Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

What an assault weapons ban would entail; yes, we've done this a lot in the ED. But since Obama is still considering and urging people to "join him", I think it's important to know what people are supporting, and since I believe most Americans support sensible gun laws, I think it's important to know what they are supporting.

So, what is an assault weapons ban? Well, the new one is different from the old one, but similiar in a lot of ways. Why is it stupid? Well, for starters, it's focusing on arbitrary or redundant things, that is, things that already exist. This includes pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds, along with already banned things such as fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers. Since grenade launchers and the like are already banned, this is redundant. Since the new bill would ban specific civilian firearms and things like adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, it's overly draconic and would not focus on commonly used weapons in crime at all.

For starters, background checks are already mandatory for licensed dealers. The Brady Laws, ban guns to all convicted felons, illegal aliens, people with mental issues backgrounds, has a restraining order, any history of past domestic abuse (even if it's a misdemeanor, which is a pretty good idea imo), among other things. It also requires people to be over the age of 21 to buy a handgun, since most violent crimes are perpetrated by the youth, between 14-24 years of age. Do unlicensed dealers have to go through a licensed dealer to sell their weapon; usually, yes. There are some rare exceptions in gun shows; should we make mandatory background checks at gun shows; sure. Cracking down on it would be hard, but I'm sure it's possible. So, here, background checks for licensed dealers already make sense; since most guns are not bought from licensed dealers, you might crack down on a few crimes by making gun shows harsher, which is something I support. Even though gun shows still only contribute to a small part of the total illegal gun problem; since the Mexican drug cartels contribute to approximately 90% of the illegal contraband in the U.S., and despite the rumors that the U.S. gives the cartels 87% of their weapons, only 87% of traceable weapons were of U.S. origin; this represents 87% of roughly 4000 guns, or roughly 3480 guns, out of approximately 305,424. So 87% of 1.3% of 305,424 of guns are traceable to the U.S.; even if gotten from gun shows, these guns should be from legal U.S. manufacturer's, and if they were, they should be traceable. In a sense, only illegal, likely out of the U.S. illegal factories (such as in China or Pakistan), could be responsible for this gap. This a story to go into in and of itself; but in any case, legal guns do not contribute that much to crime.

Secondly, a lot of things that are supposed to banned in the assault weapons ban are already banned. Assault rifles, or select fire fully automatic weapons, that is a military weapon, are already banned under the amendments of the 1934 National Firearms Act in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and fully automatic weapons were even further restricted in 1986 not allowing any more to be produced or owned, by a civilian, even if they qualified for otherwise such a firearm license (in essence, if you were a creator of such arms, say a business, these weapons were not technically owned by you even before you sold them to the U.S.). Also, in his bill, "a grenade launcher or rocket launcher" is supposed to be banned, in Dianne Feinstein's new bill are already banned, as well, under the same laws, except that it qualifies as a "destructive device", that requires 200 dollar tax per item (so, 200 dollar per grenade) and that

So, that is redundant. To support this bill because you support banning those things would be like supporting a bill banning ice cream because it had "also ban grenade launchers" attached. Ironic considering we should *just* have a bill to ban grenade launchers, and that they are in effect already banned and highly regulated for civilian ownership.

So, great, most of provisions in the bill already exist and many things they are trying to ban are already banned. Machine guns, military weapons, and lots of other things are banned from civilian ownership (even a business doesn't technically own them) and there have been further restrictions down the line.

So, with that out of the way, what else is in an assault weapons ban?


The main problem with an assault weapons ban

The main problem with an assault weapons ban isn't redundancy and it's unlikely impact on crime; yes, it would be a little overboard to have multiple redundant laws around the same thing and a lot of other stuff.

But, the real reason is because it's focusing on pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds. According to the new Feinstein bill, only 1 out of 3 of these features would make it classify as being an assault weapon, and or having a magazine of more than 10 rounds. "The proposed legislation defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one additional feature, such as a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a barrel shroud or threaded barrel, or a grenade launcher or rocket launcher."

Right off the bat, we can see the crazyness of this bill. Rocket launchers and grenade launchers are already illegal, as described above, and labeled as destructive devices. Few very people are even allowed to own these, let alone civilians, as most law enforcement have difficulty getting ahold of them. So, that's a red Herring, in a sense, and a poor reason to support the bill since it's already banned items.

So, what's something *new*, as in not banned, that will be banned?

One additional feature (instead of 2/3), such as a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud, and a magazine more than 10 rounds. He also called for the banning of reasonable substitutes, such as weapons with holes in the stock and specifically named other weapons that might not meet this criteria but that he claimed look scary. What are these things?

A pistol grip is just a grip. It is a decent way to hold on to a weapon, without accidentally dropping it or aiming it at something you don't want to aim at, or hurting your wrist. A pistol grip is simply a gripped shaped like the handle of a pistol, except that it doesn't hold any bullets. A revolver has what is technically considered a "pistol grip", that is a weapon with a grip that doesn't hold bullets. The grip of a gun is usually shaped like a pistol in some manner, or in reality, a pistol grip is shaped like a normal grip, say a hammer grip, mostly due to practicality. Holding on to a weapon without a grip like this is very difficult and presumably dangerous if the recoil is high or if a person has trouble aiming it.

There are other ways around this, being traditional grips that aren't a pistol, but generally achieve the same thing. Like this weapon and this stock. I ask you America, how do these things make a gun more dangerous? They are present on the vast majority of weapons and they make sense. For someone who wants control, but not to ban all guns, how is this in any way sensible? I simply want sensible gun laws, not gun laws that ban already banned things and then focus on features that if anything, make guns safer by not allowing accidents to occur very often. If these are the types of things people want to ban, which they seem to be by supporting an assault weapons ban, I ask why? At best, you are making people hurt their hands when they shoot guns or accidentally lose control and shoot somebody else, or injure them. Since it seeks to ban "loopholes" like thumbhole stocks, or any kind of stock, and specifically named weapons, it will virtually ban all grips or handles on guns. This is just insane to me.

The second thing it's trying to ban are adjustable stocks. What is an adjustable stock? It's a stock you can form fit to your shoulder, so as to make it fit your shoulder, or anyone's shoulder, better. Stocks like these, these, and these fit the criteria. Their only purpose is to make it so a person can fire a gun more comfortably and adapt to their shoulder without having to reconstruct the entire weapon. If anything, the lack of an adjustable stock makes a weapon more dangerous, since the weapon will be more prone to accidentally injure people. It also would not target stockless weapons, like these, a sawed off shotgun. Stockless weapons should be a larger concern, since no reasonable self defense person would want a less controllable gun, and criminals don't care if they hit innocent people and these weapons are easier to conceal, and therefore commit and get away with crimes with. By focusing on these arbitrary features, you are in effect, if anything, forcing weapons that are more desirable to criminals. Things that don't jut off the weapon make the weapon harder to hide beneath clothing; in effect, if you forced such things instead, you could theoretically make weapons harder to hide and therefore commit crimes with. It is for this reason that small guns have been banned. Weapons under 26 inches or under a 16 inch barrel have been banned. Unless a person is over 7 feet tall, hiding a weapon of this size or over is near impossible, making it difficult to get away with crime if in plain view of other people; therefore banning the use of larger weapons (and more accurate) is counter productive.

Perhaps the most draconic, is the barrel shroud. In no way could this possibly be construed as an offensive device. It was famously quoted to be "a shoulder thing that goes up". A barrel shroud is in fact a way to keep yourself from getting burned by the barrel or the working mechanism. It is hard to find a weapon that does not have a barrel shroud in some form or the other, since this would cause the user to be burned or the breach to expose the cartridge while firing, which can be dangerous. Barrel shrouds, are in fact, found on machine guns; they are found on almost all types of guns, too. Barrel shrouds, in the most basic sense, are a secondary grip; a place to put your other hand to prevent the gun from being hard to aim. Since a barrel shroud is found nearly on all weapons, what the assault weapons ban is now allowed to do is ban virtually any gun; if not all, guns. Since the assault weapon ban also specifically refers to specific weapons, it would be easy to assume it's classifications of weapons are at best, random. It is possible to have one like this (which is added after the fact), or like this. The previous lever action, shows two wooden pieces; the grip, that is not the stock (or end, or butt) of the weapon, closest to the barrel, giving the user something to hold on to, better shaped to their hand and not directly touching the barrel, would be banned. It is perhaps the most draconic of all since forcing a gun owner to burn themselves is insane, and would probably due little to deter a criminal.


Perhaps the most sensible thing

Perhaps the most sensible thing is the limitation of the magazine size. I can see how a person might believe that a larger magazine is more dangerous. More bullets could equal more danger. Despite this, larger magazines are not necessarily more dangerous. A person could simply carry multiple magazines with them in an ideal position to reload, and not have any troubles. If a person say, taped magazines to themselves, to be quickly accessible (and stick, but be relatively easy to remove), or wore specially designed clothing, they would have little trouble quickly reloading their weapon.

I on the other hand, like most sensible gun owners, am not a maniac. To expect me to carry around magazines taped all over my body or a tactical vest every where I go is crazy. Since it is usually U.S. law that all weapons carried in public must be concealed (in most states, including Texas), a gun, and the magazines, need to be concealed underneath clothing. This means that they are hard to get to. Therefore trying to reload quickly will be extremely difficult as the magazines must not be in plain sight, and therefore cannot be duct taped in convenient easily to reach locations (like you would say, in combat, or use magpul stuff etc.), legally, in most states anyways.

Does a person need large magazines in self defense. Not particularly, but since 15-30 is considered average, 10 is relatively small. Does a person need 15 rounds? Well, most police use 15-18 round magazines in glocks, some 65%, and most use 15+ round capacity magazines. The NYPD (PDF) for instance had an average of a 15% hit rate and a 10.3 rounds fired per officer involved in a gunfight. While it's arguable then that 10 round magazines would suffice, 15 is usually necessary in a case an officer misses, for multiple assailants (say two) or simply to have extra rounds in the magazine as back-up. Some officers simply fire more rounds than others (arriving earlier at the scene) which distorts this figure. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 15-30 round magazines are necessary for defense if trained officers of the law require them.

Do these make weapons any more dangerous? For the reasons described above, not really. But, a smaller magazine means that a weapon is more concealable. Since handguns are in fact responsible for 75% [1] [2] of crime, compared to rifles at 4% and shotguns at 5%, it's reasonable to assume that since rifles and shotguns are hard to hide in plain sight (despite their prevalence among civilian owners), and that pistols tend to be smaller, pocket pistol sized weapons, hence making them smaller, more concealable weapons are the weapon of choice for criminals.

Since the .38 S&W revolver (style, since most are imitation) is on the top 10 weapons used for crime, followed by various 9mm pistols, it is reasonable to assume that the smallest, weakest weapons are being used more for crime than big weapons. Small weapons possess the same capacity to kill undefended persons as larger weapons, so the smaller a weapon is, the easier it is to conceal, and therefore the easy it is to get away with, or sneak a weapon into a place, and commit a crime. Criminals usually carry guns in their pocket or their waist band, so carrying a large weapon would get them caught almost immediately. Since larger weapons stand out, criminals often times try to get as small a weapon as possible. Pocket pistols and small revolvers are generally the most used weapons by criminals, with, at best, 14-26% even using large weapons.

Any situation that warrants a firearm typically requires the perpetrator to be using one. Hence, a self defense scenario involving a firearm would require large capacity magazine, while a criminal scenario would not, largely since the victims have little way to fight back at a range. This is why a large capacity magazine would have little impact on crime, but a large impact on self defense advocates. It is the most sensible of the proposed ideas, in that some form of logic is attached, but is still not a good idea.


So...

So in conclusion, banning civilian sales of assault weapons is a bad idea. The majority of guns are not coming from licensed dealers, even according to Obama, at 88%, and the bulk of illegal weapons and contraband are smuggled into the country, and the bulk of illegal weapons from licensed dealers come from .4% of all licensed dealers (some 50%) through straw sales, it's unlikely that banning regular civilians or stores from owning these weapons will stop criminals.

Since from 1From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. Since people who don't qualify for guns, in background checks, are rarely even trying to buy guns legally, it's reasonable to assume that most criminals don't plan on buying guns from licensed stores, stores that have mandatory background checks, traceable weapons (with mandated chemically retrievable serial numbers), and that sell more expensive guns that are less available on the street (most drug dealers have illegal guns for sale, as well, since it's the same group of people smuggling guns, drugs, exotic animals and people into the country), and other such features.

Since less than 1% of all crimes use a weapon that would classify as an assault weapon, even according to California law which is much stricter (as in, it bans things that wouldn't even be included in the gun bill), 5.4%, or at the highest estimates 2-8%, classify as "assault weapons", you will not be stopping much crime. Since most civilian weapons classify as assault weapons, due to reasonable features being present on guns (I.E. not weapons criminals modified by sawing off the stock to make it shorter), with around 14% of all weapons in America being AR-15's, a single type of "assault weapon", it is simply a bad idea to ban these weapons.

They are not within the criminal target group, are not being distributed by U.S. salers, and are not even more dangerous based on the ambiguous classification of an "assault weapon" (since all weapons, including knives, are presumably used for assault).

Banning pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds in no way are a good idea nor would they likely reduce crime. They do not make a weapon any more dangerous or "powerful" and are present simply to make the weapon more comfortable to hold on to. At best, they make a weapon look scary or *look* "militarized", since military weapons do in fact often use these common sense features (while criminals don't care about accuracy, comfort, or other such things, often times carrying them in... less than reasonable crevices). At the very worst, since criminals are more prone to be using weapons that lack these common sense features due to the difficulty of hiding a weapon that has things that jut out at weird angles, you will force criminals to use even better weapons at crime.

So, in short, an assault weapon ban would be a bad idea.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

TL;DR

Assault weapons make up a small percentage of crime while a large percentage of owned guns. Since the term "assault weapon" can apply to any weapon (all weapons being used for assault), the term is more ambiguous than actually being of a solid definition, and the bill clearly illustrates this.

Since the newly proposed assault weapons bans are banning redundant things, like "grenade launchers and rocket launchers", outlawed as destructive devices since 1934, and the new things it does ban, pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and barrel shrouds, simply serve as grips, a comfortable way to hold the weapon, and a way to keep a person from burning themselves on with their weapon, respectively, the bill seems to sneak in draconic gun laws with already existing, redundant laws, to try to gain support.

Since assault rifles, that is military style weapons, were already banned in 1968, and full auto was completely banned in 1986, it is absurd to suggest this bill would be banning such weapons when they're already tightly legislated, and practically banned from civilian ownership. In short, it simply seeks to ban other, common sense features found on the majority of self defense weapons, for basically little to no reason.

I support common sense gun laws in the United States. Since mandatory background checks, for licensed dealers already exist, and military weapons, and explosive weaponry, are all already banned, and the new laws are simply banning features that make repeated use of a gun comfortable, in addition to not targeting problem criminal weapons, the bill is mostly absurd.

Due to the disparity of differences in weapon used by criminals, given their use, it is almost the exact opposite kind of target weapon you should be focusing on. With 75% of firearms being hand guns, compared to 4% rifles and 5% shotguns, due to the nature of how concealable weapons are often used more in crime and homicide than any other weapon, it is perhaps exactly the opposite type of weapon legislators should be focusing on. If legislators should be focusing on legal, civilian sales at all.
0Jason Voorhees0's avatar

Invisible Werewolf

8,250 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Person of Interest 200
You have done your research! I like that about this. Personally I believe that some automatic weapons should be allowed in civilian use. However I believe there should be a special permit for these guns, one that is hard to get than a regular gun license. These guns would not me allowed use outside of target shooting or target shooting competitions. If one wanted to use one for defensive purposes, then one should use rubber bullets. They won't do any harm except hurt a lot and leave welts. If our government were to give us more freedom, than I think we could be trusted in due time. Civilization is like a child, without nurturing and caring they could easily die, but with too much nurturing and caring they will feel smothered and want to fight back in any way. The more free we are in a country that claims we are free, the more content we feel. Adding more gun restrictions to stop gun violence is like punishing a serial killer. Put all the restrictions you can on them, but they will still go at it. They do it for the rush mostly, that or they are broken people. You must try and help them back up, for the hole they have fallen in is too deep for them to climb back out.
duldol v3's avatar

Newbie Noob

Nice case. Im too tired to read through what I expect is a condense proposal so laymans terms are the best for me.

I know you're saying b.a.w probably won't work (ban assault weapons), I have no contentions there yet. So we're on the same page, since I guess more people will probably go to the black market or private sellers anyway.

However:

1.) Sources are pointing out that we have a major background check loophole in the current gun acquirement process anyway. The Virginia Tech Shooter passed two background checks because his state did not enter his mentally ill status into the NICS database, or the National Investigation of Criminal Background Check Systems (CIA)http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/879588--nra-rejects-constructive-conversation

One piece of common ground gun control supporters and opponents might be able to find concerns the accuracy of information about people who are mentally ill contained in the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS). Both sides agree that information needs to be tightened up. The shooter who killed 34 people including himself at Virginia Tech University in 2007 passed two background checks because the State of Virginia failed to enter his mentally ill status into the NICS database.



2.) Private sellers don't check backgrounds, especially at gun shows where 40% of guns are purchased. U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers, but federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks


Just how many gun purchases don't require federal background checks, and how does that happen?
Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren't purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer, Nichols said.
Rather, those weapons are bought at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors, Nichols said. These are the so-called loopholes in the current federal background check system. The NRA disputes that characterization about the "gun show loophole" because federally licensed firearms dealers participate at gatherings and, of course, conduct background checks. "Most of the guns that are purchased at a gun show are purchased from federal firearms-licensed holders," Keene said. He challenged the 40% figure for gun sales without background checks -- particularly at gun shows. "We don't know what (is the) percentage at gun shows. It may be 10%," Keene said. "It's not such a loophole at gun shows. But it's like if you sell me your shotgun, that's a private transaction. Just as if I sell you a car, I don't have a dealer's license."

Ten states and the District of Columbia have their own laws requiring background checks for any firearm sold at a gun show, Nichols said. Six more states require background checks for gun-show sales of handguns, but not for rifles or shotguns, Nichols said. In total, 16 states and the District of Columbia require background checks on handguns sold at gun shows, Nichols said. These states that close loopholes, however, provide exemptions for gun transfers between immediate family members and between licensed dealers, Nichols said. Are background checks effective? From the time when the gun control measures of the Brady Act were enacted on March 1, 1994, through the end of 2008, the federal government processed more than 97 million applications for gun transfers or permits, the Justice Department says. Almost 1.8 million applications were denied, the agency said. On this matter, both sides are in agreement. Said Keene: "Background checks are generally a good thing." Added Nichols: "Background checks have a huge deterrent effect. People who are ineligible to buy a gun are unlikely to try if they know they are going to be subjected to a background check.


Many states have their own statutes requiring such checks for private sales. The issue has risen high in the national conversation after the shock ignited by December's mass shooting of six adults and 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Expanded background checks now enjoy the support of mayors in some of the largest cities in America. The idea has been embraced by gun violence survivor Gabrielle Giffords, a self-described gun owner. It's also being considered for possible legislation by a White House task force led by Vice President Joe Biden. The task force is expected to include universal background checks as part of its
"This may be the single most important gun violence prevention measure that the government could adopt," said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "This loophole means that dangerous criminals and dangerously mentally ill individuals have a most unfettered access to firearms." What part of universal background checks does the NRA support? Keene did say he favored background checks to block people who may be mentally ill or potentially violent from buying guns. But federal law already requires that, Nichols said. One problem with the systems is that many states don't report the names of people who've been legally labeled dangerously mentally ill.
Improving the accuracy and availability of information about these people, Keene said, is one possible area for agreement. He suggested "tightening up on putting information in the database. It's school security. It's beefing up the way we deal with the mentally ill."
Nichols said "huge gaps" exist in the database, which is called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people and himself in 2007, had passed two background checks because Virginia didn't submit his mentally ill status to the database, Nichols said.
"As a result of that shooting, the federal government passed a law encouraging these states to submit these records, and a large number of states passed laws. So there's been significant improvement in reporting dangerously mentally ill persons to NICS," Nichols said. "But there are still about half of the states that report hardly any dangerously mentally ill people.

So basically NRA is either for or against private sellers requiring background checks, but it has less impacts and is certainly less dramatic than awb..and probably less expensive and less complicated.

However would it even help? It could, but probably not by a lot.

Something really proactive needs to be done. There was just a statistic on DailyKos about how There have been more Americans killed by domestic gun violence than in all the wars since 1960 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/07/1185403/-While-you-re-listening-to-politicians-argue-about-guns-check-out-how-many-Americans-have-died

Other imperics:
"Radcliffe Haughton, a 45-year old ex-Marine who killed his wife and two other women, wounded four others, then killed himself at a Wisconsin spa last fall, could not have passed a background check due to domestic violence charges. But he found his murder weapon online from a private seller.

John Shick, a mentally ill man who killed one and wounded five at a Pittsburgh psychiatric clinic last May, had failed a background check in Oregon, but bought two semi-automatic pistols in New Mexico, which did not require him to pass a check because he made the purchase from an individual, but acceptance of background checks is on the rise, partly because checks made through the National Instant Check System have become faster — down from a seven day average in 1990s to just seven seconds, advocates say. "People are more used to showing IDs and passing some sort of background check for all sorts of things,"
duldol v3's avatar

Newbie Noob

I mean what about Australia and the U.K?


When after that terrible shooting the PM of Au just...did a huge buyback of the U.S equivalent of about seven million guns or so?

And they haven't had a dispute since.

Anyone want to go up against me on warrants or fact check that? I'd love to hear other opinions and learn some more about it
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

0Jason Voorhees0
You have done your research! I like that about this. Personally I believe that some automatic weapons should be allowed in civilian use. However I believe there should be a special permit for these guns, one that is hard to get than a regular gun license. These guns would not me allowed use outside of target shooting or target shooting competitions. If one wanted to use one for defensive purposes, then one should use rubber bullets. They won't do any harm except hurt a lot and leave welts. If our government were to give us more freedom, than I think we could be trusted in due time. Civilization is like a child, without nurturing and caring they could easily die, but with too much nurturing and caring they will feel smothered and want to fight back in any way. The more free we are in a country that claims we are free, the more content we feel. Adding more gun restrictions to stop gun violence is like punishing a serial killer. Put all the restrictions you can on them, but they will still go at it. They do it for the rush mostly, that or they are broken people. You must try and help them back up, for the hole they have fallen in is too deep for them to climb back out.


Hehe, I agree, mostly. xp

I think a lot of fully automatic guns should be legal in large part based on practicality, since there are so many Ak-47's and military based weapons, in the world and full auto in it's own right is more reliable, which is why machine guns are full auto.

But of course, with a special license, predominately based on how accurate you can fire full auto, so that it proves you don't lose control of the weapon.


I wish we did have a non-lethal round though, like a knock out gun with no permanent side effects D:

Case so far the best one I found was a giant PEP laser, that was 500 pounds, and had a 2KM, that could kill at close range but knocked out at mid range, and was too weak at far ranges, the same problem practically all non-lethal weapons have.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

duldol v3


Well, I agree, in that, background checks are important, but more important is having a background.

Incorrectly reported backgrounds are a huge problem stopping background checks from working, or people who have no legal background (who might be crazy according to people, but has no medical history of mental illness).


Most private sellers are, essentially drug dealers.

Since most licensed physicians are in fact, not selling the bulk of marijuana, it would be easy to see how unlicensed people are selling the most illegal firearms.


I suppose It depends on how many weapons are traceable. If weapons are not capable of being traced, then they couldn't have come from legal U.S. hands, or even theoretically made by a legal U.S. manufacturer's.

It's hard to find figures on this, since the total number of guns the U.S. collects each year is hard to get ahold of.

I do know the "ATF refers to all traced firearms as "crime guns" whether involved in a crime or not". According to the ATF, "a substantial percentage of recovered firearms cannot be successfully traced."

So which percentage of guns are not even traceable, and therefore had to be made from an illegal industry plant, say out of the country, idk.


Obama says that 88% of all guns weren't traceable to the owner, but this could mean a lot of things.

As far as how much, I don't actually have great statistics for that, but I'll try to find some. xp
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

duldol v3
I mean what about Australia and the U.K?


When after that terrible shooting the PM of Au just...did a huge buyback of the U.S equivalent of about seven million guns or so?

And they haven't had a dispute since.

Anyone want to go up against me on warrants or fact check that? I'd love to hear other opinions and learn some more about it


It's possible the outcome was for different reasons; I know that violent crime initially spiked some 44% in Australia the year after the gun ban and has steadily gone down, until it's less now, but this may be a result of continued improvements in law enforcement capabilities, education, and the general progression of a nation.

Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.


But that may be completely independent of gun laws.

So it could be medical care that creates less fatalities, but not necessarily less over-all crime. I don't know the figures but I can get back to you on that.


Britain also used to have a year a month and a day law; that is, if a person died a year and a month and a day after being attacked, that it was no longer a "homicide", legally. Since most homicides are with knives, they would likely die years later of complications including persistent infections.

So immediate death would be counted differently from long term death in homicides. But this really depends on the figures. So it could be a lot of factors.


Britain or Australia also may just have less crime.

Guns may be independent of this. Since Switzerland and Norway both practically require gun ownership, as does New Zealand, and they all have lower crime rates than Britain or Australia, it may be related if implemented properly etc. or may only be a minor factor at best.
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.


I imagine that immediate, grave injuries warrant the first response by medical personnel, which would slow down other people but not potentially fatal situations. xp

Since there are like, police everywhere and a tightly packed population, it conceivably could take less time to be picked up and dropped off to a hospital by medical personnel; but this would of course depend on the scenario. xp
Posties
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.


I imagine that immediate, grave injuries warrant the first response by medical personnel, which would slow down other people but not potentially fatal situations. xp

Since there are like, police everywhere and a tightly packed population, it conceivably could take less time to be picked up and dropped off to a hospital by medical personnel; but this would of course depend on the scenario. xp


It was a jest, mostly. I haven't any real investment in that line of thinking.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.


I imagine that immediate, grave injuries warrant the first response by medical personnel, which would slow down other people but not potentially fatal situations. xp

Since there are like, police everywhere and a tightly packed population, it conceivably could take less time to be picked up and dropped off to a hospital by medical personnel; but this would of course depend on the scenario. xp


It was a jest, mostly. I haven't any real investment in that line of thinking.


Uh... well yeah. xp

But I thought I partially addressed that. ninja
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.


I imagine that immediate, grave injuries warrant the first response by medical personnel, which would slow down other people but not potentially fatal situations. xp

Since there are like, police everywhere and a tightly packed population, it conceivably could take less time to be picked up and dropped off to a hospital by medical personnel; but this would of course depend on the scenario. xp


It was a jest, mostly. I haven't any real investment in that line of thinking.


Uh... well yeah. xp

But I thought I partially addressed that. ninja


Yes, but I wasn't confused about the truth of the matter, so I chose to ignore it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games