# Assault weapons



## Suzukimom (Mar 1, 2007)

The recent alleged plot to assasinate Obama and others got me thinking about the use of assault weapons in our society.
I'm not very familiar with guns. I don't own one and don't want to. I know many don't want gun control but I'm having a hard time understanding why citizens can get assault weapons. It is my understanding that these weapons can do a lot of harm to many people in a short amount of time. It's above and beyond the need to defend yourself and your property to need an assault weapon.
Help me understand where and why people get assault weapons. What is their purpose? Is it the best way to defend yourself?


----------



## dandelionsrflowers (Jan 10, 2008)

the weapon is not what "can do a lot of harm to many people in a short amount of time"

the person behind the gun is the problem

i know several people who have assault riffles&#8230; the shoot them recreationally&#8230; at targets. i think that weapon in perticular was designed to kill and yes it could be used to defend yourself... BUT i seriously doubt that anyone in this country would NEED an assault riffle for protection. it just seems absurd.

i think that we need to start placing the blame on the people&#8230; they need to be held responsible for their actions.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

I have wondered about this myself, not being a U.S. resident. Do you just go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic, explaining that you have a lot of gophers on your property, or do they have to be purchased covertly?


----------



## mesa (Aug 19, 2006)

semi automatic assault weapons are legal in the US. So yes, you go into a gun shop and buy an AK 47 or an AR 15 or even a Browning .50 caliber sniper rifle. They don't care WHY you want it...if you have the cash, the permit (if that is even needed) and can pass the background check, they give it to you.


----------



## tappinerp (Jun 14, 2006)

Think SHTF or "end of the world as we know it" scenarios. I know several law abiding citizens who own these types of weapons soley for the "what if" scenarios. It isn't just about being able to defend yourself against the home intruder. It is also about being able to defend yourself in scenarios of out of contol governments, militaries, or in the event of complete societal breakdown. An uncomfortable thought for most, but a possible reality nonetheless....


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mesa* 
semi automatic assault weapons are legal in the US. So yes, you go into a gun shop and buy an AK 47 or an AR 15 or even a Browning .50 caliber sniper rifle. They don't care WHY you want it...if you have the cash, the permit (if that is even needed) and can pass the background check, they give it to you.

and at gun shows you don't even have to wait for your gun, you can take it home today!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tappinerp* 
Think SHTF or "end of the world as we know it" scenarios. I know several law abiding citizens who own these types of weapons soley for the "what if" scenarios. It isn't just about being able to defend yourself against the home intruder. It is also about being able to defend yourself in scenarios of out of contol governments, militaries, or in the event of complete societal breakdown. An uncomfortable thought for most, but a possible reality nonetheless....

really? a gun is going to protect you, your family or your property from an out of controll government or military?

This argument is bunk IMO.

I really really dislike guns. If you have a gun or two to hunt and eat thats fine. I have a bow.

Also, a lot of people carry guns for "protection" (yes, my state has a concealed carry license







) I have found aiming a bow at a person far more effective then a gun. I've never meet a child who could load a bow and hurt themselves, other then poking themselves.


----------



## Annie44 (Oct 19, 2008)

Hmm most of you would cry if you came to our house. Our firearms collection is quite extensive. I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story. We will be fine whether the ban is there or not and it will expire eventually. We don't rely on others to keep us safe as its NOT their job.


----------



## MPsSweetie (Jan 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
Hmm most of you would cry if you came to our house. Our firearms collection is quite extensive. I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story. We will be fine whether the ban is there or not and it will expire eventually. We don't rely on others to keep us safe as its NOT their job.

Ditto.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
Hmm most of you would cry if you came to our house. Our firearms collection is quite extensive. I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story. We will be fine whether the ban is there or not and it will expire eventually. We don't rely on others to keep us safe as its NOT their job.

I totally respect that right!

Just for the sake of argument, what would you say if our kids were friends and I asked if your's could come to my house instead of your house because I was uncomfortable with your guns?


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story.

General question: If you object to all restrictions on firearms, do you feel there is any cutoff point, in terms of the kind of weapon being purchased? Does every American have the right to own assault rifles? Anti-tank grenade launchers? Anti-aircraft guns? Explosives? Biological weapons? What weapons, if any, do you think should _not_ be available to the general public?


