Most people already know damn well that the pro gun rights, pro 2nd Amendment folks are right, and have been all along. But its surprisingly nice to see even establishment media outlets forced to admit that we are right.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18660461&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8

Quote :

"Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right By Keith C. Burris 08/03/2007 In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: [...] That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment? Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution. Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written? Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them. Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First? I think the answer is yes. And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives. I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people. Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well? [...] Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes. Moreover, the three victims here were women. What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money? It's worth thinking about. Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here. And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared. [...] Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit."

8/10/2007 2:25:22 PM

is it "that time of the week" when blood flows from the vagina named salisburyboy

8/10/2007 2:29:48 PM

And when we arm everyone...the murderers, druggies, thieves, and psychos no longer have to try as hard to acquire guns.

8/10/2007 2:35:43 PM

Quote :

"And when we arm everyone...the murderers, druggies, thieves, and psychos no longer have to try as hard to acquire guns"

Gun bans and "gun control" does NOT disarm murderers, druggies, and thieves...just as anti-drug laws do not stop people from doing drugs. Those types of people will be armed no matter what. Gun ban laws only disarm decent law-abiding citizens, and leave them defenseless against the scum of society.

8/10/2007 2:39:04 PM

just look at all those gun deaths in the uk or japan.

8/10/2007 2:40:52 PM

is the world ending, b/c...*sigh*.....I.....agree.

8/10/2007 2:53:01 PM

just look at all those american criminals who purchse their guns legally

8/10/2007 2:53:10 PM

maybe purchase a gun then become a criminal, but not a criminal (felon) purchasing guns, that in itself makes it illegal.

8/10/2007 2:55:07 PM

Quote :

"just look at all those gun deaths in the uk or japan."

The U.K. actually has one of the highest violent crime rates in the "Industrialized" world, even despite draconian gun bans. And that includes a lot of crimes committed using firearms. So what if less people are killed using guns, and now most people are being stabbed and bludgeoned to death? Should we now start banning knives, bats, and clubs? The violent crimes will still occur, just with different tools.

Guns are just a tool. Tools can be used for good or bad. Look at West Virginia, which has among the highest gun ownership in the nation & the least amount of restriction on gun rights, yet among the very lowest violent crime. Then look at areas like D.C., Chicago, and others with the most restrictive "gun control" laws and gun bans, but which have the very highest violent crime rates.

Crime is a complex issue, but a big part of it involves the type of people in the society. Areas like D.C. & Chicago (and South Africa) are dangerous because of the high popuation of blacks. Areas like West Virginia & Japan have very low violent crime because of their respective populations. Japan would have essentially the same low violent crime rate even if it had less restrictive firearm ownership laws. The UK and United States have generally high rates of violent crime due to increasing non-white Third World populations.



[Edited on August 10, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : 89-7854663-57457]

8/10/2007 3:07:19 PM

^i pretty much agree with most of that, especially the first 2 paragraphs

8/10/2007 3:08:48 PM

Quote :

"89-7854663-57457"

what is that - your prisonplanet id number?

8/10/2007 3:43:28 PM

Quote :

"West Virginia, which has among the highest gun ownership in the nation & the least amount of restriction on gun rights, yet among the very lowest violent crime"

common sense would tell that someone is less likely to do something if they think the possible victim is able to defend themselves, or even turn the tables.


I think someone rational hijacked salisburyboy's screen name.

wait, I just read:

Quote :

"Areas like D.C. & Chicago (and South Africa) are dangerous because of the high popuation of blacks"

so all is normal in the t-dub universe

[Edited on August 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2007 3:47:57 PM

For anyone who doubts the Second Amendment protects the right of individual American citizens to keep and bear arms, check out the comments section here:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/rosen/262

The term "militia", as used at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, referred essentially to all able-bodied men in the nation (ie, able to defend the nation in war). So, the "militia" IS the people. And other supporting documentation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2nd Amednment intended to protect the right of the citizenry -- ie, all people -- to keep and bear arms.

Quote :

"The 2nd amendment was NEVER intended to apply only to those in actual militia or military service. “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” -Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right… ” -Georgia State Supreme Court, Nunn vs. State, 1846"

Quote :

"Any article referencing the “Federal” right to keep and bear arms also needs to contend with individual State Constitutional Rights. For instance, the State of Michigan. Its State Constitution says “”Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state” (Article 1, Section 6). You will quickly notice there is no mention of any a militia being necessary for anything. Along with Michigan, there are 43 other States that carry the same language regarding the Right to keep and bear arms. The term “militia”, in times past, was commonly recognized as “the people” by 44 States. [...] I never did understand the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was somehow tied to one’s being in the militia. If back then the militia was the army, so to speak, then do we think all those really smart founders would have wasted time saying in the Constitution that the army, so to speak, has a right to fight with guns? What, and if they didn’t have the second amendment the militia would have had to fight off invaders with pots and pans?"

8/10/2007 3:57:52 PM

Quote :

"Guns are just a tool. Tools can be used for good or bad. Look at West Virginia, which has among the highest gun ownership in the nation & the least amount of restriction on gun rights, yet among the very lowest violent crime. Then look at areas like D.C., Chicago, and others with the most restrictive "gun control" laws and gun bans, but which have the very highest violent crime rates. Crime is a complex issue, but a big part of it involves the type of people in the society. Areas like D.C. & Chicago (and South Africa) are dangerous because of the high popuation of blacks. Areas like West Virginia & Japan have very low violent crime because of their respective populations. Japan would have essentially the same low violent crime rate even if it had less restrictive firearm ownership laws. The UK and United States have generally high rates of violent crime due to increasing non-white Third World populations. "

#1, in the US, the difference between West Virginia and DC/Chicago et al is not gun ownership. It's urban density and class divide. It's not black/white either as you claim. It's class and density.

The more people you pack into a small area and the more differentiation of class you have, the more violence there is going to be, gun control or not.

The reason Japan has such dramatically lower rates of violent crime is two fold. One, because a substantial amount is never reported due and two, their judicial system is MUCH more harsh than in the US. Punishments are much more severe. Their culture also has a much more strict honor and value system than in the US, where the average person here has no ethics or morality.

The UK exhibits the same problems of density and class divide, with the same crime issues as any other large metro area.

And no, the gun nuts are not right. As a gun owner, I would like nothing more than to see the end of hand gun production, the banning of all non-sport weapons and the removal of ordinance for these weapons. Hell, just stop making bullets.

8/10/2007 4:19:59 PM

Quote :

"common sense would tell that someone is less likely to do something if they think the possible victim is able to defend themselves"

yep...and thats why common sense would also tell us that if we banned guns from law abiding citizens, armed robberies would skyrocket since the robbers wouldnt think their victims are able to defend themselves...it wouldnt even be in the back of their minds

8/10/2007 4:20:07 PM

Quote :

"Hell, just stop making bullets. "

That's actually one of the easier ways for the gun-ban crowd to implement a de facto "gun ban." A gun is worthless if you don't have ammo. So I would suggest to any gun owner (concerned with being able to defend themselves against common criminals or a tyrannical government) that they always have a healthy supply of ammo in stock.

8/10/2007 4:25:38 PM

bullets will still be made in other countries...let alone bullets would still be made for law enforcement and armed forces in our country...not exactly a foolproof "solution"

8/10/2007 4:30:04 PM

8/10/2007 4:54:06 PM

bullets are exceptionally easy to make... from scratch the hardest thing to make would be the primers, but even that isn't that hard once you get the process down.

A cheap and dirty gun is pretty straightforward to make as well.

8/10/2007 5:13:07 PM

For the record, claiming that the differences in crime rates between West Virginia and Chicago are dependent on gun control is asinine. Take two cities with approximately the same racial diversity, system of government, population density, and MAYBE that kind of comparison would hold water.

That being said...

The premise behind gun control is simple - guns are inherently dangerous. They are dangerous because, in a person's hands, they can cause exceptional damage with relative ease in a short amount of time. It takes a significant amount of discipline, knowledge, and restraint to use a gun properly. This is discipline, knowledge, and restraint that most people don't take the time to acquire. Some don't have the capacity to acquire these at all.

As a result, we have gun control.

That being said, I believe that gun control, like the government, should be as limited as possible. When in doubt, let the individual decide. By our 2nd amendment we have the right to bear arms. This is a right expressely stated in the constitution. People should lose the right to bear arms only when it distinctly conflicts with the rights of others. If you're certifiably crazy, or have a history of violence, you lose the right to have a gun. Your possession of the gun is a threat to other's safety, and people, generally speaking, have a right to be safe from crazy people with guns.

8/10/2007 5:29:34 PM

Quote :

"As a gun owner, I would like nothing more than to see the end of hand gun production, the banning of all non-sport weapons and the removal of ordinance for these weapons."

Two problems:

1) What is a "non-sport" weapon?

2) How do people without "non-sport" weapons defend themselves from people with "non-sport" weapons?

8/10/2007 6:51:29 PM

Quote :

"people, generally speaking, have a right to be safe from crazy people with guns"

agreed but how can you guarantee that right to people when criminals tend to get guns illegally?

8/10/2007 7:20:15 PM

Quote :

"people, generally speaking, have a right to be safe from crazy people with guns"

I would argue that people, generally speaking, have a right to shoot crazy people with guns.

8/10/2007 8:11:55 PM

Quote :

"West Virginia, which has among the highest gun ownership in the nation & the least amount of restriction on gun rights, yet among the very lowest violent crime"

Well, they are all family there, so they should get along.

Is this a salisburyboy thread without mention of the Jews?

8/10/2007 10:14:50 PM

I'm not sure, but I think most victims of gun violence knew their attacker. Either way, you'd be amazed how often family members go at each other with deadly weapons.

8/10/2007 11:03:09 PM

^that's violent crime in general. i dont know how much of a correlation, if any, it has with gun violence specifically

Quote :

"Two problems: 1) What is a "non-sport" weapon? 2) How do people without "non-sport" weapons defend themselves from people with "non-sport" weapons? "

Anything outside of an air pistol, bolt action hunting rifle or skeet shooting shotgun basically. And to even ACQUIRE such weapons should require major tracking and approval steps. The same for reselling such weapons. And it all needs to be tracked from production by the serial number.

Seeing as if you look at statistics, the number of violent crimes by sporting class weapons is effectively zero, because they are bulky, require a lot of skill to use and are generally fairly expensive and hard to get illegally.

Now if you want to pose some more retarded what-if's and ridiculousness, be my guest. But no gang banger or robber is going to be rolling with a bolt action rifle or a 3 shot 12 guage.

Quote :

"bullets are exceptionally easy to make... from scratch the hardest thing to make would be the primers, but even that isn't that hard once you get the process down. A cheap and dirty gun is pretty straightforward to make as well."

Path of least resistance. The only people who make their own bullets are serious sportsmen. They are not easy to make, unless we are talking about musket balls. From scratch, the hardest thing to make is the fucking shell.

Quote :

"bullets will still be made in other countries...let alone bullets would still be made for law enforcement and armed forces in our country...not exactly a foolproof "solution" "

Law Enforcement can easily switch to a side-arm with a unique bullet design/caliber, making them worthless for the street weapons and military ammunition isn't likely to be leaked en masse to the streets.

If you eliminated the sale of ammunition, which you can PERFECTLY legally by 2nd amendment terms, we would see gun violence effectively die off over the course of the next 3-5 years. Because the ammunition would become extremely scarce and the sportsmen left who did make their own sure as SHIT wouldn't be selling it, seeing as they would be on a very limited supply for casings.

And being that within the next 2-3 years almost 100% of incoming cargo will be xray scanned at port, that's going to eliminate massive contraband shipments. Gunshells aren't like drugs, the supply can fairly easily be dried up.

8/11/2007 3:29:25 AM

Quote :

"statistics, the number of violent crimes by sporting class weapons is effectively zero, because they are bulky, require a lot of skill to use and are generally fairly expensive and hard to get illegally."

What? Hunting rifles/shotguns are the by far the easiest guns to purchase. What are you talking about? Hard to get illegally? What does that mean? So it's easier to get a military grade weapon illegally? I fail to see the relevance or how that supports your point.

I would like to see your statistics involving "sporting class" weapons never being used in violent crime. Since in a domestic situation they would be handy.

Quote :

"Path of least resistance. The only people who make their own bullets are serious sportsmen. They are not easy to make, unless we are talking about musket balls. From scratch, the hardest thing to make is the fucking shell."

They are "relatively" easy to make. Shell? Well if you are making shotgun ammunition... But bullets have casings, which would not be hard to make at all. Bullets are rather simple you know.

You aren't really thinking about this. If the government outlawed the selling of bullets, it would create an instant blackmarket for bullets. They are easy to make (very basic metallurgy and machining). And thus an underground industry would spring up. Of course criminals don't make their own bullets now, they don't have to. However, they easily could if need be.

Quote :

"you can PERFECTLY legally by 2nd amendment terms"

What a beauty. Let's see here.... "keep and bear arms" sorry, it doesn't say guns, it says arms. And you can't bear arms without ammunition (which is part of being armed, and I have a feeling that the Supreme Court would back that up).

[Edited on August 11, 2007 at 3:53 AM. Reason : sp]

8/11/2007 3:52:12 AM

Quote :

"statistics, the number of violent crimes by sporting class weapons is effectively zero, because they are bulky, require a lot of skill to use and are generally fairly expensive and hard to get illegally.""

"assault" weapons and those "scary black rifles" are used in less crimes than "sporting" weapons


where in the 2nd does it mention anything about deer rifles, trap shotguns, or duck guns, upland field guns, or anything of that nature... it's not hunting firearms that are protected

8/11/2007 4:17:39 AM

oh I get it. this is the part where someone argues about how outdated the 2nd is right

and the identity of hunting weapons as "arms" is as de facto as it gets

8/11/2007 8:39:30 AM

Quote :

"If you eliminated the sale of ammunition, which you can PERFECTLY legally by 2nd amendment terms,"

Next... we can get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment by outlawing ink and steeples.

8/11/2007 10:27:21 AM

Quote :

"Anything outside of an air pistol, bolt action hunting rifle or skeet shooting shotgun basically. "

Sport pistol uses a .22. Maybe not the deadliest of rouds, but I'm still not going to want to go up against some street punk with a .22

Quote :

"And to even ACQUIRE such weapons should require major tracking and approval steps. The same for reselling such weapons. And it all needs to be tracked from production by the serial number."

Kind of similar to the federaly mandated background checks that you go through to purchase a handgun now? That works great for all the legal purchasers. Tell me, what percentage of legal gun owners commit gun crimes?

Quote :

" But no gang banger or robber is going to be rolling with a bolt action rifle or a 3 shot 12 guage."

If it's what's availible they will.

Quote :

"Law Enforcement can easily switch to a side-arm with a unique bullet design/caliber, making them worthless for the street weapons"

How do you propose to have a caliber that is worthless for the street punks, but effective for LEOs?

Quote :

" If you eliminated the sale of ammunition, which you can PERFECTLY legally by 2nd amendment terms, we would see gun violence effectively die off over the course of the next 3-5 years. Because the ammunition would become extremely scarce and the sportsmen left who did make their own sure as SHIT wouldn't be selling it, seeing as they would be on a very limited supply for casings. And being that within the next 2-3 years almost 100% of incoming cargo will be xray scanned at port, that's going to eliminate massive contraband shipments. Gunshells aren't like drugs, the supply can fairly easily be dried up."

Hows that ban on drugs working out? And what about bullets makes them so unlike drugs in this respect, all the components can be legally shipped or manufactured seperately, and then the actual manufacture process isn't that difficult.

8/11/2007 10:27:58 AM

lol how about e-bay's ban on "bullet tips"

that shit had me fucking rolling

watch out for bullet tips people

8/11/2007 1:14:07 PM

the number one use of legally purchased handguns is suicide.

8/11/2007 1:37:22 PM

Quote :

"They are "relatively" easy to make. Shell? Well if you are making shotgun ammunition... But bullets have casings, which would not be hard to make at all. Bullets are rather simple you know. You aren't really thinking about this. If the government outlawed the selling of bullets, it would create an instant blackmarket for bullets. They are easy to make (very basic metallurgy and machining). And thus an underground industry would spring up. Of course criminals don't make their own bullets now, they don't have to. However, they easily could if need be. "

How many live fire rounds have you ever made? My guess based on your retard answers is 0.

It's not easy to make. Very high precision machinery is required to cast shells. Building arms is a very high capitol, high barrier of entry field. The machinery doesn't just pop up out of nowhere, it would be trivial to prevent any mass black market for ammunition.

Quote :

"I would like to see your statistics involving "sporting class" weapons never being used in violent crime. Since in a domestic situation they would be handy. "

Quote :

""assault" weapons and those "scary black rifles" are used in less crimes than "sporting" weapons"

Quote :

"Sport pistol uses a .22. Maybe not the deadliest of rouds, but I'm still not going to want to go up against some street punk with a .22"

Here's some stats from 1993, feel free to find me a newer reference to refute these, as these trends have only become more and more polarized since the 70's.

NCVS: Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.

FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports: 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown.

"Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found that most criminals prefer guns that are easily concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their studies also found that the handguns used by the
felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to the general public except that the criminals preferred larger caliber guns."

"The number of large-caliber pistols produced annually increased substantially after 1986. Until the mid-1980s, most pistols produced in the United States were .22 and .25 caliber models. Production of .380 caliber and 9 millimeter pistols began to increase substantially in 1987, so that by 1993 they became the most frequently produced pistols."

As for the caliber argument, your chances of surviving multiple shots with a small caliber firearm are many times higher than larger caliber weapons. If you want proof, look at the correlation between the caliber race in the 80's and gun related homicides. The ratio of shootings to homicides rose substantially and there have been many studies backing this data up.

Quote :

"Next... we can get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment by outlawing ink and steeples."

No see, the constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION of Arms, ONLY that the people should be allowed to keep and bear them.

Quote :

"where in the 2nd does it mention anything about deer rifles, trap shotguns, or duck guns, upland field guns, or anything of that nature... it's not hunting firearms that are protected"

It makes no differentiation between types. Only that we should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I would say it should be the government's responsbility to determine what TYPES are made legal for sale and use by the populace to carry out the 2nd amendment.

Quote :

"Kind of similar to the federaly mandated background checks that you go through to purchase a handgun now? That works great for all the legal purchasers. Tell me, what percentage of legal gun owners commit gun crimes?"

Not at all similar. There are so many loopholes current that it's staggering. You can look up the stats yourself, but it's not a particularly large percentage I don't think.

Quote :

"If it's what's availible they will. "

It's much easier to see someone strolling down the street with a rifle or shotgun, and to either flee or have law enforcement intercept them.

Quote :

"Hows that ban on drugs working out? And what about bullets makes them so unlike drugs in this respect, all the components can be legally shipped or manufactured seperately, and then the actual manufacture process isn't that difficult."

Because bullets require a large amount of technical equipment and skill in manufacturing. Drugs have very little overhead for production. Also you seem to forget that while the overwhelming majority of drugs are either smuggled in or produced in small outfits inside the country, ammunition and firearms (over 80% in fact) are produced in the US. Other countries buy most of their ammunition and firearms from us.

And no, you could easily make a case to ban imports of the core component, the shell casing.

8/11/2007 5:31:11 PM

Quote :

"As for the caliber argument, your chances of surviving multiple shots with a small caliber firearm are many times higher than larger caliber weapons. If you want proof, look at the correlation between the caliber race in the 80's and gun related homicides. The ratio of shootings to homicides rose substantially and there have been many studies backing this data up."

The point is, you're still allowing the gun to exist in the first place, defeating the purpose of eliminating them. If only .22s are made, then .22s will be used to comit crimes.

Quote :

"No see, the constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION of Arms, ONLY that the people should be allowed to keep and bear them. "

The constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the commercial production of speech or it's implements, only that people should be allowed to speak.

Quote :

"Not at all similar. There are so many loopholes current that it's staggering. You can look up the stats yourself, but it's not a particularly large percentage I don't think. "

So, if the people who legally own firearms are not the ones comitting crimes, what does good is your tougher, harder background check?

Quote :

"It's much easier to see someone strolling down the street with a rifle or shotgun, and to either flee or have law enforcement intercept them."

The methods will change, the crime will remain. Whether they cut down or modify the gun, or use the ammunition from a legal gun in a custom built gun.

Quote :

"Because bullets require a large amount of technical equipment and skill in manufacturing. Drugs have very little overhead for production. Also you seem to forget that while the overwhelming majority of drugs are either smuggled in or produced in small outfits inside the country, ammunition and firearms (over 80% in fact) are produced in the US. Other countries buy most of their ammunition and firearms from us. "

Overhead or not, bullets have been made, in the form that we are accustomed to, since the early 1900's, surely if they could do it, so could modern man.

Quote :

"And no, you could easily make a case to ban imports of the core component, the shell casing"

Which is made out of.....

8/11/2007 5:51:46 PM

Quote :

"cast shells."

Again, bullets aren't, nor do they, have shells. I mean come on, if you are going to make up shit you don't even know about, get the terminology right.

Quote :

"Because bullets require a large amount of technical equipment and skill in manufacturing"

Okay Einstein, riddle me this. If bullets are so hard to make and require "large amounts of technical equipment" how were they made in the 1840's?

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Ammunition.html

Read up and shut up.

You are talking right out of your ass.

Quote :

"It's much easier to see someone strolling down the street with a rifle or shotgun, and to either flee or have law enforcement intercept them."

Wait, are you saying it's easier to run from someone with a high-powered hunting rifle than it is a handgun? haha

[Edited on August 11, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM. Reason : sp]

8/11/2007 6:08:43 PM

no, he's saying they cant stroll up to you and blast you ponit blank before you even know a gun exists. someone will notice ppl walking around with rifles most likely.

8/11/2007 6:47:04 PM

Eh, I see... the absurdity of the rest of the post mislead me... but then again, not many criminals stroll up the street with their weapons out. (you can easily shorten a barrel of a rifle of shotgun to be much easier to conceal).

8/11/2007 7:22:13 PM

^ Adding on to that, the parts that make a rifle a gun are in a relatively small part of the overall package, the rest is longer barrel and stock. The purpose of the barrel is to aid with accuracy, but if you're mugging someone accuracy doesn't much matter unless you're intent on shooting in the first place (which most muggers aren't)

8/12/2007 12:10:50 AM

Quote :

"Again, bullets aren't, nor do they, have shells. I mean come on, if you are going to make up shit you don't even know about, get the terminology right. "

Okay you fucking retard. It's a casing. You know what the fuck I am talking about.

Quote :

"Okay Einstein, riddle me this. If bullets are so hard to make and require "large amounts of technical equipment" how were they made in the 1840's? http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Ammunition.html Read up and shut up. You are talking right out of your ass. "

I love how you are going to try and call me out on how bullets are manufactured. Okay you tell me then, from your OWN ARTICLE, how you propose a small shop is going to do pulled annealed brass. Which takes a three part, heat treated punch and die. Which requires a) large ovens b) a three stage industrial punch and die machine and c) very very high tolerances.

You can make the rest of the bullet at home, with household materials or a lead smelt. The casing (as I've already pointed out) is the unique component for modern ammunition that cannot be easily manufactured.

And seriously, how much metalwork have you ever done? Have you ever SEEN the machinery that does these processes? Yea, I'm talking out of my ass.

Quote :

"(you can easily shorten a barrel of a rifle of shotgun to be much easier to conceal)."

Quote :

"but if you're mugging someone accuracy doesn't much matter unless you're intent on shooting in the first place (which most muggers aren't)"

You can make this argument for a shotgun, but even then you are drastically increasing the chances of the gun mis-firing or failing completely. Not to mention the added kickback and reduced barrel length are going to make it completely worthless outside of point blank range.

You try this on a rifle and you couldn't hit a target 10 feet in front of you.

It's completely apparent neither of you have ever shot a rifle or shotgun before, nor do you understand the principles or the reality of how they work.

8/12/2007 3:28:30 AM

Quote :

"It makes no differentiation between types. Only that we should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I would say it should be the government's responsbility to determine what TYPES are made legal for sale and use by the populace to carry out the 2nd amendment"

thats not how the courts look at the 2nd especially with respect to the 1934 NFA

look up miller vs arkansas or miller vs the US then tell me what weapons are protected and what isn't

"fudd" guns aren't what the constitution nor the court were trying to protect

8/12/2007 4:45:20 AM

Quote :

"I love how you are going to try and call me out on how bullets are manufactured. Okay you tell me then, from your OWN ARTICLE, how you propose a small shop is going to do pulled annealed brass. Which takes a three part, heat treated punch and die. Which requires a) large ovens b) a three stage industrial punch and die machine and c) very very high tolerances. "

It doesn't have to be a small shop, just a small operation in a large shop that can be concealed. Furthermore, you assume that ammunition will remain the same. Criminals as a whole (not any one individual) are inventive. If you make making one form of ammunition impossible, they will make another.

Add to that the black market that would spring up in and out of the country, and suddenly there is incentive to find new ways to produce ammunition.

Quote :

"You can make this argument for a shotgun, but even then you are drastically increasing the chances of the gun mis-firing or failing completely. Not to mention the added kickback and reduced barrel length are going to make it completely worthless outside of point blank range. You try this on a rifle and you couldn't hit a target 10 feet in front of you."

In our average mugging / robery etc, the object isn't to shoot anyone, just scare the shit out of them and make off with the loot.

Quote :

"It's completely apparent neither of you have ever shot a rifle or shotgun before, nor do you understand the principles or the reality of how they work."

Shot both, many a time thankyou. I also understand the principles on which they work, and also their particular purpose. My point is that a little reworking by an inventive person will make your "sport weapon" a "crime weapon".

8/12/2007 5:45:16 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't have to be a small shop, just a small operation in a large shop that can be concealed. Furthermore, you assume that ammunition will remain the same. Criminals as a whole (not any one individual) are inventive. If you make making one form of ammunition impossible, they will make another. "

Doesn't work that way dude. You can't HIDE ammunition manufacture. There are massive paper trails for raw materials, machining operations et al, that cannot be easily or inventively concealed. Criminals are not inventive, they take the path of least resistance.

Quote :

"Add to that the black market that would spring up in and out of the country, and suddenly there is incentive to find new ways to produce ammunition. "

I've already addressed why this won't happen either. Feel free to reread the thread.

Quote :

"In our average mugging / robery etc, the object isn't to shoot anyone, just scare the shit out of them and make off with the loot."

The average mugging/robbery relies on the element of suprise. If you have a big fucking gun sticking out, a person is much more likely to run the fuck away. And if I (or any other gun owner) got stuck up by someone with a sawed off rifle, I would very likely start laughing at them.

Quote :

"Shot both, many a time thankyou. I also understand the principles on which they work, and also their particular purpose. My point is that a little reworking by an inventive person will make your "sport weapon" a "crime weapon"."

Since the defining difference is in the caliber, and you can't "rework" a small caliber gun into a large caliber gun, it aint reality. That and you give criminals way too fucking much credit. Most thugs can barely shoot straight, much less have ANY understanding of engineering or metalurgy.

8/12/2007 6:11:06 PM

Quote :

"And if I (or any other gun owner) got stuck up by someone with a sawed off rifle, I would very likely start laughing at them."

