this thread is amazing ... exactly as predicted.
this thread is amazing ... exactly as predicted.
that is just one of the MANY historical issues with this post.
this is why it is well known that smoothbore millitary style muskets were needed in mass by the american army, because there private guns were unsuited for combat at the time. rifles and shotguns the american public owned were just not that useful in battle against the redcoats.
sorry my mini's don't have the french ' thingy on them, you get the point.
To leave feedback: Click seller/buyers name, Click feedback score, Click leave feedback
see this is the funny thing about these kinds of threads. im actually not much of a gun control advocate. i like guns, i own them, i shoot them. of course since i do believe in some gun control, of course to the second amendment fundamentalists i am one of the enemy, but thats exactly my point.
what frustrates me, is the utter insanity used to justify guns in this country. this just basic level lack of critical thinking really does guns, gun ownership, and gun rights in this country a HUGE disservice. it cheapens gun owners, makes us look like idiots, and hurts us politically. its really sad to see it happen, over and over again. and what you guys don't seem to get, is that by being hardliners, you are actually hurting your cause more then helping. by making crazy claims like private gun ownership in the USA is the reason why we don't speak german, or Switzerland is a gun loving utopia, or that private gun ownership prevent tyranny ... it just makes you look crazy. and crazy, is easy to marginalize. and thats exactly what is happening in this country.
back on subject guys before I post the popcorn guy again. be nice
5 minutes to ready a muzzleloader? I can fire, take a piss, eat a burger, call my wife, reload and fire well within 5 minutes. Apparently you have little knowledge of muzzle loading arms.
Civilian owned guns have been proven by every honest research group, to lower the rates of violent crime. Even the Center for Disease Control, which is notoriously anti-gun, concluded that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lower crime rates in all categories.
I am a strong supporter of open carry. While some here have claimed it makes people feel icky and only antagonizes the cops, always fail to realize that many states allow open carry without all that drama. Best example is Arizona, where open AND concealed carry is allowed without a permit. Somehow, the "Cop Vs law-abiding-citizen-going-about-his-lawful-business" encounters and YouTube videos are non-existent there. Surprisingly, the police themselves carry openly, yet you never here someone say about them; "the bad guy is gonna shoot you first and take your gun". I rather think the bad guy really does not want to die, and indeed, leaves alone those who show that they are ready and willing to shoot them.
There is not a single gun law in the USA that will stop a bad guy from doing bad things. On the contrary, my legally carrying a gun has stopped bad guys from doing bad things.
AGAIN...read starting at PAGE 32. While this article does not give the end numbers, the total firearms given to England FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS came to around 120,000
Not entirely invalid; Washington DC require strict compliance with registration (even long arms require registration). Chicago also comes to mind. New York is another city. All cities that have historically high crime rates. I feel confidant without knowing the laws off hand that California is probably similar.
If you want to look into these facts, check the FBI website or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they are you best bet for researching the issue.
I think he's functionally illiterate as well as ignorant, at least based on his responses to my post. I've had enough laughs, g'night folks.
The other part of this question that isn't addressed....of those registered firearms...hom many of those crimes are committed by the owner of the firearm and how many are committed by someone who has stolen that firearm or is in possession of the firearm without the legal owners permission.
yea, that was my question basicly. of the violent crimes that are commited, how many are with a gun legally owned by the commitor
My sense of the matter would be that if it were possible to determine the number of gun related crimes where the gun used was not registered* would be a useful statistic to argue for/against mandatory registration (as the evidence may suggest) but since as our esteemed colleague Wetwrks has accurately pointed out, compulsory registration is the exception rather than the norm it would be impossible to generate an accurate figure unless you tried to extrapolate the numbers from the few jurisdictions that do require the registration of firearms.
*Assuming, of course, that the study were done in a jurisdiction that required registration and the gun used was not registered or used by someone who was not the registered owner.
Last edited by debruynda; 12-19-2013 at 10:09 AM.
well the point that I have in my head is that if I were going to go out and have intent to do any illegal activity with a firearm it sure in hell wouldnt be mine
The anti gun crowd seems to think that registering guns, making guns harder to purchase, etc...will remove guns from the hands of criminals...but that isn't the case. Most criminals don't go thru the legal process of buying a gun. They will even specifically target police and military to get guns.
If you are truly interested in reducing gun crime and getting the illegal weapons of the streets, registration and weapons bans don't work.
According to the FBI in 2002, only 1 out of every 6 guns used in the commission of a crime was obtained legally. The links I used to have referenced are no longer valid, but I did use these numbers for a college-level research paper in 2004. As I recall, they weren't that hard to find, I really don't have the motivation to re-research all of this, since in my mind, gun control is disproven on statistics alone. When gun control laws are passed, crime rates rise, when gun control is loosened, crime goes down. It really is that simple. Take, for example, my home state of Arizona. Recently (within the past two years) a law was passed which makes it legal to carry (concealed or unconcealed. Loaded, or unloaded) just about anywhere in the state, without a license. The crime rate, which has been falling since 2000, never so much as had a hiccup after the law was passed. I, as well as many people whom I interact with, regularly carry firearms, and it really is not even noticed anymore. (except for the Californians who insist on infesting the state, like a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship.) The funniest part of the whole process was the anti-gun yo-yos, who were concerned that the state was going to spontaneously erupt into lethal gunfire the instant the law was passed. Insisting that Arizona was going to turn back into the wild west, we were supposedly going to become homicidal maniacs with no choice but to kill each other with these evil guns, since, you know, we were carrying them around and everything. I have had the occasion to converse with many law enforcement workers (in fact I live across the street from the Mohave County Sheriff) who have absolutely no problems with, and support these sorts of laws, because it lightens their work-load tremendously. Since the law was passed, in my hometown alone, I can bring up at least 10 instances where a concealed weapon was used to stop or interrupt crimes in progress, and nobody got killed. My personal opinion is that only those people who have an illogical fear of guns are the ones who want them gone. There is not much backing their arguments besides "guns are scary". There is my two-cents. Beefy out.
Dan, I suspect the crime rate hasn't fallen because of the influx of illegal aliens and all of the drug running issues. Just my guess.
I am sure the Bammer would do just that, if he could.
Last edited by BEEFYDAN; 12-19-2013 at 10:12 PM.