What percentage of blunt object attacks end in fatality? Compared that to assault rifle attacks. It should be obvious which one is more dangerous, and needs to be more tightly controlled.

Two points: First, which may sound pendatic but is actually important, we are not talking about assault rifles, an assault rifle is select-fire and is a Class III NFA weapon capable of automatic fire. If it lacks that capability, it is not an assault rifle. This is a common mistake but it's an important one to correct.

Yeah, sorry that was my bad. To my mind a military style assault rifle without full auto, is still an assault rifle (just without full auto). I understand that they are obviously very different in legal terms. Apparently I'm not alone in being a bit perplexed by what an assault "weapon" actually defines. But I'll try not to mix up the terminologies in future. It wasn't really a hugely important part of my point, so kudos for not leaving it at that...

Yeah, "Assault Weapon" is a highly nebulous term that means different things at different times in different places, which causes lots of issues. What is an assault weapon in NY is not in CA, but what is an assault weapon in CA is not in Colorodo, and what the Federal government considered an Assault Weapon in 2003 was not one in 2013 and was not one in 1993.

Basically it's whatever the local legislation wants it to be, there is no universal definition, but most will ban things like folding stocks or pistol grips or removable magazines and flash hiders or impose magazine size limits and the like. Aside from magazine limits, most of them are related to how the weapon looks rather than how it actually functions.

 Smacks wrote:


Yes I would entirely agree. But, one problem existing does not excuse another. In equal measure guns are more dangerous, so you wouldn't want the problem to escalate. Ideally you'd want to keep a handle on both. I've noticed a lot of arguments try to deflect attention away from guns to other issues. Good examples are drink driving, knifes, suicides; but they could just as easily be economy, hunger or world-peace. Like somehow we can only solve problems consecutively in descending order of importance. It's good to have perspective, but in a topic about guns I think we should try to keep the focus on guns.

I guess the thing to many of us is that there's so much effort put into certain types of guns, often that doesn't do anything practical except frustrate law abiding owners, while other issues that could have far more impact if acted upon get ignored.

No, it's not a nebulous term. It's an intentionally misused term to frighten an ignorant public. And they arent merely different in legal terms. They're quite different in functionality.

Remember that 9 year old that accidentally killed an instructor with an Uzi a few days ago? That doesn't happen with a standard AR style rifle that John Q Public can purchase. Why? Because there are worlds of difference between full auto and semi auto.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I guess the thing to many of us is that there's so much effort put into certain types of guns, often that doesn't do anything practical except frustrate law abiding owners, while other issues that could have far more impact if acted upon get ignored.

Well this is something we can also agree on. Any measures taken should be effective. Even though I have painted a target on myself in this topic as being "anti-gun", I actually disagree with many proposals put forward by gun control lobbyists for this reason. I'm not sure if scaremongering about school shootings is really any better than scaremongering about home invasion.

 cincydooley wrote:
No, it's not a nebulous term. It's an intentionally misused term to frighten an ignorant public.

I don't dispute that "assault weapon" is used to intentionally mislead an ignorant public, but it's actual definition is quite nebulous and distinct from "Assault Rifle", which pertains to a select-fire weapon of intermediate caliber (though is also often just as misused).

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:

What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.

I honestly think it is because you advocate limiting or actually taking away a right. Your country may not have that right, and it may not be a right you think others should have, but in the US it is indeed a right. If someone advocated limiting a right you do have and consider a basic guaranteed right, you would probably (hopefully) argue against having that right taken from you. If the folks advocating taking that right were from outside your country and you felt they did not even understand the right and its importance, yet were still advocating for you to lose that right I suspect you may act in a similar manner.

Arguing is one thing, but I am seeing a venomous tone ITT. I -personally- think that if a right is flawed then its status as a right does not protect it from adjustment or even removal, but even if you argue it does it can still be questioned. The matter of whether to change the current gun rights status is obviously debatable, otherwise we would not constantly end up with big threads talking about it, so it is clear that the subject can be discussed- no side is obviously right or wrong. And nationality might seem important to you, but it is ultimately not relevant to the arguments someone uses, instead it only really affects which arguments someone uses. Saying that someone can't participate and contribute to the debate because they are not American is arguably genetic fallacy or ad hominem (depending on how it is formulated).

You're right about what you said earlier: we are friends here. I don't have a problem with any Dakkaite and I hope that what I posted, even when heated, isn't taken personally. I would gladly share a beer with any of you (who are of legal drinking age, of course!) I think it's good that you mentioned that and it should be kept in mind as we have these sorts of potentially heated discussions.

Has anyone actually said in this thread that non-Americans can't participate or contribute to the discussion? Obviously very many of us are willing to discuss the issue, but at the same time, even if you disagree whether or not something should be considered a right, you can't (or at least, probably shouldn't) come into a discussion about something that you know many of us consider a right just as important as freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and be completely dismissive of it without at least being a bit careful how you phrase things. Again, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, but throwing around terms like barbaric, or uncultured, or uncivilized (which haven't all necessarily appeared in this thread, but certainly are to be found in firearms discussions involving Americans and non-Americans), while also advocating for the removal or severe restriction of gun rights from average citizens in the US is going to meet with pretty severe resistance, and that shouldn't really come as a shock. If you want pro-gun Americans to take your gun control arguments seriously (even if they disagree with them), you can't approach the discussion as if you have some sort of obvious moral high ground.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm totally OK with the current restrictions on select fire weapons (and wish my state allowed them if I got the tax stamp).

But I also see the merit, as in your Stinger analogy of restricting and limiting the availability of C-4/Dynamite and other HE products, as well as M-1 Abrams/ammunition. I don't necessarily agree with limiting/restricting things like M249s, 240B, M60s, etc as even IF you are "allowed" to purchase one (through the requisite forms, and taxes, etc) the cost of them, plus ammo is so prohibitively high already as to make them unrealistic for most people to obtain.

(both quotes shorted for brevity)

I'd like to expand a little on what I said. When I said that I was OK with the current restrictions on select fire weapons, I mean federal registration and the tax stamp, and you can own one if your local jurisdiction doesn't prohibit it (unfortunately, Iowa prohibits any NFA items). I'd ideally like to see the federal requirements being it, and a removal of the 1986 new manufacture ban of machine guns. What we have currently is that you can buy a select fire gun if you live in the right state and are additionally quite wealthy just because of the legality of a single piece of metal. I think that's dumb. I think that domestic manufacture of select-fire weapons should begin anew and anyone who can be properly licensed should be able to buy one. I do think that select fire weapons are so inherently destructive they should require some additional restrictions than a long gun or pistol, but at the same time I'd love to see some of the artificial legal roadblocks removed.

I'd also like to see supressors and SBR's be removed from the NFA completely, period.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Same thing happens when the losing side pulls out the tired Chestnut of Stinger missiles as a reason for gun control.

Nobody wants Stinger missiles. A flamethrower though, NOW YOURE TALKIN!

The Stinger missile was an analogy for some devices that I think simply should not be accessible to the general public. I think that almost any ardent fan of firearms still probably thinks it's probably a bad idea to allow citizens to own Javelins, hand grenades, Claymores, M79's, and so on. Obviously my arguments are going to be called a slippery slope to magazine limits and other such nonsense, to which I respond that there is a middle ground to everything.

What you may not know is that in nearly all jurisdictions (obviously not California) you can own a flamethrower without any sort of licensing. Surprising but true.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Legal under the old assault weapons ban


Illegal under the old assault weapons ban (but legal now)


They fire the same round, are both semi-automatic, same rate of fire, same accuracy, the same receiver, the same internal design and functionality, in terms of killing capability, they're identical.

While I appreciate the point you're trying to make... Saigas are actually again banned for import, as are any rifles made by Izhmash, Kalashnikov, and some other Russian manufacturers. President Obama issued an executive order banning them a few weeks ago; less about gun control and more as a punitive measure for the Russians over their Ukrainian antics.

While I'm not too fussed about that - no shortage of Romanian or Chinese clones for those rifles - I'm deeply concerned for what is likely to come next, a ban on my beloved cheap Russian 7.62 Wolf, Brown Bear, and Tulammo.

Could it be that that we didn't bother banning flame throwers since it's ridiculously difficult build/maintain/deploy?

Frankly, I'd be more concern for folks thrown napalm around (gasoline+detergent).

The AKs and Saigas are banned from import. The ones in the US already can still be sold as long as the Russian company in question is not making anything from the sale. So if a gun shop owns (has already paid for) the AKs and Saigas they have in stock (or owes a US company for them) they can sell those weapons, as can any private citizen who happens to own one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Could it be that that we didn't bother banning flame throwers since it's ridiculously difficult build/maintain/deploy?

Frankly, I'd be more concern for folks thrown napalm around (gasoline+detergent).

I submit it is easier to make a flame thrower than an ATGM or MANPAD.

Thanks, "Import" is the word I should have used. I also think it will eventually be rescinded, and soon I hope. I said there were clones but they aren't really the same - the Catamount Fury is a similar clone but it's also sort of a POS, as an example.

 whembly wrote:
Could it be that that we didn't bother banning flame throwers since it's ridiculously difficult build/maintain/deploy?.

I think that there is no point regulating it because the kind of people who think it's a good idea to build their own flamethrower... well, it's a problem that sort of fixes itself.

Heh... good point.

 Hordini wrote:
Has anyone actually said in this thread that non-Americans can't participate or contribute to the discussion?

I don't think it has been presented quite that directly.