----------



## stellimamo (Jan 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
Hmm most of you would cry if you came to our house. Our firearms collection is quite extensive. I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story. We will be fine whether the ban is there or not and it will expire eventually. We don't rely on others to keep us safe as its NOT their job.

Yup...


----------



## Annie44 (Oct 19, 2008)

If I knew what an Anti-Tank grenade launcher was then we could talk... The current regulations are just fine. Criminals however don't follow those regulations and do currently own many weapons. They NEVER EVER buy weapons legally.

Check out the May of 1927 Postmastor generals regulations on the mailing of firearms, the national firearms act of 1934, 1937 presidental proclimation on shotguns, the gun control act of 1968, the automatic weapons act of 1988 (not proper name), the brady handgun control act of 1994, and its companion the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994. This is our current gun control and this is PLENTY. We do not need anymore. The brady bill and its companion have sunset however it had nothing to do with assault weapons. It really put restrictions on law enforcement and kept them from doing their job. We are happy that one sunset.

Kriket: I would 100% be fine if you weren't comfortable with your children at my house. Where and what you do with your children is fully your choice and my kid would be totally happy to come to your house instead!


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

I noted that the ar15 would be banned under this......

And yet the ar15 is very gentle....less recoil than a common handgun, easy to handle, safer way to load (making it easier to keep unloaded)....etc.

I could imagine a housewife wanting one and being safer overall with it (not only in terms of self-defense, but in owning a gun that can be handled).

Too bad a little sense can't be added to a broad ban.


----------



## momo7 (Apr 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I have wondered about this myself, not being a U.S. resident. Do you just go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic, explaining that you have a lot of gophers on your property, or do they have to be purchased covertly?


No...you don't have to explain anything... No they don't have to be purchased covertly either. That's is why there is the second ammendment in our constitution so people don't have to be secretive. The laws were made for honest citizens, not those trying to break the law.

If you sell guns as a dealer you must have a FFAL (federl firearms license). That means you have to keep all your sales documented and each gun must be registered. All guns are registered in this country. That means the fed. gov't knows who owns what and where they are. FFALs are strictly regulated. The BATF (bureau of alchohol, firearms and tobacco) makes visits frequently to the FFAL dealers to make sure their paper work is all in order. It doesn't take much to have a FFAL revoked.

Now, that doesn't mean that private citizens can't sell their guns to another person. When that happens no paper work is involved it simply switches hands from one private individual to another, they can do that because it is considered a private sale and doesn't have to be documented.

Is it a loop hole? Yes. But remember the laws were made for honest citizens. People with bad intentions can find a way to get anything they want. They will also justify anything they want to do.


----------



## Sarah W (Feb 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
I totally respect that right!

Just for the sake of argument, what would you say if our kids were friends and I asked if your's could come to my house instead of your house because I was uncomfortable with your guns?

I can understand this, especially if you're really uncomfortable with guns. I would hope that we'd be able to come to an agreement eventually about kids at both homes. We keep our gun in a locked safe that only DH and I have the combo to.

We're military and all of our friends are military, so I doubt we'd have this problem. The only place I've ever heard this sentiment is on here.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sarah W* 
We're military and all of our friends are military, so I doubt we'd have this problem. The only place I've ever heard this sentiment is on here.

You would probably hear it fairly often outside the U.S.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momo7* 
No...you don't have to explain anything... No they don't have to be purchased covertly either. That's is why there is the second ammendment in our constitution so people don't have to be secretive. The laws were made for honest citizens, not those trying to break the law.

I guess this is where the logic breaks down for me. I understand the argument for private citizens being able to purchase shotguns and pistols. What I do _not_ get is why any "honest citizen" would need military type weapons that could kill forty or fifty people at a go. What legitimate purpose do they have outside a battlefield?


----------



## Sarah W (Feb 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
You would probably hear it fairly often outside the U.S.

I'm sure, but I don't live outside of the US. Wouldn't it be a moot point to have the discussion in a country where guns were illegal? When I did live in another country, I had no problem leaving my gun in US.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I guess this is where the logic breaks down for me. I understand the argument for private citizens being able to purchase shotguns and pistols. What I do _not_ get is why any "honest citizen" would need military type weapons that could kill forty or fifty people at a go. What legitimate purpose do they have outside a battlefield?

I think very few people "need" guns. I think that people who live off of the land and shoot their food have a legitimate need. However, people do enjoy shooting for sport. I personally really enjoy shooting and used to go fairly frequently with DH. We don't go now because there isn't a range where we live. We're honest citizens.

