PDA

View Full Version : Murder Statistics by Weapon


AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 11:43 AM
FBI Crime Sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls)

According to the FBI, almost twice as many people are punched, kicked or otherwise beat with fists or feet to death that people killed with rifles. Same goes for shotguns.

So why isn't Sen. Yee trying to outlaw having hands and feet trying to do away with our bullet buttons? Knives kill 4.76 times more people than rifles, c'mon guys BAN CUTLERY!!!

My point is, if someone wants to kill they will find a way. It just so happens that they find it easier to use a gun. Outlawing guns will just make the knife, baseball bat, lead pipe, 2x4 murder rates skyrocket. Then what? Do we ban baseball, hockey, lacrosse, plumbing and houses/other buildings/materials?

Useless thread but I needed to vent. Feel free to flame or delete at your discretion.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 11:44 AM
Oh and murder rates are declining. Not just for handguns and what not but overall.

XD40SUBBIE
07-17-2012, 11:47 AM
Don't give Yee any ideas, next he will ban MMA...

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 11:49 AM
I don't watch it. I'd rather him go after MMA than my guns.

DVSmith
07-17-2012, 11:53 AM
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm/

Accidental deaths in 2009 were 118,021 where all firearm homicides were only 9,199
Suicides in 2009 were 36,909

Wiz-of-Awd
07-17-2012, 12:01 PM
Good post, and not to change directions or take away from anything, but I'm all for banning of hockey!

:D

A.W.D.

Yugo
07-17-2012, 12:06 PM
some one needs to email the dumby bunch with this info....clearly shows gun crimes have gone straight down.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 12:07 PM
Woah now, getting a bit carried away there! I am an avid Sharks fan. And by "avid" I mean I bleed teal. And by "I bleed teal" I mean that if you cut me in my Sharks tattoo the blood might be teal. Yes, I love my Sharks that much.

Johnnyfres
07-17-2012, 12:10 PM
So lets compare that to firearms purchased over the years and what will you see?

BlindRacer
07-17-2012, 12:12 PM
You know, I kinda think that most people avoid using a gun for murder, because it's so loud and attracts too much attention. I'm sure strangling, poisoning, stabbing are much more common (just a guess), because of their stealthiness.

Just another reason guns are good in self defense, because it DOES attract attention, and when someone is threatening your life, even a missed shot can make the person flee for fear of being caught, if not for fear of being killed.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
07-17-2012, 12:15 PM
So TWICE as many people each year are murdered by someone with a knife compared to ALL shotguns and rifled combined.


Hmmm.......

Cali-Shooter
07-17-2012, 12:17 PM
The SOB politicians have deaf ears for these facts, no matter how much evidence is thrown at them. They need to be forced to comply to leave our rights alone.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 12:22 PM
F*ckin' McDonalds and all those other processed crap "eateries" along with soda makers kill more people due to diabetes.
Cigarettes and tobacco kill more than guns via cancer.
Drunk drivers kill more than guns.

NY mayor/governor/who ever it was, tried to ban (or something) soda and that didn't fly at all. I know the Milpitas Unified School District stopped selling soda in the vending machines on school campuses a couple of years ago.

My point is that people are free to eat and drink and smoke what they want (except Marijuana w/o a valid card) and all three of those combined vastly outweigh the deaths attributed to firearms of all shapes and sizes. Why can't the politicians focus on something more useful. Try some sort of campaign to get kids to eat better and exercise. The obesity level in this country is staggering. Less worrying about guns more worrying about things that actually matter.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 12:27 PM
THE FLU!!! More people die each year from the FLU than are killed by firearms. Take the money you're wasting with SB249 and use it toward buying more flu vaccines. For f*cks sake people, you are all useless!!! What happened to a sense of duty? Where's JFK when you need him? "Ask not what this country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

edit: I just realized this has turned into a rant thread and that I'm in one of those moods today. Oh well, it is what it is.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 12:33 PM
So lets compare that to firearms purchased over the years and what will you see?

My guess would be an inverse ratio where as the years progress there are more firearms owned and less firearms related homicides.

bernieb90
07-17-2012, 12:39 PM
The Brady loons were yelling, and screaming how Heller was going to result in an increase in murders in D.C. (yeah like that was possible). Now they are looking at murder rates that haven't been this low since the 1960s as is much of the country. That group is becoming more irrelevant by the minute.

Many states in the country are adopting less restrictice gun laws with allowing suppressors for hunting, constistutional carry, etc. California is going the opposite way because there hasn't been a major turnover in the state legislature in years.

Clearly California as a whole is a right leaning state as can be seen by the gay marriage, and pot legalization issues (I personally am fine with both). However the legislature has not reperesented the people for a long time now, and this is what we get.

Johnnyfres
07-17-2012, 12:53 PM
My guess would be an inverse ratio where as the years progress there are more firearms owned and less firearms related homicides.

My point exactly.

Johnnyfres
07-17-2012, 12:54 PM
I would also like to know how many of those firearms used were actually registered to law abiding citizens.

Moto
07-17-2012, 12:55 PM
I don't watch it. I'd rather him go after MMA than my guns.

well the stupid liberals might not have guns so should they go after your rights for that? Of course not.

Come on dude, don't negate your original stance with dumb comments.

carry on.

Bruceisontarget
07-17-2012, 12:57 PM
Let's get real here for a moment. The reason they want to take your firearms is that your possessing them is a limit on their power. Twisting crime statistics in their favor, by stoking fear among the unarmed, is a method to achieving that goal.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 12:58 PM
The Brady loons were yelling, and screaming how Heller was going to result in an increase in murders in D.C. (yeah like that was possible). Now they are looking at murder rates that haven't been this low since the 1960s as is much of the country. That group is becoming more irrelevant by the minute.

I'm sure they won't acknowledge that fact and will make up some other bull***** about how there were more police hired that year or some thing along those lines. Getting them to see the truth would be about as useful as attempting to convert Afghanistan to anything but Islam.

Just as in Afghanistan (in my opinion), ignorance is our true enemy. Not a specific person or a group but ignorance itself.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 1:09 PM
well the stupid liberals might not have guns so should they go after your rights for that? Of course not.

Come on dude, don't negate your original stance with dumb comments.

carry on.

It was a dumb statement. However you are comparing MMA to our unalienable 2nd Amendment right. Apples to purple. (I only made that statement because "apples to purple" had me laughing at myself)

Let's get real here for a moment. The reason they want to take your firearms is that your possessing them is a limit on their power. Twisting crime statistics in their favor, by stoking fear among the unarmed, is a method to achieving that goal.

It's sad that they have to use propaganda and ignorance to try to force the population into Socialism/Communism/Tyranny. To quote a great man from a great movie: "Y'know the Nazi's had propaganda they used against the Jews."
(changed slightly to work in this circumstance.)

Yemff
07-17-2012, 1:46 PM
because people like Yee don't base things on facts, only fear

Capybara
07-17-2012, 1:50 PM
Take a 30 year view of gun control in California. The problem is that you are trying to apply logic and statistics to people who care about one thing, control. As others have pointed out, you could show the anti politicians statistics, studies and proof that guns solve every problem in society and they still would not care or listen.

California's gun laws aren't about guns, they are about controlling and disarming a populace so that the powers that be can do whatever they would like without fear of uprising or retribution. It's been proven over and over throughout history but we like to think that we are so enlightened and modern that history doesn't apply to our present situation.

I wonder if German Jews were using the same logic during the build up to the Kristallnacht? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht The Jews, being an educated and logical people, were probably speaking the same things amongst themselves, "we are law-abiding, productive members of society, why would the Socialists have a problem with us or what we do?"

Yemff
07-17-2012, 1:51 PM
I would also like to know how many of those firearms used were actually registered to law abiding citizens.

I'd like to see this as well. But as long as people just keep hiding their guns under their beds, crimes committed with stolen guns isn't going to go down. I would also be interested in the numbers of crimes stopped by legal gun use.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 1:52 PM
Take a 30 year view of gun control in California. The problem is that you are trying to apply logic and statistics to people who care about one thing, control. As others have pointed out, you could show the anti politicians statistics, studies and proof that guns solve every problem in society and they still would not care or listen.

California's gun laws aren't about guns, they are about controlling and disarming a populace so that the powers that be can do whatever they would like without fear of uprising or retribution. It's been proven over and over throughout history but we like to think that we are so enlightened and modern that history doesn't apply to our present situation.

I wonder if German Jews were using the same logic during the build up to the Kristallnacht? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht The Jews, being an educated and logical people, were probably speaking the same things amongst themselves, "we are law-abiding, productive members of society, why would the Socialists have a problem with us or what we do?"

Yee, Feinstein, et al are Nazis :D

Yemff
07-17-2012, 2:03 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl07.xls

One interesting thing is if you look at all these numbers there are only 2 types of crimes that have gone up, Burglary of a Residence and Shoplifting, hmmmm. Wouldn't this be a pretty good indicator we need more rights to self defense and defense of property?

emcon5
07-17-2012, 3:32 PM
Don't forget the CA DOJ's annual report:

"Firearms used in the Commission of Crimes"

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf?

Here is a nice quote, released by the Right Honorable Kamala Harris

"California Assault Weapon use has continued at a relatively low level since this information was first reported in 1999."

TwinStick
07-17-2012, 3:52 PM
I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate, but this logic only works for Rifles and Shotguns. Unfortunately it seems that handguns are the choice of weapon for murderers since they are used in almost half of all homicides year over year. We have to realize that the gun-grabbers look at firearms as a whole and that no matter how pointed or direct any individual bill may seem (banning firearms by name, mag release tools, conversion kits (whatever that means), etc, etc) they feel like a win is a win.

