|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/15/2017 4:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote: What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"? It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using. I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests (anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds. Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for killing people. An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a handgun. On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for the job. I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job. When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic, because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be very useful. You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool if they find it useful? Should we go back to hand saws and files because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to the ER? register your assault screwdrivers: https://www.abqjournal.com/81962/upd...-indicted.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:41:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference: http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns Apparently it didn't strike you for ONE second that areas of high crime rates will have ALL crimes high. It isn't GUN control that reduces the rates of crime in New York - it's a police department that enforces all laws and not just a few as they do in California. |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:10:00 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:46:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Oops. Godwin says this thread's officially over. Move along, nothing more to see here. This thread ended before it started. Joy, I'm with you. Thread officially over. |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 1:36:34 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: well that's a nice red herring. I'm sure Vice Lords & Latin Kings will giggle while reading it. Frank, could you posit a possible meaning for the phrase, "shall not be infringed" ? What ever could they have meant by that? As someone mentioned earlier, there is a long history of state and local gun regulation, even in the old West. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/op...ol-237490.html . Even the Colonies had gun control, prohibiting blacks, Catholics and immigrants (or some combination of the three) from owning guns. The states and cities could and did regulate gun ownership until 2010 and the 5/4 opinion in McDonald v.. City of Chicago. The notion that gun ownership is somehow sacred and untouchable is nonsense. Even under the Second Amendment, reasonable regulation is permissible, although its political suicide in some states where guns have become religious articles. Ahem - and most of those gun control laws were promptly overthrown. |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote: What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"? It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using. I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests (anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds. Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for killing people. An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job. When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic, because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be very useful. You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to the ER? I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the balance of benefits vs. detriments. In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill thousands of people. And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them - or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific detriments as the U.S. does. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/15/2017 4:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: well that's a nice red herring. I'm sure Vice Lords & Latin Kings will giggle while reading it. Frank, could you posit a possible meaning for the phrase, "shall not be infringed" ? What ever could they have meant by that? As someone mentioned earlier, there is a long history of state and local gun regulation, even in the old West. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/op...ol-237490.html . Even the Colonies had gun control, prohibiting blacks, Catholics and immigrants (or some combination of the three) from owning guns. The states and cities could and did regulate gun ownership until 2010 and the 5/4 opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The notion that gun ownership is somehow sacred and untouchable is nonsense. Even under the Second Amendment, reasonable regulation is permissible, although its political suicide in some states where guns have become religious articles. Andrew's a good guy, but he's giving lot of absolutist arguments that make no sense to me. "Shall not be infringed" is not absolute. Courts have long held that reasonable requirements and limitations are constitutional. There is the occasional screwdriver homicide. But nobody rationally thinks screwdrivers need as much regulation as tommy guns. There are occasional heroes who must act to reduce the harm caused by gun whackos. But almost all handgun owners are much more likely to harm someone in their family than a home invader, and rational gun control won't be disarming police. I agree with Jim Jeffries. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 As he says at about 2:00, the _real_ pro-gun argument is "F**k off! I _like_ guns!" -- - Frank Krygowski |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote: 4On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:41:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote: As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in every one of the 50 states. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it? You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates. I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun restrictions. Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border. Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try to take it into Quebec. Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats. Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference: http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns But Frank, when I wrote about Vermont with their almost nonexistent gun laws and extremely low murder rate you argued that it was because the Vermonters all lived in rural bliss and that other places were subjected to the pressures of living in urban environments. But that doesn't seem to hold water as New York with its 8.5 million population has far less crime then L.A. with less then half the population. By the way, Detroit, with its paltry population of 673,225 has: murder rate of 43.8 rape rate of 78.7 robbery of 513.5 crimes against property 3529.9 A city 1/12th the size of N.Y with a murder rate 26 times higher? Should we term it "the urban myth"? Does Detroit do this? http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns Frank, ever heard of "zip guns"? The first I heard of them was back in the 1950's when I read an article about New York kid gangs making their own pistols. Do you think that kids in 2017 have suddenly gotten dumber? -- Cheers, John B. |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:56:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:49:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-) But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot a human for five generations. Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4 plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust anti-explosive laws! (Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.") Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country. The detriment is far greater than the benefit. It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35 years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide. Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data counts homicides. I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training, counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance. You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions, i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all practical. What are the laws where you're living? Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons" and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not. The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not. What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.? http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131 Motor vehicles: http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759 38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured Bicycles: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm 818 deaths and 45,000 injured http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay 59 deaths and 527 injured A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas. Why ever not? After all you equate rate of fire with a dangerious weapon. B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths are their _intended_ effect. What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"? It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using. Ah, you mean about those dangerious bicycles that kill over 700 people a year? Ban em! I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests (anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds. Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for killing people. Ah, and now you are branching out to hand guns... And rates of fire over some specified rate? The problem is Frank, that in this instance you simply do not know what you are talking about. Example: I can fire two shots from a double barrel shotgun in less then one-half a second, perhaps as quickly as 1/4 of a second. In fact some of them will fire both barrels simultaneously. I assume that you will outlaw double barrel shotguns? The real hotshot rapid fire boys habitually fire 5 rounds in 4 seconds in the Olympics. Damn that is fast. I assume that the U.S. will be withdrawing from the 25 metre rapid fire events in the Olympics? Another question arises. I read that there are approximately 265 million guns in the U.S. Will your new scheme grandfather "the existing guns" so the owners can keep them?. Will your scheme simply grab all those guns, confiscate them? Will you buy them from the owners for a fair market value? -- Cheers, John B. |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:46:45 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:35:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 10/14/2017 12:20 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing so causes or aids thousands of murders. The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal. Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit of it that will be found dispensable. The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years. Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers. There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder. Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...." A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v "Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the days of training...." And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried about the federal government infringing on Their rights. All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms. My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant. I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme position in this argument. But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position, mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment. As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition. The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part: The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher As for magazine capacity: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level. In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans. From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Thanks for bringing that up. I was puzzled when that odd phrase popped up years ago, apparently from someone trying to Anglicize 'sturmgewehr' which, being German, would be all too scary for the desired effect. But _assault_ weapon hit a nice audience, didn't it? Sounds so violent and all that. I suppose that it is an example of Modern American English. Like "Hey man! Isn't it hot here in Thailand? Ohooo It is so cool". Or calling anything painted black a "tactical" something or another. Hmmmm..... is that a new marketing scheme? Labeling a black bicycle as a "Tactical Bike" and charging 15% more then the red one, that every cyclist knows is faster :-? But I knew a guy who was killed by a baseball bat to the head. Make that an _assault_ baseball bat, as the prosecutor called the event a 'criminal assault' in court. I don't know of any case where a man was dispatched by a scary warlike folding stock, but you never know. And bayonet deaths seem rare, less common than machetes, even after 2004. Grenades were already illegal BTW. Pistol grip makes a firearm scary how? I just don't get that at all. I think that was probably just a method of defining an "Assault" weapon. And according to the Federal law the weapon had to have two of the features. A threaded barrel and pistol grip? And evil scary suppressors? WTF? A running meme around firearms owners is a hand cupped to one ear while saying, "pardon, what was that again?" otherwise known as 'the NRA salute'. I've always wondered about the furor about "Silencers", more properly called suppressors, as ownership is licensed by the Federal government and also some state laws. -- Cheers, John B. I can accept the 1934 (et seq) machine gun ban(s) but I've never heard a good argument for classing suppressors in the same lump as a real .50 cal Browning MA2. WTF? I like belt feed as much as the next guy, but a suppressor doesn't 'reach out and touch someone' in the same way. You democratically elected government has seen fit to license them. I assume that this license keeps them out of the hands of criminals, or something. -- Cheers, John B. |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:06:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2017 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote: As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in every one of the 50 states. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it? You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates. I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun restrictions. Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border. Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try to take it into Quebec. Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats. Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference: http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns I suspect that we do not know all the variables or even the most significant ones.. You point to Canada, which is legally restrictive of firearms, being smack up against us feisty USAians on a long border. But Mexico is also highly restrictive, legally. And yet the trade flow of illegal (both merely undeclared and also statutorily proscribed, as in full auto) firearms is northbound, Eric Holder notwithstanding. Yes, people do highlight Chicago and Illinois generally as one outlier (draconian statutes, ordinances, administrative impedimenta and flagrantly unconstitutional practice, all to no effect) while others note New England enjoys high firearm ownership rates with low criminal use of them. I'm adult enough to say I don't know. Although it is frowned on my the "anti-gun" crowd I suggest that the old saw that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is probably true. Meanwhile, from first principles and a wealth of historical examples I'm wan to accept disarmament. YMMV. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 10:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |