NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course you can back up your assertion?


Well because it is probably a lot more legitimate than the severe "propaganda" (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/mmmshirt.html) that has been "created" by "pro gun" sites? It is amazing how far some people will go to try and discredit others in your country, just to defend their "rights"?

When I see stuff like that, I see paranoia and a desire to instill fear in those that would dare to oppose the "pro gun" lobbyists.

I got a chuckle out of this web site:

Dealing with the Million Mom March (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/strategy1.html)

However, I should be aware that this guy comes highly qualified in dealing with issues like these: :rolleyes:

I have a background (MBA) in organizational psychology; I can tell you with some authority that breakdown of commitment is the worst disaster that can befall any organization. It can easily lead to total organizational collapse and defeat.

I can easily see, where so much "pro gun" dis-information comes from in threads such as these, what with all the cut and paste web sites, character assasinations, and twisted facts. It truly is sad to say the least.


Howabout this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200405/CUL20040510a.html

or from their own site: On May 14, 2000, approximately 750,000 mothers and others

Catch that: others. Nowhere near a million "moms". They're blatanly skewing the data (kind of like someone else we know) to make it seem like they are bigger than they are.

But let's say they're telling the truth at 70K. That would mean they had a reduction in support of 99.5% from 2000 to 2004 when they marched again.

I was wrong, however, about claiming that only "dozens" of people attended the West Palm Beach, Florida rally. It was 4 . Notice that isn't on their website.

"probably" more accurate? Don't you know? Haven't you done "extensive reaserch"?: you mean like their statements on the fiveseven which are contradicted by the BATFE?

www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/fabriquen.htm:

FTB classified SS196 ammunition as not armor piercing ammunition under Federal firearms statutes.

As for your last bit "dis-information " (like the Brady Bill),"cut and paste web sites," (like your CAWB and county laws ),"twisted facts" (every number you post), and "paranoia and a desire to instill fear" (like your "belief" that CC causes crime and that people who teach women how to defend themselves are criminal) Pot to Kettle, you're black.

You want disinformation from the Gun Grabbers? We could fill another 30+ pages.

Why? because it's only purpose is to drive up the cost of ammunition for LAC's and to make more beaurocratic costs/entaglements for legitimate companies.
The "only purpose is to drive up the cost of ammunition"? Please spare me the theatrics. If it helps reduce crime, then the cost is worth every penny?

I have to admit that it gets tiresome hearing about LAC's (law abiding citizens). You want to exercize your "right" to own deadly weapons, yet you want to shun all responsibility that goes with that privelege?

You don't want to register your guns.
You don't want to submit to background checks.
You don't want to store your guns in a safe place when not in use.
You don't want to restricted in the types of guns you buy or the quantity.
You don't want trigger locks.
You don't want the number of rounds a gun can fire to be controlled.
You don't want police to be able to track down murderers with serialized bullets?

If you slip and fall on someone's icy sidewalk, you will sue their ass off, but if someone steals YOUR gun and kills someone with it due to YOUR negligence, that is ok? No harm done?

Why would you support it?
See above.

Just another way for the Hoplophobes to try and grab more guns.
How does serializing ammunition = a gun grab?

Yah. Interestingly enough, the Canuck stopped posting on all the other "gun-control" threads to focus on distracting this one but has yet to actually debate the philosophical points addressed. Apparantly it's much more productive to keep talking about immaterial statistics rather than actually discuss the concept of:

Leaving honest, free people alone and focusing on the criminal ACT and not the inanimate THING.

But somehow that doesn't seem to get across... Sort of like how useful CA's "ban" on "assault weapons" was during the LA bank-robery debacle... or how helpful the CA/LA police were in protecting innocent citizens and shopkeepers during the Rodney King Riots. (G_d bless armed Korean shopkeepers)...

You realize You're one of the people I was talking about?

How does serializing ammunition = a gun grab?

To try to steer this back to california...

In California, SKS owners with 30 round magazines were forced to register with the government; They were told explicitly that their guns would not be taken. Given a little amount of time, and SKS with 30 round detatchable magazines were banned. Instant list of criminals, unless they gave up their guns in the given time.

Serialized ammunition is the same way. "We wont ban expanding bullets, we just want them registered... Nor 5.56x45mm, that might penetrate armor. We just want them in case of crimes..."

Give it a few years. Then we will see. The huge price raise, potential risk, and small crime stopping(With the huge amount of ammunition already out, criminals could easily get non-serialized ones), its not worth it.

And what "gun control laws" have been enacted in MD just before 1995? Why do the surrounding CC states have lower crime rates? Why hasn't crime in Virginia (and Florida) increased steadily since CC laws were passed like you said they should? Florida's is still dropping. Why is MD's VCR still almost 3 times Virginia and its murder rate 59% higher? Why did MD's murder rate increase from '02 to '03?
Why did NYC's murder rate go up fro '02 to '03? Why is Nebraska and Kansas VCR's increasing? They're not CC states, they should be decreasing according to you.

You have stated that CC laws increase crime. Crime should be increasing steadily everywhere that CC laws were enacted. You have stated that increased gun ownership should increase murder rates. Obviously this isn't happening. As usual, you can only pick a few places w/ a few cherry picked numbers to "prove" your point.
Maybe the following will help give you some clarity?

US Violent Crime Rates (Brady Bill years in red):

1991: 758.1
1992: 757.5 (-.001%)
1993: 746.8 (-1.4%)
1994: 713.6 (-4.4%)
1995: 684.5 (-4.1%)
1996: 636.6 (-7.0%)
1997: 611.0 (-4.0%)
1998: 566.4 (-7.3%)
1999: 523.0 (-7.7%)

That is a whopping reduction of 26.8% in the 5 years of the Brady Bill

In the 5 years after the Brady Bill? A reduction of only 9.2%

Maybe the following will help give you some clarity?

US Violent Crime Rates (Brady Bill years in red):

1991: 758.1
1992: 757.5 (-.001%)
1993: 746.8 (-1.4%)
1994: 713.6 (-4.4%)
1995: 684.5 (-4.1%)
1996: 636.6 (-7.0%)
1997: 611.0 (-4.0%)
1998: 566.4 (-7.3%)
1999: 523.0 (-7.7%)

That is a whopping reduction of 26.8% in the 5 years of the Brady Bill

In the 5 years after the Brady Bill? A reduction of only 9.2%

Wow, it is an amazing reduction. Im sure those 100 million extra guns were just a side note.

Direct quote from above and my response.(The "only purpose is to drive up the cost of ammunition"? Please spare me the theatrics. If it helps reduce crime, then the cost is worth every penny?

"I have to admit that it gets tiresome hearing about LAC's (law abiding citizens). You want to exercize your "right" to own deadly weapons, yet you want to shun all responsibility that goes with that privelege?

You don't want to register your guns.
You don't want to submit to background checks.
You don't want to store your guns in a safe place when not in use.
You don't want to restricted in the types of guns you buy or the quantity.
You don't want trigger locks.
You don't want the number of rounds a gun can fire to be controlled.
You don't want police to be able to track down murderers with serialized bullets?

If you slip and fall on someone's icy sidewalk, you will sue their ass off, but if someone steals YOUR gun and kills someone with it due to YOUR negligence, that is ok? No harm done?")


Why am I responsible for the evil that others do? If a man steals my car am I responsible if he hits someone with it? If a man steals my knife am I responsible if he stabs someone with it? When did we become responsible for the acts or misdeeds of others. I am an individual, I can only take the blame for what I do as an individual, not for the bad acts of others, nor for my government.

A little history for you ladies and gentlemen, esp. those in England. Our American founding fathers (esp. Jefferson) had a very specific reason in mind for the 2nd Amendment. It can be pick up in Declaration of Independence "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (Right to life, liberty pursuit of happiness--or property as it was originally written), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". To simplify, Jefferson felt that an armed citizenary prevented bad government. I totally agree. No one, no government, no police can better protect myself than me, and let's be honest there just aren't enough police to do the job of protecting you or me or anyone. Further, in America there is NO LAW that says the police have to respond to 911 calls. Okay I've said my peace. :mp5:

Rob

I origionally posted this somewher else, but it's much more relevant in this thread:

I came across this while surfing ( alot of stuff on that website is lame, I do NOT endorse the website in any way- just to clarify):

Why People Carry Concealed Handguns (http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=81816)

(Its very possible the above video will offend some of you)

Why would you have a problem with the "serialization of handgun ammunition"?

Why would you have a problem with this?

Millions of Americans like me reload their empty cartridges. It's a billion dollar hobby in the US.

Additionally, some handgun ammunition like .22 LR, is very very tiny. I can't imagine a scheme that would work to put serial numbers on the cases and bullets for .22 ammunition (or the new 17 ammunition). Try putting a serial number on the side of a pencil point, and you'll see what I mean.

Additionally, most 22 ammunition is soft lead, and literally disintegrates or is seriously deformed - it doesn't resemble anything like a bullet after impact. And the 17 ammunition turns into little pinhead sized pieces on impact.

How are you going to read a serial number off of little pieces like that?

22 LR ammunition is the most widely sold ammunition in the world - bar none - because it's cheap, low powered, suitable for plinking, target shooting, or small game.

I have nearly 20,000 rds of ammunition on hand in one form or another - just under the fire code regulation limits. I know quite a few people like me - some of whom BUY that much and don't even reload.

Think you'll be able to find the billions of rounds that exist in the US in order to enforce such a law? Ammunition is still quite usable 20 years later - I've shot German 9mm ammunition that was manufactured in 1963, and it worked just as well as current manufacture.

It's a "feel good" type of legislation - and it won't pass.

You realize You're one of the people I was talking about?
Well, at least I try to get something in about Cali when/after I respond to a general (non-Cali) anti-gun post.

I may not always succeed, but I try. :D

I suppose that since Cali tends to be a bellweather state when it comes to general legislation (look at what Cali's laws did to Emmission Standards) we tend to argue from the point that we don't want to see Cali's gun laws applied where we live... which gets back to the general gun debate, which gets away from Cali. :rolleyes:

I just read a great article in the May 2005 issue of reason magazine. The author (an anthropologist) spent several years of anthropological research on gun enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area during the late 1990s. :eek:

It is long, and involves a 4 essay, 3 author debate, but it is enlightening.

View it HERE (http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.ak.straight.shtml).

I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.
Oh, how terrible, only 10 rounds! No 30 round large calibre assault weapons! How will you ever deal with those pesky squirrels? *rolls eyes*

What could anyone possibly need more than 10 rounds for? Hunting? "Home defence"? A simple pump action (or double-barrel) shotgun, and a lever- or bolt- action rifle should be more than enough for any legitimate civilian purpose...(IMHO)...anything more is just wanting the biggest and bestest toys (again, IMHO).

1.The "only purpose is to drive up the cost of ammunition"? Please spare me the theatrics. If it helps reduce crime, then the cost is worth every penny?

2.I have to admit that it gets tiresome hearing about LAC's (law abiding citizens). You want to exercize your "right" to own deadly weapons, yet you want to shun all responsibility that goes with that privelege?

You don't want to register your guns.
You don't want to submit to background checks.
You don't want to store your guns in a safe place when not in use.
You don't want to restricted in the types of guns you buy or the quantity.
You don't want trigger locks.
You don't want the number of rounds a gun can fire to be controlled.
You don't want police to be able to track down murderers with serialized bullets?

If you slip and fall on someone's icy sidewalk, you will sue their ass off, but if someone steals YOUR gun and kills someone with it due to YOUR negligence, that is ok? No harm done?


See above.


How does serializing ammunition = a gun grab?

1.How will it help reduce crime? Do you honestly think criminals will "register" their ammunition? They get the guns illegally, they can get the ammo that way to.

2. Poor baby, I'm so sorry it's "tiresome" to hear about people who obey the laws as opposed to those who break them. I want to "shun all responsiblity"? Now whose waxing dramatic? I am a responsible firearm owner. Noone has ever been hurt w/ them, my family practices regularly, and I am teaching my children about safety.

Every measure you mentioned has been used as excuses to ban guns. There is no evidence that "serialized" ammo will reduce crime, the technology/methodogy has never been tested and the cost of it will drive the cost of ammo up exponentialy for people who actually follow the law. The same nonsense was spouted about "ballistic fingerprinting". MD adopted it, spent millions of dollars, and now the police want to drop it because it has not worked, solved a single crime, and is a waste of money.

I support the NICS. What I oppose are "background checks" that take weeks or months and are subjective to "approval" by the authorities.

I'll sue someones ass off? Really? You know this for a "fact"? Who was complaining about pro-gun "character assassinations" a few posts back?

I'm negligent if someone breaks into my house and steals my property? do you really want to continue w/ that one? You say I want to "shun all responsibility". What about the responsibility/accountability of the criminal who stole them? Are you saying they shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? or did the gun "make" them do it?

Define "safe". Do you mean a multi-thousand dollar security system w/ the gun disabled and ammunition stored in another expensive security system seperately? Thereby making it useless for home defense and one less reason to have it. Another sideways ploy by the gun grabbers, like every other measure.

Maybe the following will help give you some clarity?

US Violent Crime Rates (Brady Bill years in red):

1991: 758.1
1992: 757.5 (-.001%)
1993: 746.8 (-1.4%)
1994: 713.6 (-4.4%)
1995: 684.5 (-4.1%)
1996: 636.6 (-7.0%)
1997: 611.0 (-4.0%)
1998: 566.4 (-7.3%)
1999: 523.0 (-7.7%)

That is a whopping reduction of 26.8% in the 5 years of the Brady Bill

In the 5 years after the Brady Bill? A reduction of only 9.2%


Guess what CH, Maryland was EXEMPT from the BB standards as it already had a 1 week waiting period. Why did crime rates rise before that?

Notice '99, the year AFTER the BB expired. Apparently you have forgotten the previous post about the BB or just ignored it. the 18 Highest crime states + DC were exempt from the BB and 13 additional during the 5 years. Over a dozen states passed CC laws during that time as well. Yet crime kept dropping. Before and after.

perhaps this will give you some clarity:

3/5 of the states were exempt from the BB
3/5 of the states had or created CC laws
ownership increased by 100M

by your logic (CC laws increase crime) there should be increases. Why weren't there? (now comes the selected cherry picked numbers)

Oh, how terrible, only 10 rounds! No 30 round large calibre assault weapons! How will you ever deal with those pesky squirrels? *rolls eyes* What could anyone possibly need more than 10 rounds for? Hunting? "Home defence"? A simple pump action (or double-barrel) shotgun, and a lever- or bolt- action rifle should be more than enough for any legitimate civilian purpose...(IMHO)...anything more is just wanting the biggest and bestest toys (again, IMHO).You mean like A Ferrari or Porche or custom 1967 Shelby Cobra? What is wrong with wanting the "biggest & bestest toys"? Crimes aren't committed with the "biggest & bestest" anyway.

Most (and the best) of the "evil" "Sniper rifles" are bolt action - including most of the horrible .50cal jobs banned in Cali. ( :p )
Depending on the lever gun, they have 5-10 round loading tubes. Depending on the location, a Pump Shotgun can be an "assault weapon". My Match-Grade .22 bolt-action rifle has a 10 round removable magazine.

So far your "point" isn't one.

I'm negligent if someone breaks into my house and steals my property? do you really want to continue w/ that one?

Define "safe". Do you mean a multi-thousand dollar security system w/ the gun disabled and ammunition stored in another expensive security system seperately? Thereby making it useless for home defense and one less reason to have it. Another sideways ploy by the gun grabbers, like every other measure. Hey K? While mandating "safe storage" is unenforcable, I do believe it (safe storage, not mandating) is a good idea. The only "unsecured" firearm in my home is the one I habitually carry. All the others are in a safe, just like my other occasional-use valuables. Leaving firearms "lying around" is a terminally bad idea IMO.

What are the Cali Laws on "Safe Storage"?

Hey K? While mandating "safe storage" is unenforcable, I do believe it (safe storage, not mandating) is a good idea. The only "unsecured" firearm in my home is the one I habitually carry. All the others are in a safe, just like my other occasional-use valuables. Leaving firearms "lying around" is a terminally bad idea IMO.

What are the Cali Laws on "Safe Storage"?

CA laws vary per area.

I also keep most of my guns secured in a locked cabinet or display. I keep my shotgun above the bedroom door.

There's a big difference between letting them lie around and keeping them secured.

My beef w/ "Safe Storage Laws" is that they are used to make it prohibitively expensive for a person to legally own a firearm. Defacto ban. That is what Gun Grabbers define as "safe".

CA laws vary per area.

I also keep most of my guns secured in a locked cabinet or display. I keep my shotgun above the bedroom door.

There's a big difference between letting them lie around and keeping them secured. I know that, but you know how this debate is driven by emotionalisim.
My beef w/ "Safe Storage Laws" is that they are used to make it prohibitively expensive for a person to legally own a firearm. Defacto ban.I agree totally. That is why it is imperative for all gun owners to ensure their guns are secured from theft and/or unauthorized access - and make a point of saying so. Having pro-gun groups saying that (keeping) a "gun in the nightstand" is a "good thing" is bad PR.

(Sorry, couldn't get a Cali point into this one... :( )

You mean like A Ferrari or Porche or custom 1967 Shelby Cobra? What is wrong with wanting the "biggest & bestest toys"? Crimes aren't committed with the "biggest & bestest" anyway.

Most (and the best) of the "evil" "Sniper rifles" are bolt action - including most of the horrible .50cal jobs banned in Cali. ( :p )
Depending on the lever gun, they have 5-10 round loading tubes. Depending on the location, a Pump Shotgun can be an "assault weapon". My Match-Grade .22 bolt-action rifle has a 10 round removable magazine.

So far your "point" isn't one.
Comparing cars to guns is quite silly - but given road deaths and accidents I actually would question what a normal person needs a virtual race-car for if he is driving on normal streets within speed limits.

A lot of mass-murders and spree killing have been committed with large capacity semi-auto weapons. The amount of deaths, in most cases, would have been significantly less if these type of weapons were not available.

And .50cal weapons? WTF? Do you want to hunt elephants? LOL

Heck, why not legalise grenade launchers, AA missiles, and AT rockets for civvy use...

Comparing cars to guns is quite silly - but given road deaths and accidents I actually would question what a normal person needs a virtual race-car for if he is driving on normal streets within speed limits.

A lot of mass-murders and spree killing have been committed with large capacity semi-auto weapons. The amount of deaths, in most cases, would have been significantly less if these type of weapons were not available.

And .50cal weapons? WTF? Do you want to hunt elephants? LOL

Heck, why not legalise grenade launchers, AA missiles, and AT rockets for civvy use...
You don't know what would have happened if mass murderers had different weapons. Besides, most 'mass murders' don't even use firearms, they use ied's.

You are joking about the comparison of .50 cal weapons and grenade launchers et al. aren't you? I mean, you do understand the rather big and obvious differences don't you?

And .50cal weapons? WTF? Do you want to hunt elephants? LOL

Actually, yes, I would like to and people hunt.

Heck, why not legalise grenade launchers, AA missiles, and AT rockets for civvy use...

Schweet. :D

Why would you have a problem with the "serialization of handgun ammunition"?


Because the serialization of ammunition serves no other purpose than to inflate the cost of producing ammunition to the point that it will no longer be profitable to make or sale ammunition in CA. They aren't able to take away the rights of citizens to bear arms so they are going after the ammunition. Serialization of ammunition will not stop criminals from getting ammunition from across the borders of the state where it does not have to be serialized and therefore it is in effective at deterring criminal from having and using it. Only citizens who legally have and use guns will be penalized.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]2. Poor baby
You really should try improving your debating skills?

I support the NICS. What I oppose are "background checks" that take weeks or months and are subjective to "approval" by the authorities.
How about a check that takes 5 days? We are talking about selling deadly weapons to potential/existing criminals.

Some sellers openly stated that they did not have the resources to access the NICS system.

I'll sue someones ass off? Really? You know this for a "fact"? Who was complaining about pro-gun "character assassinations" a few posts back?
Firstly, I was making a general statement about people in general.

Secondly, I wasn't suggesting that it was a fact or that it applied to you.

You, on the other hand have used material that has contained "character assasinations".

I'm negligent if someone breaks into my house and steals my property? do you really want to continue w/ that one? You say I want to "shun all responsibility". What about the responsibility/accountability of the criminal who stole them? Are you saying they shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? or did the gun "make" them do it?
You do realize that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen from self proclaimed LAC's? Why? Because their deadly weapons are not stored in a secure location. Where do these guns end up? On the street, where they become agents of death and destruction.

Sometimes a family member will use a readily available firearm to end their own lives, or that of a loved one, or in the commission of a crime.

Define "safe". Do you mean a multi-thousand dollar security system w/ the gun disabled and ammunition stored in another expensive security system seperately? Thereby making it useless for home defense and one less reason to have it. Another sideways ploy by the gun grabbers, like every other measure.
By all means, have your guns, but exert some responsibility and store them in a safe place.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
How about a check that takes 5 days? We are talking about selling deadly weapons to potential/existing criminals. Some sellers openly stated that they did not have the resources to access the NICS system.
Can you say "unfunded mandate"? However, and NCIS system should not cost anything, if it is properly set up. Turn on computer, access Web, Access database of criminals. A database of criminals has to be smaller and easier to deal with than a database of all the rest of USians.

You do realize that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen from self proclaimed LAC's? Why? Because their deadly weapons are not stored in a secure location. Where do these guns end up? On the street, where they become agents of death and destruction.
#1 Your "500,000" number is meaningless in the debate because it has no referant. Is it 500,000/yr or 500,000 total? I'm assuming you mean the former, because the latter is statistically insignificant.
#2 Most stolen guns are stolen for the same reason TVs are stolen - to sell. Since the DOJ & I have conclusively shown that there were 460,207 crimes committed in 2003 that involved a firearm, and if ALL of them were used for "death and destruction", and you say that 500,000 guns are stolen per year, there are still 39,793 stolen guns that WEREN't used in 2003 for "death and destruction". Maybe we sent them to Iraq, but my guess is they ended up in Pawn Shops in SoCal... :rolleyes:

Sometimes a family member will use a readily available firearm to end their own lives, or that of a loved one, or in the commission of a crime.Yes, and sometimes they will use a kitchen knife (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0505110277may11,1,5525445.story?coll=chi-news-hed).
By all means, have your guns, but exert some responsibility and store them in a safe place. Hey! Somthing I can agree with! Cut that out! ;)

Oh, how terrible, only 10 rounds! No 30 round large calibre assault weapons! How will you ever deal with those pesky squirrels? *rolls eyes*

What could anyone possibly need more than 10 rounds for? Hunting? "Home defence"? A simple pump action (or double-barrel) shotgun, and a lever- or bolt- action rifle should be more than enough for any legitimate civilian purpose...(IMHO)...anything more is just wanting the biggest and bestest toys (again, IMHO).

Large caliber? So we should be banning the 30-06 hunting rifles, instead of the 5.56mm Ar-15?

Assault weapon? I dont plan on assaulting anyone, but if I did, it would be just about as easy with an Sr-16CA, as an Ar-15.

As for reasons, its already been said. Nobody has answered why someone would be disadvantaged by having more rounds.

Canuck, mind answering all questions, instead of the ones that you cherry pick?

Because the serialization of ammunition serves no other purpose than to inflate the cost of producing ammunition to the point that it will no longer be profitable to make or sale ammunition in CA.
1. How much extra will it cost the end user?

2. Can you prove that the sale and production of ammunition would "no longer be profitable"?

They aren't able to take away the rights of citizens to bear arms so they are going after the ammunition. Serialization of ammunition will not stop criminals from getting ammunition from across the borders of the state where it does not have to be serialized and therefore it is in effective at deterring criminal from having and using it. Only citizens who legally have and use guns will be penalized.
California's Violent Crime Rate has dropped 42.8% since the Brady Bill was introduced in 1994, which is quite significant when you think about it, yet there is much more that can be done to drive those rates down further, and forcing criminals to seek alternative sources for ammunition will be effective in reducing or eliminating their access to local supplies.

If you have to pay a little bit more to make your streets safer, it is worth it?

In 2003, over 72 percent (1,733) of California homicides were committed with a firearm (http://communitydispatch.com/artman/publish/article_868.shtml). Almost 45 percent of these homicides were unsolved. Additionally, 63,597 robberies were reported in 2003, with armed robbery accounting for 53.9 percent (34,252) of these crimes. A firearm was used in 64.7 percent (22,161) of all armed robberies. Only 27.1 percent of robberies were solved in 2003.

What I read about bullet serialization. (http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-028.pdf)

You do want a better method for solving violent crime?

Large caliber? So we should be banning the 30-06 hunting rifles, instead of the 5.56mm Ar-15?
*sigh* Large calibre is relative. Lets not argue semantics, perhaps I should have said centrefire...

*sigh* Large calibre is relative. Lets not argue semantics, perhaps I should have said centrefire...

By that rationale, anything from .17 Remington to 30mm (and yes, it is legal for me to own a DD)? Essentially, what you are saying is that we should only be allowed rimfire cartriages and muzzleloaders?

:upyours:

Liberals are pathetic... and ugly!

1. How much extra will it cost the end user?

2. Can you prove that the sale and production of ammunition would "no longer be profitable"?

Serialization of bullets would require that each bullet be handled and the serial number recorded. The time and manpower that it would take to do that would run the cost of production up a phenominal amount. Considering the fact that only CA is proposing the serialization law and what the cost would be to produce serialized bullets for that state and only that state it is highly likely that ammunition companies would choose not to produce ammo to sell in CA. This would increase the demand for legal ammo in CA while the supply would be diminshed which would further drive up the cost of legal ammo in CA. So maybe there would still be a profit for ammo in CA but only the rich would be able to afford legal ammo. CA is still getting around the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.


California's Violent Crime Rate has dropped 42.8% since the Brady Bill was introduced in 1994, which is quite significant when you think about it, yet there is much more that can be done to drive those rates down further, and forcing criminals to seek alternative sources for ammunition will be effective in reducing or eliminating their access to local supplies.



Brady Bill has nothing to do with ammunition and really had no substance at all. What the Brady Bill did was discriminate against the way that a gun looked. Brady Bill did also include a ban on "high capacity" magazines which IMO is also bogus because it's very easy to change magazines so if your desire was to do harm with one then rather than have one large magazine you just carried a bunch of small capacity magazines and learned how to change them quickly. Your point here concerning the serialization of ammunition is? And your source for numbers is?



If you have to pay a little bit more to make your streets safer, it is worth it?



See above..I don't believe that we're talking just a little bit more and casting bullets is easy enough so I don't see how the serialization of bullets is going to make the streets any safer. Criminals don't care if their ammo is legal or not.


In 2003, over 72 percent (1,733) of California homicides were committed with a firearm (http://communitydispatch.com/artman/publish/article_868.shtml). Almost 45 percent of these homicides were unsolved. Additionally, 63,597 robberies were reported in 2003, with armed robbery accounting for 53.9 percent (34,252) of these crimes. A firearm was used in 64.7 percent (22,161) of all armed robberies. Only 27.1 percent of robberies were solved in 2003.



Maybe if CA didn't have such strict laws on weapons they wouldn't have such a high crime rate. States that have concealed carry and open carry have much lower crime rates than CA.



You do want a better method for solving violent crime?


Yes I do want a MUCH BETTER method for solving violent crime. Serialization of bullets isn't it though. That will be proved if they should happen to get the law passed.

Maybe if CA didn't have such strict laws on weapons they wouldn't have such a high crime rate. States that have concealed carry and open carry have much lower crime rates than CA.
I have some numbers that will blow your argument out of the water:

Florida has had concealed carry since 1987. In 1992, California's VCR was 1,119.70, and Florida's was 1,207.20, for a difference of + 7.8% Florida. In 2003, California's VCR was 579.30, and Florida's VCR was 730.20, for a difference of + 26.0% Florida.

In 1992, California's VCR was 38.8% higher than Texas's VCR. In 1995, Texas passed CCW laws, yet in 2003, California's VCR is now only 4.8% higher than Texas.

In 1995, California's VCR was 45.5% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 1992, California's VCR was 18.5% higher than South Carolina's VCR. In 2003, South Carolina's VCR was 36.9% higher than California's VCR. That is a change of 55.4%!!!!!

Yes I do want a MUCH BETTER method for solving violent crime. Serialization of bullets isn't it though. That will be proved if they should happen to get the law passed.
Apparently, the serialization would be done by laser, per box load, rather than individually.

BTW, the above numbers regarding California's rapidly declining VCR is also applicable to Illinois, and New York. The three States with the largest cities in the US, and yet their VCR are dropping faster than the CCW States. Gun control must be working?

Guess what CH, Maryland was EXEMPT from the BB standards as it already had a 1 week waiting period. Why did crime rates rise before that?
You are missing the bigger picture. From 2000 to 2003, Maryland's VCR has dropped 10.5%. Virginia's VCR in the same time frame has dropped only 1.9%.

BTW, during that same time frame, New York's VCR dropped 15.9%, while the US average was a drop of 6.1%.

Notice '99, the year AFTER the BB expired. Apparently you have forgotten the previous post about the BB or just ignored it. the 18 Highest crime states + DC were exempt from the BB and 13 additional during the 5 years. Over a dozen states passed CC laws during that time as well. Yet crime kept dropping. Before and after.
I left 1999 in there for a reason. I set the hook and you took the bait.

Even though there was a big drop nationwide of 7.3% in the VCR, it was the start of the next 5 year period that ended in 2003. There was 5 years of the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), and then the 5 year period AFTER the Brady Bill (1999 to 2003).

Let's see how some of your CCW States made out during those 5 years:

New Hampshire +154.2%
North Dakota +16.3%
South Dakota +3.6%

Sure looks like increases to me.

How did the States with the biggest cities (N.Y., L.A., Chicago) do during that same time frame?

New York -25.6%
Illinois -19.2%
California -7.6%

by your logic (CC laws increase crime) there should be increases. Why weren't there? (now comes the selected cherry picked numbers)
Yes, by my logic, it does appear that there were some increases, and where there was an overall drop by most States, it appears that on the whole, the ones with CCW were not dropping as fast as the States exercising stricter gun controls.

By that rationale, anything from .17 Remington to 30mm (and yes, it is legal for me to own a DD)? Essentially, what you are saying is that we should only be allowed rimfire cartriages and muzzleloaders?

:upyours:
Actually, I would say that there is really no need for large capacity semi-autos of ANY sort...anyway, thats MY humble opinion, like it or lump it. ;)

Now, if we wanna argue calibres and stats of weapons, that is another story...:rolleyes:

Comparing cars to guns is quite silly - but given road deaths and accidents I actually would question what a normal person needs a virtual race-car for if he is driving on normal streets within speed limits.

A lot of mass-murders and spree killing have been committed with large capacity semi-auto weapons. The amount of deaths, in most cases, would have been significantly less if these type of weapons were not available.

And .50cal weapons? WTF? Do you want to hunt elephants? LOL

Heck, why not legalise grenade launchers, AA missiles, and AT rockets for civvy use...Grenade launchers aren't necessarily illegal in the US. It depends what kind and where you are. Imported Yugoslavian SKS carbines are actually capable of firing grenades, and I suppose similar long guns could be modified to do the same. A special self-propelled grenade is attached to the front of the barrel, and a special cartridge is fired to ignite it. So I know of at least one "grenade launcher" I could buy, but getting my hands on the actual grenades however, would be a different story. Explosives are highly controlled throughout the country.

Im not a hunter. There isnt a big need for me to hunt game. I like guns. Is that such a bad thing? I would like an AK-series weapon. I would like a nice weapon, incase of any...foreign problems. I would like to shoot guns, and as I'm soon to be joining the national guard, I would like a weapon to immediatly defend myself, if needed.

You obviously haven't seen Bowling for Columbine. Everybody is too "scared" and we buy guns that are made to kill people. Since these guns are made available to us for "protection, guns get in the hands of what I like to call "stupid gangster retards" or "stupid crazy serial killers". You don't need a gun to protect yourself; a gun should not be put into your hands for protection. In fact I think the government should be very strict on gun laws and not sell any guns that were designed to civilians. If none of us had guns, we wouldn't need to be protected. There’s nothing to defend yourself against, otherwise you just want a gun to play with. If that, no gun for you!

Actually, I would say that there is really no need for large capacity semi-autos of ANY sort...anyway, thats MY humble opinion, like it or lump it. ;)

Now, if we wanna argue calibres and stats of weapons, that is another story...:rolleyes:
Hmm, there's a difference between what you think other people need and what you think people have a right to. Okay, maybe there's no difference, but you haven't made that clear. For me, there's definately a difference.

I don't think anyone really needs a .50MAG semi-auto pistol, but that doesn't mean people should be restricted from buying, owning, or carrying them.

I could also argue that nobody needs a .22LR gun since they're not lethal enough for defensive purposes and only work reliably against human targets at point blank range in the head, which is probably not a legitimate use (executions). Yes, I understand that .22's are handy for shooting small game, paper targets, and teaching cub scouts, but all that can be done with a .17HMR, an air rifle, or maybe even a "real gun".

My point is that pretty much any type of gun can be singled out as something that isn't "needed". If I were to add together all the different types of suggested bans, the only guns left would be single shot long guns limited to .30 caliber for rifles and probably 20 gauge for shotguns. Some think large caliber rifles are bad, others think high capacity small-medium caliber rifles are bad, some say that hi-cap handguns are bad, while others say that tiny handguns should go. The reasons given vary a lot, but the most common excuse is always a lack of 'need', whatever that is. The only people who know what kind of guns they need before they use them are those who intend use them offensively. If your intent is defense, you won't know what you need until you actually need it. For those who think carrying guns for defensive purposes is stupid, I hope that someday the actual need for such a thing is somehow demonstrated clearly enough for you to understand without you actually needing a gun yourself.

/Did I say 'need' enough?

You obviously haven't seen Bowling for Columbine. Everybody is too "scared" and we buy guns that are made to kill people. Since these guns are made available to us for "protection, guns get in the hands of what I like to call "stupid gangster retards" or "stupid crazy serial killers". You don't need a gun to protect yourself; a gun should not be put into your hands for protection. In fact I think the government should be very strict on gun laws and not sell any guns that were designed to civilians. If none of us had guns, we wouldn't need to be protected. There’s nothing to defend yourself against, otherwise you just want a gun to play with. If that, no gun for you!

You're a fool. Most violent crimes are commited with no weapon whatsoever. Do you understand the significance of this? I don't need a gun because criminals have guns. I need a gun because criminals are criminals. Very few people can defend against multiple attackers without a weapon.

Hmm, there's a difference between what you think other people need and what you think people have a right to. Okay, maybe there's no difference, but you haven't made that clear. For me, there's definately a difference.

I don't think anyone really needs a .50MAG semi-auto pistol, but that doesn't mean people should be restricted from buying, owning, or carrying them.

I could also argue that nobody needs a .22LR gun since they're not lethal enough for defensive purposes and only work reliably against human targets at point blank range in the head, which is probably not a legitimate use (executions). Yes, I understand that .22's are handy for shooting small game, paper targets, and teaching cub scouts, but all that can be done with a .17HMR, an air rifle, or maybe even a "real gun".

My point is that pretty much any type of gun can be singled out as something that isn't "needed". If I were to add together all the different types of suggested bans, the only guns left would be single shot long guns limited to .30 caliber for rifles and probably 20 gauge for shotguns. Some think large caliber rifles are bad, others think high capacity small-medium caliber rifles are bad, some say that hi-cap handguns are bad, while others say that tiny handguns should go. The reasons given vary a lot, but the most common excuse is always a lack of 'need', whatever that is. The only people who know what kind of guns they need before they use them are those who intend use them offensively. If your intent is defense, you won't know what you need until you actually need it. For those who think carrying guns for defensive purposes is stupid, I hope that someday the actual need for such a thing is somehow demonstrated clearly enough for you to understand without you actually needing a gun yourself.

/Did I say 'need' enough?

To extend that logic, no one needs a car, either (yeah, I know you're not for banning--just using you as a springboard). Governments can provide public transportation systems everywhere. Sure, it'll be incredibly expensive to put in the system, but with professional drivers and machines controlling how things work, there can be less "amature" drivers out there getting people killed. No cars to steal, no drag-racing, etc. This would save a lot more lives than banning guns.

If people really want the government to run their lives completely....

<shudders at the thought that there are people that actually want to be ruled out there>

You obviously haven't seen Bowling for Columbine. Everybody is too "scared" and we buy guns that are made to kill people. Since these guns are made available to us for "protection, guns get in the hands of what I like to call "stupid gangster retards" or "stupid crazy serial killers". You don't need a gun to protect yourself; a gun should not be put into your hands for protection. In fact I think the government should be very strict on gun laws and not sell any guns that were designed to civilians. If none of us had guns, we wouldn't need to be protected. There’s nothing to defend yourself against, otherwise you just want a gun to play with. If that, no gun for you!

I dont need a movie to give me values.

I dont need a gun to protect myself? How the hell would you know? You dont know me.

Yes, im sure these .50 caliber weapons are made to kill people...despite their wide-spread use in target practice, and how unpractical it would be to use against a person...

These serial killers will get guns, period. It happens all over the world, from australia to britain. Whether its a cheap chinese pistol, or an SKS, criminals will do what it takes to get the job done. Banning military-style weapons wont do much, as few people use them in actual crime. The colombine shootings were done with shotguns and pistols, and one Tec-9 if my memory serves right. They could have used a beretta 92 instead of the Tec-9, and done just as "well".

Maybe guns in your hands get to criminals. Mine wont.

If nobody had guns, nobody would need guns. But criminals have, and will continue to get guns. If you dont want a gun, fine. Dont force me, a law abiding citizen, to be defenseless.

1.You are missing the bigger picture. From 2000 to 2003, Maryland's VCR has dropped 10.5%. Virginia's VCR in the same time frame has dropped only 1.9%.

BTW, during that same time frame, New York's VCR dropped 15.9%, while the US average was a drop of 6.1%.


I left 1999 in there for a reason. I set the hook and you took the bait.

Even though there was a big drop nationwide of 7.3% in the VCR, it was the start of the next 5 year period that ended in 2003. There was 5 years of the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), and then the 5 year period AFTER the Brady Bill (1999 to 2003).

Let's see how some of your CCW States made out during those 5 years:

New Hampshire +154.2%
North Dakota +16.3%
South Dakota +3.6%

Sure looks like increases to me.

How did the States with the biggest cities (N.Y., L.A., Chicago) do during that same time frame?

New York -25.6%
Illinois -19.2%
California -7.6%


Yes, by my logic, it does appear that there were some increases, and where there was an overall drop by most States, it appears that on the whole, the ones with CCW were not dropping as fast as the States exercising stricter gun controls.

How am I missing the "bigger picture"? You claimed that the BB caused MD crime to drop. MD was exempt from the BB w/ laws established before that. Crime still followed the national average. It is still 3x higher than VA.
NY: Exempt from BB You claimed it caused crime to drop. Laws effectively the same since the 60's. Yet it followed nat'l trends becoming one of the #1 most violent for years.
IL: exempt from BB You claimed it caused crime to drop. Chicago's murder rate, accounting for about 75% of Il total, continued to clime for 20yrs after its handgun ban becoming most violent for several years.
CA: Exempt from BB

Once again: What new "Gun Control" Laws caused them to drop? They should have been dropping before that as they already had stricter laws than what the BB required.

OMG, can you try and screw w/ the numbers any more?

NH: fine, it increased: to 148.8. Murders at 1.4
ND: 77.8 Murders: 1.9
SD: 173.4 / 1.3

Find any non CC state w/ that.

Why are these states so low in the first place? According to you, crime should have been increasing since they established the laws. Have their crime rates been climing since before '87?

Now MD again: 703/9.5 Higher than those three combined.

Your whole rant about "taking the bait" makes no sense whatsoever. So you're saying that the biggest drop was the year after it expired and then slowed down. Even though 18 out of 50 states started out exempt and 13 more became so? Even though most of the 18 states exempt had higher crime rates to begin w/ even w/ stricter laws already in place? Even though 14 states added CC laws during that time? Even though between '96 & '02 only one more state became CC? Even though in '03, 4 states added CC and the VCR had its biggest drop since '99.

You keep claiming causality. It's not there.

You have claimed that CC and gun ownership causes crime to increase. But now your stating that it causes crime to decrease "less".

As to your other posts:

If "gun control" was working, why didn't the crime numbers start dropping when the laws were enacted?

Serialization: Once again, you show how much "extensive research" you've done. SB357 is for the serialization of each individual round unless they've changed it because of flack from Homeland Security and everyone w/ a clue. Would you like to cite a source for your information? The link you provided ealier shows on page two, the serialization on the individual bullet. While the numbers may be per box, each bullet needs that number on it.

From http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_357_bill_20050418_amended_sen.html

Ammunition: serialized handgun ammunition.
Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program requiring serialization of
handgun ammunition, as defined, to be enforced by the Department of
Justice. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2007, that
handgun ammunition be serialized

It also claims .22 ammo. That's not just handgun ammo, that's also used in a large percentage of rifles as well. So much for just trying to decrease hangun crimes.

It also claims reloading/handloading which effectively ends that unless someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on engraving equipment.

Or are you trying to claim this part:

Identification on the exterior of every package or container
of serialized ammunition, as prescribed by the department, with the
same unique identifiers used on the assembled ammunition or bullets
contained within the packaging or container. No package or container
shall be labeled with the same unique identifiers as any other
package or container by the same manufacturer.

Catch that: Same unique identifiers used on the assembled ammunition.

the The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, Inc has stated that it will drive costs up into the dollars/ round instead of pennies.

http://www.saami.org/news/CA_ammoSer040505.htm


Howabout your 500K guns claim?

You are missing the bigger picture. From 2000 to 2003, Maryland's VCR has dropped 10.5%. Virginia's VCR in the same time frame has dropped only 1.9%.

BTW, during that same time frame, New York's VCR dropped 15.9%, while the US average was a drop of 6.1%.


I left 1999 in there for a reason. I set the hook and you took the bait.

Even though there was a big drop nationwide of 7.3% in the VCR, it was the start of the next 5 year period that ended in 2003. There was 5 years of the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), and then the 5 year period AFTER the Brady Bill (1999 to 2003).

Let's see how some of your CCW States made out during those 5 years:

New Hampshire +154.2%
North Dakota +16.3%
South Dakota +3.6%

Sure looks like increases to me.

How did the States with the biggest cities (N.Y., L.A., Chicago) do during that same time frame?

New York -25.6%
Illinois -19.2%
California -7.6%


Yes, by my logic, it does appear that there were some increases, and where there was an overall drop by most States, it appears that on the whole, the ones with CCW were not dropping as fast as the States exercising stricter gun controls.


Would you care to post sources for your numbers?

The fact is that states with less strict gun laws had lower violent crime rates to start with so it only stands to reason that they would not show as much of decrease on an overall level as states that had crime rates through the roof anyway.

The simple fact is that those areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun restrictions and highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime rates. Even a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is well known for its anti-gun bias, reported that the 1994 Brady Law has not had a discernable impact on homicide or suicide rates. The results from this study are completely counter to claims by gun control groups, like Handgun Control, Inc., which have repeatedly claimed that such laws have saved thousands of lives. This aforementioned study also pointed out that crime has been falling for a decade now and it began to fall over three years prior to the passage of the Brady Law. Furthermore, there was no increase in the rate of crime reduction after passage of the Brady Law. In essence, the Brady Law has done nothing to lower crime or violence. Again, this is a continuation of mounting evidence that gun control schemes have no relation to crime or violence prevention.


And ...

Based on the crime rates in areas with the most and fewest gun control laws, one could argue that gun control schemes contribute to higher crime rates. There is much evidence to support this hypothesis and similar results can be found in international examples. Just recently, the violent crime levels in England have risen during the past year by more than 15%. These results represent a continuation of crime problems in England that have been encountered since their gun bans took affect in the mid 1990s. The home invasion, burglary, robbery, and a wide range of other crime rates in England now exceed that of the U.S. Only murder and rape remain higher in the U.S., with the difference now being relatively minor and the gap is steadily closing. Even staunchly anti-gun journalist Dan Rather of CBS called England "one the most violent urban societies in the Western world." As many people are aware, England has long been an example cited by gun control supporters as having good gun control laws and a role model for the U.S.


Source is ...

Dr. Blanks is a Senior Research Scientist with the leading R&D company in the world. In the past, Dr. Blanks was supportive of many of the current proposals offered by gun control groups. However, through research into the effectiveness of such measures and the value of firearm ownership in the prevention of millions of crimes each year, Dr. Blanks is now an advocate for self defense and firearm ownership rights. He is a board member of Doctor's for Sensible Gun Laws (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl/). Dr. Blanks can be reached at crimson@wserv.com.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm


Oh and some extra reading material for you. http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html

Would you care to post sources for your numbers?

The fact is that states with less strict gun laws had lower violent crime rates to start with so it only stands to reason that they would not show as much of decrease on an overall level as states that had crime rates through the roof anyway.



[/url]

Almost exclusively, his numbers from from the FBI.

And here come NY, FL & VA.

You'll notice that, once again almost exclusively, he refers back to these as "proof", ignoring almost every other state.

Here's an interesting little Canuckian tidbit. Since 1998 to '03, Fl's Murder rate has dropped 1.1 w/ a population growth of almost 2 million. NY, during the same period has only had a decrease of .2 w/ a population growth of about 1 million. That's a decrease of about 11 times the numbers of murders of that of NY. Guess what? Both were exempt from the BB. Are NY's "gun control" laws not working as well, or are the police becoming less efficient?

He's also stated that CC laws and increased ownership increase crime, the BB caused crime rates in non CC states to drop even though they already had stricter laws, and that the CAWB caused drops.

Try asking him why crime started dropping 2 years before either.

Yes I do want a MUCH BETTER method for solving violent crime. Serialization of bullets isn't it though. That will be proved if they should happen to get the law passed.

Just like "ballistic fingerprinting" was supposed to end most crime. That worked so well the MD police are asking it to be scrapped.

California's Violent Crime Rate has dropped 42.8% since the Brady Bill was introduced in 1994,


Once again, CA was exempt from the BB. Why didn't it's crime rate start dropping sooner than '93 as its laws were already in place?

An M1 carbine (yes I do own one, and I have not gone on a rampage to date) is considered an "assault weapon" even though it isnt full auto, and has a 15 round clip...

...The fact is that I WANT the high capacity magazine. Its fun. And once again, harmless.


Uhh, forgive my ignorance but how can a high powered assault weapon with a large magazine be considered "harmless" in any sense of the word?

Uhh, forgive my ignorance but how can a high powered assault weapon with a large magazine be considered "harmless" in any sense of the word?

As it's not being used to cause harm.

You do know that the term "assault weapon" was invented to demonize a class of firearm previously categorized as "sporters".

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
1.You really should try improving your debating skills?


2.How about a check that takes 5 days? We are talking about selling deadly weapons to potential/existing criminals.

3.Some sellers openly stated that they did not have the resources to access the NICS system.


4.Firstly, I was making a general statement about people in general.

Secondly, I wasn't suggesting that it was a fact or that it applied to you.

You, on the other hand have used material that has contained "character assasinations".


5.You do realize that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen from self proclaimed LAC's? Why? Because their deadly weapons are not stored in a secure location. Where do these guns end up? On the street, where they become agents of death and destruction.

6. Sometimes a family member will use a readily available firearm to end their own lives, or that of a loved one, or in the commission of a crime.