But not everyone owns a gun. Whether the criminal is packing a sawed-off rifle or a hand cannon, those who can't defend themselves against an attacker (especially people who are afraid of guns) are still going to shit themselves regardless. And as much as I'd like to believe your Rambo-esque fantasy about how badass you are and how you'd laugh at a guy holding a shortened rifle barrel to your face, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. At the very least you'd comply with the guy simply because you understand that the contents of your wallet are not worth your life.

As for element of surprise? Criminals will just start resorting to shortening the barrels and then hiding them in baggy coats or in the pant legs of baggy pants. They might not be able to pull the gun out as quickly as can be done with a handgun, but odds are that somebody's going to pull a gun on you down an alley or somewhere else where there's not a whole lot of room to get away. Criminals are creatures of opportunity; they will find the means to acquire their next opportunity, even if they have to take the gun apart, hide in a bush, put it back together, and THEN jump you. Criminals aren't very smart, but as you said, they do take the path of least resistance.

And you're pretty unbelievable if you claim that a black market for ammunition wouldn't spring up near overnight. Where there's a high-enough demand (and by extension, high-enough profit), the black market will figure out a way to deliver. Even if the bullets have to be made out of plastic to escape metal detectors, organized crime will eventually obtain the means to get its product to those who are willing to pay.

8/12/2007 8:59:25 PM

You are flat wrong Noen. Everyone disagrees with you, but you alone are right.

What happened during abolition? What happened during the war on drugs?

I could enumerate why you are wrong, but it is apparently pointless. Bullets could easily be produced by organized criminals if they needed to.

Quote :

"And if I (or any other gun owner) got stuck up by someone with a sawed off rifle, I would very likely start laughing at them."

And then they blow a hole in your chest.

Shortening rifle barrels is a common thing. Sure you sacrifice accuracy, but the point is to make it concealable so you can get in nice and close. When you are a yard away from someone who cares if you can't hit them from 10 yards away.

Why would the feds outlaw sawed-off rifles if they were pointless as weapons? Right.

8/12/2007 11:45:47 PM

You give criminals waaaaayyyy too much credit.

And hell yes I would be scared shitless if I got robbed at gunpoint regardless of the firearm used. I also know I'd be a hell of a lot MORE scared of some kid with a 9mm and a 13 round clip or a 44 revolver, than someone with a bolt action rifle or a sawed off shotgun.

Criminals are, overwhelmingly, not smart. They aren't going to go to all the trouble to modify weapons, they are just going to start using 22's because they will be easier to get ahold of. And JUST the move to lower caliber weapons on the streets will save thousands of lives every year.

Quote :

"they will find the means to acquire their next opportunity, even if they have to take the gun apart, hide in a bush, put it back together, and THEN jump you."

It would be great if you could actually do this at all, much less in a stressed situation.

Quote :

"And you're pretty unbelievable if you claim that a black market for ammunition wouldn't spring up near overnight. Where there's a high-enough demand (and by extension, high-enough profit), the black market will figure out a way to deliver. Even if the bullets have to be made out of plastic to escape metal detectors, organized crime will eventually obtain the means to get its product to those who are willing to pay."

I dont doubt it would spring up. I do KNOW it would have very limited impact. You can't make casings out of plastic (well you could, but they'd be worthless) for modern mass-market firearms.

And there's only a few ways you can get an item like this (which has to come in MASSIVE quantities) and that's either by boat or border smuggling. As I've said, our main ports will have 100% container checking in the next few years (which, btw isn't just metal detecting) and to smuggle ammunition across the border in quantities needed to affect the market, would be absurd.

Quote :

"What happened during abolition? What happened during the war on drugs? "

All these comparisons to the drug trade are completely off base. One product can be (and is) shipped in extremely small relative quantities in extremely high concentrations. The whole trade requires very little technology or equipment, just man power. The components can be grown with very little assistance.

Same for abolition. It takes very little space, resources, or technology to produce bootleg alcohol.

You are talking about an item that requires large machinery, a significant amount of power and space to produce, a large amount of raw material, and high precision. There are only so many industrial punch & die sets in the world, and only a few companies that CAN make them.

They need BRASS, which can't be grown or mined in secret, it's going to have to be purchased from somewhere, which again leads to a paper trail. Same for power, which it's going to take a lot of.

[Edited on August 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2007 11:50:31 PM

Casings do not have to be made from brass... hey look here is a book showing how to make bullet casings from scratch without any machining

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/homemadeammo.shtml

Quote :

"You are talking about an item that requires large machinery, a significant amount of power and space to produce, a large amount of raw material, and high precision. There are only so many industrial punch & die sets in the world, and only a few companies that CAN make them."

