Here is a link showing how easy it really is, in AZ anyway:
Doesn’t look that easy to me…and there are some hefty fines and jail time implied in that link. I wonder how many chiefs of police are ‘a dick’ and won’t sign the form. I’m betting a lot of them, since it’s their ass if they sign and someone they signed for uses a machine gun in a crime.
YMMV I guess. Filling out some paperwork and paying a fee or two to be able to obtain some full auto fun doesn’t seem too big of a deal to me. Follow the link I provided and it details how to avoid the “my police chief is a dick” syndrome.
There are big fines for copying DVD’s too…that isn’t that hard either.
The class3 dealer makes sure things are good to go, really it is no more complex than going to a new doctor.
Also LEO signoff only applies to individuals, most people set up a trust, that removes the fingerprinting and LEO signoff requirement.
I didn’t wan’t to link to weapons sites because browsers preload data now and I know some work places have huge issues with them.
If you google for “class 3 trust” you will see what I am talking about.
Here’s a preview of how successful gun bans will be: Philippine gun makers take aim from the backyard to the production line
“Bootlegger” will come to mean someone carrying in an ankle holster.
In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature loking for any correlation between gun-availability and homicide. They found strong evidence to suggest a link between the two.
In 2011, economist Richard Florida deep-dived data related to firearm deaths and social indicators. A number of factors were identified, but according to his analysis–even if you account for other factors, there is a statistical correlation between gun-control laws and fewer gun-related deaths. As he himself notes, correlation is not causation, but it’s at least meaningful.
As you are no doubt aware, the Harvard study has made head researcher David Hemenway a target of the NRA (I haven’t found a similar objection to Mr. Florida, but I didn’t look very hard). Personally I find their objections laughable, but it does illustrate the problem whenever a politically powerful organization wades into statistical or scientific questions: Their goal is often just to muddy the waters enough that unengaged observers assume nothing is really determined. It’s the same strategy followed by Intelligent Design advocates and global warming deniers.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature loking for any correlation between gun-availability and homicide. They found strong evidence to suggest a link between the two.
[/QUOTE]
Not being snide here, just an observation…this is the equivalent of saying that more cars means more automobile deaths, and less cars would mean less deaths. That’s true, and not really in question. I don’t know of anyone making the argument that the US crime rate would be unchanged if you actually managed to ban all guns from the country (and, somehow magically accomplish getting them all or even a large percentage out of the hands of US citizens).
I will say that, based on a link I gave earlier, the US is a pretty violent place even without guns, so it would probably be less than the idealists would wish if they actually got their dream. I mean, yeah…over 8000 murders are done using guns a year, but over 4000 murders happen in the US by non-firearm related weapons too, and at a guess you aren’t simply going to eliminate all of those 8000 by removing the firearms…some non-zero percentage of them are still going to happen each year, just using something other than a gun (or, probably not, as criminals aren’t going to be as concerned about being arrested for having a gun that is most likely illegal for them to have anyway…even leaving aside the whole ‘it’s illegal to murder folks with or without a gun’ angle).
The 2006 “review” from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center used studies which have already been discredited.
E.G.
They chose the 1988-1997 dates for very good reason, it was good cherry picking and:
It was the peak of violent crime in the US
That paper falls flat when you try to explain why the trend went down despite increasing gun sales.
Firearm crime in the UK actually outpaced the rise of violent crime in the country in the years after their ban.
Australia’s ban also didn’t reduce the rise of fire arm related murders. In fact the 15 years before the ban homicides dropped by 66% then rose sharply after the ban.
both sides cherry pick, the reality is at this point in time there doesn’t seem to be a link.
And yes, they have still failed to release their numbers.
As for Richard Florida’s “research” yes…he included “accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.” And here is a reality check for you, firearms are a fairly good way to commit suicide.
Japan, a country with a tiny murder rate and lots of gun control has a combined suicide/murder rate of about 21 deaths per 100,000 people per year.
Guess what the US’s rate is with our massively higher rate of gun ownership and gun related homicide? About 21 deaths per 100,000 people per year.
His study does show that improved education helps reduce crime. But by chasing after ineffective gun legislation we cause more Republican’s to be elected and this means:
Less money and more restrictions on reproductive health.
Less movement forward with services for mental health and homelessness.
Less money and resources for sex education.
Decreased money and resources for secular education.
All of these items have been shown to have a larger impact on poverty or violent crime.
It should also be noted that in the US active euthanasia is illegal. In the rural town I grew up in it was an (anecdotal) reality that if an older person who lived at home had a closed casket funeral they probably committed suicide to avoid the home.
Thus with poverty, lack of opportunity and firearm accessibility the rate goes up in rural areas. But if you look at the murder rate it is tiny compared to places with lots of gun control…because people pass gun control in high crime areas in a misguided attempt to control crime.
“Not because guns prevent crime as some claim”
Do you have a cite for this?
Looks like it might actually be two.
Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns