When you look at a break-down of gun-crime stats for the U.S. (courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Uniform Crime Statistics) you’ll see that the majority of gun-crimes are committed by what’s called “black-on-black” gang-related homicides and assaults.
When just the White and Oriental population is considered, the U.S. compares very favorably against other countries; even les violent crime than some others.
And, from the same reports from other various law-enforcemnt agencies, most criminals aquire their guns illegally anyway (around 70%-80%), so more gun-control would be ineffective against criminals aquiring firearms, and be one step closer to the minority of anti-gunners avowed aim of removing firearms from all people, everywhere.
Most anti-gunners truly just want to see the violence stop; it’s only a small minority within their ranks that vocally agitate for total gun-bans, house-to-house searches and confiscations, and mass-arrests of gun-owners.
These are the people that scare me (and, judging from his post, Tracer too).
bdgr, here’s what I found out about the ‘Strasbourg tests’
You make another assertion:
While I haven’t found any penetration information on Magsafe, the Firearms Tactical website does mention that they are useful in preventing ‘over-penetration’.
However on the Glaser Safety Slug home page: Glaser Safety Slug, Inc. http://www.safetyslug.com here is what I found in the FAQ section:
So the Glaser Safety Slugs may penetrate less than other ammo but you can’t say it doesn’t go through walls.
In your quest to prevent over-penetration what are you giving up?
I know how hard it is to get good information and in some cases any information about the effectiveness of bullets in regard to ‘stopping power’. Everything I’ve found so far says that shot placement has more to do with stopping power than anything else. It is necessary to damage or destroy (not shock) vital structures in the body to incapacitate a person quickly.
Well, computers as we know them could be said to have begun with the first PROGRAMMABLE computer (called “The Bombe”), designed and built by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park, specifically to break Enigma encoded messages.
Apologies for busting into the discussion with another gun-control remark; I’m not interested in hijacking the thread to go through all that again. But Demise objected to my criticism of John Lott on another thread, so I said I would take it here.
Response to Demise: Yup, I stand by my characterization of Lott as the “uncrowned king of the shaky correlation,” not because I think he’s necessarily wrong (in suggesting that relaxed CCW laws can deter violent crime) but because I don’t think he’s made a convincing case that he’s right. To quote another article on Lott’s study:
To clarify my own position: I am not crazy about guns (except as interesting artifacts in the history of ballistics), but I am not in complete denial about defensive gun use. It seems to me perfectly in line with common-sense experience that more noncriminals with guns will often deter criminals from attempting or completing crimes. (It also seems to me perfectly in line with common-sense experience that more noncriminals with guns will increase the chances of accidental or unmeditated gun casualties, but that’s a different issue.) But I don’t find Lott’s claim that he has demonstrated that relaxed CCW laws caused lower crime rates to be a convincing one. Hence my criticism.
Im sorry Demise, I was in a hurry and I didnt have time to go back and check the whole thread for your name.
I had that happen to me personally, and it has happened to many people I know. Most burglaries in England happen when people leave their front doors open or something, and dont realise they have been burgled until afterwards. It is very rare that you confront the criminal.
It is a different issue, but it should be noted that even the most vocal anti-gun researchers, such as Lambert, or HCI, have been able to demonstrate anything worse than a net effect of zero from CCW laws. I’m sure they’d love to, but the numbers just aren’t there.
OTOH, he’s certainly provided what should, in a less hysterical atmosphere, provide the groundwork for ongoing and intensive study. Unfortunately, I think careful observation will bear out a serious anti-gun bias in the media and the popular culture, so nobody wants to hear that there could be a benefit to CCW laws.
I believe the reasoning behind the “short barrelled shotgun” clause in the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 was that sawed-off shotguns were easily concealable on your person, like handguns were.
The law withstood a 2nd Amendment challenge in the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, based on the judges declaring that a short-barrelled shotgun was “not the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would use.” Unfortunately, the judges only reached that decision because the Miller team didn’t bring in any expert witnesses to testify – as it turns out, the French army in the early days of World War 1 did indeed use a shotgun with a barrel that was considerably shorter than 18 inches. I say the case ought to be re-examined.
Miller died before the case was heard by the Supremes, IIRC, which didn’t help the matter much either.
From Kimstu:
**
Thank you for posting your reasoning behind your earlier statement.
I disagree.
I do not find that ANY of the anti-gun studies quoted by liberal media sources come close to touching the scope of Lott’s study. His data is far more convincing than anything else I’ve seen from either side of the debate.
Yeah right - learn military lessons from the French. That’ll get you far.
Frankly, I don’t think highly of the shotgun. Any weapon which has an effective range of maybe 20 meters and can’t pierce a standard kevlar vest is worthless on a battlefield. There’s nothing a shotgun can do which a SMG can’t do better.
Now now, the German Army under the Schlieffen Plan at the outset of WW1 was supposed to capture Paris in a matter of weeks. The fact that the French held off the mighty German Army for four years (with a little help from the Brits) surely says something!
“Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn’t happen again;
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then!”
– Tom Lehrer, “The MLF Lullaby”
Tracer - didn’t the French have a similar plan to conquer Berlin?
Sorry. I think it’s about time the French admitted that, like the Italians, they’re just no good at warfare. They make great cheese, though.
Gary - no. We were talking about modern-day military precidents.
Sorry, tracer, was that a LITTLE help from the brits? We provided quite a lot more than ‘a little help’. It was the BEF and the Belgans who held off the Germans in Belgum long enough to stop the Shifflen plan. Plus we had some of the best planes of the war like the sopwith camel - much better than the Neuport series. The SE5 was probably the best fighter plane of the entire war and much better than the Spad series. The fokker triplane design was copied from the Sopwith triplane design from earlier in the war.
And where were the americans during all this? Sitting at home doing bugger all.
Surely saying that the army back then was ‘well regulated’ is wishful thinking? this was over 80 years again guys - they hadnt invented SMGs then. A sawed off shotgun is hardly a military weapon nowadays.
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head that a short-barrel shotgun would be an extremely useful military weapon: urban warfare and opening doors.
It would be an almost ideal weapon in house-to-house fighting. Using 3-1/4" magnum shells with 000 buckshot would be like shooting someone with a handful of 9mm rounds at a time. Plus, you have a closed, locked door? Not anymore.
No, shotguns are still worthless. They have a low rate of fire, so you can’t cover a whole room; they have a very low ammo capacity, usually no more than 8 rounds; they have killer recoil; and they take forever to reload. Give me an AT-15 (or at least an Uzi) any day.
Frankly, I didn’t know such a weapon existed. Hmm… yeah, it looks efficient, but I’m worried about overspecialization. Sure, it would probably be the best weapon in the world (short of a flamethrower) for taking a room, but what about shooting people out of windows, or climbing to the roof to cover the street? In those cases, the weapon’s limited range would render it useless. No, the best all-around weapon is a carbine-length assault rifle, like the AR-15.
By the way, IIRC, this whole argument started when somebody tried to prove that shotguns - the kind you buy at walmart - are viable “militia” weapons. Guess you proved my point.
I agree with Allesan - how often in house to house fighting are you going to need to shoot down a door. Most shooting woudl be fairly long range - across a street between houses for instance. I dont understand how a shotgun is going to shoot down a door anyway - my front door is solid hardwood and I dont think a shotgun would be able to do much to it. With other doors - why not just shoot the hinges or locks off with a normal weapon?
