Gun sales jump following election

[Formless]

Tell me if it is harder to easier to kill so many people if you don't have a gun with you.

That is not the point. The point is that there are so few school related crimes as to make any discussion of them meaningless because they are not indicative of any larger problem.

It's not about taking away crime from society. It is about making crime less harmful and less destrutive.

then you need to get your priorities straight. Try to think about that one for a second: you don't think that there is a problem with the current crime rates. In other words, your problem is not with what people do with guns, it is with guns themselves.

In an ideal world, I would not ban alcohol, nor will alcohol be an issue. So the only possible way is to raise tax and increase the price of alcohol, make it very very expensive. I oppose the idea of gun ownership, however, the realistic solution is to tax guns until it is a very expensive item.

Yes, wave your hands really fast some more and try to pretend that that is not the same fucking thing with the same fucking intention. Do you enjoy being wrong?

If person person attacking you don't have a gun, are you going to shoot and kill him? If it is easier to run away from that person now, would you need a gun?

As any wise self denfense instructor would tell you, if you can run away, good. If you can not, shoot the poor sucker. For that matter, if you pull a gun on someone who does not have a gun, what are the odds that person is going to be dumb enough to keep attacking? A gun is INTIMIDATING. You do not have to fire a shot to defend yourself with one.

So fun should be more important than safety?

NO, that is way off the mark. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY means that the two things are not mutually incompatable. Any responsible gun owner knows how to use one without killing someone, and they are quite safe with the proper training or upbringing. Also, the airsoft gun is no substitute, and that takes away from peoples enjoyment of it. If you would be so kind as to read my post, you will see that that was all I was trying to say.

When is life fair?

obviously it is not when you are banning my guns. PEOPLE make life fair or unfair, and you would be in the latter category.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If I allow you to own a gun, I am allowing a irresponsible person or a criminal to own a gun. Unless you can actually tell me a way to tell if a person will or will not commit a crime.

There is absolutely no way to tell if a previously nonviolent person might suddenly start blasting away at his co-workers. We also don't know if he's going to hack up his neighbors with an axe, or get fed up and drive a truck through a shopping mall at 50 miles per hour.

Your problem is you are somehow concluding that ANYONE owning a gun cannot be trusted to be safe with it 100% of the time, in perpetuity, in all circumstances. This is not a reasonable expectation, and is not placed upon other, similarly dangerous items. And newsflash: Criminals get guns WITHOUT filing a gun registration and waiting 10 days for approval. Your preventing legal means of gun ownership does not impact illegal means of gun ownership.

Tell me if it is harder to easier to kill so many people if you don't have a gun with you.

If we're getting rid of easy ways to kill so many people, we should probably stop storing bleach and ammonia next to each other in the cleaning aisle, because I could kill a room full of people with a jug of each and a chain for the door.

It's not about taking away crime from society. It is about making crime less harmful and less destrutive.

A noble goal, but can you not conceive that eliminating guns will just force people to be alternatively destructive, and perhaps more brutal through different means? You havn't yet shown that increased legal gun control reduces illegal gun ownership. However, harsher penalties for gun crime DOES reduce instances of gun crime.

In an ideal world, I would not ban alcohol, nor will alcohol be an issue. So the only possible way is to raise tax and increase the price of alcohol, make it very very expensive. I oppose the idea of gun ownership, however, the realistic solution is to tax guns until it is a very expensive item.

Again, you wish to prohibit people from legally obtaining guns because YOU DO NOT LIKE GUNS OR ANYONE WHO USES THEM. That's a personal choice, and one that you have yet to rationally justify as a benefit to society.

If person person attacking you don't have a gun, are you going to shoot and kill him? If it is easier to run away from that person now, would you need a gun?

What if the person attacking ME has a gun? Now I've got no options.

So fun should be more important than safety?

You are assuming that recreational gun shooting precludes gun safety. Demonstrate this fact.

When is life fair?

There we get at the facts:

1. You don't like guns.
2. You don't like people USING guns.
3. You don't think anyone can be trusted with a gun under any circumstance.
4. You want to unfairly support legislation which will prevent people from legally owning guns.
5. You think the best way to attack crime is to attack the tool, rather than the source of the problem.
6. You are an idiot.

Did I leave anything out?

[K. A. Pital]

Your preventing legal means of gun ownership does not impact illegal means of gun ownership.

It does, but it will take time to work. Guns already in illegal circulation will have to wear out, ammunition will have to end, guns that are stolen from the populace should also decrease in number and over time you will have a gun-less society with much smaller legal and illegal gun markets, since the latter is heavily dependent on the size of the former.

The question is wether it's worth the effort.

[Shroom Man 777]

You need to know how to signal when turning, to wear your seatbelts, and not drive under the influence in order to get a driver's license. Gun owners should know things like trigger safety, not pointing the weapon at anyone, and other basics to get a gun license.

They are saying guns should be used as 'self-defense', which means you have to point it at someone.

It would utterly defeat the purpose of a gun to be never pointed at anyone. You can obviously point the gun at someone to stop him from killing you.

By "not pointing the weapon at anyone", I mean like not being a fucktard and waving your gun around for all to see, pretending to be a commando with a real weapon. Or by going "look at my cool gun" and showing another person the barrel. You know, irresponsible behavior.

Even soldiers, who do point their weapons at people to kill them, generally avoid pointing their guns at people who they don't have the intention of killing. That's why you see soldiers move around with their guns pointed downwards, that's why you don't see soldiers hold their guns like action movie heroes who do it all wrong and have lousy trigger discipline.

My dad let me shoot guns when I was a kid, before I was a teen, when I was 8 or something. Once, I went out and waved the Walther PPK around playfully and that was the last time I ever went to the range. It was a good call. I mean, letting a stupid kid shoot a gun like a toy?

[ray245]

That is not the point. The point is that there are so few school related crimes as to make any discussion of them meaningless because they are not indicative of any larger problem.

Come on, low crime rates does not make them meagingless at all. If my nation has a low crime rate, does this mean crimes are now meaningless to discuss? Hell no.

then you need to get your priorities straight. Try to think about that one for a second: you don't think that there is a problem with the current crime rates. In other words, your problem is not with what people do with guns, it is with guns themselves.

In essence, yes, guns should not be a presence in the public. Military use is ok, guns clubs being allowed to have their own shooting arena in their own premise is ok, with people checking on them, and tagging their weapons every now and then.

Yes, wave your hands really fast some more and try to pretend that that is not the same fucking thing with the same fucking intention. Do you enjoy being wrong?

As any wise self denfense instructor would tell you, if you can run away, good. If you can not, shoot the poor sucker. For that matter, if you pull a gun on someone who does not have a gun, what are the odds that person is going to be dumb enough to keep attacking? A gun is INTIMIDATING. You do not have to fire a shot to defend yourself with one.

Ah, that's assuming you are actually rational and can resist shooting the gun in a sistuation where you experience a lot of pressure. Now, if the person attacking you have a gun as well, how do you ensure you having another gun is going to save you? Again, it is based purely on luck, the same amount of luck that you have to avoid a crime.

NO, that is way off the mark. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY means that the two things are not mutually incompatable. Any responsible gun owner knows how to use one without killing someone, and they are quite safe with the proper training or upbringing. Also, the airsoft gun is no substitute, and that takes away from peoples enjoyment of it. If you would be so kind as to read my post, you will see that that was all I was trying to say.

Tell me there is no irresponsible gun owner in the world, and I can give in to your arguments. And tell me you can ensure that once everyone have proper training and upbringing, people will stop using guns for criminal acts, or killing someone.

When is life fair?

obviously it is not when you are banning my guns. PEOPLE make life fair or unfair, and you would be in the latter category.[/quote]

When it suits your interest, life is fair, when it does not suit your interest, life isn't fair. Then again, it is about your self-interest as compared to the interest of the community.

There is absolutely no way to tell if a previously nonviolent person might suddenly start blasting away at his co-workers. We also don't know if he's going to hack up his neighbors with an axe, or get fed up and drive a truck through a shopping mall at 50 miles per hour.

Your problem is you are somehow concluding that ANYONE owning a gun cannot be trusted to be safe with it 100% of the time, in perpetuity, in all circumstances. This is not a reasonable expectation, and is not placed upon other, similarly dangerous items. And newsflash: Criminals get guns WITHOUT filing a gun registration and waiting 10 days for approval. Your preventing legal means of gun ownership does not impact illegal means of gun ownership.

Tell me if it is easier to kill a person with a melee weapon or a gun. And tell me criminals are more inclined to use a truck to commit a crime as compared to using a gun( wait, I don't see people using trucks to commit crimes just because those nations ban the ownership of guns)

So tell me, where did those criminals got their guns from? Sure, in a society where guns is not allowed, there are people who still managed to get a gun. However, lesser people have an access. When you ban guns, while you cannot ensure everyone don't have a gun, it ensured that less people can access a gun.

If we're getting rid of easy ways to kill so many people, we should probably stop storing bleach and ammonia next to each other in the cleaning aisle, because I could kill a room full of people with a jug of each and a chain for the door.

Short of being a physcopath, how often does a person use bleach and ammonia to commit a crime?

A noble goal, but can you not conceive that eliminating guns will just force people to be alternatively destructive, and perhaps more brutal through different means? You havn't yet shown that increased legal gun control reduces illegal gun ownership. However, harsher penalties for gun crime DOES reduce instances of gun crime.

People can get access to guns because of gun circulation in a Nation. When the criculation was stopped, illegal gun ownership can decrease.

Again, you wish to prohibit people from legally obtaining guns because YOU DO NOT LIKE GUNS OR ANYONE WHO USES THEM. That's a personal choice, and one that you have yet to rationally justify as a benefit to society.

I like guns and I have used a gun before. What I don't like about the status quo is, allowing guns in the public. Again, if you view guns as a luxury, then you can live without guns. Society is not damaged if you choose to take away ONE luxury item. What's the benefit...let me see, it is less frequent to see people committing crime with a gun perhaps?

5. You think the best way to attack crime is to attack the tool, rather than the source of the problem.

I am attacking the tool AND the source of the problem at the same time. How about that?

[Kamakazie Sith]

You can only challenge that argument if society is perfect. Tell me, how do you know if every person who own a gun can be responsible? No matter what kind of test you have, there will be people who use guns to commit crime. If you don't remove guns from people who don't use them in criminal acts, then there WILL be loopholes.

So, exactly how is "the system isn't perfect" a logical reason for punishing the majority for the actions of a few. You still have failed to address this.

Crap, I mean guns ( spelling and mental mistakes). Knifes at the very least, is needed to cut food and prepare meals.

I'm sure we got along fine before knives were invented. Maybe we can go back to using stones to cut things...then again even stones make it easier to kill people. You're basically saying that guns should be either be banned or made unaffordable because guns make it very easy to kill people.

Guess which tool is more responsible for deaths of police officers in the United States.

Why can't we resolve the issue of social segreation, poor parenting, poor education and gun control issues at the same time? What makes gun control so exclusive from other issues as well?

Gun crime is a symptom of those issues. Thus, if you solve them then you will reduce gun related crime without removing a hobby, and a tool from the law abiding public.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Police figures released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that forces in England and Wales are on course to record a total of 38,000 serious knife crimes this year – more than 100 a day.

Here

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.
(450,000 nationwide)

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Here

[K. A. Pital]

"A tool for the law abiding public"? Too bad this public and the legal gun circulation is also the source of black market guns, making the point moot - these people are engineers of their own demise from firearms when they make them ubiquotous, accessible, badly stored, easy to steal, easy to get.

