The concept of “particularly suited” for crime is a strawman. The same attributes that make it so “suitable” are the same ones that make it suitable for self-defense or for use by a police officer or security guard.
Saying a semiautomatic is “particularly suited” for criminal use, is akin to saying a Corvette is “particularly suited” to be a bank-robbery getaway car because it’s faster than and can outhandle a police vehicle. Or that BIC lighters are “particulary suited” for arson because they are easy to light with one hand and last so long.
Similar things can be said about computers, baseball bats, Ryder trucks and four-door Caprices.
Um, we have. That’s sort of our point, isn’t it? You gottta have taken driving classes and pass a test before you are allowed to drive a car. Engineering controls built into vehicles to reduce risks (seatbelts, airbags, etc). Oodles of regs designed to promote safety (speed limits, carseat laws, etc). You drive a more dangerous vehicle, like a truck, and you have special controls. Sure, some Sec of State may let you slip by, and catastrophes may result, but we try not to let those things happen. None of which is to say that anyone is going to take your car away. All of which identifies that MVA are a major loss of life and attempts to lower the risks.
Also to Ribo, have some fun- yes, even though they can be used legally in some state, guns that work well as concealed carries seem as if they were specificaly designed for criminal intent. They serve the purpose quite well.
And before you start quoting the defensive gun use studies look at the link earlier made to the opinion piece that “soundly trashed” Kellerman. Even that very pro gun piece is honest enough to admit that the defensive gun use data doesn’t prove that defensive gun use saved lives or saved more than guns ownership took away. It’s strongest point is to remark upon significant flaws in Kellerman’s studies (which I can acknowledge as real limitations in the data)
As to defending the POV of a complete ban, well since it is not a stance that I advocate, I won’t waste our mutual time. For consistency’s sake, though, I hope that you are advocating for the repeal of all drug control laws, based on your arguments against their effectiveness.
Senor, you misunderstand me. I wasn’t countering. I was clarifying which weapons I was concerned about now that I have an incremental better understanding of proper terminology.
you want ot go plink? with a black rifle? Cool. But you really don’t need 30 rd mags, do you?
a pistol designed for a +20 rd mag would be one whose grip fully contained said mag. IIRC, the 1911 was 7, the Browning was 14.
The Glock 17 is listed as 10/17/19
and, the Stocton and 101 California weapons were legal, as is the AR-15 the DC shooter used - maybe not legal for those individuals to have, but legal to own and sell in the US at the time.
So, your “we have enough laws” seems to ring hollow.
And then there is the issue that, if all the “good” gun owners were obeying both the spirit and the letter of the law, we would not have armour-piercing ammo being offered to the public - let alone all those ads screaming “pre-ban”.
(I did find the “take 2 rifles, bolt them on this plate, and you’ve a Gattling Gun” ads amusing - even the guy with the patched-together 50 rd .22 mags - cute, really cute)
p.s. - re. “I need my guns for protection” - if you can’t hit the bad guy in 10 shots, you’ve wasted a hell of a lot of money on toys, now, haven’t you?
So, you only advocate requiring these classes in order to carry a gun in public, not just to own one? That is the way car licensing works, you might remember.
Oh, and why haven’t you explained to us what your ‘safe storage’ requirements are, and specifically whether they preclude using a gun for self-defense? I’ve asked you about it in two seperate threads where you’ve talked about it so far.
In the vast majority of states, actually (38/50) and many of the states that aren’t shall-issue provide other circumstances. It’s very intellectually dishonest to state that something can be legally used in ‘some state’ (note the singular) when the actual figure is well over half of all states (even further when one considers that all but two or three states provide some sort of concealed carry permit that’s technically available to oridinary citizens).
So, you’re saying guns designed for a specific activity which is specifcally legal to some degree in all states (I’m not aware of any state that forbids police concealed carry, if nothing else) and generally legal for non-leos in the vast majority of states is actually “designed for criminal intent”?
By that logic, ski masks are specifically designed for criminal intent since they serve the purpose of concealing one’s identity during a bank robbery quite well. As are hats, sunglasses, gloves, disposeable jumpsuits, hairnets (don’t forget DNA evidence for the previous two), makeup, body paint, and a host of other innocuous items.
Why would I? DGU studies are irrelevant to the issue of whether concealable firearms have a lawful purpose, even if I believed that concealed carry was a risk, I wouldn’t call carrying concealed evidence of ‘criminal intent’ since legal concealed carry by non-LEOs is allowed in more than 38 states.
I am really, really intersted in learning how you’d stop smuggling and clandestine manufacture of firearms in your concept of a gun ban without also smashing the 4th amendment to pieces (or even with abandoning the 4th), and I’m sure the DEA and INS would be interested in any such plan. I think it’s pretty obvious that the scenario you outlined would not come to pass, and I think it’s only fair for you to either explain to us how the holes I pointed out would be plugged or conceede that you were incorrect.
It would not be required for consistency because I was arguing that a ban like you hypothesized would not eventually lead to no guns in criminal hands as you asserted. Consistency would merely require that I argue that drug laws would not prevent criminals from acquiring drugs.
Of course, that’s pretty much irrelevant since I am in favor of the repeal of the vast majority of drug control laws (I still support laws against engaging in various driving etc. under the influence, drugging someone against their will, providing drugs to minors without parental consent etc. but am all for removing all of the possession, willing use, sale, etc. laws). Really, trying to zing me by presuming that I support massive government intrusions into people’s private lives is probably not the best way to win an argument.
You don’t really need that extra large dishwasher, do you? In a free state and all that, the burden of justification is on the side that wishes to restrict freedom.
**
I can’t honestly think of a pistol that can fit a 20 round magazine in it’s frame. Not saying they don’t exist, but a gun afficianado such as myself can’t think of one offhand.
**
Do you seriously believe that if they weren’t, for whatever reason, able to get the SPECIFIC weapon that they used, they’d give up on that whole being crazy thing?
If not, then why is the weapon’s legality relevant?
**
In order to be a good gun or ammunition dealer, one must throw away one’s entire stock of a certain type of ammunition upon an import (and not posession) ban? Nevermind that it will probably put them in the hole financially - it’s the right thing to do… for some reason.
As belt feds would be devastating in robbing a 7-11…
In any case, are you saying that any defensive situation will require precisely 10 rounds or less? Any reason for that number? Why not 5? I mean… if you can’t neutralize the threat in 5 shots, you obviously are incompetant. Right?
Out of curiosity, how would someone design a gun to be carried concealed by lawful citizens, police officers, guards, etc. without making it ‘particularly suited to criminal intent’?
Why should magazines that hold more than 10 rounds be banned in the first place? A skilled shooter can change a mag very quickly, so the original law has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the incremental banning of firearms.
If you can prove that limiting magazine size lowers crime be my guest. Until then it remains a useless law for crime prevention.
Umm, self defense? Because of that pesky 2nd amendment mentions nothing about “sporting”?
Armor piercing ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces. Would making it double-plus illegal matter if it isn’t enforced?
The changes in crime rates are somewhat complex, but a growing firearm supply and increasing CCW permits does not cause an increase in firearm homicide or accidental death rates.
A couple of quick examples:
Florida concealed carry:
CCW law was passed in 1987. By 1999 Florida had issued 551,000 permits.
Firearm homicide rates from 94 thru 99 (Couldn’t find numbers quickly for earlier than 94, but these should work) Florida Crime Statistics
Firearm homicide rate changes from previous year:
1994 -20.8%
1995 -8.7%
1996 -2.7%
1997 -5.0%
1998 -7.0%
1999 -21.9% (I did find that there were 26,807 new permits between 1998 and 1999)
Firearm supply vs. Total US homicide rate:
In this report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ there were 12,740,000 pre-purchase handgun checks between 1994 and 1998 of which 312,000 were rejected for all causes. This would mean that the number of handguns in circulation in the U.S. increased by 12,428,000 over that five year period. In the United States there are approx. one million firearms of all types confiscated every year of which ~65% are handguns or 3,250,000 in the five year period. That would mean that the approx. overall increase in the number of handguns in the United States would be 9,178,000 for the five year period.
It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%. In the same period, homicide rates dropped 2.7%. Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
Armor piercing ammo is only legal for the police and military. Of course any center fire rifle cartridge will penetrate the majority of kevlar vests, so I suppose we are splitting hairs on this.
Not if I’m still alive. Why should you care how many bullets it takes? Even more so since the police kill many more innocent bystanders than civilians do.
So, if you want a 30 rd mag for your mac 10, you have just as much right to it as I have to a high-cap dishwasher?
