Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

2009-02-04 07:31:01
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

RAIMIUS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:


What's with the false choice?
Well ... armed revolution is not going to happen is it?
There is no "either gun registration or ammo coding" binary choice.  We can choose "none of the above."  Neither is likely to "solve" America's violent crime problem, since ammo coding isn't very useful and registration schemes usually have less than a 30% compliance rate (which would leave over 180 million unregistered firearms in the US).
And how would you know that ammo coding isn't useful? ... has it been tried before? ... would it have no effect at all?

I think it will have some effect and people will be held accountable for their actions like you guys love so much
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-04 09:23:38
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland
I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
2009-02-04 09:27:54
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France
What I don't get about this is the following:

So how many uses does ammo have besides coming out of a gun?  If I'm not a registered gun owner and I buy ammo, what am I using it for?

Seems ridiculous to think this is a bad idea.
2009-02-04 09:32:39
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland

Pug wrote:

What I don't get about this is the following:

So how many uses does ammo have besides coming out of a gun?  If I'm not a registered gun owner and I buy ammo, what am I using it for?

Seems ridiculous to think this is a bad idea.
I wouldn't like to guess how high the figure really is for illegally owned weaponry. But, good point nonetheless.
2009-02-04 09:56:22
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7019

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-04 10:21:38
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6984|Disaster Free Zone

Cybargs wrote:

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
Deaths per 100,000 people:
Texas: 13.5
California: 12.6
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/GunDeaths.htm

The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates -- Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama -- had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

Louisiana had the highest rate of gun death, 19.04 per 100,000 and has household gun ownership of 45.6 percent. Alaska had a gun death rate 17.49 per 100,000 and household gun ownership of 60.6 percent. Montana had a gun death rate of 17.22 per 100,000 and 61.4 percent gun ownership.

Conversely, states with the lowest levels of gun ownership had the lowest levels of gun death rates.

Hawaii has a household gun ownership of 9.7 percent and a gun death rate of 2.20 per 100,000. Massachusetts has 12.8 percent rate of gun ownership and a gun death rate of 3.48 per 100,000. Rhode Island has a household gun ownership of 13.3 percent and a gun death rate of 3.63 per 100,000, the researchers said.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/ … 209186884/
2009-02-04 11:23:36
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
What about checking some facts first before you post because what you just wrote is quite the opposite of what's real ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-04 11:36:52
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6697|The Gem Saloon
dont matter to me anymore.


i just picked up a loading press and some powder earlier this week.



get some
2009-02-04 11:40:20
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6952

Parker wrote:

dont matter to me anymore.


i just picked up a loading press and some powder earlier this week.



get some
Nice. Can you just buy a big bag of black powder?

Last edited by ghettoperson (2009-02-04 11:40:50)

2009-02-04 11:45:04
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6697|The Gem Saloon
well, you have to fill out some paperwork and all that jazz.


but i got a 50lb drum of the shit


was not cheap at all, but worth it cause i got the press for free.
2009-02-04 11:57:59
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|7082|Great Brown North
its pretty much the only affordable way to shoot a lot. unless you're shooting a .22 lol

speaking of which, i may be harassing you guys with reloading questions in a month or two

Last edited by krazed (2009-02-04 11:58:39)

2009-02-04 12:01:11
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

In some way they should account for hand loaded ammo in that act, in Norway you need no special license for it ... all you need is to be member of a gun club or to have hunters permit ...

To own a gun in Norway you need to have a license pr gun, so even if you have two guns that are exactly the same you need one license pr each + that you have to member of a gun club or a having a hunters permit ...

Quite easy and almost all guns are accounted for ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-04 12:04:28
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7019

Varegg wrote:

In some way they should account for hand loaded ammo in that act, in Norway you need no special license for it ... all you need is to be member of a gun club or to have hunters permit ...

To own a gun in Norway you need to have a license pr gun, so even if you have two guns that are exactly the same you need one license pr each + that you have to member of a gun club or a having a hunters permit ...

Quite easy and almost all guns are accounted for ...
Isn't that the same in America where a license is required for a gun?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-04 12:40:44
Lai
Member
+186|6454
*sigh

I wish it was easier to get a license in Holland. A friend of mine was very poorly informed and signed up with a gun club. He was a tad dissapointed when he found out they shot with air presure XD
2009-02-04 12:50:45
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland

Cybargs wrote:

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
So you'd rather that gun laws were loose anyway because shootings will happen regardless? Any limitation is good.
2009-02-04 12:51:38
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6697|The Gem Saloon

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

In some way they should account for hand loaded ammo in that act, in Norway you need no special license for it ... all you need is to be member of a gun club or to have hunters permit ...

To own a gun in Norway you need to have a license pr gun, so even if you have two guns that are exactly the same you need one license pr each + that you have to member of a gun club or a having a hunters permit ...

Quite easy and almost all guns are accounted for ...
Isn't that the same in America where a license is required for a gun?
yes and no.


i dont need a license for each gun i own.


BUT, each gun i own IS registered when i buy it. the federal government is aware of ALL the firearms i own...whether i have a license or not.


but you DO need a license for concealed carry.
2009-02-04 12:52:24
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7019

kylef wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
So you'd rather that gun laws were loose anyway because shootings will happen regardless? Any limitation is good.
Do it swiss style tbh.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-04 12:53:20
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7017|US
The VAST majority of the US does not register guns or gun owners.

Kylef, ANY restriction is not a good restriction.  A restriction that will make a meaningful impact on crime rates, while not significantly harming the liberties of those who try to obey laws, I will gladly discuss.  This bill does not fit that criteria.

Varegg, if this bill had an exception for handloading, and wouldn't significantly add to the cost of buying ammo, I might support it (since it MAY have a marginal crime-fighting ability)...unfortunately, that is not the case.

DrunkFace, you are including suicides, are you not?  You'll notice, if you cross reference suicide rates, the statistically high states you listed have very high suicide rates.
Please go play with WISQARS (create your own CDC reports) http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/  It's a great tool to actually find out statistics yourself.  Use that, and a quick review of gun laws, and you will find some surprising evidence against a lot of restrictive gun-control schemes.
Also, read Gunfacts 5.0 or www.guncite.com.
2009-02-04 13:05:25
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland

RAIMIUS wrote:

The VAST majority of the US does not register guns or gun owners.
Kylef, ANY restriction is not a good restriction.  A restriction that will make a meaningful impact on crime rates, while not significantly harming the liberties of those who try to obey laws, I will gladly discuss.  This bill does not fit that criteria.
You must admit that the gun control is no where near as good as it could be. That 'dream' restriction would be great, but like you said not feasible. But this bill does make ammo accountable and, more importantly, traceable. Which is why a favour it.

Cybargs wrote:

Do it swiss style tbh.
Was waiting for the Swiss argument to come in here
2009-02-04 15:45:14
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

RAIMIUS wrote:

The VAST majority of the US does not register guns or gun owners.

Kylef, ANY restriction is not a good restriction.  A restriction that will make a meaningful impact on crime rates, while not significantly harming the liberties of those who try to obey laws, I will gladly discuss.  This bill does not fit that criteria.

Varegg, if this bill had an exception for handloading, and wouldn't significantly add to the cost of buying ammo, I might support it (since it MAY have a marginal crime-fighting ability)...unfortunately, that is not the case.

DrunkFace, you are including suicides, are you not?  You'll notice, if you cross reference suicide rates, the statistically high states you listed have very high suicide rates.
Please go play with WISQARS (create your own CDC reports) http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/  It's a great tool to actually find out statistics yourself.  Use that, and a quick review of gun laws, and you will find some surprising evidence against a lot of restrictive gun-control schemes.
Also, read Gunfacts 5.0 or www.guncite.com.
Never said this was the perfect act but still better than nothing, a national gun archive or something similar would have been the better option imo ...

@Parker: I had the impression the papers on the gun purchase was destroyed after some time, that was the impression i got from Stingrays posts?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-04 16:32:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Parker wrote:

well, you have to fill out some paperwork and all that jazz.
You have to fill out paperwork to buy gunpowder?
Wow you must be living in a totalitarian state.

It seems to me gun registration, with the barrel giving each bullet an identifiable mark as it travels down the barrel, makes a lot more sense than trying to register individual bullets and cases.
Fuck Israel
2009-02-04 18:16:51
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6883|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Varegg wrote:

@Parker: I had the impression the papers on the gun purchase was destroyed after some time, that was the impression i got from Stingrays posts?
Licenced dealers keep this for something like twenty years after the transaction.

Supposedly the government doesn't keep records of NICS checks.
2009-02-04 18:25:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

kylef wrote:

I don't understand why you are so negative. Your little 2nd amendment kills at least hundreds every year, any restriction (note how I'm not saying removal) is a good one. For those still seriously intereted in shooting and owning guns it is still possible. I read through your link and it makes sense to me.

That is, unless, you want more shootings. Do you?
More guns in Law abiding citizens hands = less criminal activity. Nothing stops a criminal carrying a gun into a gun free zone, know why? Because they break the law in the first place.

Take Texas for an example, you don't see many gun crimes there and practically everyone has a gun. California with shitloads of gun crime yet gun laws are strict.

As others have said... This law would be an administrative hell.
Deaths per 100,000 people:
Texas: 13.5
California: 12.6
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/GunDeaths.htm

The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates -- Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama -- had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

Louisiana had the highest rate of gun death, 19.04 per 100,000 and has household gun ownership of 45.6 percent. Alaska had a gun death rate 17.49 per 100,000 and household gun ownership of 60.6 percent. Montana had a gun death rate of 17.22 per 100,000 and 61.4 percent gun ownership.

Conversely, states with the lowest levels of gun ownership had the lowest levels of gun death rates.

Hawaii has a household gun ownership of 9.7 percent and a gun death rate of 2.20 per 100,000. Massachusetts has 12.8 percent rate of gun ownership and a gun death rate of 3.48 per 100,000. Rhode Island has a household gun ownership of 13.3 percent and a gun death rate of 3.63 per 100,000, the researchers said.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/ … 209186884/
Statistics can be deceiving.  If you look at the 5 states with the most gun deaths and the states you mentioned with the least, you'll notice a few things besides differences in ownership.

First, the 5 states with the most deaths have considerably more poverty per capita than the low ones.

Second, the 5 states with the most gun deaths have higher crime rates in most categories than the low ones.  Alaska, for example, has the nation's highest rape per capita.

So, without looking at other factors that relate to gun death, it's easy to paint a picture that high gun ownership leads to more gun deaths, but the real lesson learned here is that areas with more crime tend to create an environment where law abiding people buy guns to protect themselves, unless of course, you live in a state with really strict gun laws (like New York).

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard