2 2
yoink

Walmart shooting - El Paso

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

If we want less gun violence then we need less of the guns that are associated with that violence.

One of the best things we have going for us there is the ATF that confiscates something like 8-10,000 guns a year in Chicago alone. And that might not seem like a lot considering the sheer numbers, but if Oakland is representative of other cities with similar problems, then only 0.2% of the population is at risk of committing firearm homicide to begin with, so now those 8-10,000 confiscated firearms represents about 2 less guns that are now out of the reach of practically every high risk individual.

And then on top of that, these prevention programs identify that 0.2% (which is a very manageable number) and offers to them an opportunity with every resource afforded to them - and it works.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

At the same time we need to get into those communities that suffer disproportionately from gun violence and do what ever we can to help. How is that wrong? 

It's not.  The guy in the Forbes article that I posted earlier sums it up quite nicely:

"If Chicago's crime epidemic is to be resolved, policymakers and the general public must move beyond simplistic responses that only address symptoms, and not root causes.  A purported "culture of violence" among minorities, or even a long and tarnished history of police brutality by Chicago police officers, can't be viewed as singular reasons for today's tragedies.  What the city is experiencing today was essentially built into its community fabric."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

One of the best things we have going for us there is the ATF that confiscates something like 8-10,000 guns a year in Chicago alone. And that might not seem like a lot considering the sheer numbers, but if Oakland is representative of other cities with similar problems, then only 0.2% of the population is at risk of committing firearm homicide to begin with, so now those 8-10,000 confiscated firearms represents about 2 less guns that are now out of the reach of practically every high risk individual.

And then on top of that, these prevention programs identify that 0.2% (which is a very manageable number) and offers to them an opportunity with every resource afforded to them - and it works.

It's not.  The guy in the Forbes article that I posted earlier sums it up quite nicely:

"If Chicago's crime epidemic is to be resolved, policymakers and the general public must move beyond simplistic responses that only address symptoms, and not root causes.  A purported "culture of violence" among minorities, or even a long and tarnished history of police brutality by Chicago police officers, can't be viewed as singular reasons for today's tragedies.  What the city is experiencing today was essentially built into its community fabric."

Coreece, you are serious. I get that. But this is not only about symptoms or statistics. This is about leadership. The only rates that mean anything here are rates of fire. It's about the wrong guns in the hands of the wrong people not only guns in the wrong location. Less wrong guns equals less of both. Sure, programs will work and must be a part of the solution. But gun restriction must also be a part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coreece said:

One of the best things we have going for us there is the ATF that confiscates something like 8-10,000 guns a year in Chicago alone.. . . .

So we're back to using absolute numbers and Chicago bashing.

You are so predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 12:16 PM, JoeWeber said:

Pictures would work. You know, like the chart at the airport when they lose you luggage. Or simple explanations. Bolt action, good. No clip and 5 round capacity, good. Has an acronym for a name, maybe not good. I see it as  easily done.

Bolt action=sniper. So essentially a ban on ALL firearms is the only real solution... Any "repeating rifle" is to be considered an assault weapon.  This is a problem that is uniquely American and guns are simply a part of our lives.  Separating the two will be impossible. The underground market that would rear it's ugly head is just ONE factor to consider. 

Guns are NEVER going away. Live accordingly. 

 

Being very familiar with firearms I will say this: You want to get a handle on guns, don't control the gun, CONTROL THE AMMO.  (no one has mentioned this novel approach.)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timski said:

Bolt action=sniper. So essentially a ban on ALL firearms is the only real solution... Any "repeating rifle" is to be considered an assault weapon.  This is a problem that is uniquely American and guns are simply a part of our lives.  Separating the two will be impossible. The underground market that would rear it's ugly head is just ONE factor to consider. 

Guns are NEVER going away. Live accordingly. 

 

Being very familiar with firearms I will say this: You want to get a handle on guns, don't control the gun, CONTROL THE AMMO.  (no one has mentioned this novel approach.)   

In no way do I advocate for a ban on all firearms. I have several that I would not be keen on giving up. I agree ammo is a place to look if some semblance of a solution is desired. And you are absolutely right about a bolt action rifle being a good sniping weapon. I have a Ruger M77 in 7MM with a 3X9 Leopold that would be excellent for the purpose. But then, it would also make an excellent club, if need be. This is just one of those areas of disagreement gun owners have: I just don't believe in the slippery slope thing. I think sensible regulations will leave guns in the hands of hunters, enthusiasts and those of us who believe in protecting their homes with a Beretta shotgun. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 12:30 PM, Blacksmith311 said:

What are your thoughts on the past where you could order a semi auto rifle via the mail by sending a check to sears, etc and get your gun in the mail with no restrictions. In such a time there was less mass shootings versus now where there are many more restrictions on weapons and there is more mass shootings.  I think that right there indicates it’s not so much a gun problem but a people problem first.  How you tackle that is the million dollar question, but taking away due process with red flag laws is a slippery slope as the government has already banned bump stocks, enacted red flag laws, and has been infringing peoples rights with a $200 NFA tax stamp for decades to get an item that takes a year to receive when you can buy a gun in 5 minutes. 

