Assault Weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

The UK and Australia are the two models held up by the anti gun crowd. And both have had major increases in violent crimes since their gun bans.

---

Increase in violent crimes involving guns? My bet is no way.

"Major increases"? Lets see your data and source. No way.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Yeah, I'm gonna toss wiki into it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/

If you got one gun death in a town of 1 million people, and, the next year there was 2, is that were your huge increase is coming from? Let's see some "rate per 100k of people" type data. Apples to apples.

Common sense would dictate that if there weren't any guns at all, none, then, there wouldn't be any gun violence. Duh.

Does less mean more? "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

And, really, Ice, no difference between a 10-22 and an AR15 (and/or clone) in 5.56 and/or .223? You're silly. Wanna buy a bridge? Maybe you'd like to trade for some airsoft items...ha ha.

Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately, folks on the extreme ends of the issue will seem to have more say in the goings on of any legislation rather than the seemingly more rational folks in the middle. Which is how it goes, I suppose...whacky system we got. Oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

And BC, respectfully, just as Shane mentioned, the laws are already in place for what you see as a problem.

Look at Chicago's murder rate for 2012 thus far and they have the strictest gun laws!

Lots of EVIDENCE showing compelling reasons why taking something away from law abiding citizens, is bad policy.

---

Let's be clear: I am a gun owner, though it is way down on my list of most prized possessions. I was just trying to promote "discussion" as opposed to "taking sides" in a dispute. I agree that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a bad idea, but still struggle with where the line is for what types of guns we want in our hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

Increase in violent crimes involving guns? My bet is no way.

"Major increases"? Lets see your data and source. No way.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Yeah, I'm gonna toss wiki into it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/

If you got one gun death in a town of 1 million people, and, the next year there was 2, is that were your huge increase is coming from? Let's see some "rate per 100k of people" type data. Apples to apples.

Common sense would dictate that if there weren't any guns at all, none, then, there wouldn't be any gun violence. Duh.

Does less mean more? "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

And, really, Ice, no difference between a 10-22 and an AR15 (and/or clone) in 5.56 and/or .223? You're silly. Wanna buy a bridge? Maybe you'd like to trade for some airsoft items...ha ha.

Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately, folks on the extreme ends of the issue will seem to have more say in the goings on of any legislation rather than the seemingly more rational folks in the middle. Which is how it goes, I suppose...whacky system we got. Oh well...

---

Brian
Go to post # 157, some statistics there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluff-Canyoneer

Let's be clear: I am a gun owner, though it is way down on my list of most prized possessions. I was just trying to promote "discussion" as opposed to "taking sides" in a dispute. I agree that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a bad idea, but still struggle with where the line is for what types of guns we want in our hands.

---

This article has some good points:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizenry/

If someone is to draw the line at "guns with military characteristics", that would be most every gun in the United States, almost all are a military derivative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Brian
Go to post # 157, some statistics there

---

Ahh, dimly remember you posted that.

From the same source:

"Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms."

In a country of 22 million people...19 per year. That's flat amazing. Wonder why?

[SIZE=2]"The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008

So, homicide rate by firearm in Australia is what, .086 per 100,000 people (someone check my math!). I see another source that has it at .09. Combined with suicide its 1.05.

Switzerlands is reported as .52 per 100,000. Does that make sense as they have more firearms? When you include suicides they jump up to 3.5.

I'm not seeing a strong correlation between the Swiss being armed and being more "polite" than the Aussies.

US is 3.7 for homicide, 10.2 combined.

Damn, folks kill themselves with guns.

Its interesting. I'd probably see more kinship with Australia, socially, than Switzerland.

Interesting...

Brian, my point (which you obviously missed) with the AR 15 and Ruger 10-22 is how do you ban one without banning the other? One is considered the ultimate killing firearm and the other recognized as one of the finest recreational firearms around.

I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer on that from anyone. The only difference is really the cartridge, and even that begins to blur when you consider the Ruger also came cambered in 22 mag and 17 HMR.

So... feel free to answer the question above at any time.

As for OZ, I'm not where I can look it up for the next few days as I'm typing this from my phone. But there is a white paper by Queensland's leading government weapons expert available on line.

The deal with OZ is by banning firearms they have basically solved one problem and created a bunch of new ones. One of the static's I do remember is strong arm crimes was way up. The experts conclusion was... if you look at just crimes committed with a firearm, then yes, the OZ ban appears to be working, but if you look at crime as a whole since the ban it was up something like 50% and the ban was a failure.

Anyhoo... you seem to have plenty of time at the moment and I know you can Google so you should be able to find it.

Sent using Tapatalk

FWIW: anther example of trading one problem for anther... in Australia the rate of suicide by firearm has fallen since the ban. This figure is always mentioned by anti-gun groups as part of the "successful" ban.... but... the rate of suicide by hanging has increased by the same percentage, which is never mentioned by anti-gun groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882416

And notice the referencs is not Wiki.... while I appriciate Wiki as a referance resource, please don't present it to support an argument. Unless I can pull "facts" from the NRA website to support my arguments. :haha:

Sent using Tapatalk

Not the white paper I was looking for.... but....

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

At least jesse jackson gets it:crazy::crazy::crazy:

about halfway down is his interview by CNN


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scat...nian-gun-laws/

Look at this gorgeous hunting rifle. Why would anyone want to ban something like this?



http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/42018-...er_1858web.jpg


Vepr Hunter .308 WIN


Besides caliber and full auto, what's the difference between that one and this? (weird, I had this photo on yesterday and wasn't this morning...hmmm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rine_AK-47.jpg

Obama speaks on gun control today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiwFY5WSUE&sns=em

"There's something fundamentally wrong with our country when we allow something like this to happen".

WTF are you talking about? Who is "WE"? What a tool that guy is.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. Yeah, something, something, something...well, let's hear it, jerkoff. Give us "SOMETHING" that actually has a chance of doing something worthwhile (answer: there is no answer, at least in regards to gun control) instead of blaming AMERICA for these tragedies. Stinking political hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2065toyota

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens.

---

No they don't. This is politics, right? Combine equal parts fear, ignorance and money. Mix well. Since when has 'compelling evidence' been needed to fuel a bandwagon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction

Besides caliber and full auto, what's the difference between that one and this?

---

Oh, man, don't cha see it? It has that menacing bayonet lug!

Pistol grip. Appallingly low capacity magazine.

My question is, though...why is that man touching him?

Ha ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Brian, my point (which you obviously missed) with the AR 15 and Ruger 10-22 is how do you ban one without banning the other? One is considered the ultimate killing firearm and the other recognized as one of the finest recreational firearms around.

---

Easy, just look to Oz. Catagory C: rimfire semiauto. Catagory D, centerfire semiauto. Ta da!

Yeah, its the cartridge. Your 10-22 can't reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards...(what Eugene had to shoot for...pardon the pun).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

The deal with OZ is by banning firearms they have basically solved one problem and created a bunch of new ones. One of the static's I do remember is strong arm crimes was way up. The experts conclusion was... if you look at just crimes committed with a firearm, then yes, the OZ ban appears to be working, but if you look at crime as a whole since the ban it was up something like 50% and the ban was a failure.

---

Its a hard thing to pin down. Australia has such a low gun homicide rate to begin with, you can actually piece together their entire country of 22 million folks yearly deaths by looking at them individually.

Australia has apparently always had fairly restrictive gun ownership. Their "ban" and buy back probably hasn't made a ton of difference either way. Its interesting that folks point to them for both pro and con with regard to our gun issues.

Assaults up, yep. Folks just don't put up with old ladies whackin' you with their purses. Is a purse ban next?

Its really hard for me to infer anything based on % this and rate of that. Common sense for me, is, homicide rate by firearm per 100,000.

