Originally posted by Leo Strauss
My point is, if we are honest, we all have a line not to cross. Very few people I know care if you own a rifle or shotgun for hunting. I know I
don't care. However I do care about large magazines, assault weapons, conceal and carry handguns in metropolitan areas....
For instance I would support traceable ammo. I would be interested to know what you think about ammo that is linked to an owner. If your ammo isn't
legal you just committed a felony. Seems that could be a positive step in crime prevention and crime solving. I would like to hear a discussion
I'll answer the second paragraph first. If the ammo is stolen it will be traced back to the original purchaser and not the person that used it. It
will actually do nothing to prevent crime. You can trace nearly every new gun sold since the Brady Bill was passed back to the original owner. It
hasn't stopped criminals from stealing them and using them in crimes.
A second thing is, how would you make them traceable to a purchaser? A serial number on the case is easy to get around. You just clean up the brass
when you're done. The impact of a shot can deform the bullet beyond recognition, or cause the bullet to splinter. So, a serial number on the bullet
would be pointless in many cases. You could use an RFID chip in the bullet. Then the same thing applies. At an impact of 300+Ftlbs they could be
damaged. Plus people could get around the whole thing by casting their own bullets. It is a simple process and the equipment is readily available.
Now back to the first paragraph.
Studies done around the nation have shown that concealed carry does not lead to an increase in gun injuries or deaths. In fact a study done in the
late 90s showed that states disallowing conealed carry had a violent crime rate 11% higher than the national average. In Chicago, where concealed
carry is denied, the murder rate is 360% above the national average.
A study of the first six years of concealed carry in Miami FLA showed that not a single CCW permit holder had shot an innocent person. A study of CCW
permit holders released in 1999 found that permit holders were 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the general population.
A 2005 survey by the National Association of Police Chiefs found that 66% of police chiefs believe concealed carry reduces violent crime. Glenn White
of the Dallas Police Association said, " “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen ...I think it’s worked out well, and
that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert."
Concealed carry in urban areas has never been showed to increase danger in those areas.
According to a report released by The Urban Institute in 1997, the limit on new ten round magazines (that went in to place in 1994) had no impact on
multiple victim or multiple shot crimes. “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds]
were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds.]”
Magazine size has no effect on the average crime involving a gun. Any limit on capacity would solely be an attempt to curb a statistical anomaly. An
attempt that could easily be over come by simply carrying an extra gun.
Do you actually know what an assault weapon is? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I ask because there are a lot of people that are misinformed about so
called assault weapons. According to the "Assault Weapon Ban" that passed in 1994 it was any sem-auto rifle that held more than one external
accesories. If it had a pistol grip it couldn't have a collapsable stock. If it had a flash suppresor it couldn't have any other accessory. Basically
it was a point ban against bobbles and bits. It actually made no sense as a crime prevention measure. That is what congress found out when they
commissioned a study on the ban. The congressionaly mandated study found that the weapons regulated by the ban were use in an insignificant portion of
all crime before the ban. It also found that the ban had no apreciable effect on the crime rate.
So what was the real reason for the ban if it didn't make a difference on the crime rate? Why don't we ask Dianne Feinstein the Senate's sponsor of
the bill. Her response was “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them,
Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t there.” We could also ask Bill Clinton who
said, people “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.”
The attack on assault weapons begin after the gun control advocates realized that they could not get the support to ban hand guns. They thought that
if they could get the snow ball rolling with an "assault weapon" ban it wouldn't take long to get hand guns restricted or banned.
RPGs are not a good idea because they create large amounts of colateral damage if used incorrectly. If you make a mistake with a bullet the damage is
minimal. A mistake with an RPG can kill dozens with one shot.An improperly stored nuclear device causes radiation poisoning and death to the whole eco
system. A single use or mistake causes a fall out zone of miles. It is not well suited for personal defense because it can effect thousands at a time.
Also the fact that it's mere existence can cause death to others that pose no threat means it is not valuable for personal defense.
You can own fully automatic weapons if you get the federal tax stamp and it is okayed by the local head of police. Some states do restrict the
ownership of fully automatic weapons. However, the truth is that tens of thousands of people own fully automatic weapons legally.
Yet, at no point in the last 50 years have they accounted for even 1% of murders. The closest to 1% they came was in the city of Miami in the early
1980s. At the height of the drug trad in the city they still accounted for less than 1% of murders. Nationally the number was zero for more than a
decade before the federal government banned production of automatic rifles for the general populace.
I see that the government has a habit of banning things that are actually not a real problem.
edit on 21-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no