Gun laws do they work

[dan-cat]

Let's have a vote. Hands up, no peeking on google now, who knows what is meant by the term "The Social Contract"?

 

[Frothingslosh]

It would not surprise me to find that more people are killed by handguns, but cold stats are not the whole story. Most gun deaths in this country are targeted hits, ie gang wars, this will almost certainly be by handgun as they are easy to hide and dispose of, does the same apply in the US.

Actually, here are the stats for US homicides by weapon type for 2007 to 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Please note that this is FBI data based on data submitted to their national incident reporting system. Only a bit under 1/3 of all local and state level law enforcement agencies use that system, so the numbers won't match my earlier ones.

Handguns are by far the largest percentage. My guess would be it's for many reasons:

• Cheaper
• More common
• Far easier to steal
• Easier to hide
• Easier to use
• More commonly available ammunition

I would be interested to see how these percentages stack up against the overall firearm ownership stats.

Anyway, assault rifles could be under the 'rifle' heading or the 'other weapon' heading, as many 'assault rifles' are actually carbines. Rifle homicides seem to be approximately 3-5% of the total, whereas pistols are 50% to 70%.

As to most murders, I believe that in the US, spur-of-the-moment murders are still the most common - domestic violence, robberies, fights, things like that. We do have a gang problem, and they do love their drive-bys, but by and large they don't do as many hits as Hollywood would have you believe just because of the insane amounts of heat they bring down.

In fact, HERE is a table breaking down US murders by circumstance from 2007-2011. Going by that, it appears that gang-related killings are running around 0.5% to 0.7% of the total. By far the most common were results of "Argument - Other", meaning arguments that weren't involving money or property.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Let's have a vote. Hands up, no peeking on google now, who knows what is meant by the term "The Social Contract"?

I'm pretty sure THAT can of worms should have its own thread.

 

[Frothingslosh]

As to the quote afforded to Yamamoto if that is what the Japanese thought no wonder they lost the war. Rifles are not much use against tanks and aircraft and guerrilla warfare on the plains is a bit of a no no anyway. The Gestapo took ruthless action when any of them were killed by the resistance but the Wehrmacht was a gentleman's army compared to the Japanese.

Seriously? You read the quote entirely too literally, if that is your summation of it. Yamamoto didn't mean that his tanks would be destroyed by hicks with rifles; he meant that Japan would have had to find a way to occupy one of the largest nations on Earth, with a population that would have had a frighteningly large percentage out trying to take out the invaders.

As the Vietnamese and Afghanis have shown, it's QUITE possible for guerrillas to defeat an army given time, good tactics, and the willingness to sacrifice. There was no way the Japanese could have fielded enough troops to suppress uprisings throughout the US, and enough of the population was/is both armed and belligerent that the butcher's bill would have been more than any nation could stand.

As to why the Japanese lost the war, it's really quite simple. Industrial production, the fact that we had easy sources of fuel and they didn't, and attrition. Even Yamamoto could only guarantee 6 months of free operations after Pearl Harbor, and he was one of the best in the business.

Midway helped a lot, too. Also, note that it was almost precisely 6 months after Pearl Harbor.

 

[Bladerunner]

Let's have a vote. Hands up, no peeking on google now, who knows what is meant by the term "The Social Contract"?

Socialism? at the very least

 

[Frothingslosh]

:banghead:

For the love of God, not everything with the word 'social' in it is about your own personal utter lack of comprehension of what socialism even IS.

That's seriously like thinking 'social media', 'social clubs', and 'being social' are all about Trotskyism (which is what you and your ilk mean when you bring out 'socialism').

 

[Bladerunner]

The last two posts amaze me, for god's sake Froth why do people need assault weapons?

Surely it is reasonable and sensible to not have a free and easy inheritance of weapons, the inheritor should have to apply for a licence for the gun.

Brian

Hi Brian: Hope this finds you well on this Sat. morning.

What in your opinion is an assault weapon.

Buffalo NY police department has begun to confiscate guns that are registered to people who had a permit and have died if the family does not sell the gun to a dealer within 15 days. No compensation ---guess that makes it a theft.

Now you did say something to the effect a ban is not confiscation of weapons?

"Out of my Cold Dead Hands" Charleton Heston

 

[Brianwarnock]

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009), which cites Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians", writing "I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]".

I did not take it seriously , froth, but the gun lovers quoted it twice so I thought that I would reply to it. There are many reasons why wars are won or lost we don't need stupid quotes to twist the arguments. I don't want to start a discussion on wars on this thread but to compare Vietnam and Afghanistan with any western country is missing the point of the type of war that can be fought.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Blade the only thing wrong that the police are doing is perhaps the haste at a difficult time for the family.

I don't recall the statement you are attributing to me.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

I did not take it seriously , froth, but the gun lovers quoted it twice so I thought that I would reply to it. There are many reasons why wars are won or lost we don't need stupid quotes to twist the arguments. I don't want to start a discussion on wars on this thread but to compare Vietnam and Afghanistan with any western country is missing the point of the type of war that can be fought.

Brian

Hey, you're the one who honestly thought the quote meant that the Japanese were afraid rifles would take out tanks and planes:

As to the quote afforded to Yamamoto if that is what the Japanese thought no wonder they lost the war. Rifles are not much use against tanks and aircraft and guerrilla warfare on the plains is a bit of a no no anyway.

So don't accuse me of twisting the argument when I replied very specifically to something you said, just because you went and took it ridiculously literally.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade the only thing wrong that the police are doing is perhaps the haste at a difficult time for the family.

I don't recall the statement you are attributing to me.

Brian

So you agree that guns should be confiscated? Then my rants about what a ban on certain guns means was right and justified. The left will not be satisfied until most all the guns are removed from the political law abiding citizens.

As far as the statement, I thought it was you,, will check it out, in the mean time I withdraw the statement.

 

[ColinEssex]

Charleton Heston

Wrong spelling.

What in your opinion is an assault weapon.

Needs a question mark (not a full stop) as it's a question.

Col

 

[Bladerunner]

Needs a question mark (not a full stop) as it's a question.

Col

??????????????

 

[Brianwarnock]

Hey, you're the one who honestly thought the quote meant that the Japanese were afraid rifles would take out tanks and planes:



So don't accuse me of twisting the argument when I replied very specifically to something you said, just because you went and took it ridiculously literally.

Because I respect your arguments more than others who want freedom to own as many guns of any type I went back and reread the thread.

As I said I only commented on the Yamamoto quote because two of you had quoted it, so I thought that you must believe that the Japanese would not invade America because the people had guns. I now see that you realise that that was not the case, and yes Yamamoto, who had been educated at Harvard knew full well the potential of the US and did indeed guarantee only 6 months of success, this was made certain when the US carriers were fortunate enough to be at sea when Pearl Harbour was hit.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

So you agree that guns should be confiscated? Then my rants about what a ban on certain guns means was right and justified. ...

As usual a quote out of context.

The argument is about inherited weapons , not all guns as this out of context quote implies.
What you are advocating is that a person can will his guns to anybody and that they can inherit them without any checks.

What next, law abiding dad goes and buys guns and distributes them freely to the kids because they are the family's property?

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

As usual a quote out of context.

The argument is about inherited weapons , not all guns as this out of context quote implies.
What you are advocating is that a person can will his guns to anybody and that they can inherit them without any checks.

What next, law abiding dad goes and buys guns and distributes them freely to the kids because they are the family's property?

Brian

What you don't get is the people in Buffalo NY buy a permit to carry. Because the police want to know what they are going to carry, they assign a gun serial number to the permit. Now this permit does not say they cannot own that gun. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own those guns without government intervention. A permit is only allows us to carry it out in public. That my friend is a lot of difference. My father's father handed down his guns and my father handed down his and I will do the same.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Throughout this thread we have talked about a licence to own a gun, now all of a sudden it is about a permit to carry, which I had thought was additional.
If you don't need a licence to own a gun then I do not see how it can be legal for the police to confiscate the guns.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

Throughout this thread we have talked about a licence to own a gun, now all of a sudden it is about a permit to carry, which I had thought was additional.
If you don't need a licence to own a gun then I do not see how it can be legal for the police to confiscate the guns.

Brian

Good point! I haven't got time to go back and check right now to see who mentioned license verses permit , but I will later. I have several guns and I don't need any paper work to own them, but I do need a CWP to carry. Years ago I was a police officer in MA and had a carry permit. However it was not a concealed permit. In fact it was against the law for me to leave it in my truck. When I would go Deer hunting I could leave my rifle in the truck, but I had to wear my side arm wherever I went. Go figure!

 

[Bladerunner]

Throughout this thread we have talked about a licence to own a gun, now all of a sudden it is about a permit to carry, which I had thought was additional.
If you don't need a licence to own a gun then I do not see how it can be legal for the police to confiscate the guns.

Brian

Seems the story just broke on Friday. I think there will be Hell to pay in the near future for the police department up there.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is our license to own a gun. And while we are at it, the 2nd Amendment was not put in there so we could stop an invasion from outside. It was put there to forestall a overbearing government from within. Rem, our forefathers came from your place under a King that was overbearing. It cost him dearly. Of course, your and our people respectively each thought it was good riddance.lol We have seen here in the USA during the past 7-8 years the liberal left and their money bag billionaires have engaged in an effort trying to take over the country via big (a nanny) government. Right now we have still a voice and did exercise that vote a day or two ago. Don't think it turn out like they wanted it to be. You see in a representative society, unless the odds are stacked against us, and how they did try to stack it, sooner or later even some of the hard core liberals and many of the young liberals find out that the constitution is there for them. They also find that without it, what they stand to lose.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Good point! I haven't got time to go back and check right now to see who mentioned license verses permit , but I will later. I have several guns and I don't need any paper work to own them, but I do need a CWP to carry. Years ago I was a police officer in MA and had a carry permit. However it was not a concealed permit. In fact it was against the law for me to leave it in my truck. When I would go Deer hunting I could leave my rifle in the truck, but I had to wear my side arm wherever I went. Go figure!

Did you have to use you weapon as a policeman much - either shooting - or drawing to threaten to shoot. Did you get shot at / threatened with a gun.

Just interested - it doesn't really happen here - mainly specialist squads and even for them I imagine actually shooting is fairly uncommon.