What y’all been inhaling?
you know, the funny thing is, I kinda support concealed-carry.
then I run into folks who think that means “uzi’s for everybody”, with armour-piercing ammo, and the bury-a-couple-of-AR-15’s-where-only-you-know-where-they-are,-so-you’ll-always-have-more-firepower-than-anybody-else types, and I don’t know if their existance makes me more or less comfortable with concealed carry - on one hand, I don’t want them running around with mac-10’s, but on the other hand, I might want a Glock with hollowpoints, in case I run into such a person.
and, quick show of hands -
how many think the “street-sweeper” should be legal?
Why not? Because you’ve arbitrarily decided, without demonstrating a rational basis, let alone compelling state interest, that your freedom is acceptable and that mine isn’t?
**
Perhaps you’d like to form an argument.
**
Is there an argument in there? I’m not quite sure. I assume you’re saying that you’ll need a gun to defend yourself from gun afficiandos (and ridiculously exaggerate us), because we’re evidently so crime prone.
Or it could just be a bunch of exaggerated semi-ad hominem. I wonder.
In a free society, we don’t decide what “should be legal”, we decide what the state has a compelling interest in regulating. And from there, we attempt to limit the scope of that regulation as much as possible.
You still, after being asked, haven’t made even a rational basis for banning ‘street sweepers’, let alone compelling state interest.
So if I want a weapon whose sole conceivable purpose is mass slaughter, the state has no right to intercede?
And yes, there is a point in the concealed-carry note:
the “uzi’s-for-everybody” types (HI! NRA!) are self-defeating - many who are inclinded to support gun ownership start shying away when people start talking about protecting themselves from “the Government”, the NEED for combat-grade weapons.
and no, at this point (2002) I’m not going to re-argue mag capacity - I will simply vote anti-NRA and hope the existing ban is renewed.
I would expect nothing less from someone that uses emotional hyperbole instead of facts for that decision.
Not sure what a “street sweeper” is. Your description sounds like a shotgun with a 9 round magazine. I wonder how many of these have been used to kill innocent children. :rolleyes: At any rate your fixation on this doesn’t help your credibility very much.
Reminds me of the “Saturday Night Special” laws, because the poor don’t have the right to buy an affordable firearm. I guess some of us are more equal than others.
Hmmm. I think that I’ve been clear. This is the way that I see things.
Handguns are used in crimes. Criminals kill with them. Criminals get them by an illegal black market and by stealing them. It therefore follows that decreasing the ease with which those activities occur will very likely have a significant effect on decreasing gun homicide by criminals, especially by young punks.
The medical literature is full of studies that are suggestive that more guns is correlated with more death, not less. There is some suggestion in some literature that, given a crime being committed upon a person, defensive gun use may decrease tghe likelihood of death in that episode. But even the linked pro-gun editorial on this subject admits to the severe limitations of this data. And let’s all be honest here. This is hard data to collect and interpret well. Homicide is a multifactorial problem. The economy, the rate of drug use, hosts of factors influence the rates. It is not easy to account for all the confounding variables. It is not a lab situation where you can vary only factor A. This is not a situation where the conditions in country A are different than country B only in gun use/availability, or even between country A itself in two different timepoints. I can point out that homicides have decreased since Brady was passed, but I really think that it is because of factors other than gun laws, or of gun supply. So we are going to be left at deciding which comparisons we think are valid.
When groups dedicated to issues of public health (not single issue groups) have analyzed the data on guns, they have concluded that more guns equals more risk, not less. I tend to believe them. It is how the data looks to me (and I’ve tried to be balanced and consider the data presented by the pro-gun side in this thread) and it is what makes sense to me as well.
But you percieve that your handguns keep you safer. You feel that you have a right, an entitlement, to keep your loaded handgun nearby, unlocked, where you (and any thief) has easy access to it.
And you know what? I am sick and tired of people claiming their entitlements. You have a responsibilty. You have a responsibility! To store that thing in a way that minimizes the posssibility of theft. Because it’s yutzes leaving the dang things as easy theft targets that supply a fair number of the weapons on the street. SO … very clearly now … no, I do not believe that your entitlement to a sense of self-protection outweighs the risk that cavelair storage poses to others.
Would any handgun law prevent all homicides? No duh, of course not. It is not even the most important factor (demographics ie the number of unattached young adult males in the population, and the economy are much more important) but it is a significant factor that we can do something about. I would not advocate with drugs that well there will still be drugs even with attempts to decrease the supply and even with anti-drug laws so why bother. I think that interdiction and the laws do some good. I think that more of an intelligent analysis could result in other actions that could further reduce the supply. Likewise with guns being used illegally for bad intent. I refuse to believe that it is hopeless.
um, John, with your NRA handbook (or wherever you are getitng your glib, stock responses) -
a ‘street sweeper’ (12 round mag, IIRC) does not correspond to a revolver, so cut the “saturday night special” comparison crap.
until you can offer a reasonable explanation of why you want a 30 rd. mag, I am going to assume that you want to out-gun anyone else - including the police. don’t be surprised if I don’t back you up on that one.
and if you cannot id military-grade weapons, you are either ignorant or a liar - hint: select fire, bipod, collaspable/folding stock, pistol grips for rifles, bayonnet mount, internal silencer, belt-feed, (and yes, 30+ rd mags). and why do you suppose the AR-15 looks so much like the M-16, coincidence, right?
maybe you should stop being obstructionist - folks such as yourself are the main reason I vote against NRA (I still have NRA markmanship cert’s from childhood - ironic, ain’t it?)
And how many gun owners are responsible? You are freaking out about less than .05% of gun owners.
I’m sick and tired of people wanting to take away my means of self defense because they think (no evidence) that it will have some nebulous effect on criminal activity.
The courts have upheld the fact that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. Are you going to protect me or my family?
So the best people to judge the facts are the people that don’t know shit about the subject? I don’t believe them. I’ve researched the raw numbers and it doesn’t pan out for the antis.
What is “something”? Do you actually have an idea with some type of proof?
After reading this statement I understand were you are coming from a bit better. My beliefs are so different there really is no common ground here. I feel very strongly that ending the war on (some) drugs would reduce crime significantly. The WoD has brought us fun things like no-knock warrants, asset forfeiture, and an increasing militarization of the police.
I didn’t compare it to a revolver. I said the term “street sweeper” is used like the term “saturday night special”.
They shouldn’t have been banned in the first place. There is no reason to ban them. Can you give me a reason? They were banned by the same law that was lauded by idiot politicians that included “pistol grips” because… now get this… “they assist the user in firing from the hip”.
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard come out of their mouths, and there has been a bunch. It has nothing to do with reality.
The more you support idiotic legislation the more difficult it is for us to take you seriously. If there is no criminal reason to ban these things WHY IS IT DONE CONSTANTLY?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. What does a bayonet lug, magazine size, or a pistol grip have to do with anything?
Do you support the ban because they look scary? What does banning a gun that is almost never used in crime supposed to do?
-It’s a valid comparison. The “saturday night special” bans dealt with largely cosmetic features, such as short barrels. The “street sweeper” you refer to is a South American revolver-type shotgun that holds 12 rounds. It, too, was banned for cosmetic reasons- it’s a ugly black gun.
Why cosmetic reasons? What else was there? The Benelli wasn’t banned, and it’s a true semiautomatic shotgun, and not a spring-wound, slow-to-reload and bulky revolver-type shotgun. The Mossberg can hold nine rounds, and a Remington with an extension can hold 13, so it can’t be ammo capacity.
It wasn’t rate of fire, as the thing has an ugodly horrible trigger pull that makes a staple gun seem butter-smooth.
Ergo, it must have been for cosmetic reasons.
-How about I merely want to spend the time plinking and shooting at the range, and not constantly reloading? I know shooters who will fire a single shot, and work very hard at making that single shot go precisely where they want it to on the target. I know others who simply enjoy plinking at a series of small targets (one fellow cleverly uses crackers scattered on a high dirt backstop- small and difficult to hit at range, but fully biodegradable and cheap.)
But then again, why justify it to you? As has been said many times before, why spend $50,000 on a Viper when the speed limit is 55? Why blow $2,500 on a hot, fast desktop when all you do is E-mail baby pictures to grandma? Why does Cher need a $14 million mansion? Why does Jay Leno need a $12 million one-of-a-kind restored Bently?
If you can offer me a reasonable explanation as to why large cpacity magazines shouldn’t be available, I’ll be happy to listen.
As for “outgunning the police”, that’s pure emotional hyperbole. You might as well say “I can only assume you want to mow down an entire busload of nuns” or “I’m going to assume you only want to shoot large numbers of toddlers at the day care”.
In this small town, several of the local officers are personal friends of mine, and since I’m not a criminal and don’t plan on becoming one, why on earth would I even contemplate “outgunning” the police?
-“Military grade” is another meaningless description like the nonsensical “assault weapon”. For exmple, the 1916 S&W .38 revolver was issued to officers and some enlisted men. That must be “military grade” since the military used and issued it, but it has none of the features you mentioned. Same goes for the 1903 Colt Model M in .32 ACP, issued to officers and certain enlisted- such as cryptographers- up until the 1970s.