I'm not a gun nut. I'm fine with current gun restrictions. I have no problem requiring background checks or waiting periods. I can't think of a good reason you would need to purchase a gun and not be able to wait 3 days.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sarah W* 
I can understand this, especially if you're really uncomfortable with guns. I would hope that we'd be able to come to an agreement eventually about kids at both homes. We keep our gun in a locked safe that only DH and I have the combo to.

We're military and all of our friends are military, so I doubt we'd have this problem. The only place I've ever heard this sentiment is on here.

I live exactly next door to Wright Patt AFB. So, everyone here (but me) is military!

I would be happy if the guns were always away. A combo makes me feel safer then a key lock, kids can find keys!

I feel like there is a "gun culture" that I'm just not a fan of. I have friends that are MPs who get drunk and flash gun licenses.







I know thats not the norm, and they are just punk kids, but they are punk kids with kids of their own, and guns. Makes me uneasy.

I'd like to think that I'm not unreasonable about guns or people who own guns. I've even taken hand gun lessons. Its just not for me. Its not what I want in my life.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
I'd like to think that I'm not unreasonable about guns or people who own guns. I've even taken hand gun lessons. Its just not for me. Its not what I want in my life.









:

I'm fine with other people having guns, but would NEVER own one myself. Also, I can't help but blame parents when I hear of another child "accidently" shooting his/her friend while playing with the gun daddy left out for "just moments".









And what good is a gun in a safe, locked by combo IF someone is breaking into your house?


----------



## mesa (Aug 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
Hmm most of you would cry if you came to our house. Our firearms collection is quite extensive. I feel it is NOT the governments decision about whether or not I NEED a firearm. It is my right and I will exercise that right. I don't need to explain to anyone why I need this or that. I have it its my right end of story. We will be fine whether the ban is there or not and it will expire eventually. We don't rely on others to keep us safe as its NOT their job.

hear hear


----------



## mesa (Aug 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
I totally respect that right!

Just for the sake of argument, what would you say if our kids were friends and I asked if your's could come to my house instead of your house because I was uncomfortable with your guns?

I understand and respect your right to keep your kids away from guns. I would totally be ok with you asking my kids to come to your house instead of ours, even though we feel that our storage system (locked gun safes, trigger locks, and ammo elsewhere) is perfectly adequate. As a matter of fact, I'd be thrilled if you were even THAT open minded. You'd be surprised how many people don't want their kids anywhere near ours just because we have a few guns in the basement. The funny thing is, they wouldn't even have known we owned guns if we didn't come out and tell them straight away.


----------



## Annie44 (Oct 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 
I guess this is where the logic breaks down for me. I understand the argument for private citizens being able to purchase shotguns and pistols. What I do _not_ get is why any "honest citizen" would need military type weapons that could kill forty or fifty people at a go. What legitimate purpose do they have outside a battlefield?

You can't find a weapon that will kill forty or fifty people at a time as a regular civilian. You cannot get actual military weapons as a civilian. My husband was a range NCO in the Marine Corps.. The only people that get them are criminals and that takes work. Saying that people can get military LIKE weapons is like comparing a military Humvee to the one they sell at a dealership for civilians. Yet the media runs off at the mouth with this and tries to get people to think that we are all running around with huge weapons that are used in war. Its simply not true. If you want to hear the differences my husband will gladly tell you for HOURS...









In the end the criminals have these firearms and we have plenty of gun control laws. We don't need anymore for the honest citizens. These laws don't help solve the crime issues. When you look into areas (Washington DC was a good example) that have serious gun control laws the murder and crimes rates are through the roof. Why? because when criminals KNOW that not one person has ANYTHING to defend themselves the criminals run WILD. They have no reason to not do what they want.

Here in Texas criminals think twice before because the majority of homeowners are gun owners. London has a total ban on guns and they have 500 times more gun crime than NYC. We have a close friend who just retired from the military over there and he said you can get a fully automatic AK for fairly cheap! Switzerland and Finland have NO gun control at all and they have almost no crime.

My frustration with people that are against my right to bear arms is they don't use facts when debating the issue. Most people come at me with emotions. In the end fact wins over emotion. If you are going to hate firearms and be against them at least have education on firearms. Heck it will actually help you when talking about the issue!


