| Author | Message | ||
     paul vizzone Citizen Username: Bmx Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2005  |
I haven't heard much about this topic in a while. But caught this story http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7734694 | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 224 Registered: 8-2001 |
This will bring a lot of discussion.  The thing is - they're not enforced the way they should be. With this Texas incident, the weapon was a rifle not a handgun. I'm not sure of the laws in TX but in NJ as long as you have a firearms ID card (after passing a complete background check - local, state, federal - 3 to 6 months) you may purchase a long rifle when you want. The reasoning is that it is not easy to "conceal" the rifle. Of course if someone has intent to harm, they will do whatever they want to do the harm (cut down barrel and stock, etc) which did not seem to be the case in TX (would help to know what kind of rifle it was). I hear Corzine and Lautenberg are trying to pass a law against "assault pistols" (there's that ambiguous term) that can shoot ammo that will penetrate a bullet-proof vest. Don't know of any ammo that would do that (forget what you saw in Lethal Weapon 3). And for the record, I am a gun owner (2 pistols 1 shotgun) and no I do not belong to the NRA. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3195 Registered: 8-2003 |
Curious -- why no NRA membership? (I'm not saying it's necessary to 'be' anything in particular, but you go out of your way to tell us you're not). | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7733 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't know the gun laws in Texas, but I will bet dollars to donuts that in order to buy a firearm all you have to do is pass the instant record check screening the FBI has set up and you can walk out with your new purchase in less than an hour. NJ is very interesting on the subject of ammunition. I believe all hollowpoint (expanding) cartridges are banned, at least for handguns. Even the police use full metal jacket rounds. In 9mm, a high velocity load, the bullets often go right through whomever is shot and endanger innocent bystanders. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 226 Registered: 8-2001 |
cjc Mostly because some come on thinking automatically that a gun owner is a brainwashed NRA member who will not listen to anyone. Bobkat You are correct about hollowpoints (for civilians at least - not sure about police). When I bought my first pistol, I was asking about ammo - the clerk was telling me all about weights, etc. then he told me about hollowpoints. I said I thought they were illegal in NJ. Turns out you can purchase them, but G*d forbid you get caught with them....Don't understand that - if you can't use them, sell them only to LEOs. | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2004 |
more guns more killing less guns less killing what kind of society do you want? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7758 Registered: 5-2001 |
The problem is, how do you get the guns out of the hands of criminals? Private ownership of firearms has to have some effect on crime imho. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2931 Registered: 12-2001  |
Bobkat, In Pa., for hunting, you must use hollowpoint bullets in order to increase the probability of kill. OTOH, I believe they are illegal as military ammunition so all military bullets have a copper jacket. If I were wearing a bullet-proof vest, I would rather be hit with a hollow-point - if not, then a jacketed bullet. Now, I assume that the cop-killer bullets are basically armor-piercing rounds which do not mushroom. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7766 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think a few years ago Winchester came out with a pistol round called something like Black Dragon or Black Talon that was advertised to be powerful enough to pierce a bullet proof vest. I think some of the ammunition laws were passed because of that round. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 427 Registered: 3-2004 |
i would never own a gun. i think that they are awful things. i do believe, however, that anybody who wants a gun should be able to get one. gun laws and restrictions transfer the blame of unlawful use from the perpetrator to the gun itself. it is not the guns fault, it is the user of the gun. this is another perfect example of people in this country doing everything possible to deflect personal responsibility. when guns are banned or restricted it does not slow down for a second a criminals ability to find and purchase one. people want guns, smoking, and a horde of other things banned or restricted so that they never have to make a personal choice and be respomsible for it. it is so much easier to blame the guns then have to step back and take stock of our society and the way we seem to churn out a disproportionate amount of people eager to shoot each other. there are plenty of nations with little gun restriction that do not have a tenth of the gun related deaths that the u.s. does, canada and switzerland are perfect examples. rather than look at ourselves and question our society we instead decide to blame the gun. ridiculous. | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 339 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, Canada has very restrictive gun laws. Handguns are banned. Canada also went through a very expensive, unsuccessful attempt to register all long guns. I disagree with the handgun ban, which was a result of rising violent crime rates in its urban centers and a concern for what was occuring south of Canada's border. As far as I know, the ban hasn't succeeded in stemming what its sponsors hoped it would, but I haven't read much about the situation recently. | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2004 |
It is not the guns in the hands of criminals that worries me - it is all the other guns in the hands of "law abiding" citizens who feel compelled at some point to use them. example - UK has about 20% of the US population and guns are essentially banned. Thus guns are only in the hands of criminals - there are very few gun deaths per annum in the UK - let say about 200. So, applying that logic to the US, there should be 5* as many gun deaths because on average the population is 5* larger, or about 1000 gun deaths from criminals. So who is pepetrating the other 9000+ gun killings? By the way when you talk about guns and crime you are buying into NRA obfuscation. Just talk about guns and dead people. Logic - and empirical reality - show that more guns = more killing. It's up to you to decide what price you want to pay. There is a fellow called John Lott who wrote about his belief that more guns = less crime (not kiling I note). I wrote a letter to the paper asking him how many guns exactly are needed before there is no crime. I haven't had an answer yet. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7806 Registered: 5-2001 |
Very few criminals in Great Britain are armed. Heck even most of the police don't carry firearms. I think with the rise of drug gangs and such this is slowly changing, but still there is no where near the number of guns used in crimes as there is here. I am glad that you think that only criminals should have guns.  | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 437 Registered: 10-2002  |
What about the correlation between drug use and gun use? My (albeit loose) theory is that if you fixed the drug problem, your gun problem would decrease by enormous percentages. People are worried about the "criminals". What the heck could make a rational sober person rob a liquor store? I don't really think it's just poverty - it's drugs. There are, of course, other problems with gun posession, like the senseless death of young children who get a hold of their parents' guns and "play" with them - that doesn't have anything to do with drugs, just adult stupidity, but maybe those people wouldn't feel the need to keep a gun at home if there wasn't the gun/drug problem. I just don't think that having more guns around or available is the real issue (although, I suppose it's a start). | ||
| Carl Thompson Citizen Username: Topcat Post Number: 110 Registered: 4-2003  |
Q. What the heck could make a rational sober person rob a liquor store? A. Cash. Liquor stores are very cash-intensive businesses. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 24 Registered: 2-2005  |
L1C A question regarding your statement - "i would never own a gun. i think that they are awful things. i do believe, however, that anybody who wants a gun should be able to get one." Does "anyone" include convicted criminals? Or minors? How about the mentally ill? I grew up in a gun crazy family and I would never own one and think the harder you make it to own one is a good thing. What we should do is create mandatory minimum sentencing for crimes committed with a gun in order to deter their use. Or how about taxing the crap out of guns like tobacco? | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 441 Registered: 3-2004 |
this is tired but still true, guns dont kill-people kill. stop blaming the gun. we, as a nation, have become so involved in making sure that we dont have to take responsibility for anything that gun laws seem like a great idea. its absurdity at its finest. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 28 Registered: 2-2005 |
What are they killing with? Rubber mallets, toilet brushes, pipe cleaners... No, sir, you guessed it, it's guns. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 442 Registered: 3-2004 |
so why bother charging people with murder? we should arrest the gun. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 32 Registered: 2-2005 |
L1C - Do you miss the point as often in target practice? Yes, there is responsibility; however, there has to be a way to hold people accountable. Do you have a problem with that? Or is libertarian synonomous with anarchist? |