HEY LOOK, COMMON SENSE!!!

 The problem is the clown behind the trigger, not the triggers... Welcome to the revolving door called life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 12:29 PM, SkyDekker said:

The way I see it, that well regulated militia is currently detrimental to the security of the state. Hence, if the opening statement is wrong, the rest should be disregarded.

No wonder you are having trouble understanding, you are missing a critical part.

”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE”

In other words, a state of freedom, NOT the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, timski said:

totally agree Joe, the idea of a complete ban is ludicrous. 

On the ammo thing, I want to remember that 15-20 years ago it was possible to buy Remington 7MM sabot rounds firing a 6MM bullet. I don't know if they were banned as potential cop killers or not but for sure that sort of thing should be low hanging fruit for restriction that all can agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No wonder you are having trouble understanding, you are missing a critical part.

”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE”

In other words, a state of freedom, NOT the federal government.

I am missing a critical part?

You think children having to do active shooter drills in elementary school is a state of freedom?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

On the ammo thing, I want to remember that 15-20 years ago it was possible to buy Remington 7MM sabot rounds firing a 6MM bullet. I don't know if they were banned as potential cop killers or not but for sure that sort of thing should be low hanging fruit for restriction that all can agree on.

Not a cop killer, just a way to convert your deer rifle into a varmint rifle by switching ammunition, called “Acellerators” soft point, definitely not cop killers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I am missing a critical part?

You think children having to do active shooter drills in elementary school is a state of freedom?

 

What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?  I think if it were up to you we would have tough gun laws like Mexico.

(google it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not a cop killer, just a way to convert your deer rifle into a varmint rifle by switching ammunition, called “Acellerators” soft point, definitely not cop killers. 

Right, but because the sabot is shed out the spout there aren't rifling marks on the round, or so I thought. If that's true that's not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Right, but because the sabot is shed out the spout there aren't rifling marks on the round, or so I thought. If that's true that's not good.

When a soft tipped bullet hits something at close to 4000fps there is not much left to get rifling marks.

Groundhogs killed:  thousands 

Cops killed: zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timski said:

totally agree Joe, the idea of a complete ban is ludicrous. 

What I find interesting is all this talk of bans etc. I now live in Australia which has gun laws that are often quoted and yet working in the city I know a number of people who quite legitimately and legally own guns. 

I do not know the hoops they have had to jump through to get them, I do know licenses are expensive, but there are still guns in Australia. It seems the whole second amendment groups believe it is black and white. You can either have any gun with no restrictions or none at all. They paint this picture that the USA should go from very liberal on guns to the strictest of all.

As a side note, from the outside what I have always found ironic is how similar the USA is to the countries that they hate in the Middle East. In Iraq/Iran guns are plentiful, nudity is a crime and suppressed and religion and religious zealots influence politics. So pause for thought for the republican voters, do you really like being like Iran?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?  I think if it were up to you we would have tough gun laws like Mexico.

(google it)

Back to the original statement. You don't even have to google it, you can just scroll up.

The 2nd Amendment in no way is doing what it set out to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

When a soft tipped bullet hits something at close to 4000fps there is not much left to get rifling marks.

Groundhogs killed:  thousands 

Cops killed: zero

By writing "Cop Killer" I gave you that opportunity, I'll be more careful. I just looked and .243/6MM Solid Copper Boat tails and Sabots are available for reloading. But I'm sure we need them for something, as intended by the founders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

By writing "Cop Killer" I gave you that opportunity, I'll be more careful. I just looked and .243/6MM Solid Copper Boat tails and Sabots are available for reloading. But I'm sure we need them for something, as intended by the founders.

Hunting in California, and yes the founders never intended for bullets to be able to be matched to the gun from which they were fired.

(that “founders never intended” argument cuts both ways)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No wonder you are having trouble understanding, you are missing a critical part.

”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE”

In other words, a state of freedom, NOT the federal government.

One can argue that the original document, State is capitalized,  which means it's a proper noun referring to the  United States, not a state of being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

and yes the founders never intended for bullets to be able to be matched to the gun from which they were fired.

So should ballistic forensics be inadmissible in court?  Fruit of the poisoned tree, I guess. 

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2