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
Also, a lot of people carry guns for "protection" (yes, my state has a concealed carry license







) I have found aiming a bow at a person far more effective then a gun.

I've yet to see a person walk around with a bow strapped to their back and a pocketful of arrows. A gun is small and can be concealed. It's not for intimidation, it's there if needed.

Also, exactly how have you "found aiming a bow at a person far more effective then a gun"? I'd love details.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket*
Just for the sake of argument, what would you say if our kids were friends and I asked if your's could come to my house instead of your house because I was uncomfortable with your guns?

My DH is an LEO and all of our guns are kept in a safe that is bolted to our bedroom floor. However, if you had a problem with that, I wold respect it. I'd actually be impressed that you asked. I've only had one person ask me about weapons (of any sort). I ask parents about any weapons and animals the may have.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claddaghmom*
I could imagine a housewife wanting one and being safer overall with it (not only in terms of self-defense, but in owning a gun that can be handled).

I have my own AR15. I've shot it multiple times and feel MUCH more comfortable with that in my home than I would a handgun (although we have those also). I've seen, from personal experience, that a person shot 6 times with a pistol (a .45 even) can keep on going as though nothing happened. For me, that was a pretty chilling scenario and, I know, an assault rifle would have made that impossible.

Although, I do think a handgun is much easier to handle. Smaller, so less awkward. Lighter, so easier to aim and hold. Racking rounds are easier in handguns, imo, and they're equal when it comes to loading/unloading (since they both use magazines).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShwarmaQueen*
And what good is a gun in a safe, locked by combo IF someone is breaking into your house?

It's not difficult to unlock the safe and grab a firearm.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44*
In the end the criminals have these firearms and we have plenty of gun control laws. We don't need anymore for the honest citizens. These laws don't help solve the crime issues. When you look into areas (Washington DC was a good example) that have serious gun control laws the murder and crimes rates are through the roof. Why? because when criminals KNOW that not one person has ANYTHING to defend themselves the criminals run WILD. They have no reason to not do what they want.

Here in Texas criminals think twice before because the majority of homeowners are gun owners. London has a total ban on guns and they have 500 times more gun crime than NYC. We have a close friend who just retired from the military over there and he said you can get a fully automatic AK for fairly cheap! Switzerland and Finland have NO gun control at all and they have almost no crime.

My frustration with people that are against my right to bear arms is they don't use facts when debating the issue. Most people come at me with emotions. In the end fact wins over emotion. If you are going to hate firearms and be against them at least have education on firearms. Heck it will actually help you when talking about the issue!


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 

Here in Texas criminals think twice before because the majority of homeowners are gun owners. London has a total ban on guns and they have 500 times more gun crime than NYC. We have a close friend who just retired from the military over there and he said you can get a fully automatic AK for fairly cheap! Switzerland and Finland have NO gun control at all and they have almost no crime.


Do you have a cite for this number (500 times more gun crime in London than NYC)?

Also, it's probably just me, but we have a few guns in the gun safe. I don't and won't ever hunt, but I have gone out shooting cans. However, in a crisis, it takes me so long to remember how to open the gun safe, and then loading something, etc...basically the guns are useless to me in self defense. With little kids, though, if we have to have these things, I'd much rather keep them locked up.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Annie44* 
Here in Texas criminals think twice before because the majority of homeowners are gun owners. London has a total ban on guns and they have 500 times more gun crime than NYC. We have a close friend who just retired from the military over there and he said you can get a fully automatic AK for fairly cheap! Switzerland and Finland have NO gun control at all and they have almost no crime.

I've lived in TX almost my whole life and I only know a handful of homeowners who own guns.







And in general, those who do own guns have a sorta paranoia attitude about all of the what-ifs in life- I'd rather just put my faith in god to protect me from all of the "unknowns".

As for these statistics, I would also like to know where you get them from- cite please? I lived in Europe (in a major city) for a year and I never heard of a single child shooting- here in the U.S. it's a normal weekly event.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

_Knife_ crime is a big deal in the UK. And NYC has fairly strict gun control as the US goes.


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor*
However, in a crisis, it takes me so long to remember how to open the gun safe, and then loading something, etc...basically the guns are useless to me in self defense.

You should practice more. Get more familiar with the safe, the guns, loading, what to do in case of a jam, etc. It will make you feel much better.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wildwomyn*
Knife crime is a big deal in the UK.

Exactly. Take away knives and it would be baseball bats or clubs.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
Exactly. Take away knives and it would be baseball bats or clubs.

Not my point - I doubt they that would actually have time to get worked up over knives if they had a big gun problem. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun, accidentally or on purpose. Basically, my point was that I doubt all of the claims made in that post. (I don't believe Texas has an especially low crime rate either, but I live in NYC and I've read about the London thing just lately so I'm more sure of those.)


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wildwomyn* 
Basically, my point was that I doubt all of the claims made in that post (I don't believe Texas has an especially low crime rate either, but I live in NYC, and I've read about the London thing just lately).

And you're absolutely right, Texas doesn't have a low crime rate that's for sure. See stats http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/08s0301.pdf

Guns don't deter crime. Guns just create a false sense of security.


----------



## Annie44 (Oct 19, 2008)

Give me some time to get a Works Cited together for you. I have NO problem doing that. I am sure you have noticed from my previous posting that I know my stuff.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
Exactly. Take away knives and it would be baseball bats or clubs.

hum, I can defend myself against a knife, bat or club. Its not hard to teach people how to unarm another person. I can even unarm a man with a gun, if I can get close enough before he shoots me.

I agree that guns offer false security, the risk/reward ration ratio is too low for me.


----------



## Suzukimom (Mar 1, 2007)

I don't see the reason why someone can't wait three days before getting a gun. In my opinion, assault weapons aren't need to protect yourself, unless you live in a warzone, which is what many of our inner cities are becoming.

Has anyone read the book by Geoffrey Canada (director of the Harlem Children's Zone), Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun?
I chronicles the history of violence in the inner city and his own life.
Read the reviews on Amazon. This is a powerful book which may change the way you view guns and gun control.

http://www.amazon.com/Fist-Stick-Kni...6350279&sr=8-1


----------



## Goimir (May 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Suzukimom* 
I don't see the reason why someone can't wait three days before getting a gun. In my opinion, assault weapons aren't need to protect yourself, unless you live in a warzone, which is what many of our inner cities are becoming.

Has anyone read the book by Geoffrey Canada (director of the Harlem Children's Zone), Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun?
I chronicles the history of violence in the inner city and his own life.
Read the reviews on Amazon. This is a powerful book which may change the way you view guns and gun control.

http://www.amazon.com/Fist-Stick-Kni...6350279&sr=8-1









No, I haven't read that book, and I really have no use for it. I live in a rural environment. The state police took about an hour to respond to an armed bank robbery out here, and the bank was half an hour closer to the state police barracks than where I live. When the offal contacts the air circulating device, I'm worried about me and mine.

What difference does it make if a first-time criminal robs your house tomorrow or on Friday? Why should I be subject to a 3 day waiting period to defend myself? Would society be better off if the Chinese Invention had never been used for weapons? Perhaps, but that can is long-since opened. The worms are everywhere. You cannot avoid gun violence by burying your head in the sand. The DC handgun ban did nothing for gun violence except give the city the dubious distinction of having the highest murder rate in the US.

What exactly IS an assault weapon, anyway.







:


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Goimir* 
What exactly IS an assault weapon, anyway.







:

A butter knife. *IF* you assault someone with it. Sorry, all snarkiness aside, DH and I were just chuckling at the title of this thread.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket*
I agree that guns offer false security, the risk/reward ration ratio is too low for me.

Then you shouldn't have one. BUT, for people who use and view them as a tool and know how to use one as such, should be able to.

Criminals are going to have guns. Why should law abiding citizens be unarmed? Tips the scales in the wrong way.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wildwomyn*
It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun, accidentally or on purpose. Basically, my point was that I doubt all of the claims made in that post. (I don't believe Texas has an especially low crime rate either, but I live in NYC and I've read about the London thing just lately so I'm more sure of those.)

Then you've seen the stats on England? How the rates have skyrocketed and the majority are from knives. Of course, people still have guns, illegally, and use those too. Bats/blunt objects take a chunk as do fists. My point is, take away guns and people will find another way OR they will find guns illegally. The only people that suffer are the ones who obey the law. Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Being a female who weighs less than 100 lbs. and with a DH that works the graveyard shift, I do feel better knowing that I, at least, may have a fair fight if anything were to happen. God forbid.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Goimir* 
The DC handgun ban did nothing for gun violence except give the city the dubious distinction of having the highest murder rate in the US.

