NRA Weasel Watch

Yes but those strong legal statutes and our history of using guns, hasn't seem to curtail gun violence in the U.S. too much.

 

I will never understand why the NRA is against sensible gun control laws?

It is just common sense that if it were harder to get a gun, less people would be hurt by a person weilding a gun.

What is wrong with a simple waiting period and background check?

Truthfully, I would be thrilled to have guns outlawed, but that is just not going to happen, and not realistic..so.....

DD

 

Really? So you explain the incredible US violent gun related crime rate how, exactly?

I live in Toronto...a city of about 6 million. The only real difference between here and the U.S. in terms of crime/laws is the gun laws, and the difference in crimes/violent crimes is absurd. When I lived in NY or Florida it was an entirely different sense of danger, and it was all about the prevelent presence of guns.

And that standard line about " If you make guns illegal, only the criminals have them." etc. just doesn't wash...the criminals have them here , too. Just because it's illegal, it's harder...result? Way fewer crimes/violent crimes/gun related crimes to any US city this size, or even many considerably smaller.

If Americans "know how to use guns " as you claim, how do you explain either the amazingly high rate of gun related crimes, or the difference in that rate in places which don't have them, but otherwise are at least as permissive, legally? ( For ex., pot was just decriminalized here).

 

I just find it strange that in this country one can have a massive, freaky gun collection, but not a joint.

 

MacBeth,

In his "documentary", Bowling For Columbine, didn't Moore say that Canada actually had more guns per capita than the US?

 

Umm, yeah, guns bad, cause problems, er wait, JAG, did you just say Pot was decriminalized in Toronto??? Does it cure SARS or something?

 

Nothing. We already have ATF form 4473 (which I am wholesomely familiar with)...It is a simple waiting period that thanks to modern technology allows the Bureau to check an applicant's background given specific information in a matter of time from seconds to days...or even denied.

 

Just to add a little context here - Saddam handed out tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of AK-type weapons to the populace, primarily in and around Baghdad, in the weeks leading up to the war. Prior to that the regime there was quite serious about restricting personal gun ownership, as all dictatorial regimes are. See Hitler for precedent.

Point being that the vast majority of Iraqis outside the military, security services, and senior Baath party leadership did not own firearms until a couple of months ago. They don't know what to do with them, at least they don't know anything constructive to do with them. That is why we are confiscating them whenever we can.

As for US gun laws - there are plenty. If you want to limit gun violence (and ownership), just enforce the ones already on the books. There are quite a few people in this country who should not have firearms. Enforce the laws and alot of them wouldn't.

AKs are fun, BTW, but nothing beats an M4A1.

 

Yeah, the NRA always says this; Does anbody know if this actually a legit problem? Do federal gun laws not get enforced very well? I really have no idea one way or the other.

 

For the record, I am a gun owner who happens to think that the NRA is too much of a political organization to consider joining it. If they would simply stick to gun ownership policy, then I might reconsider, but as it is they have become a catch-all for right wing nuts...

But they do have a point. Most gun laws are not enforced, or they are only enforced at the point of contact, meaning they are only enforced when someone who should not have one is caught with one. The ATF, as far as I know, is not doing its job; they are not actively looking for "rogue" gun owners. They just happen to stumble along some every once in a while.

If the question in your mind is whether or not any civilian should be able to own firearms, then you are probably too leftist to consider the issue. If the question is not whether any civilians should own them, but who should be able to own them, then that is up for debate. I think we all agree that criminals should not be able to own them; the laws on the books right now forbid that, they are just not enforced well at all.

The laws are not uniform, though, and do not always make sense. For example, here in Colorado I cannot buy the XD-40 Tactical (.40 cal pistol) that I've been salivating over until I get a Colorado ID, but I can buy any assault rifle I see. I carry an assault rifle and grenade launcher to work, so this is kind of ridiculous... Issues like this are up for debate.

 

No doubt...Especially if you at least add the skeleton stock by Bushmaster, Wilson combat muzzle break, and Holosight by ATN...

btw, wouldn't you rather have your XD tactical in .357 sig instead of .40 ? I heard the former has pretty good stopping power (but so does the .40...)

 

I have found a .40 to be a weak compromise between a 9mm and a .45--a .357 mag is an artillery round!

 

http://www.digitalweapons.com/joseph/inan/burrito.html

This site showed to me the merits of the .357 sig cartridge!!!...I am sold!

 

ROXRAN:

A couple of things -

1) I don't think that Springfield makes a 5" version of the .357 (I've never seen one). I prefer the added accuracy of the 5"; the .40 is supposed to be one of the most accurate pistols on the market, while I have heard that the .357 XD is somewhat lacking in that department.

2) Sure the .357 has great stopping power, but unless your target is hopped up on a meth-PCP cocktail, a .40 ought to be enough. Also, I factor in the accuracy in that equation; with a more accurate weapon I'm more likely to get a head shot or a good center-mass shot (a kill shot) with the first round. With a less accurate but more powerful .357, I'm more likely to just blow the dude's arm off...

That said, a .357 cal would surely be fun. Great for home defense where ranges are pretty much point blank and accuracy isn't much of an issue. Rounds are expensive, though.

 

Woops, I totally forgot I had posted in this thread, SM, so I apologize for not responding earlier.

I can't speak as to that statistic, but I can speak to the laws, and they might serve to explain that stat if, as i don't doubt it might be, is accurate.

In Canada hunting rifles are allowed, but are restricted for that purpose, and have to be locked up ( I think ) anywhere within a certain distance of town limits or children...As Canada is much less urbanized than the US, a great many of thos in this country hunt, so I wouldn't be surprised if many own hunting rifles. But sidearms, automatic weapons, etc. are absolute no goes. In the city the criminal element might posses some, but other than that they are so rare that one of my students asked me recently about the law on owning a sidearm if it's firing pin has been removed, as his grandfather had a souvenire from WWI, and he was concerned about the legal repercussions of it being in his grandfather's home.

 

I could kill just as many people with a hunting rifle as I could with a pistol or an AR-15. More so with a good scope.

 

While that is possible, it doesn't happen in Canada with the frequency it does in the U.S.

But of course most gun violence isn't random. It happens between people who knew each other or had an argument. More likely, than not you won't have a hunting rifle with you while arguing with someone at a slurpee machine in the 7-11. A pistol can be carried easily many places and is easy to pull out and use in public.

If your only object was to kill as many people as possible, then it wouldn't matter. But most people involved murder aren't simply trying to just kill as many random people as possible.