2nd Amendment Ruling

[Monty22 833]

And the BATF has never overstepped it's bounds/jurisdiction/the law.....

They're separate issues.

How so? I'm not referring to Waco etc, The BATFE has a long history, dating back to the Carter Administration of abuses of power, making up laws as they see fit and harassing gun owners and dealers. The first step in reigning in the BAFTE is HR4900, a Bipartisan bill with 216 co-sponsors, to reform the BATFE.

So if the organization overseeing and regulating is sketchy, It would cast doubt on their actions. The same way every time you hear about someone in the news with an "arsenal of assault weapons intent on destruction" and it turns out to be a .22 and a .38 snubie.

[Trooper 8]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

[Trooper 8]

I think the thing that you guys aren't quite understanding is that the rest of the world kind of scratches their head at the gun culture of the US. I know that to me, I can see the difference as soon as I cross the border (I live in Toronto). Gun culture permeates through the entire society. I understand that people take their "freedom" pretty seriously in the states, but in this case I think it is a detriment to an otherwise great nation.

First, what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant. Seriously. Who cares? The US is the US.

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

Please provide some facts and figures behind this preposterous claim.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but if americans as a whole beleive it to be an integral part of their culture, then so be it.

It is. It's called the ability to defend one's life. Or we could just sit back and let the nanny state do it for us.

[pantherfan 0]

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

Please provide some facts and figures behind this preposterous claim.

If you really need stats to realise things like this its beyond me.

...firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

Also

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.

Even if the US wasn't the worst doesn't make the fact that it isn't a perticually good thing does it. I'm not going to touch the US gun laws subject and my opinions on it with a barge pole but it does seem people get semi-desensitized by these alarming statistics sometimes.

[Trooper 8]

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

Please provide some facts and figures behind this preposterous claim.

If you really need stats to realise things like this its beyond me.

Wow, you claim the difference is exponential but that's your answer? Very well-argued... Sounds like the hysterics shouted by the Brady Bunch. The chances of violent death by firearm are greater in the US than in many countries, but so is the defensive use of a handgun, check Dr. Gary Kleck's work. Examine who is getting killed in the US, I am sure you'll cry rivers for the crack dealers and gangs.

...firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

Do you realize that gang killings are counted in the "children" in the US? Maybe it's more of a culture thing and less a gun thing. Let's actually look at some death numbers for children 5-14:

auto accidents: 1500

falls: 70

pedestrian: 300

drowning: 350

fires/burns: 260

firearms: 60

Stats from National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84

We should just ban cars and swimming pools.

[gxc999 7]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

[Rylake 0]

I think the thing that you guys aren't quite understanding is that the rest of the world kind of scratches their head at the gun culture of the US. I know that to me, I can see the difference as soon as I cross the border (I live in Toronto). Gun culture permeates through the entire society. I understand that people take their "freedom" pretty seriously in the states, but in this case I think it is a detriment to an otherwise great nation.

First, what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant. Seriously. Who cares? The US is the US.

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

Please provide some facts and figures behind this preposterous claim.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but if americans as a whole beleive it to be an integral part of their culture, then so be it.

It is. It's called the ability to defend one's life. Or we could just sit back and let the nanny state do it for us.

1. The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) - US agency BTW.

2. Nobody is saying that you can't defend yourself in your own country however you see fit - but you can't argue that it doesn't have any drawbacks at all.

I saw something some time ago, the gist of which was "average white males not engaging in criminal/drug related behavior are barely more likely to ever encounter gun violence in the US than any of the so called low crime European nations." If you really think about it, that makes perfect sense (except it doesn't take the victim/offender sentencing dyad into consideration or that America is still a country made up of radically different social groups, while few "low crime European nations" share that trait). Who fights loudest for gun rights at all costs? White dudes! Of course I'm a white dude and I fall dead in the middle. No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

What about Canada? Toronto is arguably the most multi-culural city on the planet and we have had a recent surge in gun related crime (something like 50 shootings for the year). If a comparable city in the states (2.5 million people) got their shootings down to 50 they would be the safest city in america by a wide margin. I am not saying that everything is perfect, but it paints a pretty clear picture to me.

I know that I won't make you guys go turn in your guns tomorrow - but maybe take a wider view from the outside and at least try and see it from our point of view.

Normal people get shot - and psycopaths pass background checks, those arguments on either side are ridiculous. Fact is that guns are part of american culture for some people and that just won't change until the majority sees it as a problem.

[Chadd 916]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

A "real" assault rifle is capable of semi and full automatic fire. Those weapons are already covered under older gun laws. Current assault weapon bans impact semi automatic weapons that simply look like weapons capable of fully automatic fire. They are not the same internally and it has long been a crime to try and modify one into full auto.

[Rustpot 1]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

A "real" assault rifle is capable of semi and full automatic fire. Those weapons are already covered under older gun laws. Current assault weapon bans impact semi automatic weapons that simply look like weapons capable of fully automatic fire. They are not the same internally and it has long been a crime to try and modify one into full auto.

Exactly. "Barrel shrouds", collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and other such things have been the targets of bans. Why? None of the items included in bans save full auto fire and magazine capacity will kill more people or make them more dangerous.

[Monty22 833]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

If they have no legitimate purpose other than to kill, and are so horribly inaccurate, how do you feel about the police having them?

Chicago PD gets M4 Rifles

[Rustpot 1]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

If they have no legitimate purpose other than to kill, and are so horribly inaccurate, how do you feel about the police having them?

Chicago PD gets M4 Rifles

As long as they get training. The round fired by the M4 or other rifles has the potential to travel much further and through more items while staying lethal over a handgun round.

A full auto AK is hard to get, I guarantee the suspect talked about in the article didn't get his legally (or it wasn't an AK).

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, don't bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Same logic applies to cops and their armaments.

[Trooper 8]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

If they have no legitimate purpose other than to kill, and are so horribly inaccurate, how do you feel about the police having them?

Chicago PD gets M4 Rifles

Scared to death. My BIL is a firearms instructor for a 650 man force. He's full-time SWAT and considers running the range during qualifications once a year by far the most dangerous thing he does. Police are not the ones to look at for firearms competency.

[Engine37 0]

Once upon a time, I was an "anti-gun" person. I'm not now. Why? I looked into it a few years ago, and I firmly believe that most gun-related fatalities in America today are caused by 2 kinds of people- idiots and criminals. As others have mentioned, unfortunately we can't magically create a law that prevents idiots and criminals from buying and owning firearms. So what do we do?

Finding the right regulations is an important challenge that faces our society. IMO, we need to smart about it. Regulating magazine size (the 20th round isn't more lethal than the first), regulating certain weapons differently (you can easily kill someone with any gun specifically designed for hunting), etc, is not the answer to me. We need to hold people accountable when they use guns illegally (murders, crime, etc). By itself, just sitting there, a gun is actually harmless assuming it is stored properly. By regulating guns, I think even in a "perfect world" you'd only be able to make a certain small amount of progress toward a safe society, because there will always be idiots and criminals. If you found a way to make people smarter, and to motivate the public to NOT commit crimes, you would really make progress.

Guns don't kill people. People do!

[KingPest19 0]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

If they have no legitimate purpose other than to kill, and are so horribly inaccurate, how do you feel about the police having them?

Chicago PD gets M4 Rifles

As long as they get training. The round fired by the M4 or other rifles has the potential to travel much further and through more items while staying lethal over a handgun round.

A full auto AK is hard to get, I guarantee the suspect talked about in the article didn't get his legally (or it wasn't an AK).

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, don't bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Same logic applies to cops and their armaments.

So a 5.56 round which is pretty much equivalent to a .223 which isnt much bigger than a .22 Is going to go through more items than say a .9mm or .45? Those rounds arent designed to penetrate mutliple items as much as they are designed to tumble on impact. They hit something and they tumble and they are pretty much worthless for penetrating anything else after that.

[Rustpot 1]

So a 5.56 round which is pretty much equivalent to a .223 which isnt much bigger than a .22 Is going to go through more items than say a .9mm or .45? Those rounds arent designed to penetrate mutliple items as much as they are designed to tumble on impact. They hit something and they tumble and they are pretty much worthless for penetrating anything else after that.

I was referring to bullet proof vests and cars that are commonly used as cover.

A 9mm round fired by a cop/criminal will hit and stop (especially if they're using hollow-points). A 5.56 rifle round will hit and kill whatever's on the other side.

A 9mm pistol round has an effective lethal range of 200 yards IIRC. The 5.56 has a lethal range of over 1000 yards.

It's not the size of the round, it's the powder behind it. The fact that it's .003 inches larger than what is commonly thought of as a glorified pellet rifle means nothing when it's got 10x as much propellant.

[mrusse01 0]

Guns don't kill people. People do!

What exactly, besides people, kills people? Not much. Maybe like a bear, or a mountain lion.

What can kill a bear or a mountain lion? People with guns.

Case closed.

[Monty22 833]

No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.

"Assault weapons" as defined by liberals are normal guns.

Hogwash. I'm referring to thinks like M4s, AKs, and other fully automatic weapons in general. Oh yeah, plus bazookas, and grenades. Those guns serve no legitimate self defense or hunting purposes because they are impossible to be accurate with on full auto, I know because I've seen some experts try. I guess using common sense makes me a "Crazy Liberal" in the expert opinions of people such as yourself.

If they have no legitimate purpose other than to kill, and are so horribly inaccurate, how do you feel about the police having them?

Chicago PD gets M4 Rifles

Scared to death. My BIL is a firearms instructor for a 650 man force. He's full-time SWAT and considers running the range during qualifications once a year by far the most dangerous thing he does. Police are not the ones to look at for firearms competency.

I know all about it- I was trying to make a point That these "bullet hoses" that are so dangerous and in accurate are in a very large percentage of police cruiser trunks in America. I think patrol rifles for cops is good in theory, but as you pointed out, not so good when you only shoot twice a year.

[Spreedizzle 1]

Guns don't kill people. People do!

What exactly, besides people, kills people? Not much. Maybe like a bear, or a mountain lion.

What can kill a bear or a mountain lion? People with guns.

Case closed.

Animal in the United States that has "killed" the most people the last 3 years running.......

Anyone....Anyone....any guesses....

A deer.

[Rustpot 1]

Guns don't kill people. People do!

What exactly, besides people, kills people? Not much. Maybe like a bear, or a mountain lion.

What can kill a bear or a mountain lion? People with guns.

Case closed.

Animal in the United States that has "killed" the most people the last 3 years running.......

Anyone....Anyone....any guesses....

A deer.

I don't even want to think of their overpopulation if we didn't hunt those beasts.

[Monty22 833]

Back on topic- DC trying to figure out how to be compliant with ruling and still impeade citizens rights...

AP story

[mrusse01 0]

Back on topic- DC trying to figure out how to be compliant with ruling and still impeade citizens rights...

AP story

A ruling by the Supreme Court isn't going to curb the efforts of those who wish to see the state nanny over society.

[TheBert 0]

Back on topic- DC trying to figure out how to be compliant with ruling and still impeade citizens rights...

AP story

A ruling by the Supreme Court isn't going to curb the efforts of those who wish to see the state nanny over society.

I thought the link was going to be about FISA. Probably a bigger deal right now.

[Spreedizzle 1]

Guns don't kill people. People do!

What exactly, besides people, kills people? Not much. Maybe like a bear, or a mountain lion.

What can kill a bear or a mountain lion? People with guns.

Case closed.

Animal in the United States that has "killed" the most people the last 3 years running.......

Anyone....Anyone....any guesses....

A deer.

I don't even want to think of their overpopulation if we didn't hunt those beasts.

They are tasty little killers too. ;)

[Monty22 833]

More B.S. out of D.C.

Unreal.........

Under terms of the emergency law, passed earlier this week by the D.C. Council, residents must obtain a city-issued handgun permit and may keep handguns only in their homes for self-defense purposes.

The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency.

The provisions still rank as some of the toughest in the nation. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the law, gun rights advocates say, mandates that gun owners keep their weapons unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless they face a "threat of immediate harm."

The National Rifle Association has signaled it also will challenge the new D.C. regulation, describing the law as extreme and in "complete defiance of the Supreme Court's decision."

"The current D.C. proposal requires the complete cooperation of the criminal," NRA spokesman Andrew Akulanandum. "It would require the criminal to call and tell you when they plan to come and attack you."

[Spreedizzle 1]

So what is the point in owning a firearm for personal protection if you house is being broken into at the time? You going to tell the armed robber "TIME OUT!!!!.....I need 3 minutes to assemble and load my firearm!!!"