We should be focused on the idea that violent crimes involving any firearm have decreased every year. Across the whole of the USA. No matter the state or their respective gun laws. But that's just my $.02

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 4:02 PM
I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate, but this logic only works for Rifles and Shotguns. Unfortunately it seems that handguns are the choice of weapon for murderers since they are used in almost half of all homicides year over year. We have to realize that the gun-grabbers look at firearms as a whole and that no matter how pointed or direct any individual bill may seem (banning firearms by name, mag release tools, conversion kits (whatever that means), etc, etc) they feel like a win is a win.

We should be focused on the idea that violent crimes involving any firearm have decreased every year. Across the whole of the USA. No matter the state or their respective gun laws. But that's just my $.02

Because they are easy to conceal and easy to smuggle illegal firearms into the hands of felons. That and there are plenty of them. I wonder what the production numbers are of pistols compared to shotguns or other long guns.

five.five-six
07-17-2012, 4:06 PM
How are automobiles not on the list? I always thought that when someone was killed in a DUI it was a homicide :confused:

em9sredbeam
07-17-2012, 4:09 PM
I think just about all of us have vented or ranted to people about this. Carry on.

Fate
07-17-2012, 4:13 PM
California's gun laws aren't about guns, they are about controlling and disarming a populace so that the powers that be can do whatever they would like without fear of uprising or retribution. It's been proven over and over throughout history but we like to think that we are so enlightened and modern that history doesn't apply to our present situation.

Yep. Who is more vulnerable? A politician with his security detail versus an assailant armed with a knife or a rifle?

"Public safety" is code for politician safety.

Librarian
07-17-2012, 5:26 PM
Don't forget the CA DOJ's annual report:

"Firearms used in the Commission of Crimes"

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf?

Except, IMO, the report isn't worth the photons needed to display the pages.

The report is based on very little information; there is no reporting requirement imposed on LEA, and no money to encourage it.

Kamala's comment is probably still true, since so-called 'assault weapons' never were a big crime problem - in 1988-9 for the consideration of the California law or in 1992-3 for the consideration of the Federal law.

joe_gman
07-17-2012, 5:57 PM
Take a 30 year view of gun control in California. The problem is that you are trying to apply logic and statistics to people who care about one thing, control. As others have pointed out, you could show the anti politicians statistics, studies and proof that guns solve every problem in society and they still would not care or listen.

California's gun laws aren't about guns, they are about controlling and disarming a populace so that the powers that be can do whatever they would like without fear of uprising or retribution. It's been proven over and over throughout history but we like to think that we are so enlightened and modern that history doesn't apply to our present situation.

I wonder if German Jews were using the same logic during the build up to the Kristallnacht? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht The Jews, being an educated and logical people, were probably speaking the same things amongst themselves, "we are law-abiding, productive members of society, why would the Socialists have a problem with us or what we do?"

Not to detract from your viewpoint, but I feel that those in power in California are not trying to disarm citizens because they fear an armed rebellion, but because disarming citizens helps get them re-elected by a population that fears overstated gun violence. All of us on this board know that firearms are a minor contribution factor to deaths in the US. But every time a mass shooting takes place like Columbine, a vocal section of the population screams that something should have been done to prevent something like this from happening. The media screens hours of endless banter and imagery about the incidents questioning why incidents such as Columbine happen and what will the government do about it. The Brady Bill came after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan because the public demanded it and the government responded to the demands. Basically, if a government official want to stay in office, they must appease the demands of the majority of voters. In California, the majority of voters want gun restrictions. It doesn't matter if we on Calguns agree with gun control or not, because we are not in the majority in CA.

As per the "socialist" comment regarding the Nazis and Jews.:facepalm:
The Nazis were a NATIONALIST/ FASCIST movement. They didn't believe in Socialism and despised Communism. Prior to Kristallnacht, most Jews were trying to flee Germany and Austria because of sanctioned anti-semitism that was rampant during this time period. The Nazi party portrayed the Jews as prospering at the expense of the "German" citizens during a time of a great economic depression. Nazis saw themselves (White Christian/ Catholics) as the master race and invaded neighboring countries to liberate them from the "corrupt" claws of the Jews and other undesirables. It was a power grab by those in the Nazi party to achieve vast wealth at the expense of everyone else.

curtisfong
07-17-2012, 9:55 PM
As per the "socialist" comment regarding the Nazis and Jews.:facepalm:
The Nazis were a NATIONALIST/ FASCIST movement. They didn't believe in Socialism and despised Communism.

This is the new hot talking point from neo-cons who are mad they were called Nazis by liberals.

Unfortunately, this meme has also been snapped up by the Tea Party, who trot it out now and again because equating everything "evil" to socialism (or communism, which is, of course the same thing lol) is a winning strategy.

Carnivore
07-18-2012, 2:01 AM
How are automobiles not on the list? I always thought that when someone was killed in a DUI it was a homicide :confused:

It is death by weapon, they don't concider DUI a weapon.

five.five-six
07-18-2012, 2:34 AM
It is death by weapon, they don't concider DUI a weapon.

No, but the car is. did they remove all statistics involving guns when the perp was inebriated :confused:

ElvenSoul
07-18-2012, 3:06 AM
No Sporks?

gary384
07-18-2012, 6:04 AM
FBI Crime Sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls)

According to the FBI, almost twice as many people are punched, kicked or otherwise beat with fists or feet to death that people killed with rifles. Same goes for shotguns.

So why isn't Sen. Yee trying to outlaw having hands and feet trying to do away with our bullet buttons? Knives kill 4.76 times more people than rifles, c'mon guys BAN CUTLERY!!!

My point is, if someone wants to kill they will find a way. It just so happens that they find it easier to use a gun. Outlawing guns will just make the knife, baseball bat, lead pipe, 2x4 murder rates skyrocket. Then what? Do we ban baseball, hockey, lacrosse, plumbing and houses/other buildings/materials?

Useless thread but I needed to vent. Feel free to flame or delete at your discretion.

I'd rather my next door neighbors get into a fight and punch/stab each other than start letting loose rounds in the house potentially killing some innocent bystander ie my family/drivers in the street/other neighbors.

The gun laws are fine as they are in my opinion- infact I'd say they're pretty slack!! Far too many uneducated and untrained people have easy access to weapons.

My wife got a rifle in SoCal after doing the so-called multi-choice "test" and she passed no problem despite having literally NO CLUE about firearms...if I wasn't there to teach her- she would have been just another idiot with a dangerous weapon...I wouldn't let her try and use a chain-saw without making sure she was confident with it...so definitely not something that can harm the wrong people accidentally- including herself.

Just my 2 cents worth lol

DarkSoul
07-18-2012, 6:49 AM
The gun laws are most definitely NOT just fine, they are entirely too restrictive for the dumbest crap. I can have a 10 round mag but not a 20 or 30, I can have a barrel this long but not any longer, they are stupid and arbitrary laws made up by ignorant people that have no clue what they are talking about, with no idea that most of these "laws" have no hope of doing anything much less stopping or reducing crime.

I agree that training and education is an extremely important factor, and I would be all for a set of laws that required more intensive training, as long as we could have whatever kind of firearms we want (short of you know, RPGS and cannons and such), it always comes back to........... People kill people, not inanimate objects. If you are a criminal, then by definition, you DO NOT listen or obey laws. I (and I imagine pretty much everyone on this board, are law abiding citizens, and there is no reason why we should have our rights trampled or neutered because of something someone else MIGHT do.

EM2
07-18-2012, 6:52 AM
I'd rather my next door neighbors get into a fight and punch/stab each other than start letting loose rounds in the house potentially killing some innocent bystander ie my family/drivers in the street/other neighbors.

The gun laws are fine as they are in my opinion- infact I'd say they're pretty slack!! Far too many uneducated and untrained people have easy access to weapons.
My wife got a rifle in SoCal after doing the so-called multi-choice "test" and she passed no problem despite having literally NO CLUE about firearms...if I wasn't there to teach her- she would have been just another idiot with a dangerous weapon...I wouldn't let her try and use a chain-saw without making sure she was confident with it...so definitely not something that can harm the wrong people accidentally- including herself.

Just my 2 cents worth lol



Whoa there, I was gonna post something else till I saw this one.

You understand that we have a RIGHT to own firearms?
A right is NOT dependant upon an individual’s intelligence or training.

If this were the case your post may have been banned. “in my opinion”



Just my 2 cents worth lol

Annnd we got what we paid for.:rolleyes:

EM2
07-18-2012, 6:56 AM
FBI Crime Sheet (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls)

According to the FBI, almost twice as many people are punched, kicked or otherwise beat with fists or feet to death that people killed with rifles. Same goes for shotguns.

So why isn't Sen. Yee trying to outlaw having hands and feet trying to do away with our bullet buttons? Knives kill 4.76 times more people than rifles, c'mon guys BAN CUTLERY!!!

My point is, if someone wants to kill they will find a way. It just so happens that they find it easier to use a gun. Outlawing guns will just make the knife, baseball bat, lead pipe, 2x4 murder rates skyrocket. Then what? Do we ban baseball, hockey, lacrosse, plumbing and houses/other buildings/materials?
Useless thread but I needed to vent. Feel free to flame or delete at your discretion.



Yup
This has already happened in the UK.
They were even entertaining the idea of banning the glass pint.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8217775.stm
Plans to replace the traditional pint glass with one made of shatter-proof plastic will not be accepted by drinkers, the pub industry has warned.

The Home Office has commissioned a new design, in an attempt to stop glasses being used as weapons.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-18-2012, 7:10 AM
Yup
This has already happened in the UK.
They were even entertaining the idea of banning the glass pint.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8217775.stm


http://rmadere.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet.png

gary384
07-18-2012, 7:10 AM
Whoa there, I was gonna post something else till I saw this one.