I have a hard time believing that that the handgun ban is related to the rise in the murder rate. Poverty is more likely responsible.


----------



## Wildwomyn (Aug 30, 2008)

According to the London Metropolitan Police Authority, the number of murders in 2006-2007 (official stats appear to be March to March, for some reason) was 162. The UK gives the population for London in 2007 as over 7.5 million. For 2007 (presumably, calendar year), the FBI lists the amount of murders in New York City as 496, with a city population of 8,220,196.


----------



## taterbug1999 (May 5, 2006)

Regardless of whose stats come from where or are most correct, gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Can that point actually be argued? Criminals skirt the law as they please so any type of gun bans don't smack at them. As for law abiding citizens who follow the rules to obtain ANY form of firearm, I don't care. It is not the guy who waits his time, fills out his permits and then takes home an semi-automatic to his gun safe that I worry about. It is the punk who breaks into my house in the middle of the night with whatever gun he stole or bought on the sly having followed absolutely no laws to obtain his weapon of choice.

For many generations before ours guns where a part of family life. They hunted for food or shot for sport as a family. They were taught a respect for such a weapon and what could come of improper use. It was part of their lifestyle and therefore common place and "no bid deal". It is not the guns that have changed over the generations, it is us as humans. Taking away the right to bear arms for lawful citizens would not change the evil side of humanity.

Accidents do happen, horrible ones sometimes, but you take a much greater risk driving with your child to the grocery than having any form of gun in your home.


----------



## Annie44 (Oct 19, 2008)

Here are a few mistakes you have made in that comparison. First the murder weapon of choice in London is a broken beer bottle. (per my friend retired military and police officer from there.) Your next problem is England didn't like the way their gun crimes stats were looking as a result they got rid of their gun crime category and lumped it into what they now call Offensive Weapons. Check out those stats on your link. Thankfully they have recently broken it down to gun and knife which is lower down. These are the stats we used in comparing this NOT the murder rate. The other problem you have here is you just compared London Metro area to NYC proper NOT the NYC Metro Area. The population for the NYC Metro Area is about 21,976,224. Then finally I would like you to take note the INSANE stats on Londons common assaults which are 44,315. Wow thats a lot of assaults most likely because they know they can get away with it.

In the end we also need to keep in mind that crime stats aren't always true for both sides of the debate. Most cities fib when it comes to their crimes stats and a lot of crime goes unreported. If you honestly believe they don't fudge the numbers then its pretty obvious to me that you don't have a family member in law enforcement. In one big city they would put what really was a murder into another category so they would have the highest murder rate in the US again. Here is an article about Londons gun crime despite their stupid ban: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2317307.ece (I have more where that came from)

The crime rate in Texas has gone up since Hurricane Katrina that however has nothing to do with firearms. Here are a few articles on that: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06239/716412-84.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020500884.html

This is a good article:
Crime & Criminal Justice More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2007 *
Gun Ownership at All-Time High, Violent Crime Near 30-Year Low
Over the last two decades, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, "gun control" groups predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, violent crime decreased dramatically.
Less "Gun Control": The Brady Act's handgun waiting period expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check System. Some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. Since 1987, 30 states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws; there are now 40 RTC states. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 47 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.1 Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.2
More Guns: The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year.3 There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4
Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation's total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007. Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974. Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966. States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.5
Notes:
1. For fact sheets and gun law information, visit www.nraila.org/Issues/.
2. Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997, www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797; Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151; Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jl..._aw_final.pdf; Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004; Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm; National Research Council, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academies Press, 2005 , http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html.
3. BATFE, Annual Firearm Manufacturers and Export Reports, www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm.
4. BATFE estimated 215 million guns in 1999 (Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, Nov. 2000, p. ix , www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm). The National Academy of Sciences estimated 258 million (National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 72 million approved new and used firearm transactions by firearm dealers through the National Instant Check System between 1999-2007 ("Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2007," http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/ht...bcft07st01.htm).
5. FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_04.html Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/. RTC comparison based on data in the FBI table.*

Another article on assault weapons: http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/sunsettheban.htm

Books to read: From My Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns by Sheriff Richard I. Mack (this one being a favorite), More Guns Less Crime by John R. Lott, Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense John R. Lott,

Okay let me know if you would like more... I could be here all day maybe all year.


----------