Another interesting mix, would be, homicide rate by not just population, but, available firearms. The US number would be intersting to compare to other countries based on that. We're, what, about near 1 for 1 for guns in this country (# guns versus total population)? Australia has a very low firearm count. Given that, their rate of homicide looks more interesting to me and ours not so terrible, as, given the immense amount of potential from all of our available guns, we "only" killed 8583 people last year.

Recent numbers from a quick unvetted source has 89 guns per 100 people in the U.S. 6 per 100 in the UK. 550 deaths in the UK on average per year with firearms? Interesting. Over 10 times the amount of guns, yet, as a percentage of our population, we kill each other way less? Australia has 15 guns per 100 people and around dozen or so?

Something like that.

Anyhoo.

Op ed from Oz:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...731-23ct7.html

No gun massacres since their buy back program in 1996. Hmm.

:roll: If the Ruger 10-22 is the sticking point of this conversation please swap out Ruger 10-22 and insert the popular recreational ranch rifle Ruger Mini-14 into the blanks... thanks for your cooperation.

And I don't think rimfire vs centerfire is the answer. The minute you outlaw .223 centerfire ammunition someone will start marketing .223 rimfire.... Ta-Da!

As for the massacres I don't know... if your goal is to kill people there are plenty of ways.... easy enough to make a couple big ass bombs using the propane tank from your BBQ or fertilizer from Walmart and diesel fuel from the corner station, instructions for both are all over the interwebs. I notice mass bombing every day in the news and the goal and out come are still the same as shootings. Hell, maybe we are lucky they are using firearms. OK city and 9-11 killed a lot more people than any of the mass shootings.

I don't have an answer, but I do know the problem is much more complicated than just banning assault rifles, detachable magazines and bayonet lugs. Mental health care is a big issue and the media is even a bigger issue. The Media creates a target, goal and infamy for the shooters. After reading the book "Columbine" I did learn the prized goal of Harris and Klebold was to top the number of dead from OK City. They were not gunning for specific students... they were gunning for "the record" number of dead.

Banning pistol grips, barrel shrouds and standard capacity magazines is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. This ship has already hit the iceburg and water is pouring into the first six compartments.... but it's nice to hear the band is still playing...

:cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

:roll: If the Ruger 10-22 is the sticking point of this conversation please swap out Ruger 10-22 and insert the popular recreational ranch rifle Ruger Mini-14 into the blanks... thanks for your cooperation.

---

You mean the mini with the black stock, 40 round magazine, flash hider? Ha ha. No comparison.

Your Ruger 10-22 isn't a sticking point for me. Just 'cause it looks like a duck don't mean it quacks like one too.

No one is going to make a rim fire in .223. Too spendy and not practical.

Sure, there's plenty of ways to off folks in large numbers. Been through an airport or on a plane since 911? Notice any changes? The September Army? Think that scenario could happen again? Little to no chance. Change happened, for better or worse. Cockpits locked, TSA folks get to see your junk with them new scanners, you can't bring your beverage in your luggage. Etc etc.

Yep, its complicated. Concur on the mental health issues.

Just for giggles I thought I'd check out bombings among OZ citizens since the gun ban

Petrol Bomb Attack

Chemical Bomb Attack

Collar Bomb

88 Austrilians dead from bomb attack

I'm sure I could dig up more... and I don't want to argue the merits of each bombing... just pointing out if your goal is to kill and/or terrorize people.... where there is a will there is a way....

FWIW: The Aussies are putting together a panel to investigate and explore the problems of bombings, so obviously they also noticed the problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

No one is going to make a rim fire in .223. Too spendy and not practical.

---

If .223 rimfire is all that is available I don't think cost would be the issue. The 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum has just been re-introduced so we are getting closer to a rimfire .223. During the Civil War the Henry Repeating Rifles were .44 rimfire.

I guess my point is you can pass whatever laws you like, but we have brillent engineers and they will just design around any paper barrier you impose.

Outlaw .50 caliber rifles? You just know someone will have a .49 caliber on the market a week later. Paper barriers are not the answer, that I am sure of... I wish I had the other answers...