Again, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, but throwing around terms like barbaric.

You're right about what you said earlier: we are friends here. I don't have a problem with any Dakkaite and I hope that what I posted, even when heated, isn't taken personally. I would gladly share a beer with any of you (who are of legal drinking age, of course!) I think it's good that you mentioned that and it should be kept in mind as we have these sorts of potentially heated discussions.

I'd also be happy to have a beer with any dakkites, or even shoot a gun! Guns look like awesome fun, and I certainly don't want to steal peoples rights away. The position I present here is far reaching scocio-idological one. For example: I would like to see a world in the far distant future where cars are replaced by cleaner safer transport, and pollution is down. That doesn't mean I wanna come round now and crush your mustang, or think you're a donkey-cave for driving. It's more of a philosophical ideal.

Guns ARE awesome fun.

 Smacks wrote:
I'd also be happy to have a beer with any dakkites, or even shoot a gun! Guns look like awesome fun, and I certainly don't want to steal peoples rights away. The position I present here is far reaching scocio-idological one. For example: I would like to see a world in the far distant future where cars are replaced by cleaner safer transport, and pollution is down. That doesn't mean I wanna come round now and crush your mustang, or think you're a donkey-cave for driving. It's more of a philosophical ideal.

Well there's the answer to one question I asked earlier that was skirted.

I don't think anyone here is ever going to state that non-Americans can't participate in the discussion. I think all many of us ask is that you educate yourself both about our firearms laws and how our right to firearms as dictated by our countries founding documents has shaped our country for the length it has existed.

 Ouze wrote:


While I appreciate the point you're trying to make... Saigas are actually again banned for import, as are any rifles made by Izhmash, Kalashnikov, and some other Russian manufacturers. President Obama issued an executive order banning them a few weeks ago; less about gun control and more as a punitive measure for the Russians over their Ukrainian antics.

Yup, they're just a very good example as to why Assault Weapons bans are silly given the otherwise identical functionality between the two.

While they're banned from import now, it's for geo-political reasons (as 70% of KC's revenue comes from exports and now the Russian government will have to either let it collapse or spend public funds keeping it open, and, as you note, other nation's rifles are available) as opposed to any gun control angle (though they may view such restriction as a happy side effect) and they're not otherwise restricted aside from new importation.

 Bromsy wrote:
Can we all just stop? Stop spitting nonsense like more guns = more gun violence despite proof to the contrary? And automatic weapons are the problem? And stop nonsense like America doesn't represent a unique and specifically challenging scenario violence wise?

We need to stop tapdancing around what the real issue is - and it is an issue fairly unique to America as far as I know. If we took everyone who self identifies as African American, and forcibly deported them, our gun violence levels would drop to within spitting distance of European standards, if I am reading my statistics right. The problem isn't conceal and carry. The problem isn't the number of guns available. The problem is a vast and complex one that has resulted from our unique history as a nation and has led to large communities of people who have been straight up hosed - given less chance for education, legal justice and influence, integration into society at large and a fair interpretation in media. It's a giant mess echoed down through generations. And there really is no fair way to solve it, which is the worst part. Maybe time will help?

The massively higher rate of murder among the black population is part of the issue, but it isn't the issue. By the FBI's crime stats where the race of the offender is known then he is black 53.4% of the time. Now, that's obviously a pretty high rate, given black people are less than 13% of the population.

But what happened if we shipped the approx 40 million black people out of the US. The population would drop to about 270 million, and the number of murders would move from 14,500 to 6,800. So the murder rate per 100,000 would drop from 4.73 to 2.43.

That is, of course, a massive drop. But that new rate, 2.43, that is still three times the rate in France, more than double the Germany and UK, and 50% higher than Canada. All of whom still have rates including their own impoverished minorities.

So yeah, the economic and social disadvantage in the black population is part of the issue. But to claim it is the issue is just wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
The FBI doesn't track the total number of attacks, but they do track the total homocides.

Of which both blunt objects and "bare hands/human body" outpace rifles.

So no, it isn't tired. And it isn't tired because rifles, as you said, simply aren't used in said attacks.

Yep. In 2012 there were 12,765 murders, of which 6,371 were committed with handguns. Rifles were used in just 322 murders, compared with 1,589 with knives, 518 with blunt objects and 678 with bare hands/kicking etc.

It's an interesting list, I'd have thought poisoning, drowning and strangulation would be more common (12, 13 and 89 respectively).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

And no, at close range hand guns are NOT as deadly as rifles, by simple virtue of both the rounds and the velocity being lower.

That is splitting hairs though, at very close range the greater velocity is of very marginal benefit. A pistol is 'deadly enough' at close range. The point to bigger rounds and higher velocities is about accuracy and range, not about any kind of dissatisfaction about what a bullet will do to a human body when it hits.