Again, you’re arguing about cosmetic features- it’s ugly and menacing, therefore it should be banned.
Select fire has been heavily regulated since 1932, bipods can be attached or detached, and are very useful when hunting. I dare you to bring up a single instance, at any time, in any country, where a civilian has been bayonetted in a non-wartime event. Bayonets were obsolete in WW1, and no one’s used one in a crime- at least, not attached to the gun, and unattached, a bayonet is no different than any kitchen knife.
What the hell is an “internal silencer”?
As for the similarity between the M-16 and AR-15, there’s no coincidence at all. The AR is the civilian semiauto-only version of the M-16. But again, you’re going only on appearances- the AR is semiautomatic, and thus legal to own without Title III paperwork (which by no means implies “no paperwork at all”) while the M-16 is capable of select fire and thus far more heavily controlled and regulated.
And your point is?
“Cars are used in crimes. Criminals kill with them and escape arrest with them. Criminals get them by stealing them.”
-Black market: Drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, are illegal and enthusiastically hunted by federal agents. Yet it’s still available in huge quantities. I believe someone asked you above, how you might slow down the marketing in illegal or stolen guns. Do you have an idea or is this another “we have to protect the children!” emotional plea?
England banned just about every gun a man can own, and yet their gun crime is going up due to illegal, smuggled-in guns. England is effectively a large island, and thus one might think it would be easier to secure than our relatively open borders, and yet guns, drugs and illegal immigrants come ashore by the ton.
It’s nice to say “we ought to do something” but most people who say that are strangely quiet when asked “okay, what?”
-“Easy access” being breaking and entering into your home, or breaking into your locked car or trunk? He’s already broken into your home, what’s to keep him from breaking into a locked cabinet or locked box?
You’ve chanted this “easy access” mantra a dozen times now, implying gun owners just leave ‘em open on the seat of the car, with the window down, while they jog in for a weeks’ groceries. Or they leave them stacked by the door outside next to the snow shovel. Or leave them on top of the VCR where they can be seen from the street.
However, I will say it’s a fine line: a firearm, particularly a handgun, is often an emergency tool, much like a fire extinguisher. You may own it for years, and might indeed never need it. But if a situation arises where one does need it, well, you wouldn’t want to have to go own to the basement, dial the combination to a safe, open the case, load the extinguisher and then get back into the kitchen before the grease fire catches the roof on fire, would you?
-Oh horseshit. Do you know anyone who just leaves the thing laying about on the couch? Or just left on the dashboard of the car? I bet not.
ATMs are heavily armored, and yet crooks have stolen the entire thing. I know of one case where two crooks stole an entire gun safe after breaking the bolts free of the floor with a jack and winching the thing out of the owner’s basement with a truck. It probably weighed most of a ton empty, and full might have exceeded two tons.
Crooks have stolen guns out of FBI vehicles, on FBI property. They’ve stolen them from army bases that had armed guards patrolling the gates.
A local gunsmith was brought a shotgun with a broken trigger guard. On a hunch he called the police, and it turned out the gun was stolen- they’d broken the guard off to get it out of a locking hoop bolted to the wall.
Banks are securely monitored and heavily watched, but yet are still robbed. Cars can have a “Club” on the wheel, a flat tire and an armed alarm, and they’ll still get stolen if somebody wants it bad enough. If you can come up with some way to ensure that no gun will never be stolen, without encasing the thing in concrete and affixing it to the foundation of a buildng, I’m sure we’ll be happy to hear it.
But again, all I hear is “we have to do something!” but no one’s saying what or how.
-You’re implying we aren’t doing anything about it.
-“So if I want a car whose sole conceivable purpose is to evade police pursuit and escape after a bank robbery, the state has no right to intercede?”
-“So if I want to buy a desktop computer whose sole conceivable purpose is to download snuff videos and child pornography, the state has no right to intercede?”
There’s that pointless, emotional argument again.
-Uzis for everybody? You mean the same NRA that pushed for Project Exile, which called for far steeper penalties for people who use guns in crime, and reduced the previous “three strikes” to a single incident before incurring major prosecution?
The same NRA that teaches kids “Stop! Don’t Touch! Leave the Area! Tell an Adult!” when they come across a gun?
The same NRA that is trying to get current laws- like the Brady- enforced before enacting new laws?
Don’t hurt your knee with all that jerking, m’kay?