You understand that we have a RIGHT to own firearms?
A right is NOT dependant upon an individual’s intelligence or training.

If this were the case your post may have been banned. “in my opinion”


Annnd we got what we paid for.:rolleyes:

Yes I am aware it is a RIGHT- however you surely agree people often abuse rights? Find loopholes in them?

Texting while driving used to be legal- doesnt mean it was a good idea and everyone should do it? It's legal for people to obtain weapons quite easily
and operate them- again doesn't mean they should.....but they do...

Freedom of speech- its LEGAL for war protesters to turn up to dead soldiers funerals and let their voices be heard....but Im sure majority of the nation doesn't agree with that either.....

As for only being allowed to use a 10 rnd mag instead of 20 and 30....just what are you planning on doing that requires 20 or 30 rounds? Is it so hard to top up a fresh mag....

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-18-2012, 7:18 AM
Freedom of speech- its LEGAL for war protesters to turn up to dead soldiers funerals and let their voices be heard....but Im sure majority of the nation doesn't agree with that either.....

I have stood in uniform and blocked that group from attending the funeral (actually ramp ceremony that then led to a Veterans Memorial Cemetery) of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan that was in my unit. I was on duty as an MP and was armed. They thought we were violating their right when in fact they had no permission to enter the military installation we were on. Ignorant pieces of crap. They spit on us and called us all sorts of names but we won because they couldn't interfere and our fallen comrade was laid to rest peacefully.

DarkSoul
07-18-2012, 9:35 AM
Yes I am aware it is a RIGHT- however you surely agree people often abuse rights? Find loopholes in them?

So by that argument, all cars could be banned, because I MIGHT drink, and drive...... maybe, I should not be allowed knives in my kitchen because I MIGHT decide to stab the neighbors dog, I shouldn't have access to fertilizer for the garden because I MIGHT decide to grow weed, and so on and so on. That is quite possibly the lamest argument I have ever heard, and is the type of argument that if anyone actually listens to, will turn this into a police state.

Texting while driving used to be legal- doesnt mean it was a good idea and everyone should do it? It's legal for people to obtain weapons quite easily
and operate them- again doesn't mean they should.....but they do...

To start, driving is not a constitutional right, driving is a privilege granted to people by the state to individuals of a certain age that learn to drive, and follow/obey the rules of the road and so on, this being the case, the state (DMV) can change those rules at any time for any reason, as long as they dont infringe on your CONSTITUTIONAL rights, i.e. discriminate because of race, religion, etc.

Freedom of speech- its LEGAL for war protesters to turn up to dead soldiers funerals and let their voices be heard....but Im sure majority of the nation doesn't agree with that either.....

Most people I am sure would agree that these people that are protesting the funerals, are in fact d-bags, and would rather they are not allowed, but again, 1st Amendment, so, whether we like it or not, they can do it, and the rest of us can show up and exercise OUR 1st Amendment rights to yell over them, or protest them, or block them from view via a human wall etc, see how that works?

As for only being allowed to use a 10 rnd mag instead of 20 and 30....just what are you planning on doing that requires 20 or 30 rounds? Is it so hard to top up a fresh mag....

Well exactly, whats so hard about topping off vs. a 30 rnd mag...... so really, what the difference except,..... maybe I compete in 3 gun comps where I may save 2-3 seconds per mag change by just running a 30 rnd, and that 2-3 seconds may be the difference between winning and losing, maybe Im just lazy and would rather run 30 rounders or 100 round drums instead of changing all the time, maybe because I WANT TO, and its a stupid rule that does not reduce crime, it does not prevent violence, it does NOTHING. As I said before, its an arbitrary law written by people that have no clue what they are talking about.


If you want to argue that, well, if you have no access to 30 rnd mags in CA then you would be less inclined to shoot up a bank, or a McDonalds, or a Mosque, or whatever.....

--THEORETICAL EXAMPLE, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY--

...well guess what, If I were deranged, and I intended to commit one of these heinous crimes, do you really think I am going to go, well crap, I was gonna shoot up a McDonalds today, but darnit, the state of CA says I can only use 10 rnd mags, so.... well, never mind?? ....no, Im a criminal, I dont care what the law says, I am planning to shoot up some store or whatever, you really think I am worried about 10 vs 30 rnd mags?

Your arguments are terrible and grossly misinformed. :confused:

gary384
07-18-2012, 10:54 AM
So by that argument, all cars could be banned, because I MIGHT drink, and drive...... maybe, I should not be allowed knives in my kitchen because I MIGHT decide to stab the neighbors dog, I shouldn't have access to fertilizer for the garden because I MIGHT decide to grow weed, and so on and so on. That is quite possibly the lamest argument I have ever heard, and is the type of argument that if anyone actually listens to, will turn this into a police state.



