PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Another campus shooting

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Another campus shooting (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=213781)

That's semi-automatic weapons with the infamous bayonet lug, right? Has restricting the bayonet lug issue resulted in a change in criminal utilization or lethality of the weapons?

B

DieselAddict and Tankdriver,
You are both two peas in a pod. I have tried to explain things to you in a sane manner. I have tried to give you enough information so that you could do your own research and maybe try to understand some of my, and others points. By statements in your most recent posts you still do not have even a clue. Here you go:
-The Second Amendment is not in any way vague. The only people who think it is vague are the anti-gun crowd. Even the top law professors in this country, who are admittedly anti-gun have openly stated that yes, it means exactly what it states. Arms are guns. Period. This is not MY interpretation, its THE interpretation. If you did a bit of research you would know that.
-A 50 caliber rifle is not a crime weapon. Never has been, never will be. Too big, too expensive and not useful to any criminal. The VA snipers used a .223 which is a sub-rifle caliber round. Its not particularly powerful, actually on the very low end of rifle power relatively.
-Bans that have been enacted in Britain, Australia and Canada have been enacted on the hysteria following a very public and tragic shooting. They have also been progressive, just a few restrictions at a time, until there are no guns left. The bans have been promised to help crime, to be inexpensive to enforce, etc. They have been none of what they have been promised in every case. Gun rights groups in these countries have continued to try to reverse these laws but they have been unsuccessful, even when they have popular support. One of the problems they face is THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT! The people of these countries have rights at the permission of their governments. Not the other way around, as we are lucky enough to.

I could go on and on but you both keep proving your complete ignorance of the topic at hand.

RT

What's the murder rate in Britain, Australia and Canada? Show me one shred of evidence where legalizing guns has resulted in a significantly lower murder rate. When it comes to other crimes like rape and burglary, I can believe that guns help prevent those, but not the murder rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774503)

aklim, yes high-powered/automatic weapons do get used in crimes. The Beltway "sniping" is just one example. Another one is the 1997 L.A. bank robbery with AK47's if I remember correctly. I just don't see the need for ordinary citizens to own such powerful weapons, but that's just my opinion.

An AK-47 is powerful? Really? I'd take a 30-06 over an AK any day of the week. BTW, you do know that an AK uses a 7.62 bullet, right? Somewheres in the range of a 30 caliber. More power and more versatility in the 30-06 cartridge. Lets not even talk accuracy. Now if you are talking about a 375H&H or a 416 Rigby that is used for say Cape Buffalo, would I be nervous if you had one? Absolutely not. Those are exotic weapons. Kinda like if you had a H&K G11.

What is your definition of "Powerful"?

Pretty much anything more than a pistol or a typical hunting rifle.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The murder rate per capita is about 3 times higher in the US than in those 3 other countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774548)

Pretty much anything more than a pistol or a typical hunting rifle.

AK-47 isn't more powerful than a 30-06. Same bullet, less powder. Pistol. What are you comparing it with? 454 Casull or 500 S&W?

It isn't the power that is important. No offense but I don't think you really know your guns very well. If I am right, I am more of a threat to you with a bolt action 22 LR than you would be with a 50 BMG

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774530)

there was a study to that effect in the USA by Prof John Lott. Since it was published (originally peer reviewed, later in the popular press), it has come under a substantial amount of technical criticism, not all unjustified, mostly due to the extremely difficult task of normalizing multiple data sets over many time periods and then interpreting multivariate analyses. Nobody has yet disproved the central hypotheses (to my knowledge, I admit that I haven't kept pace with the criticism).

Essentially, Lott's analysis demonstrated a strong correlation between enacting or expanding gun ownership (especially CC) and reduction in crime rates. Lott controlled for a large suite of other variables including ethnicity, income, health, etc. Nobody has taken the same data and demonstrated the opposite or demonstrated no correlation.

I don't know whether it would be possible to effect a useful study across nations since there are so many, many differences between nations. For example using the UK, crime of all sorts, especially violent crimes, have increased as private gun ownership has decreased. The simple answer is "Look, one works to the other". But clearly, tremendous social changes have occurred in Britain quite apart from the gun issue.

Most of the arguments concerning sociological statistics are too complicated to be reasonably amenable to causal analysis. So we're stuck with correlative analysis and as we all know, correlation is not causation.

In my own case, if data and analysis are equivocal, I err on the side of liberty. But that's just me.

B

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774133)

I don't know about Britain, but last time I checked Canada still has a pretty high gun ownership and they're big into hunting. They just might have restrictions on where they can carry those guns, probably not in the public.

In summary there's no evidence that shows that a gun ban or plentiful guns always lead to more or less violence. Like I said each location is unique and it has more to do with the mentality of the people there, and less with whether they have guns. Guns are a very gray issue, not black and white like many people see them.

First off, I'm not going to debate US gun laws or ownership. I respect the US's laws and I understand that gun culture is rooted into American history and the constitution.

Just thought I would provide some info about Canadian laws and stats since they are being brought up.

In Canada, rifles are pretty abundant due to a lot of rural areas and hunting. Most Canadians are fine with this. You require an FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) to purchase firearms and ammo. Getting an FAC requires a clean record and testing. Handgun ownership is VERY restricted. In the course of my 36 years I've only seen a few handguns. You can't carry them around and you need to notify the authorities when you transport one.

There is a strong movement towards banning handgun ownership outright and I could see this law passing. Most people would support it. Personally, it would not really affect me as I've never contemplated owning a handgun, have never felt I needed one and it's just not something that people generally talk about. Rifles, sure, but not handguns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774133)

What's the murder rate in Britain, Australia and Canada?

Here are some stats (from the federal government website).

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/canus_n_e.asp

Summary -

STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS

HOMICIDE (Table 1)

Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average homicide rate was 8.8 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 2.3 per 100,000 in Canada.

A much greater proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. Handgun homicide data are available for 1989-95. During those years, 52% of homicides in the U.S. involved handguns, compared to 14% in Canada.

Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 in Canada.

Handgun homicide rates in the United States are 15.3 times higher than in Canada. Based on available data for 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 in Canada.

Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased slightly (+2%) in the United States but decreased (-7%) in Canada. On the other hand, both countries reported a decrease in the overall homicide rate (-11% in the U.S. and -13% in Canada).

aklim, yes I don't know guns very well, never claimed to. Again, I don't care for them.

Bot, look at the link in my previous post. Lots of crime and other statistics there. Again, I never said guns contribute to or reduce crime. It depends on which crime you're talking about and even then I agree the conclusion is at best correlative. I was just showing to rwthomas1 that Canada, Australia and Britain are doing something right, since their murder rate is 3 times lower than ours.

Zeus, thanks for the info regarding Canada. Pretty much as I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1774572)

Look at Lott's study and it's criticisms and come to your own conclusion. Just looking at raw stats simply will not help unless one understands all of the other variables that contribute. I'm not saying that it isn't true, but I doubt that it can be proved or disproved across nations and cultures.

For example, if I gave you the website for raw weather data for planet Earth, could you tell if there was a generalized global warming pattern? I doubt it, and that's why there is so much contention within the scientific community on analytical methods and interpretation. It simply isn't obvious unless we carefully cherry-pick the data and ignore inconvenient truths.

Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwthomas1 (Post 1773507)

You are delusional. Here we go:

Do a search on the VPC or Violence Policy Center and the Brady Handgun Control group or whatever they call themselves now. Then search on Rebecca Peters and the UN and their moves to control small arms on a global level. Then search on George Soros, and I think its called the One World Foundation. All of these groups are pushing for various gun bans for various reasons and you need not look to far to find speeches/editorials where they come right out and say "yes, we want to ban them all'

There are plenty of politicians: Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. that have all flatly stated at one point or another that they would like to "ban all guns"

There are companies headed by CEO's and BoD's that have refused to do business with firearm companies, simply because they are firearms companies and they make sizable "donations" to the politicians and organizations listed above.

No place in the world has gun registration reduced crime. In fact, in ALL cases of registration the information has been used in the future to collect "illegal" weapons when said weapon has been made illegal by new legislation. If you don't believe me then most recently Britain, Canada and Australia have all used registration information to simply collect and destroy firearms by the thousands. In all cases, the original registration was supposed to be for crimefighting and never confiscation. Look it up.

Many weapons have been banned at the state level, California being the most restrictive. Most recently 50 caliber "sniper rifles" were banned for no particular reason. Not significant to crime in any way and helaciously expensive to purchase and shoot, yet demonized, mostly by the people above and now illegal in CA. If the weapon didn't cause crime, wasn't involved in crime then what was the issue?

In California a law passed that required registration of a certain type of rifle. There was a deadline for the registration after which the registered rifles were legal and the unregistered illegal. The deadline was extended by the State of California, twice, since the response was good and people kept coming in to register. The State, figuring this was a good thing, since the idea was to register, allowed it. After the second deadline expired an anti-gun group sued the State of California that the State had no right to extend the registration deadline. They WON! Guess what happened? All rifles registered AFTER the original deadline WERE COLLECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND DESTROYED. So when I hear that registration is a good thing and it will never result in my loosing my guns I know its complete BS. "It will never happen here!" Yep, it already has. Good citizens doing the right thing got screwed.

I was not always into guns or a 2nd amendment supporter. I actually grew up in a very liberal anti-gun household. When I was in my mid 20's I purchased a blackpowder replica cowboy gun on a whim after watching a Clint Eastwood movie. Blackpowder guns are not controlled by the govt. and can be bought mail order. Its like owning a working antique. Then I started reading about guns and the arguments for and against guns.

My belief, one that stands today is that the anti-gun crowd in most cases is lying and twisting statistics to support their agenda. While I may not agree with everything the NRA says their use of statistics and data is far more honest then the anti-gun crowd. The anti-gun groups love to lampoon the NRA and use well chosen soundbites to make them look like fringe whackjobs. The media is happy to comply. What you don't hear in the media is when pro-gun groups pick apart the anti-gun statistics and arguments to show that they are largely false.

Do a search on Michael Bellesiles, a discredited anti-gun author/professor. He actually fabricated, as in, not a word of truth a very well received book that was very anti-gun. It was sold as gospel, widely shouted by the NYT, and the rest of the general media, as the truth. It wasn't. But you never hear about the fact that it wasn't, do you? Thats one example, there are many more.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I am saying. I am asking you to look at the data for yourself. Not the headlines, not the general media, look at the arguments, data, statistics, etc. provided by BOTH sides. I did, and ended up on the side of the NRA. Yes, they can be a bit extreme but the anti-gun side is just as extreme if not more so.

Lastly, there is the Constitution. It quite plainly states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Many have argued that is not what it says, the Constitution is a living document, thats not what the founding fathers intended, etc. The fact is it must have been important to them as it is the SECOND amendment, right after the first which of course is freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has never made a definitive decision on the exact interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There is a case headed to the SCOTUS right now, the appeal of the DC gun ban that will likely be heard and the judgment will have to state once and for all, exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never been arrested. I work and I pay my taxes. I am involved in my community. I bristle at the insinuation that I am not somehow law-abiding since I think registration is a bad thing. In fact, I think I am MORE law abiding simply because I believe in the meaning of the Constitution and the rights it enumerates for me and all of us. Nothing is more un-American or criminal than giving up your rights because someone has an idea.

If you want the Constitution changed then fine, lets change it. I can live with that. But don't try and do an end run thats quasi-legal around the Constitution simply because you think your solution is a good idea and its expedient. Take a good look at what Alan Dershowitz (hes anti-gun) has to say about curtailing Constitutional rights with feel good laws. You may get the result you want now and register or ban of guns. The next step is someone else trying to curtail the next right, and the next, etc. Once precedent is set there will be no stopping the erosion of all.

RT

Rw, great points, but to the anti gunners with their eyes closed, you may as well be talking to the wall.
You can't reason with people that live on wishes with their eyes closed to the reality of their surroundings wether it be in the United States or coming down the pipe from the United nations and Rebecca Peters.
Fortunately, there are people out there in public that may have to put themselves in harms way to save the life of the anti gun sissy when the bad guy comes for him because the cops won't get there till he is dead.
Now when the cops come knockin for your gun, that's a different story, and it will happen if Hillary or the other marxists get their way.

To those who say it will never happen, what do you say to those in Australia, Canada, Great Britain,and Sudan to name a few.
What do you say to those who have been disarmed already?
They had their nay sayers that said it would never happen too, but in America, our right is guaranteed in writing.
It has already been illegaly abused by the government.

What will you do when they outlaw semi auto pistols, revolvers, high capacity shotguns, auto loading shotguns, rofles over a certain caliber....lead bulletts?
These ideas are already on the liberal agenda.

I'm sorry, but I, like others that fought for their rights in the past will say those famous words.
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
And I'm not going down without a fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwthomas1 (Post 1774513)

The only person here who doesn't have a clue seems to be you. I don't know what you're reading, but it can't be my posts.

Quote:

-The Second Amendment is not in any way vague. The only people who think it is vague are the anti-gun crowd. Even the top law professors in this country, who are admittedly anti-gun have openly stated that yes, it means exactly what it states. Arms are guns. Period. This is not MY interpretation, its THE interpretation. If you did a bit of research you would know that.

I didn't say anything about the vagueness of the 2nd amendment. But I would like to correct you on one thing here. Arms are not guns. Guns are arms. Swords are arms. Knives are arms. I think it's pretty clear the second amendment meant and means arms available. While it may not have any qualifiers, I do think for public safety weapons like RPGs and landmines should not be allowed.

Quote:

-A 50 caliber rifle is not a crime weapon. Never has been, never will be. Too big, too expensive and not useful to any criminal. The VA snipers used a .223 which is a sub-rifle caliber round. Its not particularly powerful, actually on the very low end of rifle power relatively.

Obviously you are not reading my posts because I never wrote that the 50cal is a criminal's weapon. I merely used it as an example. I know what the snipers used, I lived in the DC area (most of the snipers' victims were shot in MD, along my route to work) when they were on the loose.

Quote:

The bans have been promised to help crime, to be inexpensive to enforce, etc. They have been none of what they have been promised in every case. Gun rights groups in these countries have continued to try to reverse these laws but they have been unsuccessful, even when they have popular support. One of the problems they face is THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT! The people of these countries have rights at the permission of their governments. Not the other way around, as we are lucky enough to.

I don't know about the expensiveness of restrictions in other countries, do you have a link to that? As for crime, I think with both Bot's and Zeus's posts, it's pretty clear no one can draw any kind of meaningful conclusion regarding rates v. private ownership. Does crime go up as a result of restrictive ownership laws? No one has proven that. Does crime go down with restrictive ownerships laws? No one has proven that either. My suspicion is that crime rates are crime rates regardless of what weaponry is available to the public. I suppose it may theoretically be possible to prove mortality rates for various weapons, but not crime rates.

Quote:

I could go on and on but you both keep proving your complete ignorance of the topic at hand.

RT

The only one proving ignorance here is you. No matter what I write, you assign to me the anti-gun crazy label. Tell you what, it'll be easier to have this discussion if you just tell me what my position is, so I don't waste time with discerning points.