[Kamakazie Sith]

"A tool for the law abiding public"? Too bad this public and the legal gun circulation is also the source of black market guns, making the point moot - these people are engineers of their own demise from firearms when they make them ubiquotous, accessible, badly stored, easy to steal, easy to get.

I never argued otherwise. There needs to be actual enforcement of in place gun laws, and in some places new laws drafted that do more than just pay lip service.

Example, utah is a terrible place for gun control. They do a 15 minute background check through NCIC using government ID, and then you have your firearm. If you decide to sell your firearm then you just sell it with no paper work required.

My suggestion is firearms should be registered in the same way vehicles are. You can call it the DFA or Department of Firearms. If you're found in possession of a firearm that isn't registered to you then you're arrested for possessing a stolen firearm which will be a felony, if it's later discovered that the firearm is not stolen, but still isn't yours then you are charged with possession of a firearm without proper registration, a class A misdemeanor. The owner could be charged with failing to meet registration requirements for sale of a firearm, a class B misdemeanor.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Another reason I'm against banning guns, or effectively banning guns by making them unaffordable or by other forms of red tape. You're talking about a part of the bill of rights which is very near and dear to the hearts of many Americans. The social fallout by doing this has the potential to be insane, and cause damage that would not be repaired for decades and that's if future administrations stayed the course, which is very unlikey since it's pretty much guaranteed to be very unpopular.

Reality isn't always logical. Sorry.

[His Divine Shadow]

My suggestion is firearms should be registered in the same way vehicles are. You can call it the DFA or Department of Firearms. If you're found in possession of a firearm that isn't registered to you then you're arrested for possessing a stolen firearm which will be a felony, if it's later discovered that the firearm is not stolen, but still isn't yours then you are charged with possession of a firearm without proper registration, a class A misdemeanor. The owner could be charged with failing to meet registration requirements for sale of a firearm, a class B misdemeanor.

Ehm, thats what I'd call a law guaranteed to never pass. You are talking about firearms registration, it would never in a million years fly with the people, I think it'd be even less well received than the AWB coming back forever.

You'd have a much better chance trying to get people to pass a safety and handling course and insituting mandatory gun safe laws to minimize the amount of guns being stolen (although nowhere as effectively as say toning the war on drugs and instituting some welfare reforms).

[ray245]

My suggestion is firearms should be registered in the same way vehicles are. You can call it the DFA or Department of Firearms. If you're found in possession of a firearm that isn't registered to you then you're arrested for possessing a stolen firearm which will be a felony, if it's later discovered that the firearm is not stolen, but still isn't yours then you are charged with possession of a firearm without proper registration, a class A misdemeanor. The owner could be charged with failing to meet registration requirements for sale of a firearm, a class B misdemeanor.

Ehm, thats what I'd call a law guaranteed to never pass. You are talking about firearms registration, it would never in a million years fly with the people, I think it'd be even less well received than the AWB coming back forever.

You'd have a much better chance trying to get people to pass a safety and handling course and insituting mandatory gun safe laws to minimize the amount of guns being stolen (although nowhere as effectively as say toning the war on drugs and instituting some welfare reforms).

Isn't taxing guns a more plausible solution?

[His Divine Shadow]

We define solution very differently I believe. I want people to be able to buy and keep guns, I do not want to ban guns or make ownership harder for it's own sake. The solutions I propose would allow people to own guns withotu putting up useless obstacles for their own sakes, it would also increase the competence of gunowners and make it much harder for criminals to get guns through stealing.

[ray245]

We define solution very differently I believe. I want people to be able to buy and keep guns, I do not want to ban guns or make ownership harder for it's own sake. The solutions I propose would allow people to own guns withotu putting up useless obstacles for their own sakes, it would also increase the competence of gunowners and make it much harder for criminals to get guns through stealing.

That's ensuring you can actually find a way to ensure everyone who own guns will not use it for a criminal act. People get along fine without owning a gun in many other nation. Make it a very expensive luxury item, if you want to own it, be rich and sucessful first.