To start, driving is not a constitutional right, driving is a privilege granted to people by the state to individuals of a certain age that learn to drive, and follow/obey the rules of the road and so on, this being the case, the state (DMV) can change those rules at any time for any reason, as long as they dont infringe on your CONSTITUTIONAL rights, i.e. discriminate because of race, religion, etc.



Most people I am sure would agree that these people that are protesting the funerals, are in fact d-bags, and would rather they are not allowed, but again, 1st Amendment, so, whether we like it or not, they can do it, and the rest of us can show up and exercise OUR 1st Amendment rights to yell over them, or protest them, or block them from view via a human wall etc, see how that works?



Well exactly, whats so hard about topping off vs. a 30 rnd mag...... so really, what the difference except,..... maybe I compete in 3 gun comps where I may save 2-3 seconds per mag change by just running a 30 rnd, and that 2-3 seconds may be the difference between winning and losing, maybe Im just lazy and would rather run 30 rounders or 100 round drums instead of changing all the time, maybe because I WANT TO, and its a stupid rule that does not reduce crime, it does not prevent violence, it does NOTHING. As I said before, its an arbitrary law written by people that have no clue what they are talking about.


If you want to argue that, well, if you have no access to 30 rnd mags in CA then you would be less inclined to shoot up a bank, or a McDonalds, or a Mosque, or whatever.....

--THEORETICAL EXAMPLE, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY--

...well guess what, If I were deranged, and I intended to commit one of these heinous crimes, do you really think I am going to go, well crap, I was gonna shoot up a McDonalds today, but darnit, the state of CA says I can only use 10 rnd mags, so.... well, never mind?? ....no, Im a criminal, I dont care what the law says, I am planning to shoot up some store or whatever, you really think I am worried about 10 vs 30 rnd mags?

Your arguments are terrible and grossly misinformed. :confused:


Don't you get driving tests?....you dont exactly get an in-depth weapon handling course? Would you argue the age of people who drives or is that ok in your eyes?

Ref funerals and protesters and "seeing how it works"--you say youre response is to exercise your right to shout back at them....how does this not seem totally backwards to you? Theyre doing something grossly wrong and you are proud of your right to shout back- 2 groups of people shouting back at a funeral is acceptable to you?

Argument about knives? I cant slip and knife 4 people next door by accident...but if I had a 30 round mag, automatic lever I could spray half the street up? Where is your confusion in this? Laws dont stop crime- but they CAN help to prevent it....? Do you see how this works?

If police feel safer not selling level 4 body armor and fully automatic weapons to the general in public JUST INCASE...then I don't see how it can be a bad thing...you can enjoy your shooting competitions fine and adapt- but it only takes one mistake from the wrong person with the right type of weapon.

My posts arent an attack on anyone in particular...Im just saying I can definitely see how some laws and ALOT more legally required training would be alot better to see- if the government implemented stricter training and weapon education then I think it would be fine to alter the laws regarding what weapon you can own....I don't think a shooting competition is important enough to risk some ******* with a machine gun drunk and brassing up the street one random afternoon....

pbchief2
07-18-2012, 11:50 AM
I'd rather my next door neighbors get into a fight and punch/stab each other than start letting loose rounds in the house potentially killing some innocent bystander ie my family/drivers in the street/other neighbors.

The gun laws are fine as they are in my opinion- infact I'd say they're pretty slack!! Far too many uneducated and untrained people have easy access to weapons.

My wife got a rifle in SoCal after doing the so-called multi-choice "test" and she passed no problem despite having literally NO CLUE about firearms...if I wasn't there to teach her- she would have been just another idiot with a dangerous weapon...I wouldn't let her try and use a chain-saw without making sure she was confident with it...so definitely not something that can harm the wrong people accidentally- including herself.

Just my 2 cents worth lol

I just want to know whether or not you are trolling this forum. I have never known that you have to take a multiple choice test in CA to get a rifle/shotgun. Please elaborate on what this test consisted of.

As far as training for firearm use, personal responsibility plays a big part in a free society. The fact that we have the ability to regulate so many activities by a codified law does not make it the prudent thing to do.

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 11:53 AM
Officer: "are you carrying any weapons?"
You: "yes, I have hands and feet!"

You know since the FBI considers them a weapon:
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

It's a good thing we have 2A in this country, we'd all be quadruple amputees from birth otherwise! :eek:

On another note, looking at worldwide homicide rates for 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I don't see what all the hub bub is about.

We're not bad at 4.8 murders per 100,000

I find it amusing that 9 out of the top 10 most murderous countries are from latin america or the caribbean. And all of them over 30 per 100K! If it wasn't for South Africa beating out the Dominican Republic the the top 10 would be all latin america/caribbean countries. Dominican Republic still has 31 per 100K though so it's all good. Represent!

jwkincal
07-18-2012, 12:19 PM
I just want to know whether or not you are trolling this forum. I have never known that you have to take a multiple choice test in CA to get a rifle/shotgun. Please elaborate on what this test consisted of.