Casing production requires non of these things. Large scale, industrial production does.

If you fail to see how easily casings could be made, then you aren't very imaginative.

A soft metal could be hand pressed fyi. The casing wouldn't be very durable, but it would work.

8/13/2007 12:33:00 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't work that way dude. You can't HIDE ammunition manufacture. There are massive paper trails for raw materials, machining operations et al, that cannot be easily or inventively concealed."

You underestimate the inventiveness of organized crime.

Quote :

"And if I (or any other gun owner) got stuck up by someone with a sawed off rifle, I would very likely start laughing at them."

In the heat of the moment (element of suprise remember) you would probably be unable to discern what type of weapon you're confronting.

Quote :

"Since the defining difference is in the caliber, and you can't "rework" a small caliber gun into a large caliber gun, it aint reality."

Rifles come in calibers larger than .22, or are you planning on outlawing hunting rifles?

Quote :

"That and you give criminals way too fucking much credit. Most thugs can barely shoot straight, much less have ANY understanding of engineering or metalurgy."

The thugs don't have to, just the people who want to cash in on providing thugs with something that no one else can have.

Quote :

"I also know I'd be a hell of a lot MORE scared of some kid with a 9mm and a 13 round clip or a 44 revolver, than someone with a bolt action rifle or a sawed off shotgun. "

Again, in the heat of the moment, I doubt you would have the capability to determine the exact threat you're facing for the threat level to make a difference. I would bet your reaction would be the same whether you were being held up with a .22 or a .45.

Quote :

"Criminals are, overwhelmingly, not smart. They aren't going to go to all the trouble to modify weapons, they are just going to start using 22's because they will be easier to get ahold of. And JUST the move to lower caliber weapons on the streets will save thousands of lives every year. "

No most criminals aren't smart. But all it takes are a few of the more inventive ones to make a slightly better gun. And you've also continued to fail to address how you're going to prevent criminals from getting their hands on military and LEO weaponry.

Quote :

"It would be great if you could actually do this at all, much less in a stressed situation. "

And yet you think you're going to be able to accurately assess just how much of a threat the gun infront of you (or behind you) poses in the same situation.

Quote :

"I dont doubt it would spring up. I do KNOW it would have very limited impact. You can't make casings out of plastic (well you could, but they'd be worthless) for modern mass-market firearms. "

Give enough time and they will make different guns or different ammunition.

Quote :

"And there's only a few ways you can get an item like this (which has to come in MASSIVE quantities) and that's either by boat or border smuggling. As I've said, our main ports will have 100% container checking in the next few years (which, btw isn't just metal detecting) and to smuggle ammunition across the border in quantities needed to affect the market, would be absurd."

I bet you there are a lot of mexicans who wouldn't mind making a few grand to jump the fence and take a backpack of brass with them.

Quote :

"You are talking about an item that requires large machinery, a significant amount of power and space to produce, a large amount of raw material, and high precision. There are only so many industrial punch & die sets in the world, and only a few companies that CAN make them. They need BRASS, which can't be grown or mined in secret, it's going to have to be purchased from somewhere, which again leads to a paper trail. Same for power, which it's going to take a lot of. "

All it takes is one corrupt C*O of an amunition manufacturer (which you will need to make your LEO and Military ammunition) to lose a case or two every once in a while or mark of a case as not passing QA to provide influx into the black market. And I'll guarantee you that organized crime will pay better than the government.

8/13/2007 12:35:02 AM

You can keep on talking about what-ifs and isolated incidents.

Criminals don't use military or LEO weaponry, they use HIGHER caliber firearms. They don't use rifles or shotguns. IF they did, crime would be dramatically reduced over a concealed carry sidearm (AKA handgun) that accounts for the overwhelming majority of gun violence now.

You can only give me these typical hair-brained, devils advocate situations that aren't backed by any data.

You also apparently don't understand the economy of scale for ammunition. You are talking about 1.5 BILLION rounds per year of manufacture. Smuggling in a few thousand rounds, or a company selling a random order on the black market would have virtually zero impact.

To reach anywhere near the volume required to meet even black market demand, will get people caught quickly.

8/13/2007 12:45:51 AM

Those damn statistics again.

Well while we are at it, lets ban fast cars, because statistically, we can save X number of lives by keeping people under 70mph.

And, lets ban alcohol for ages 21 to 25, since we would save X number of lives.

Lets ban:
-drinking
-smoking
-eating greasy food
-all guns
-taking a shit without breathing since it causes colon cancer
-etc

I see your point, but the statistical reasons could be applied unbounded to almost anything.

8/13/2007 1:01:41 AM