Most people would love to own a lamborghini, however money is an issue, which is good.

[His Divine Shadow]

As I said, we define solution very, very differently.

[Darwin]

Another reason I'm against banning guns, or effectively banning guns by making them unaffordable or by other forms of red tape. You're talking about a part of the bill of rights which is very near and dear to the hearts of many Americans. The social fallout by doing this has the potential to be insane, and cause damage that would not be repaired for decades and that's if future administrations stayed the course, which is very unlikey since it's pretty much guaranteed to be very unpopular.

Reality isn't always logical. Sorry.

Reality says that every single time guns have been registered, it's followed some years later by partial or total confiscation, since now the government knows exactly where to look. (This most recently happened I believe in Australia, requiring registered owners to turn their newly-restricted guns in for destruction in order to avoid becoming criminals.) Registration doesn't look that bad on the surface, but historically has lead to bans Every. Single. Time.

[Darwin]

wow I managed to quote the wrong post somehow. wheeeeee. y'all can figure out which one it was meant for though.

[Darth Wong]

Another reason I'm against banning guns, or effectively banning guns by making them unaffordable or by other forms of red tape. You're talking about a part of the bill of rights which is very near and dear to the hearts of many Americans. The social fallout by doing this has the potential to be insane, and cause damage that would not be repaired for decades and that's if future administrations stayed the course, which is very unlikey since it's pretty much guaranteed to be very unpopular.

Reality isn't always logical. Sorry.

Reality says that every single time guns have been registered, it's followed some years later by partial or total confiscation, since now the government knows exactly where to look. (This most recently happened I believe in Australia, requiring registered owners to turn their newly-restricted guns in for destruction in order to avoid becoming criminals.) Registration doesn't look that bad on the surface, but historically has lead to bans Every. Single. Time.

Does that historical inaccuracy become more accurate when you state it so emphatically? Canada started registering firearms 13 years ago, and there was never a move to start confiscating them all.

I suppose you'll say "just wait"? Must be nice to state a 100% historical rule where you can just handwave away exceptions.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Another reason I'm against banning guns, or effectively banning guns by making them unaffordable or by other forms of red tape. You're talking about a part of the bill of rights which is very near and dear to the hearts of many Americans. The social fallout by doing this has the potential to be insane, and cause damage that would not be repaired for decades and that's if future administrations stayed the course, which is very unlikey since it's pretty much guaranteed to be very unpopular.

Reality isn't always logical. Sorry.

Reality says that every single time guns have been registered, it's followed some years later by partial or total confiscation, since now the government knows exactly where to look. (This most recently happened I believe in Australia, requiring registered owners to turn their newly-restricted guns in for destruction in order to avoid becoming criminals.) Registration doesn't look that bad on the surface, but historically has lead to bans Every. Single. Time.

Do you have a source for this statement? It sounds like material generated pasted together by people who define gun rights as absolutely zero supervision.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ehm, thats what I'd call a law guaranteed to never pass. You are talking about firearms registration, it would never in a million years fly with the people, I think it'd be even less well received than the AWB coming back forever.

Not necessarily. There are many states in the US that have very strict gun control in place, but the problem is still the same. Lax enforcement. My solution was mostly for my state which has some of the worst, non-existent, gun control measures in place in the United States.

You'd have a much better chance trying to get people to pass a safety and handling course and insituting mandatory gun safe laws to minimize the amount of guns being stolen (although nowhere as effectively as say toning the war on drugs and instituting some welfare reforms).

Oh yeah. I'd do that in addition. Something needs to be done regarding sales of weapons, and there should be penalties for those who sale firearms without some type of paper work.

[Darth Wong]

One of the little-publicized facts about armed criminals in Canada and Mexico is that the dealers are armed almost exclusively with US weapons that are smuggled across the border. It's one thing for America to have looser gun control laws than Canada, but it's quite another to have such a lax attitude toward enforcement that authorities look the way other way while gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers can't account for where millions of dollars of guns end up being sold. It's a big "nudge nudge wink wink" affair; the gun sellers know perfectly well that they sell huge volumes of guns to criminals, and the authorities do nothing about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01654.html

[His Divine Shadow]

Not necessarily. There are many states in the US that have very strict gun control in place, but the problem is still the same. Lax enforcement. My solution was mostly for my state which has some of the worst, non-existent, gun control measures in place in the United States.

Well if you don't have lots of crime coming from guns in Utah then I don't see a problem, you kind of sound like you think gun control is an end unto itself there, or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

I really doubt people would accept gun registration though. I mean California did this in the 90s when they where outlawing some gun types(rifles, SKS's I think), they made commercials on TV and everything saying that people should register their guns for an amnesty from the ban, afterwards they want back on it and forced the people who had registered their guns to turn them in without compensation. Thats something thats gonna get out and trotted around if such a law proposal was made.

[Glocksman]

A couple of comments:

1. The 'grenade launcher' banned under the AWB are not rifle/launcher combinations like the M16/M203 seen in so many Hollywood action movies, but instead is a hollow metal tube at the end of the barrel to which the grenadier attaches a rifle grenade and fires it with a blank cartridge.

If you're curious as to what it looks like, google 'Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS', and that 2 inch muzzle extension is a 'grenade launcher' banned under the AWB.
Never mind the fact that you need WW2 style rifle grenades that were never available in the US to begin with to actually use it as a grenade launcher.

2. This gun owner voted for Obama.
Obama won Indiana.
Let that sink in. Obama won fucking Indiana.
The last Democrats to win in Indiana were FDR back in 1936 and LBJ in 1964.

Most of Indiana is very pro-gun (our state supreme court ruled that gun ownership is both a liberty and a property right under our constitution) and very Republican.
I was a Republican and yet I voted for Obama.
Why? Because the country's in the shitter thanks to GWB, that's why.
If Bush had actually been competent and things were 'acceptable' both domestically and internationally, I would have voted Republican because the gun issue is very important to me.

However, things aren't going well and I value having a job, healthcare, and ending useless wars more than preventing another AWB.
That said, Obama's no fool and surely realizes how divisive the gun issue is among both the public at large and within the Democratic party itself.

IMHO, he'll sign a ban if it reaches him, but he won't expend valuable political capital to make it happen given the other more pressing issues he has to deal with.

That I can live with, as progun Democrats and Repubs can team up and prevent the whackjobs from passing any more bans.

[Kamakazie Sith]

One of the little-publicized facts about armed criminals in Canada and Mexico is that the dealers are armed almost exclusively with US weapons that are smuggled across the border. It's one thing for America to have looser gun control laws than Canada, but it's quite another to have such a lax attitude toward enforcement that authorities look the way other way while gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers can't account for where millions of dollars of guns end up being sold. It's a big "nudge nudge wink wink" affair; the gun sellers know perfectly well that they sell huge volumes of guns to criminals, and the authorities do nothing about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01654.html

That's exactly the bullshit I'm talking about. This probably does sound a bit extreme, but I do support the death penalty for people who play a direct role in the smuggling of weapons in and from the United States. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this is also possible due to corrupt law enforcement in the border regions. Which is again why I support the death penalty for these crimes...you need to make the punishment not worth the benefits.

Kinda of Off Topic, but some of the latest intel on corrupt Mexican police is pretty scary. There is a report of drug cartels members that have been trained by Mexican police/military on how to ambush. They were going to try it on a DEA team in a New Mexico neighborhood, but the DEA team got wind of it and abandoned the mission. They were going to ambush that team with AK-47s in a neighborhood.

This is a serious problem that the public doesn't really have a clue about.

[His Divine Shadow]

I've heard that China has been smuggling selling AKs and such straight to the black market in the US by the shipload. Any truth to that?