Gun control question....

[protege]

Besides, it's been shown (I'll try to find a link) that violent crime in general is more or less linked directly to poverty levels. There's really no accounting for the random whackjob (or pack of whackjobs), the best we can do is be ready, anyone for first aid classes?

You don't need to post a link for that. I see it every day. Locally, most of the violent crime happens in the poor neighborhoods, many of which I get the "pleasure" of driving through on the way to or from work. You don't hear someone getting shot out in Mt. Lebanon, Squirrel Hill, or even Downtown for the most part. No, you hear that sort of thing happening in Hazelwood, Larimer, East Liberty. I won't say that we're immune to crime in the 'burbs, but it doesn't happen on levels anywhere near the "inner city."

[KitterCat]

Why do civilians need to own assault rifles and other military grade weaponry?

I’ve had several friends/family ask about the differences between assault rifles and a regular rifle. While I’m not a specialists in the fields my husband is an avid gun enthusiast. Pretty much finances keep his hobby under control. Years ago when we were first going out I asked the same question because after some research, I really wanted to know what’s the difference? Noticing things such as finding rifles that used the same type of bullets as assault rifles, same load capacity, same weight, build ect Hubby asked me, what did I think the difference was - he wanted to see what I’d picked up on. Had to say other than one type (assault rifles) looks a lot meaner and more intimidating I really couldn’t find one. And that’s it. One looks meaner than the other, so please tell me why we need a ban on one type but not on the other?

Why do civilians that are not a part of some a legally regulated militia need to own assault rifles and other military grade weaponry? What kind of hunter needs a fully automatic weapon to make a kill?

As to why citizens should have the ability to keep military grade weaponry is because of how governments act when they don’t. The public should have the ability and means to overthrow their government, being able to use have readily available weaponry makes sure that various governments don’t turn in to tyrannies.

Take a look at what has happened when the public has been disarmed and reasons the governments had for doing it. Germany late 1930’s and into the 1940, start of the USSR, heck even medieval France. Ever wonder why the French started their revelation using pitchforks and shovels? Its due to the ruling class feeling all that love between them and the peasants or rather lack of it.

To me "Gun Control" is controlling who has access to them and what they have access to. There is no reason why anyone outside of the military should have access to an assault rifle. ESPECIALLY one with a built in sound suppressor. There is no reason why anyone outside of the military should have access to a rifle that can kill it's target from 1000 meters or more. Hell, even 600 is a stretch for a civilian.

Weapons such as you are talking about are extremely hard to find, and expensive. Even harder is a person who could effectivly use it. I’m pretty sure another gun collection will verify what I’m saying but even in the US you can not have a built in sound suppressor with out paying out the demon hole various taxes, same for fully automatic rifles. The going rate for the tax on an automatic is $2,000. This is not including the rifle itself. If a civilian can pass the background check and wants it badly enough why cant they own one?

What is the justifiable purpose to have this type of weaponry? Where does it stop? Should some eccentric billionaire be allowed to own his own F-16 or M1 Abrams?
CH

Better question - Why shouldn’t they? As another person has pointed out Tanks are legal. In some states so long as they are on wheels or have been converted from treads to wheels you can take them out onto the public streets. Getting through the paperwork and background checks to do it is hell. I personally know 1 person who owns a tank. I don’t even bother asking what it cost to do because I know I’ll never care enough to want to, but its their hobby. They collect WW2 memorabilia so if that’s what they want to spend their money on, who am I to say that they cant? Same goes for a couple of the guys my hubbys met in his reenactments. Its their hobby, the weapons been either de-milled or even more of a hell job (money/paperwork) converted to only fire blanks.

[Nyoibo]

As to why citizens should have the ability to keep military grade weaponry is because of how governments act when they don’t. The public should have the ability and means to overthrow their government, being able to use have readily available weaponry makes sure that various governments don’t turn in to tyrannies.

Take a look at what has happened when the public has been disarmed and reasons the governments had for doing it. Germany late 1930’s and into the 1940, start of the USSR, heck even medieval France. Ever wonder why the French started their revelation using pitchforks and shovels? Its due to the ruling class feeling all that love between them and the peasants or rather lack of it.

Bullshit, look at countries in Africa, AK's being common the civilian population regularly has the means and armament to overthrow the government, how many governments have been tyranies. The flip side, is Japan a tyrany? Is Australia? The UK? try getting a gun in any of those countries, see how hard it is, and forget anything semi-automatic of higher.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The difference between a semi-only assault rifle and a 'regular' rifle chambering the same round are largely cosmetic. In essence, both fire the same bullet at comparative velocities at the same rate, the difference exhibits is self chiefly in that hunting rifles are designed to deliver a single shot with high accuracy, while military-style rifles are intended to deliver multiple shots with reasonable accuracy (which is why a sniper's rifle isn't an assault rifle).

Title III licenses are heavily taxed and hard to get, to say nothing of the fact that they need to be renewed and fraud of any kind on one is a serious offense. Exact legalities vary among jurisdictions, but many allow for the possibility of owning a suppressed or automatic weapon if you can find one and all the paperwork and checks are in order. And like I said earlier, not one such weapon has been used in a crime, therefore, there's no reason to ban it.

I would pay through the roof to own MP Masada, or (speaking of WW2) MP44 (Sturmgewehr) because I love guns. No different from a car lover who'd pay a small fortune to own a Rols Royce or Model T respectively. I'm not hurting anyone, so what exactly is your reason for preventing me?

It seems as though US conservative (myself libertarian) types come to this issue from an entirely different angle than liberals (like, say, most of Europe)

We value rights on an implicit level. To us, it's not a question of why we should be allowed to do something, rather, as Kittercat said, a question of why not. The assumption is that, whatever it is, you can do it if you want. Only if there's a damn good reason should the government prevent you. I don't have to prove to you why I should be allowed to play videogames, use the internet, or purchase a gun simply to have it, YOU need to prove why I SHOULDN'T. Since there is no reason to prevent me, WHY?

Everyone pulls out the 'need' line, and it pisses me off. I don't 'need' to do a great many things, but that's never been grounds to ban it. You ban things that pose a threat, otherwise you're just raining on my parade 'cause you don't like the content.

Oh, and while I'm here:

Bullshit, look at countries in Africa, AK's being common the civilian population regularly has the means and armament to overthrow the government, how many governments have been tyranies. The flip side, is Japan a tyrany? Is Australia? The UK? try getting a gun in any of those countries, see how hard it is, and forget anything semi-automatic of higher.

African governments are quite often tyranies, and are equally often overthrown, only to be replaced with a tyranny. That the next government ends up corrupt too is the fault of it's members first and foremost, few of whom actually took part in the overthrowing. The chance that revolution will lead to functional government is worth it when compared to rotting away without hope of change.

I doubt Africa has much hope of stabilizing any time soon. The overall culture is not only incredibly fractured, but also extremely violent. Too few have any interest in uniting as a nation, preferring instead to fight for personal/family/tribal well-being instead.

No one said that armed revolution is absolutely necessary for a working government, or that it's guaranteed to work. Only that when all else fails, the ability to fight for your freedom is infinity preferable to giving up.

P.S. Kittercat, you made my day [sarcasm] Does you're hubby already have a USP Match? 'cuz there's a really nice one at my local range for only 1500![/sarcasm]

[ditchdj]

Who has the most gun crime - is that your question?

Well, logically crime can only exist where there are laws to criminalise something. If the law allows something, it's not a crime.

So, what are the relative statistics of gun crime and death by gun in the two regions you point at? I'd find that of more interest than one news article. I suspect the statistics would back you up, but let's see them.

Rapscallion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35226703...news-americas/

----"More than 2,300 killed last year". I thought that outlawing guns was supposed to stop that crap.

[crashhelmet]

Mexico doesn't have the government presence to be able to control it all. The cities are too far spread out that not even the governor of the state knows everything going on. Everything is still pretty much run like it has been since they gained their independence from France. It's all cartels running their areas with corrupt police and military in their pockets.

I've only been in 4 cities within Mexico that are tightly run by their government. Mexico City (naturally), Guadalajara, and then San Jose del Cabo / Cabo San Lucas and Cancun. The last two because of the tourist revenue they bring in. Even Juarez, as large a city as it is, is corrupt.

CH

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Mexico doesn't have the government presence to be able to control it all. The cities are too far spread out that not even the governor of the state knows everything going on. Everything is still pretty much run like it has been since they gained their independence from France. It's all cartels running their areas with corrupt police and military in their pockets.

I've only been in 4 cities within Mexico that are tightly run by their government. Mexico City (naturally), Guadalajara, and then San Jose del Cabo / Cabo San Lucas and Cancun. The last two because of the tourist revenue they bring in. Even Juarez, as large a city as it is, is corrupt.

CH

All the more reason to focus on enforcement instead of random legislation. At the end of the day it's more or less always already illegal for the problem people to have any sort of weapon whatsoever. More legislation isn't what were in need of...

[crashhelmet]

Yes, they do need to focus on enforcement, but until they can get the control they need, it's not going to happen.

Mexico is in a state right now that is very similar to how the US was back in "Old West." A time where the federal government has almost no interaction or influence on the local government. Where things are controlled mostly by the local politicians and decisions are made on how corrupt or honest they are.

In actuality, there is no complete gun ban in Mexico. Small caliber handguns and rifles can be acquired with a permit from the Defense Ministry. It's military grade weapons that are banned for civilian use and ownership. The majority of those weapons are smuggled in from the United States, if they're not stolen from the Police and Military.

CH

[protege]

Everything is still pretty much run like it has been since they gained their independence from France.

Uh, Mexico was actually under Spanish control

Seriously though, I know what you're getting at. Their government simply doesn't have enough structure to reign in all the problems. That's why it's corrupt, and seen as a "free for all." From what I understand, Russia is a bit like that in places. It's simply too big, and change happened so rapidly after 1990, it was impossible to put a better structure in place. It's changing though, but there's still plenty of corruption--once something like the Russian Mob has been entrenched for so long, it's difficult to remove.

[Skelly]

Yes, they do need to focus on enforcement, but until they can get the control they need, it's not going to happen.

Mexico is in a state right now that is very similar to how the US was back in "Old West." A time where the federal government has almost no interaction or influence on the local government. Where things are controlled mostly by the local politicians and decisions are made on how corrupt or honest they are.

In actuality, there is no complete gun ban in Mexico. Small caliber handguns and rifles can be acquired with a permit from the Defense Ministry. It's military grade weapons that are banned for civilian use and ownership. The majority of those weapons are smuggled in from the United States, if they're not stolen from the Police and Military.

CH

Hardly. during a 2 year period. 29,000 guns were seized, 11,000 were sent to the ATF for tracing, and of those, roughly 5500 were shown to have originated on the US market. The remaining are probably made in the US but officially exported for use by the various arms of the Mexican government, arms that later grew feet and vanished...the remaining 18,000 weapons are likely to have originated from Guatemala, or even further south, or from China, North Korea, the Middle East, the former Com Bloc and whatnot.
Also, apparently 150,000 soldiers have deserted in the last 6 years, and many of them took their assault rifles with them...wonder where those went?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Which, coincidentally, is also supposedly covered by the fact that it's also illegal (buying in us to smuggle somewhere else. Again, we need better enforcement.

I like how you say 'Military Grade' when you mean 'Military Style'. There's a pretty big freaking difference. First and foremost is the (often misunderstood) difference between semi and fully automatic modes of fire, and the subtler differences between standard civilian and military grade ammunition.

[Skelly]

Which, coincidentally, is also supposedly covered by the fact that it's also illegal (buying in us to smuggle somewhere else. Again, we need better enforcement.

I like how you say 'Military Grade' when you mean 'Military Style'. There's a pretty big freaking difference. First and foremost is the (often misunderstood) difference between semi and fully automatic modes of fire, and the subtler differences between standard civilian and military grade ammunition.

One does wonder just what kind of guns they seized that originated in the US market? I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be pistols and perhaps scoped bolt action rifles as well, since I don't see them as being weapons easily had from South America...

[Wingates_Hellsing]

One does wonder just what kind of guns they seized that originated in the US market? I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be pistols and perhaps scoped bolt action rifles as well, since I don't see them as being weapons easily had from South America...

Apart from military sidearms and or soviet sidearms, of which there are few compared to issued Armalites and AKs, I'd be comfortable saying that most pistols would either be illegally manufactured within the country or procured from the US illegally.

Hunting rifles are basically useless to those who don't know how to use them effectively. A moron with a 9mm would win the average firefight against a bolt action should the user not take advantage of it's range and accuracy... when's the last time you heard of a gangsta sniper? even the IRA couldn't do it right. They used .50 cals a few times but it did them no good against trained individuals with carbines much less marksman with anything

Even automatic weapons are marginally useful if not detrimental to the untrained shooter. If you know what you're doing, you could probably gun your way through an entire street gang spraying bullets because it doesn't matter a damn how many bullets you shoot, only how many hit. Give me a civvy Armalite (M4 esque) and a RDS any day and you can shove that TEC9 where the sun don't shine! (that rhymed!)

[Vagabond]

M4, and M16 are set to 3 round burst, semi-auto (1 round) and safe. They are not factory 'full auto' anymore. However, if you know what you are doing you can make them full auto. That's not recommended.
The M49 SAW is still 'full auto' however. However you are only supposed to pull the trigger for about 3-5 seconds, because you can melt the barrel.

Oddly enough, the patent for the M16 and thus it's 'child' the M4, are owned by Mattel; yes, the toymaker Mattel. That's usually not in their advertising. And about 1/2 of the M4 is plastic.

[jackfaire]

Oddly enough, the patent for the M16 and thus it's 'child' the M4, are owned by Mattel; yes, the toymaker Mattel. That's usually not in their advertising. And about 1/2 of the M4 is plastic.

*nods* The SAW gunner is supposed to have an assistant who carries a spare barrel to replace the previous one because even doing bursts the barrel will get too hot.

As for Mattel they just want you to focus on the yellow fuzzy stuff on the tennis balls (cookies for reference)