bmcd308 0 #76 October 25, 2002 >>how they are designed exclusively to cause harm, as is the case with firearms.<< I disagree with your premise here. A firearm is designed to propel a projectile at a high rate of speed. It is the operator of the machine that determines how it is used. As an example, the Stoner design (from which the Bushmaster that was apparently used in these murders is derived) was actually adopted in part because of its tendency NOT to kill (I do recognize that you said "cause harm"). It was designed to wound, because a wounded enemy soldier is more debilitating to the morale of other enemy soldiers and consumes more military resources than a dead one. Back on topic - I think the critical thing to keep in mind is that a firearm is just an inanimate object - a piece of equipment or a tool. Can it be used to cause harm? Sure. There are 13 high-profile examples of that all over the newspaper right now. But I do not think it is fair to attribute any sinister motive to its design, since the morality of the operator determines how it is used. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #77 October 25, 2002 QuoteRight to ownership is not being taken away by registering or ballistic fingerprinting. That is quite a leap you are taking. I'm not against certain, well defined restrictions. Weapons that threaten national security, for one. However, if it doesn't prevent crime, this ballistic fingerprinting then becomes nothing more than another registration scheme. QuoteThe fact that it might not work everytime does not make it an invalid technique. Criminals need not register firearms, right? So we are registering law abiding citizens' firearms. Those do change, and it DOES NOT TAKE VERY LONG. QuoteIn my experience they are not the types that go out and practice marksmanship regularly. Have you worked with an FEU? I did. Prince Georges County, Maryland. And anyone who knows Maryland, knows PG is NOT a nice place, so there was plenty of work. QuoteIt is a lot less effective for a state to have fingerprinting than an entire country. In PG County, we have over 100 murders every year. Of the ones that get solved, the majority do come from in-state. Where the guns come from is another story.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #78 October 25, 2002 >>It goes back to the old "yelling fire in the movie theater" analogy.<< That is a crime that is punishable if committed. We do not try to limit your ability to develop stronger vocal cords in order to prevent your yelling fire in the theater. >>That is quite a leap you are taking<< Please cite one historical example from any country in the world where registration has not yet led to some form of confiscation or another. >>It will take drastically more than that to make it unidentifiable with the original weapon. << I disagree. Most long-range target rifles firing hot rounds (300 win mag, 7mm Rem Mag, etc.) are only accurate for a few hundred rounds. After that, the rifling has eroded at the throat to the point that accuracy is sacrificed, so it seems reasonable to me to infer that the ballistic fingerprint would have changed dramatically. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #79 October 25, 2002 They call it the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #80 October 25, 2002 Gun Control works. Ask the experts. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #81 October 25, 2002 QuoteI disagree. Most long-range target rifles firing hot rounds (300 win mag, 7mm Rem Mag, etc.) are only accurate for a few hundred rounds. After that, the rifling has eroded at the throat to the point that accuracy is sacrificed, so it seems reasonable to me to infer that the ballistic fingerprint would have changed dramatically. It doesn't have to still be accurate to be identified. My service pistol has over 4,000 rounds through it and can still be identified from rounds that were fired through it when it was new. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #82 October 25, 2002 Kallend, I agree that bogus statistics are used way too often and that they can be used to prove about anything. What I meant in this analogy is that (in my opinion) the chance of catching a few bad guys is not a good enough reason to put a complicated, expensive, plan into effect. I think ballistic fingerprinting is probably just another way the government is eroding an individuals right to own a gun. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coho21 0 #83 October 25, 2002 Quote I think you'll be extremely hard pressed to find a family living in America today that lives 100% on the food they kill with guns. Its way easier to raise your own animials and kill them then it is to go hunt for them. Ever been to Alaska? I know a bunch of people up there that fall under this description.J YSD#0009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #84 October 25, 2002 QuoteHave you worked with an FEU? I did. Prince Georges County, Maryland. And anyone who knows Maryland, knows PG is NOT a nice place, so there was plenty of work. I know a few police officers from there. I have not worked in an FEU but I have a friend who has 30 years in a federal FEU who will disagree with you. I am a police officer. I have a little experience in the matter. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #85 October 25, 2002 QuotePlease cite one historical example from any country in the world where registration has not yet led to some form of confiscation or another. That is kind of broad. We have had confiscations in the US before there was registrations of firearms. You go first on the examples. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #86 October 25, 2002 Kennedy, Gun Control doesn't work. And there are lot's of so called experts out there. Take Washington D.C. for example. They have some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Yet statistics show it to have one of the highest gun crime problems in our country. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #87 October 25, 2002 QuoteMy service pistol has over 4,000 rounds through it and can still be identified from rounds that were fired through it when it was new. Maybe, maybe not. Firearms identification is not quite that simple. Everytime you put a round through the barrel, it changes just a little bit. Same with the firing pin every time it strikes a primer. You know what the most common answer is with ids? It is undetermined.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #88 October 25, 2002 Check the attachments. It was a joke.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #89 October 25, 2002 QuoteI know a few police officers from there. I have not worked in an FEU but I have a friend who has 30 years in a federal FEU who will disagree with you. I am a police officer. I have a little experience in the matter. On what points, exactly?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #90 October 25, 2002 QuoteThat is kind of broad. We have had confiscations in the US before there was registrations of firearms. You go first on the examples. He IS going on examples, examples of what happened in other countries. What confiscations happened before registration?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #91 October 25, 2002 Kennedy, I'm sorry. I get so riled up over gun control issues that I didn't even look at the attachments. Maybe we all should quit arguing and get back to skydiving. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #92 October 25, 2002 QuoteOn what points, exactly? On the point that the ballistic fingerprint of a gun changes as quick as you claim it does. When I talked to him about it he quoted numbers in the 30,000 round range to change the fingerprint. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #93 October 25, 2002 QuoteWhat confiscations happened before registration? Police have been confiscating weapons on a regular basis ie arrests, search warrants, etc. That is what I am talking about by too broad. You need to give an example where registration of firearms has lead to a nationwide "confiscation". "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #94 October 25, 2002 QuoteMaybe, maybe not LOL, it has been done regularly with other police officer's weapons after they have been involved in a shooting. Most of them had way more rounds through their pistols than I did. QuoteYou know what the most common answer is with ids? It is undetermined. It is interesting that they were able to link so many of the sniper shooting off of just ballistic fingerprinting then. I think it was at least six out of twelve. That is 50% with only one bullet fired in each scenario. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #95 October 25, 2002 Weimar Germany instituted registration. Nazis confiscated (the oft-heard "Hitler" quote is actually bogus - registration preceded the Nazi regime). Russians had registration. Stalin confiscated. Pol Pot did not really have registration - he just had guys go around and look through your house - if you were of an unpopular (by his definition) ethnicity and/or set of beliefs, you just got killed out behind the town with the rest of your ilk. Right here in the US, New York City had a local registration that was later used to confiscate firearms. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #96 October 25, 2002 BMcD, could you please point to some documents that support the theory that registration led directly to the confiscation (which I am guessing is your main point). I know about these events in history but I've never heard of the registration portion. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #97 October 25, 2002 I don't think this is theory. I've read the same information, but I don't have it handy now. Maybe I can find it. The NRA quotes this information all the time. It may not have led directly to confiscation, but it sure made things a lot simpler for the government to find out who has the weapons to confiscate. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #98 October 25, 2002 Quote---cross posted from the gun ownership thread--- Here's some data: Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally. Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. This is due to Texas inacting CCW laws. How do you or anyone else know that to be provably true? Quote According to “The Dallas Morning News” over 85% of the crimes committed with a firearm, the criminals obtained the weapon through illegal means. According to the “Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet” website during the 1990s these laws became impossibly strict. i. These are similar to the third stage of the Bradly Bill which is currently being debated in about 6 different state’s legislatures. ii. Firearms are generally NOT allowed unless for sporting uses, such as some shotguns and rifles for hunting game. Also, the only ammo allow are sporting loads, self defense loads such as Federal Hydroshock or Black Talon are strictly forbidden. b. Shown are some charts from the “Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales” website showing a comparison of the crime rates from England and the United States from 1981 to 1995. i. As shown, England’s crime rates have been steadily on the rise, getting worst as time progresses. ii. The crimes shown are all violent crimes against individuals. While Texas's rates have been dropping from above the US average, and England's have been rising, it does not mean that Texas rates are lower than the England's, does it. Quote (see attatched documents taken from Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales website) Here is the list of sources for that data: Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96. The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS. Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 Not exactly an unbiased source of information. Try looking at the USDOJ web site instead. Compare the actual crime rates, not just changes in crime rates. Quote http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html Please note, no NRA "Propaganda" was used making this post. AND this is not someone else's research, this is something I did for myself a while back I hardly think you quoted any unbiased source; however, to quote from your own source referenced above: "This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. " In order to match England's murder rate, a decrease of 80% would be needed, not 8.5% Tell us, how does Houston's murder rate compare with London's? Or even Belfast's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #99 October 25, 2002 QuoteKennedy, Gun Control doesn't work. And there are lot's of so called experts out there. Take Washington D.C. for example. They have some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Yet statistics show it to have one of the highest gun crime problems in our country. Steve1 Absolutely correct. And the reason is that anyone wanting a gun in DC can drive less than 10 miles and buy one in Virginia with almost no restrictions, then drive back again, so the DC laws are unenforcible and meaningless. The laws are fairly enforcible in Ottawa (capital of Canda) and London (capital of UK) and Canberra (capital of Oz) because of border controls. All of these countries have similar culture to the US with the notable exception of gun culture. The murder rate in the US as a whole is higher than in London, Canberra or Ottawa, and the DC murder rate is about 20 x higher. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coho21 0 #100 October 25, 2002 Just out of curiosity do the #'s you are quoting account for population differences/densities?Would this change the statistics any? (if they were not already accounted for) J YSD#0009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