+1

This is correct. The newcomer has either misspoken or has just been exposed as a fraud.

Which is it?

hammerhead_77
07-18-2012, 12:29 PM
Woah now, getting a bit carried away there! I am an avid Sharks fan. And by "avid" I mean I bleed teal. And by "I bleed teal" I mean that if you cut me in my Sharks tattoo the blood might be teal. Yes, I love my Sharks that much.

thanks, bro. Glad you cleared that one up...it was starting to sound a little bit "new Army". I thought hockey did a pretty fine job of banning itself a year or so ago...

Now, a registration and waiting period to buy a 20oz framing hammer...that will save lives/children/kittens/seals/[insert pathetic bleeding heart object here].

EM2
07-18-2012, 12:33 PM
I just want to know whether or not you are trolling this forum. I have never known that you have to take a multiple choice test in CA to get a rifle/shotgun. Please elaborate on what this test consisted of.


Man can you spot em or what?

I tend to get sucked in but I am learning.

I still tend to be surpriced that someone could join a FIREARM FORUM and hold beliefs such as that.

Vacaville
07-18-2012, 12:37 PM
Ban the
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-13-files_troll_2.jpg

jwkincal
07-18-2012, 12:37 PM
Back on topic... in the US, more people die from AIDS each year than are murdered by any kind of firearm.

Statistically speaking, even if you have a LTC and use an IWB holster... the most dangerous thing in your pants is your genitalia.

gary384
07-18-2012, 12:39 PM
Trolling? What are you talking about??
My points are completely valid and I wasn't talking about defence of "freedom from tyranny" or shooting competitions- I was talking about on a day-to-day basis in everyday life.

If a man takes hostages and a team has to go in to clear the room- would the police/military/feds be better up against a 10 round single-shot rifle/pistol or a 30 round fully auto weapon??? The whole point I'm trying to make is if there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?

We get plastic cutlery on many airlines- I'm not saying this stops any type of incident happening on a plane but it MIGHT prevent just ONE incident somehow.

As for the multi choice thing for a rifle I made an error I meant pistol, but the argument remains:
1-Wife walks into gunstore
2- Takes multi-choice test
3- Buys pistol
4- 10 day clearance
5- hey presto- a person with no idea about firearms whatsoever now has one to use or misuse as they like

decepticon6551
07-18-2012, 12:41 PM
Back on topic... in the US, more people die from AIDS each year than are murdered by any kind of firearm.

Statistically speaking, even if you have a LTC and use an IWB holster... the most dangerous thing in your pants is your genitalia.

:rofl2:

Quote of the day

gary384
07-18-2012, 12:47 PM
PS Just because I come on here with a response to counter the original poster's message, doesn't mean its "trolling" or that I "misspoke".

Im open to any valid discussion but you guys seem to be very touchy on this subject...

I'm not talking about stopping people having weapons, merely making extended training as a pass or fail qualification to own a weapon.

gary384
07-18-2012, 12:55 PM
I still tend to be surpriced that someone could join a FIREARM FORUM and hold beliefs such as that.


A firearm forum- because I use them and like them? It doesn't mean I want every clown with a porch, bottle of whiskey and an itchy trigger finger and no brains living next door to me to acquire whatever type of firearm HE wants.

Vacaville
07-18-2012, 1:05 PM
Trolling? What are you talking about??
My points are completely valid and I wasn't talking about defence of "freedom from tyranny" or shooting competitions- I was talking about on a day-to-day basis in everyday life.

If a man takes hostages and a team has to go in to clear the room- would the police/military/feds be better up against a 10 round single-shot rifle/pistol or a 30 round fully auto weapon??? The whole point I'm trying to make is if there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?

We get plastic cutlery on many airlines- I'm not saying this stops any type of incident happening on a plane but it MIGHT prevent just ONE incident somehow.

As for the multi choice thing for a rifle I made an error I meant pistol, but the argument remains:
1-Wife walks into gunstore
2- Takes multi-choice test
3- Buys pistol
4- 10 day clearance
5- hey presto- a person with no idea about firearms whatsoever now has one to use or misuse as they like

You're missing the point. Firearms are our defense against tyranny.

In your scenario the police have a decided advantage when the citizen is more poorly armed. What if those police are corrupt (ie, Mexico)? What if they are disregarding the law? What if they are there as the forceful arm of a tyrannical regime? In today's oppressive environment that scenario is becoming more and more likely.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place so that the populace had a legal basis for resisting the government should they attempt to eliminate or abridge the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers expressedly stated that the Bill of Rights was put into place to restrain the powers of the government. They are innate, natural rights, endowed by the Creator. They are not priveleges bestowed by any human government, priveleges that can be taken away at the government's whim. The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny when all other rights are being taken away, thus the wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". No matter what people may think nowadays, any kind of gun control is unconstitutional. The government was never supposed to "out gun" the populace. I personally would rather live in a free society and risk having people occasionally misuse firearms for bad purposes than give up my Bill of Rights. It's the true price of freedom.

Fate
07-18-2012, 1:06 PM
Move to England. Your utopia awaits.

curtisfong
07-18-2012, 1:09 PM
The whole point I'm trying to make is if there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?


Freedom doesn't work that way.

If you want 100% safety, why not lock everybody in cages for their entire lives?

Think of the lives you've saved.

Farva
07-18-2012, 1:15 PM
Trolling? What are you talking about??
My points are completely valid and I wasn't talking about defence of "freedom from tyranny" or shooting competitions- I was talking about on a day-to-day basis in everyday life.

If a man takes hostages and a team has to go in to clear the room- would the police/military/feds be better up against a 10 round single-shot rifle/pistol or a 30 round fully auto weapon??? The whole point I'm trying to make is if there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?

We get plastic cutlery on many airlines- I'm not saying this stops any type of incident happening on a plane but it MIGHT prevent just ONE incident somehow.

As for the multi choice thing for a rifle I made an error I meant pistol, but the argument remains:
1-Wife walks into gunstore
2- Takes multi-choice test
3- Buys pistol
4- 10 day clearance
5- hey presto- a person with no idea about firearms whatsoever now has one to use or misuse as they like

If a man takes hostages what makes you think he is going to abide by the laws in your fantasy land? Look at the north Hollywood shootouts. Those guys had illegal fully automatic weapons. They are illegal right? Then how could they possibly have them? See how this works?

If we listen to your 'logic' and you honestly believe that if we all have 10 round magazines that the man robbing the bank and taking hostages will not illegally acquire 30 round mags, then you are off your rocker. Your ideals and logic are totally misplaced and you cant even credibly defend them.

And lastly, your wife doesnt need to know about firearms to legally purchase them. That is on her or her spouse to inform her about the firearm. Personal responsibility son. Come up with better examples and present your argument in a realistic matter and maybe we will take you seriously.

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 1:19 PM
Haha. well the bad guy in your little scenario is only get to get 1 or 2 rounds off semi or auto before he's down. Moot point.

Now, let's look at a much more nefarious and wrong-minded statement you made.

f there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?

Absolutely not. We can't go around restricting rights on the small chance it might save a life. That is silly. Might as well simply lock everyone up and be done with it. That way no one can possibly do anything to anyone else that might endanger their life. Just on the SMALL chance that it could prevent 1 life being lost.

There are countries that are like you describe, lots of them. Developed countries too, mostly in Europe but not exclusively there. I say to people that can't handle a little risk here in America: move there. You are free to go live where ever you like, you are not free to limit the freedoms of others in this one though.

SMALL chance of preventing a lost life. People die dude. It's what they do. Some die quietly in their sleep, some die doing something stupid. It will always be so until the end of time.



Trolling? What are you talking about??
My points are completely valid and I wasn't talking about defence of "freedom from tyranny" or shooting competitions- I was talking about on a day-to-day basis in everyday life.

If a man takes hostages and a team has to go in to clear the room- would the police/military/feds be better up against a 10 round single-shot rifle/pistol or a 30 round fully auto weapon??? The whole point I'm trying to make is if there's even a SMALL chance it could prevent 1 life being lost then isn't it worth it?

We get plastic cutlery on many airlines- I'm not saying this stops any type of incident happening on a plane but it MIGHT prevent just ONE incident somehow.

As for the multi choice thing for a rifle I made an error I meant pistol, but the argument remains:
1-Wife walks into gunstore
2- Takes multi-choice test
3- Buys pistol
4- 10 day clearance
5- hey presto- a person with no idea about firearms whatsoever now has one to use or misuse as they like

decepticon6551
07-18-2012, 1:22 PM
I'd rather my next door neighbors get into a fight and punch/stab each other than start letting loose rounds in the house potentially killing some innocent bystander ie my family/drivers in the street/other neighbors.
I have nothing but JHP loaded at home, for just that reason. I also have a light mounted, and I practice regularly.
I'm not hitting anything I don't intend to.

The gun laws are fine as they are in my opinion- infact I'd say they're pretty slack!! Far too many uneducated and untrained people have easy access to weapons.
The only one's that respect the unnecessary gun laws we have, are law abiding citizens. The least educated & trained are criminals, who don't care about hicaps, etc, and never go to a range & practice marksmanship & safety.

My wife got a rifle in SoCal after doing the so-called multi-choice "test" and she passed no problem despite having literally NO CLUE about firearms...if I wasn't there to teach her- she would have been just another idiot with a dangerous weapon...I wouldn't let her try and use a chain-saw without making sure she was confident with it...so definitely not something that can harm the wrong people accidentally- including herself.
So by your logic, chainsaws should be regulated along with other power tools because they are potentially dangerous?
:rolleyes:

=============================

Oh, that was one hell of a first post, welcome to Calguns

Librarian
07-18-2012, 1:23 PM
Thread drift.