7.By all means, have your guns, but exert some responsibility and store them in a safe place.

1.Convienent that you snipped the rest of the qoute and what it replied to.

2. It's still useless. The 18 states that were exempt were mostly the ones w/ the highest crime in the first place.

3.Source the sellers info.

4. But was that your "exact" wording? Nope, the Exact word was "you".

5. Source it.

6. Let's rephrase that. "Sometimes a family member will use a readily available firearm/knife/club/car/rope/drug to end their own lives, or that of a loved one, or in the commission of a crime".

7. Once again. Define "safe". I do have my guns, and I do exert quite a bit of responsibility not only as a firearm owner but as a father and LAC. I will also oppose any measure that is designed to take them away or make it impossibly difficult to retain them.

Uhh, forgive my ignorance but how can a high powered assault weapon with a large magazine be considered "harmless" in any sense of the word?

I promise I will try to forgive it.

He said the magazine was harmless. And it is. A magazine never killed anyone(Assuming there are no wierd stories of someone bludgeoning someone to death with an AK mag or something).

However, the M1 is pretty harmless too. It uses a small, underpowered bullets that many soldiers complained about in ww2(which is when they were first issued). Banning a 65 year old weapon's magazines... Yet another way to skirt the 2nd amendment.

Almost exclusively, his numbers from from the FBI.
There is something wrong with using the Uniform Crime Reports by the FBI?

And here come NY, FL & VA.
I have used many States as a basis for analysis and although you claim that it is I who "cherry picks" numbers, it is actually you. I tend to look at the bigger picture, with the crime rates spread over several years, where you jump on a 1 year swing, as if that is significant.

You'll notice that, once again almost exclusively, he refers back to these as "proof", ignoring almost every other state.
While N.Y. and Florida represent a classic example, there are many others that I have compared and for the most part, the figures support my claims.

As I do more research into all the different variables, I realize that you cannot make any long term comparisons work in your advantage.

Here's an interesting little Canuckian tidbit. Since 1998 to '03, Fl's Murder rate has dropped 1.1 w/ a population growth of almost 2 million. NY, during the same period has only had a decrease of .2 w/ a population growth of about 1 million. That's a decrease of about 11 times the numbers of murders of that of NY. Guess what? Both were exempt from the BB. Are NY's "gun control" laws not working as well, or are the police becoming less efficient?
You have claimed that it is me that is always going back to the N.Y. Florida comparisons and here you are throwing it out here for a reply. Again, I suggest that you are not looking at the bigger picture.

From 1994 to 2003, N.Y.'s VCR has dropped 51.8% versus a drop in the Florida VCR of 36.3%.

From 2000 TO 2003 (a 4 year span), N.Y.'s VCR has dropped 15.9%, compared to Florida's 10.1% drop.

He's also stated that CC laws and increased ownership increase crime, the BB caused crime rates in non CC states to drop even though they already had stricter laws, and that the CAWB caused drops.
What I have noticed, is that States that have stricter gun controls (especially the larger States), have for the most part fared far better than the States that have adopted CC laws.

From 1994 to 1998 inclusive, the US VCR dropped 20.6%. Which States helped to bring that average down the most?

New York State -34%
California -30.5%
New Jersey -28.3%

From 1999 to 2003 inclusive, the US VCR dropped 9.2%. Which States helped to bring that average down the most?

New York State -21%
Illinois -19.2%

What about those 5 rural CC States that you were praising earlier? How did they make out between 1999 and 2003, considering that the US VCR dropped 9.2%?

New Hampshire +54.2%
North Dakota +16.3%
South Dakota +3.6%
Maine -2.8%
Vermont -3.2%

Try asking him why crime started dropping 2 years before either.
You keep stating that the VCR started dropping 2 years before the BB and the CAWB. Technically you are right but you are being somewhat dishonest. In 1993, the US National VCR dropped 1.4%, whereas in 1992, the US VCR dropped only .001%.

1.There is something wrong with using the Uniform Crime Reports by the FBI?


2.I have used many States as a basis for analysis and although you claim that it is I who "cherry picks" numbers, it is actually you. I tend to look at the bigger picture, with the crime rates spread over several years, where you jump on a 1 year swing, as if that is significant.


3.While N.Y. and Florida represent a classic example, there are many others that I have compared and for the most part, the figures support my claims.

4.As I do more research into all the different variables, I realize that you cannot make any long term comparisons work in your advantage.


5.You have claimed that it is me that is always going back to the N.Y. Florida comparisons and here you are throwing it out here for a reply. Again, I suggest that you are not looking at the bigger picture.

6.From 1994 to 2003, N.Y.'s VCR has dropped 51.8% versus a drop in the Florida VCR of 36.3%.

From 2000 TO 2003 (a 4 year span), N.Y.'s VCR has dropped 15.9%, compared to Florida's 10.1% drop.


7.What I have noticed, is that States that have stricter gun controls (especially the larger States), have for the most part fared far better than the States that have adopted CC laws.

From 1994 to 1998 inclusive, the US VCR dropped 20.6%. Which States helped to bring that average down the most?

New York State -34%
California -30.5%
New Jersey -28.3%

From 1999 to 2003 inclusive, the US VCR dropped 9.2%. Which States helped to bring that average down the most?

New York State -21%
Illinois -19.2%

What about those 5 rural CC States that you were praising earlier? How did they make out between 1999 and 2003, considering that the US VCR dropped 9.2%?

New Hampshire +54.2%
North Dakota +16.3%
South Dakota +3.6%
Maine -2.8%
Vermont -3.2%


8.You keep stating that the VCR started dropping 2 years before the BB and the CAWB. Technically you are right but you are being somewhat dishonest. In 1993, the US National VCR dropped 1.4%, whereas in 1992, the US VCR dropped only .001%.

1. When you try and justify almost every arguement using it exclusively, yes.

2. "Many" defined as about 6. Yet you ignore all the others except for one or two numbers from them that "prove" your points. You use examples of a few years, I've used them from decades, multiple years, and single years. As usual, you just selectively post what will make you sound better. As for "cherry picking" your numbers, see below.

3. You use FL, NY & VA as pretty much your only examples by attempting to make them representative of the entire nation. Every once in awhile you throw in TX or CA.

4. Right, you've done so much "extensive research", you didn't know which states were CC & when, what the CAWB actually banned, and what were the principles of the Brady Bill. You have previously stated that the BB was implemented in '93 and tried to use that as an arguement factor until called on it. You completely ignore & dismiss variables such as drugs/gangs/illegal immigration/poverty/etc. You are the one that has claimed absolute causality that CC and gun ownership causes crime to increase.

5. "Bigger Picture"? I guess that's your new phrase to replace "apples and oranges" for general dismissal of opposing evidence.

6. Once again, why? You have stated it's due to "gun control laws" which have not changed in NY since the 60's. and yet crime still rose to some of the highest levels in the country before it started dropping.

7. and yet most of them had higher crime to begin w/, even after their laws were passed.
As of '03:
NY: 465.2/4.9
CA: 579.3/5.8
IL: 556.8/7.1 (75% in Chicago)
NJ: 365.7/4.7

All 4 of these were exempt from the BB which means they already had stricter laws before crime started dropping.

Now the "evil" CC states:

NH: 148.8/1.4
ND: 77.8/1.9
SD:173.4/1.3
MA:108.9/1.2
VT:110.2/2.3

OMG! They're veritable death traps, aren't they. Comparisons by percentage change from a high crime to low crime area will always make it seem like big numbers. Interesting how a person can make the numbers seem like whatever they want.

Hell, even VA: 275.8/5.6 has a lower VCR than any of your four examples and a lower murder rate than 2.

8. I said crime dropped. It did. You keep jumping on violent crime exclusively.

You want big picture? I have gone back to the 60's, 70's, & 80's w/ implementation of "gun control" laws and the variations of crime during those periods. You tend to stay almost exclusively in a ten year period to try and "prove" that a certain law caused crime to drop.
You ignore the fact the Chicago's murder rate climbed steadily for 20 years after banning handguns.
You ignore the fact that NY had strict gun control for almost 25 years before any major drops occured.
You ignore that DC's dropping crime rate actually reversed itself one year after banning handguns and rose for 15 years to a peak of 80/100k w/ 90-100 % of murder being committed w/ handguns for years on end.
You ignore that CA was the most violent state for years before the 90's w/ laws already in place.

I still don't claim causality. You however have and, post after post, keep proving yourself wrong.

In 1987, Florida's VCR was 1.6% higher than New York's VCR.

In 2003, Florida's VCR was 56.9% higher than New York's VCR.

What is significant with the year 1987? That is the year that Florida passed carry concealed weapon laws.

In 1995, New York's VCR was 36.6% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 2003, Texas's VCR was 18.6% higher than New York's VCR.

What is significant with the year 1995? That is the year that Texas passed carry concealed weapon laws.

In 1995, California's VCR was 50.0% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 2003, California's VCR was only 4.8% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 1995, Illinois's VCR was 50.0% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 2003, Illinois's VCR was only .007% higher than Texas's VCR.

Do we notice a trend here?

In 1987, Florida's VCR was 1.6% higher than New York's VCR.

In 2003, Florida's VCR was 56.9% higher than New York's VCR.

What is significant with the year 1987? That is the year that Florida passed carry concealed weapon laws.

In 1995, New York's VCR was 36.6% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 2003, Texas's VCR was 18.6% higher than New York's VCR.

What is significant with the year 1995? That is the year that Texas passed carry concealed weapon laws.

In 1995, Illinois's VCR was 50.0% higher than Texas's VCR.

In 2003, Illinois's VCR was only .007% higher than Texas's VCR.

Do we notice a trend here?

Yes, I notice a trend. A trend of people posting off topic. Go create another god damn topic if you want to argue this.

Do we notice a trend here?

Yep, the same states you keep harping on minus VA, just like I said above. Get some new material.

Yes, I notice a trend. A trend of people posting off topic. Go create another god damn topic if you want to argue this.
I notice that you cut off California's VCR in relation to Texas. Since you state that your State's gun laws are harsh, it would appear that they are at least having an affect at lowering the violent crime rate, especially in relation to large States that now permit CCW?

Yep, the same states you keep harping on minus VA, just like I said above. Get some new material.
Gun control + better law enforcement = lower crime rates.

More guns = more crime. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime5.pdf)

You cannot refute the numbers.

I notice that you cut off California's VCR in relation to Texas. Since you state that your State's gun laws are harsh, it would appear that they are at least having an affect at lowering the violent crime rate, especially in relation to large States that now permit CCW?

I cut it out because I was refering to your comments that were not about california. Your facts have already been stated, there is no reason for me to try and hide them. Nobody would read my quote, but not your msg.

California has had harsh gun laws for a long time. There is no guns=crime causality. The small effect it might have, if any, is trumped by the rights of the people to own guns(regardless of how you wish to twist the 2nd amendment).

Now again. If you are going to argue that guns=crime and causality within the states, go make a new thread. I made this thread to talk about california.

I promise I will try to forgive it.

He said the magazine was harmless. And it is. A magazine never killed anyone(Assuming there are no wierd stories of someone bludgeoning someone to death with an AK mag or something).

However, the M1 is pretty harmless too. It uses a small, underpowered bullets that many soldiers complained about in ww2(which is when they were first issued). Banning a 65 year old weapon's magazines... Yet another way to skirt the 2nd amendment.
Cali's laws are on par with Canadian laws (where I live), depending on the county, and in some cases harsher.

M1 isnt a weak weapon, it is intended to be a combat carbine and it fills the role admirably - the round is not underpowered, it has about 3 times the oomph of a 9mm - weak for a RIFLE, but it was never supposed to be all-powerful, rather rapid and compact.

Uhh, forgive my ignorance but how can a high powered assault weapon with a large magazine be considered "harmless" in any sense of the word?
:rolleyes: I really wish the people who are so passionate about gun control were as passionate about firearms. At least you wouldnt have to shoot down the slander.

There is no such thing as a "high powered" assault weapon. "Assault weapons" fire rounds of intermediate power, sacraficing damage for controlability. True "assault weapons" are not available to anyone in Canada, or California, or several other U.S. localities. A real "assault rifle" is full auto - an AR15, SKS, mini-14, civilian AK or M1A isnt.

They are just rifles, and believe it or not, mine has never hurt anything while in my posession. Fancy that. ;)

M1 isnt a weak weapon, it is intended to be a combat carbine and it fills the role admirably - the round is not underpowered, it has about 3 times the oomph of a 9mm - weak for a RIFLE, but it was never supposed to be all-powerful, rather rapid and compact.

Compared to an Stg-44, Ak-47, or anything similar that came after it, it was weak. Comparing it to other assault rifles(The M2 was the assault rifle, but they are essentially the same), it was weak. You dont compare a carbine to a pistol.

Cancukbitch is a typical Brady whore...

Cancukbitch is a typical Brady whore...

With your wonderful language and demeanor, Im sure you will enjoy a long stay here at jolt.

Nice... I love the liberal mods' suppression of the freedom of speech. KEEP AT IT YOU DAMN LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!

Whoooh - the big scary liberal bogeymen are coming to take away your super sexy guns! Oh the humanity! :p

I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.


If you are looking for freedom, you have to go to Afghanistan or Iraq, I guess.

Oh yeah, I will just make you know that when the day comes (and not if, because I know it will happen one day) I will resist the ATF trying to seize the last guns to the death. Why? Because my constitution grants me the right to keep and bear arms, so when the ATF collects the last guns (by force, obviously), I will stand and uphold the constitution while they royally rape it... :sniper:

Because my constitution grants me the right to keep and bear arms,


You can keep your arms and legs, but have to give up the guns.

Haha, you are funny... NOT!

Nice try though... learn that in kindergarden? Or was that before that?

I dont need a movie to give me values.


Especially one that completely misrepresents the events...

Uhh, forgive my ignorance but how can a high powered assault weapon with a large magazine be considered "harmless" in any sense of the word?

Because like any inanimate object, a HUMAN has to turn it against another being. The inanimate object, in and of itself, is indeed harmless--it can't do anything on its own.

Gun control + better law enforcement = lower crime rates.

More guns = more crime. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime5.pdf)

You cannot refute the numbers.

Nope, just the way you interpret them to mean whatever you want.

So are you saying that for over 25 years, the police were unable/unwilling to do thier jobs properly?

Now, ten years after this report, legal ownership up, crime still down. More (over 75%)of CC states are below the Nat'l VCR than above it. Your causality is still false. Aren't you seeing the "big picture"?

More guns in the hands of criminals = a higher percentage of crimes committed w/ them.

Or howabout:

More guns owned by LAC's + better law enforcement = less crime

Lets play CH causality logic w/ this report. According to it, there was a 159% increase in the number of arrests of black juveniles for weapon offenses.

Therefore more black kids = more crime

or howabout in 2003, 49% of murders were committed by black males while only constituting about 10-15% of the population. Therefore:

more black males = more crime

Do you think we should prevent blacks from owning firearms? I sure don't. Some of the earliest "gun control" measures, however, were designed to do exactly that.

Nope, just the way you interpret them to mean whatever you want.
I do believe that the first sentence of the first paragraph of the report was fairly easy to read and understand?:

The surge in the level of violent crime in the Nation over the past decade corresponded with a significant rise in firearm usage by the criminal population.

So are you saying that for over 25 years, the police were unable/unwilling to do thier jobs properly?
Establishing gun control laws give law enforcement officers more tools to better their goal of decreasing the criminal element. That and working in conjunction with other States’ law enforcement agencies to map out strategies for reducing crime seems to be working.

Now, ten years after this report, legal ownership up, crime still down. More (over 75%)of CC states are below the Nat'l VCR than above it. Your causality is still false. Aren't you seeing the "big picture"?
Of that 75% of CC States that you say are below the National Average, how many of them were below the National Average before adopting CC laws? How many of them were below the National Average before adopting CCW, and are now above, like Texas for example. Texas was 3.1% below the National Average in 1995 when they adopted their CCW, and are now 16.3% ABOVE the National Average, based on the 2003 VCR.

BTW, do you have a listing as to what year CC States enacted their CCW laws?

More guns in the hands of criminals = a higher percentage of crimes committed w/ them.
More guns available = more guns in the hands of criminals = a higher percentage of crimes committed with them.

From the report:

Table 5.1 shows that from 1985 to 1994 violent crimes committed with firearms increased by a much wider margin than those committed with other weapons. During this 10-year time period, firearm-related offenses were chiefly responsible for the overall 42-percent increase in murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults…...

After remaining stable or declining during the period 1980–1985, firearm-related violent crimes followed a distinctive upward trend with the number of firearm-related aggravated assaults showing the greatest increase—76 percent—in 1994 as compared to the 1985 level. (Table 5.1.)

Lets play CH causality logic w/ this report. According to it, there was a 159% increase in the number of arrests of black juveniles for weapon offenses.
There was also a 90% increase in white juvenile weapon offences, or did you miss that fact?

Did you also miss the fact that in totality, there was a 113% increase of juvenile weapon offences from 1985 to 1994? You may want to play the race card but I am not going there.

Also from the report:

An escalation in the violent crime volume was experienced by every region in the Nation over the past decade, 1985 to 1994. As with the national experience, the upward trend in violent crime for each region was fueled by significant increases in firearm-related murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults, as shown in Table 5.4.

The Midwestern and Western Regions experienced exceedingly large increases for murders and aggravated assaults committed with firearms. When considering the trends for weapon types other than firearms (e.g., knives, clubs, hands, fists, etc.), there were no across-the-board increases as was experienced in the firearm category.

Look at Table 5.1, Table 5.4, and look at Chart 5.1. The answers are all there. The use of firearms for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault increased far more than the use of any other weapons.

Establishing gun control laws give law enforcement officers more tools to better their goal of decreasing the criminal element. That and working in conjunction with other States’ law enforcement agencies to map out strategies for reducing crime seems to be working.



As more and more states adopt concealed carry laws and more and more state have reciprocity for other states concealed carry laws and more and more people are exercising their rights and carrying concealed. Yep, something seems to be working on reducing crime.


You can't just take the numbers from the FBIs web site and twist and distort them in any manner that you want. In 1993 CA adopted the three strikes program...how much does that have to do with the decline in crime in CA? About as much as it's strict stance on gun control probably since CA's crime rate reached it's peak in 1980 and has been dropping ever since. But you don't really know since you are attributing all reduction in crime to gun control.
In the 1970's CA started a Gang Violence Reduction Project. Today gang violence is greatly reduced from what it was then and in the 80s. In addition to that CA started youth centers and shelter programs and are targeting youth to keep them out of gangs. As a result of programs such as these felony crimes by youths have majorly declined. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/myth/myth.html

The Juvenile and Gang Violence Prevention, Detention, and Public Protection Act of 1998 made available $25 million for allocation by the Department to nonprofit agencies to acquire, renovate and construct youth centers. These youth centers bring together 6 to 21 year olds for services and activities including recreation, health and fitness, citizenship and leadership development, job training, anti-gang programs, teen pregnancy prevention programs, and counseling for problems such as drug and alcohol abuse. In August 1999, $24.4 million was awarded to 21 youth centers in 16 counties. http://www.cya.ca.gov/juvenile/youthcenters.html



If you want to keep throwing up CA you should take more things into consideration than just their strict gun laws because there is much more to the reduction in crime there gun laws. Let's take a look at Washington DC...strict gun control laws but they aren't doing as much about crime as CA. How's their crime rate?
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

<snip>
Lets play CH causality logic w/ this report. According to it, there was a 159% increase in the number of arrests of black juveniles for weapon offenses.

Therefore more black kids = more crime

or howabout in 2003, 49% of murders were committed by black males while only constituting about 10-15% of the population. Therefore:

more black males = more crime
Sounds like Compton to me....

Actually, that "statistic", as racist as it sounds, is spot on in regards to urban centers. I refer you again to the research on the causality of crime reduction in the past few years (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php) . After the implementation of Abortion on demand, the highest rates of abortion were/are in urban areas by minority women. In effect, a whole generation of low SES urban children were not born. The crime rated have decreased in a directly correlatable way to the reduction of crime-age urban youth - the majority of whom would have been Black. Gun laws, pro or con had little or nothing to do with it.

Do you think we should prevent blacks from owning firearms? I sure don't. Some of the earliest "gun control" measures, however, were designed to do exactly that.Considering the number of violent felons that are generated by/within the Urban Black community, and the propensity for Urban "Sulivan" laws, we already DO "prevent" - rather, "have laws against" - (Urban) blacks from owning guns - not that it keeps gang-bangers from killing each other anyway.

So much for the "value" of GC laws in the US.

As more and more states adopt concealed carry laws and more and more state have reciprocity for other states concealed carry laws and more and more people are exercising their rights and carrying concealed. Yep, something seems to be working on reducing crime.
So you state that CC IS reducing crime?

You can't just take the numbers from the FBIs web site and twist and distort them in any manner that you want. In 1993 CA adopted the three strikes program...how much does that have to do with the decline in crime in CA? About as much as it's strict stance on gun control probably since CA's crime rate reached it's peak in 1980 and has been dropping ever since. But you don't really know since you are attributing all reduction in crime to gun control.
Actually, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, California's crime rate peaked in 1992. In the 5 years prior to the passage of the Brady Bill (1989 to 1993), California's VCR increased 10%, in the 5 years during the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), California's VCR went down 31%.

In the 1970's CA started a Gang Violence Reduction Project. Today gang violence is greatly reduced from what it was then and in the 80s. In addition to that CA started youth centers and shelter programs and are targeting youth to keep them out of gangs. As a result of programs such as these felony crimes by youths have majorly declined. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/myth/myth.html
Crime increased in California throughout the 70's up until 1983, in 1983,84,85, there was a slight reduction in crime but in 1986, crime started to increase again, right up to 1993. Any reduction in crime due to the above Project would appear to be minimal at best?

If you want to keep throwing up CA you should take more things into consideration than just their strict gun laws because there is much more to the reduction in crime there gun laws. Let's take a look at Washington DC...strict gun control laws but they aren't doing as much about crime as CA. How's their crime rate?
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html
When the heat is on, bring up Washington D.C.? Actually, D.C.'s murder rate has fallen from a high of 482 in 1991 to 198 in 2004.

1.I do believe that the first sentence of the first paragraph of the report was fairly easy to read and understand?:

The surge in the level of violent crime in the Nation over the past decade corresponded with a significant rise in firearm usage by the criminal population.


2.Establishing gun control laws give law enforcement officers more tools to better their goal of decreasing the criminal element. That and working in conjunction with other States? law enforcement agencies to map out strategies for reducing crime seems to be working.


3.Of that 75% of CC States that you say are below the National Average, how many of them were below the National Average before adopting CC laws? How many of them were below the National Average before adopting CCW, and are now above, like Texas for example. Texas was 3.1% below the National Average in 1995 when they adopted their CCW, and are now 16.3% ABOVE the National Average, based on the 2003 VCR.

BTW, do you have a listing as to what year CC States enacted their CCW laws?


4.More guns available = more guns in the hands of criminals = a higher percentage of crimes committed with them.

From the report:

Table 5.1 shows that from 1985 to 1994 violent crimes committed with firearms increased by a much wider margin than those committed with other weapons. During this 10-year time period, firearm-related offenses were chiefly responsible for the overall 42-percent increase in murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults?...

After remaining stable or declining during the period 1980?1985, firearm-related violent crimes followed a distinctive upward trend with the number of firearm-related aggravated assaults showing the greatest increase?76 percent?in 1994 as compared to the 1985 level. (Table 5.1.)


5.There was also a 90% increase in white juvenile weapon offences, or did you miss that fact?

Did you also miss the fact that in totality, there was a 113% increase of juvenile weapon offences from 1985 to 1994? You may want to play the race card but I am not going there.

Also from the report:

An escalation in the violent crime volume was experienced by every region in the Nation over the past decade, 1985 to 1994. As with the national experience, the upward trend in violent crime for each region was fueled by significant increases in firearm-related murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults, as shown in Table 5.4.

The Midwestern and Western Regions experienced exceedingly large increases for murders and aggravated assaults committed with firearms. When considering the trends for weapon types other than firearms (e.g., knives, clubs, hands, fists, etc.), there were no across-the-board increases as was experienced in the firearm category.

Look at Table 5.1, Table 5.4, and look at Chart 5.1. The answers are all there. The use of firearms for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault increased far more than the use of any other weapons.


1. Two words "criminal population".

2. So w/ over 20,000 "gun control" laws on the books at that time already, crime was still increasing. By your "GC + more effective law enforcement = less crime" math, the police were "less" effective for over two decades in many places.

3. Don't you know already? You have done so much more "extensive research" than me. Isn't that what you said?

4. 200 million LEGALLY owned firearms in the US in '90. about 550K gun crimes in 94. Assuming that ALL of the guns were stolen from LAC's (another thing you never sourced)and there was no increase in legal ownership over the 4 years, That's less than .5%. Then look at the late nineties again, an additional 100million more legally owned guns and dropping crime.

5. Can we say "missing the point", or are you just trying to move the goalposts to avoid the comparison? Almost any single thing can be combined w/ selectively picked numbers to "prove" a point. If I played w/ the numbers enough, I could probably "prove" that the rise in crime was associated w/ music trends. You can pick the numbers all you want CH, there is no single causality. Why don't you just admit you are opposed to the private ownership of firearms and be done w/ it?

So you state that CC IS reducing crime?


Actually, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, California's crime rate peaked in 1992. In the 5 years prior to the passage of the Brady Bill (1989 to 1993), California's VCR increased 10%, in the 5 years during the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), California's VCR went down 31%.


Crime increased in California throughout the 70's up until 1983, in 1983,84,85, there was a slight reduction in crime but in 1986, crime started to increase again, right up to 1993. Any reduction in crime due to the above Project would appear to be minimal at best?


When the heat is on, bring up Washington D.C.? Actually, D.C.'s murder rate has fallen from a high of 482 in 1991 to 198 in 2004.


Once again, CA was exempt from the Brady Bill.

Once again, why did it keep increasing w/ stricter laws already in place?
Once again, why did it start decreasing?
Once again, DC was exempt from the Brady Bill.
Once again, why did DC's start rising the year after it's gun ban was enacted?
Once again, why did it start decreasing?

Do you just keep rehashing the same things over and over. You keep implying the BB reduced crime in states that it wasn't even in effect in. Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest?

Let me see... what is the purpose of the civilian possession of weapons. The purpose of a weapon is to destroy. Yes, you don't need more than a clip of ten for hunting, but to have laws against weapons is just a start toward making them illegal. Look at England. They outlawed guns and their crime rate i blieve jumped like 80%. Why?... THE CITIZENS HAVE NO MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. The criminals can get guns through the blackmarket if they want in England still. There will always be a blackmarket. AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIVILIAN GUNS, the purpose is for protection of self and family. What IF THE GOVERNMENT TURNS BAD? There won't be enough guns to overthrough the government. The purpose of government is to protect the people as a whole. If the governemt fails to do so, the people uprise and set up a new governement. To impose gun restriction laws for everyone is one step closer to losing a civil right... "the right to bear and own arms". Not that the bad people should be allowed to own weapons. If you break the law, certain rights are lost.

Once again, CA was exempt from the Brady Bill.

Once again, why did it keep increasing w/ stricter laws already in place?
Once again, why did it start decreasing?
Once again, DC was exempt from the Brady Bill.
Once again, why did DC's start rising the year after it's gun ban was enacted?
Once again, why did it start decreasing?

Do you just keep rehashing the same things over and over. You keep implying the BB reduced crime in states that it wasn't even in effect in. Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest?
I grow weary of your dodge and weave tactics. There have been many poignant questions that you have refused to answer, because they would help destroy your case. You misquoted the CDC to support your case. You have done a fair amount of cut and paste from "pro gun" sites that contain erroneous "facts". You seem to be willing to allow everyone to have guns as long as yours are not controlled. I have done my utmost to research the facts, only to have you come back with sarcasm. You seem to live in fear of an oppressive government taking over. Perhaps you won't be happy until all the children go to school packing heat to save them from the next Columbine, or Red Lake, or maybe the next shooting disaster will wake you up? Perhaps someday you will be able to answer your own questions?

Perhaps you hate me because I believe in gun control, that is irrelevant. I have no animosity towards you and I pray that you never have to use the gun above your bedroom door.

I leave you with these facts:

Population of Canada: 32,000,000

Number of murders in 2003 (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm): 548 (less than Louisiana's 586)

Murder rate per 100,000: 1.73 (yes lower than Vermont)

Gun control: yes (registration, background checks, proper storage, waiting period, no carry concealed).

Murders using a firearm: There were 161 homicides committed with a firearm, accounting for slightly less than one-third (29%) of all homicides.

Death penalty: abolished in 1976 (last executions 1962).

When we vote in an election, we don't need to check if the the candidates are "NRA approved".

I grow weary of your dodge and weave tactics. There have been many poignant questions that you have refused to answer, because they would help destroy your case. You misquoted the CDC to support your case. You have done a fair amount of cut and paste from "pro gun" sites that contain erroneous "facts". You seem to be willing to allow everyone to have guns as long as yours are not controlled. I have done my utmost to research the facts, only to have you come back with sarcasm. You seem to live in fear of an oppressive government taking over. Perhaps you won't be happy until all the children go to school packing heat to save them from the next Columbine, or Red Lake, or maybe the next shooting disaster will wake you up? Perhaps someday you will be able to answer your own questions?

Perhaps you hate me because I believe in gun control, that is irrelevant. I have no animosity towards you and I pray that you never have to use the gun above your bedroom door.

I leave you with these facts:

Population of Canada: 32,000,000

Number of murders in 2003 (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm): 548 (less than Louisiana's 586)

Murder rate per 100,000: 1.73 (yes lower than Vermont)

Gun control: yes (registration, background checks, proper storage, waiting period, no carry concealed).

Murders using a firearm: There were 161 homicides committed with a firearm, accounting for slightly less than one-third (29%) of all homicides.

Death penalty: abolished in 1976 (last executions 1962).

When we vote in an election, we don't need to check if the the candidates are "NRA approved".

Yay, comparing nations to prove guns = crime. Do we really need to point at switzerland again?

I believe that if the USA had tighter gun laws in every state. Wouldnt you not have to defend yourself against 3 armed men with a 10 round gun.

:D Yes, let's get rid of guns. What a superb idea. We can violate rights of property (don't even get me started on the second amendment), self protection, and sportsmanship in one go.

All you people who throw these ridiculous stats about gun crime really ought to examine them a little more carefully. Far more assaults are done by hand or with knives than with guns. There are reasons for this- a gun produces quite a bit of noise, and can lead to the irritating problem of someone overhearing your grimy little crime. Murder is almost always done by some kind of hand-to-hand method, such as strangulation. The most you usually see guns do is accessories in a robbery. Yes, I am ignoring the gang violence, but that's because all those guns are owned illegally anyway, and passing more laws will not stop them from getting guns. Look at how effective the DEA is at keeping weed down. If people are going to break the law, they're just going to do it, and not much will stop them.

I tend to think that gun control is just another ploy by environmentalists and/or feminists. If it's environmentalists, I applaud their concern over our environment, but remind them that since we've already screwed up by killing off all the predators, we're the last one left and hunting is currently a necessity to keep the deer from surging out of control. I'm not going to get started on the feminists because I'll probably get yelled at by a moderator.

Self-protection is a right. Look, if we take gun rights away, that's not necessarily taking guns away. I'd rather have my double-barrelled sawed-off right under my bed where it usually is if a burglar gets in, because he's gonna be armed.

It's so funny. Anti-gun folks get worked up over guns, then the next thing you know he's putting a sniper rifle round through my brain in Halo 2.

Compared to an Stg-44, Ak-47, or anything similar that came after it, it was weak. Comparing it to other assault rifles(The M2 was the assault rifle, but they are essentially the same), it was weak. You dont compare a carbine to a pistol.
I said it was weak compared to a full sized rifle, but then so is an AR. Also, how do you define "weak"?

My M1s strength is not in its range or biggest explosion. Like I said before, it is a low recoil, rapid fire weapon designed for enclosed spaces and ease of carry. If I want lots of power, I'll take a .45-70, not an AK.

The purpose of owning a DVD-Burner (which, like a gun, can be used to commit crimes) is no one's business, unless a crime is commited. Of course, if you're caught making pirate DVD's, you should go to gaol, and have your burner taken away, but if you're just legitimately backing up your data, go right ahead.

The potential criminal use of DVD-Burners is no reason to restrict their sale.

The purpose of law-abiding civilian firearms ownership is no one's business but the owners, unless he commits a crime with the gun.

Gun licensing should simply establish that the applicant has no criminal record, and that he can pass a basic firearms safety test.

No one in this thread has come up with anything approaching a reason to restrict the actions, and right to property of law abiding citizens.

Look at Table 5.1, Table 5.4, and look at Chart 5.1. The answers are all there. The use of firearms for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault increased far more than the use of any other weapons.
So your thesis is that the more firearms there are, the more crime there is?

Interesting.

If you really want to know what I think (which you probably dont) I think the "guns prevent crime" "guns cause crime" argument is moot.

Gun control is a frightening concept. Not because you might get a dictator or something, but because its unjust. Examine.

Say there was a specific ban on .44 magnums because "they are too powerful". Now say I have a .44 magnum (several, actually ;) ). Now say, somehow, the police find out. What do they do? The same thing they do to anyone else who has an illegal weapon; bust down my door, stick a machinepistol in my face, assault me, and throw me behind bars for the next ten years.

Lets recap. I enjoyed shooting a bigbore handgun at targets, so I was labelled a criminal and treated as such, despite the fact that there were no victims and I was a respectable person.

What a rosy concept of justice you have.

So your thesis is that the more firearms there are, the more crime there is? Interesting. If you really want to know what I think (which you probably dont) I think the "guns prevent crime" "guns cause crime" argument is moot. Not to mention statistically and semanticaly unsupportable, since an inanimate thing cannot be causal.
Gun control is a frightening concept. Not because you might get a dictator or something, but because its unjust. Examine.

Say there was a specific ban on .44 magnums because "they are too powerful". Now say I have a .44 magnum (several, actually ;) ). Now say, somehow, the police find out. What do they do? The same thing they do to anyone else who has an illegal weapon; bust down my door, stick a machinepistol in my face, assault me, and throw me behind bars for the next ten years.Or snipe your wife, or gas, burn & buldoze your church rather than arrest you at WalMart...
Lets recap. I enjoyed shooting a bigbore handgun at targets, so I was labelled a criminal and treated as such, despite the fact that there were no victims and I was a respectable person.
What a rosy concept of justice you have.
Sounds rather like Oh, the way they handled Prohibition with the Volstead Act, or current "drug laws". Boy, THOSE work(ed) well... Just ask the Crips.

I grow weary of your dodge and weave tactics. There have been many poignant questions that you have refused to answer, because they would help destroy your case. You misquoted the CDC to support your case. You have done a fair amount of cut and paste from "pro gun" sites that contain erroneous "facts". You seem to be willing to allow everyone to have guns as long as yours are not controlled. I have done my utmost to research the facts, only to have you come back with sarcasm. You seem to live in fear of an oppressive government taking over. Perhaps you won't be happy until all the children go to school packing heat to save them from the next Columbine, or Red Lake, or maybe the next shooting disaster will wake you up? Perhaps someday you will be able to answer your own questions?

Perhaps you hate me because I believe in gun control, that is irrelevant. I have no animosity towards you and I pray that you never have to use the gun above your bedroom door.



And yet you did not answer a single one of the questions that were poised to you in the post.

I really don't care about you enough to hate you. I also hope I never have to use any of my guns except in practice. But when they're needed, I'll have them and I'll continue to make sure that they're not taken away.

Let me see... what is the purpose of the civilian possession of weapons. The purpose of a weapon is to destroy. Yes, you don't need more than a clip of ten for hunting, but to have laws against weapons is just a start toward making them illegal. Look at England. They outlawed guns and their crime rate i blieve jumped like 80%. Why?... THE CITIZENS HAVE NO MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. The criminals can get guns through the blackmarket if they want in England still. There will always be a blackmarket. AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIVILIAN GUNS, the purpose is for protection of self and family. What IF THE GOVERNMENT TURNS BAD? There won't be enough guns to overthrough the government. The purpose of government is to protect the people as a whole. If the governemt fails to do so, the people uprise and set up a new governement. To impose gun restriction laws for everyone is one step closer to losing a civil right... "the right to bear and own arms". Not that the bad people should be allowed to own weapons. If you break the law, certain rights are lost.[SIZE=4][FONT=Arial Black]

I really disagree with this post. Here in the UK we have a ban on all firearms (apart from shotguns... and I believe some sport pistols)
I don't know about statistics of gun crime here, but I know that being shot at is the least of my fears of violent crime.

Yes it might take away your 'human rights' or whatever... but at least we don't have kids picking up 'daddies gun' and shooting a hole in their friend because they decided to play with it. If you wanna shoot, do airsoft / paintball / air rifle / clay pigeon / halo.... or join the army!

Yes it might take away your 'human rights' or whatever... but at least we don't have kids picking up 'daddies gun' and shooting a hole in their friend because they decided to play with it.

There's the issue. We shouldn't have to give up our rights because one person was an idiot and left a firearm out and didn't teach their child about it, and the responsibilities involved. That person should be punished because it was their responsibility to teach their child, watch the child--and they didn't. That doesn't mean the rest of us should be relegated to swords, pepper spray, or martial arts to exercise our right to bear arms.

So, if it was decided that because a report in Newsweek caused several deaths due to protests and riots that the article "caused", we can take away their freedom of speech--take away their right to write? That's the equivalent of what you're suggesting. Oh sorry, not quite so--if we limit it to guns, we can limit it to high-speed printing processes. Newsweek can use Gutenberg presses--let's see how many issues they can crank out.

<snip>
Yes it might take away your 'human rights' or whatever... but at least we don't have kids picking up 'daddies gun' and shooting a hole in their friend because they decided to play with it. If you wanna shoot, do airsoft / paintball / air rifle / clay pigeon / halo.... or join the army!
Sorry, not CA, but pertinate:
Guardian, Mon, 16 May, 2005, 19:55 GMT 20:55 UK

Firearm teacher sacked from job
Teacher Linda Walker, who was jailed for firing a pellet gun near a group of youths, has been sacked from her job.
The 48-year-old was suspended from her job at New Park High School in Salford after being convicted of affray and possessing a firearm in March.
Ms Walker, from Urmston, Greater Manchester, was jailed for six months, but freed on appeal on 4 May.
The teacher has decided to appeal against the decision by Salford City Council on Monday.
The mother-of-two, who had been a teacher for 25 years, appeared before a panel representing the city's local education authority which found her guilty of gross misconduct.
Freed on appeal
Cliff Anderson, regional coordinator of teachers' union NASUWT, said she planned to appeal, but would not be commenting further.
Jill Faker, director of education for Salford City Council, said: "Disciplinary hearings are confidential matters between the appropriate authority and the individual concerned.
"As a result, we will not be commenting on the case or giving out any specific information about it.
"As with other disciplinary matters, this case has been progressed in accordance with formal city council procedures."
Ms Walker said she fired the gun after the youths had terrorised her family.
Nuisance calls
Her trial was told she had received nuisance phone calls abusing her family, her garden shed had been broken into, and a car and her garden had been vandalised.
But no evidence was produced that any of the youths she confronted were involved in the vandalism.
Her case gained much public sympathy, with 10,000 people signing a petition calling for her release from jail.
Ms Walker later told a newspaper she felt "crucified" by what had happened to her.
At a hearing at the Court of Appeal, three judges gave her a conditional discharge, but refused her permission to challenge her convictions.
The special needs teacher left the hearing without comment and has seven days to lodge an appeal which will be heard by the school's governors.
OK, #1, she is an idiot for confronting a group of Yobs, "gun" or no - and then using a toy in a menacing manner.

But note that she has been charged with a firearms "crime"... for possession of a pellet gun. (Which is not, by any reasonable definition a "firearm".

This is what happens when you demonize a THING vs. punishing an ACTION. "Guns" are so "bad" in England that the mere possession of somthing that LOOKS like a "gun" is cause for government action (6 months inprisonment and now sacking :headbang: ).

Back to CALIFORNIA
The California Assembly will consider Assembly Bill 352 at anytime. This legislation could essentially ban all semi-automatic pistols commonly used by California gun owners. AB 352 expands the definition of "unsafe handguns" to include semi-automatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with an array of microscopic characters, which are supposed to identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol by imprinting the characters on each cartridge case when the firearm is discharged. (unbelieveably easy to remove, so worthless for crime prevention, but GREAT for crucifying someone whose guns happentd to be stolen.)
Senate Bill 357 would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The manufacture, transfer, and possession of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007 would be considered a crime. (Making competitive shooters - who reload large numbers of cartridges to extermely tight tolerances - instant criminals.) Also: Define "handgun ammunition". .22LR? Please explain how you can get ANY sort of meaningful serial number on something as small as a brass cartridge case (which I, as a Professional, don't leave lying around anyway... :rolleyes: ) Lets see, I will be firing bullet #R(emington) 1234567890aAbBcCdDeEfFgGhHiIjJkKlLmMnNoOpPqQrRsStTuUvVwWxXyYzZ We're talking a number that make VINs easy to memorize and translate...
SB 357 would also require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice. (Registering the innocent and ignoring the criminal... again.)

So here we demonize/criminalize the THING (non-commercially loaded bullets, which are never used in crimes anyway) making all ammunition too expensive to purchase, impossible to realisticly track (I'm going into Bullet Database Management - a new high-growth IT field...)

Maybe we should make the possession of a bullet an executable offence - like Singapore does. :rolleyes:

I've seen that article and I strongly disagree with how it has been handled... I believe that she was right to do what she did.
HOWEVER the youths had not actually done anything wrong... if she was allowed to own a pistol who says that one of them might not be dead now...

And Zaxon, sorry that you think everyone has free rights, in a perfect world that could happen, but unfortunately controlling a minority has to take precedence over giving a majority their 'rights'.

Should taking photos of naked children be allowed simply because most people see it as a child, maybe art, maybe just something normal?
No, because although that gives the majority freedom, it also allows the minority of people who will abuse pictures of children to have their own wicked way...

Back to CALIFORNIA
The California Assembly will consider Assembly Bill 352 at anytime. This legislation could essentially ban all semi-automatic pistols commonly used by California gun owners. Senate Bill 357 would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition to be enforced by the Department of Justice. :

And once again, that's the whole point of "gun Control" measures. The odds of them actually doing anything to reduce crime is nearly non-existant(see "ballistic fingerprinting") but drive up costs and beaurocracy for poeple who actually follow the laws to impossible levels.

These make about as much sense as serializing individual aspirin tablets.

These make about as much sense as serializing individual aspirin tablets.
And because we know guns "cause" crime...

Police say mom strangled son, 4 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0505170220may17,1,4804549.story)
Northwest Side woman allegedly confesses to killing

Girl, 12, charged in attack on pupil (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0505170206may17,1,6246345.story)
Juvenile petition accuses 7th grader of attempted murder

Chellis, I don't get Cali newspapers - but I'm sure you could find a couple for today...

I've seen that article and I strongly disagree with how it has been handled... I believe that she was right to do what she did.
HOWEVER the youths had not actually done anything wrong... if she was allowed to own a pistol who says that one of them might not be dead now...

And Zaxon, sorry that you think everyone has free rights, in a perfect world that could happen, but unfortunately controlling a minority has to take precedence over giving a majority their 'rights'.

Should taking photos of naked children be allowed simply because most people see it as a child, maybe art, maybe just something normal?
No, because although that gives the majority freedom, it also allows the minority of people who will abuse pictures of children to have their own wicked way...

Are you sure you want to go in the direction of comparing firearm ownership to pedophilia?

By your logic, everything should be strictly controlled. WOuld you allow the gov't to regulate what you read or write? Do you feel that computers should be highly regulated because of hackers?

Do you really want Gov't to be "controlling" the minority? WHat if you ended up one day in the "minority" the "majority" felt "needed" to be controlled?

I've seen that article and I strongly disagree with how it has been handled... I believe that she was right to do what she did.
Defined as what? Brandishing a fake weapon or confronting an unidentified numerically superior force with a fake weapon? Both are stupid.

HOWEVER the youths had not actually done anything wrong... if she was allowed to own a pistol who says that one of them might not be dead now...<snip>
Because she didn't actually shoot AT (or hit) them? :rolleyes: In any case, even in the US her actions would have lead to prosecution - just not a "firearms offense". Had she actually HAD a firearm, then she WOULD have been charged with brandishing and illegal discharge of a firearm, because she was (A) confrontive and (B) not in (percieved) mortal danger.

I am certainly not advocating the random discharge of firearms (i.e. "shooting into the air" or whatever), but while what she DID do could (should?) be considered "public endangerment", to be charged with a "firearms crime" is ludicrous.

A California incident:

93-year-old cop still has it in him
Retired Oakland police officer fends off would-be robbers with 62-year-old gun (http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2597276)

By Kitty McCarthy
CORRESPONDENT

OAKLAND — It doesn't matter if you are 93 and have a pair of bad knees. Once a cop, always a cop.

John P. Thomas Jr. retired from the Oakland Police Department almost 40 years ago, but that didn't stop him from taking action March 1 when two men made two separate attempts to break into his East Oakland house.

"I was sitting here in the front room around quarter after three, and I saw this van pull up," Thomas said Friday, recalling how his police instincts kicked in. "Something told this old retired policeman to go out and get the license number.And then I sat down again and started reading the sports page."

While he was reading, the doorbell began to ring repeatedly. Said Thomas, a widower who lives alone: "The next thing I know, these two guys are going into my back yard."

Thomas saw them go behind his house and then heard a sound at his window just five feet away.

"I heard it first and then saw them fooling around with the window," he said. "I knocked once, and they ran."

Despite the pair's quick retreat, Thomas' day was far from over. Both men eventually returned and began prying off the screen.

He got his service pistol from his bedroom, "the one that was issued in 1943," Thomas said. "I got me a gun out of retirement — like me."

Thomas left his house through the back and began to walk toward the men, gun in hand.

"Somehow or other they smelled me," he said.

The men saw Thomas coming and ran away. Thomas called 9-1-1 to report what happened and provide a license plate number for the van.

"I wouldn't have shot them. I didn't have that intention," he said. "I can't move ... I have arthritis in the knees."

As of Friday, no one had been arrested in the case.

Those who know Thomas say his determination is notable. Retired Inspector Jack Richardson said he was "a wethead rookie" when he first met Thomas in 1945. Thomas joined the force in 1943 and already had a couple years of experience.
"I was impressed with him," Richardson said. "No. 1, he was one of the most low-key guys I ever ran into ... He was a good trainer. He was low key and tough as nails. He wasn't mean-tough, but he wouldn't back off anything ... He was lacking a reverse gear."

When Richardson heard of Thomas' recent heroics, he called up his old friend. Recalled Thomas: "(Jack) said, 'Boy, you're a hero.' I said, 'Hero my butt.'"

Thomas said his police career was varied. An officer for 23 years, he was third in line to be a sergeant when he retired in 1966 because of his wife's ill health. In the course of his career, he had done everything from walking a beat to driving a patrol car and working with the vice squad.

"I did everything but sweep the floors," he said.

On March 1, Thomas followed the advice he had given others many times as an officer.

"When I used to go out and answer calls, I'd always tell people in a deal like this if you can, get the license number of the vehicle. That's what ran through my mind in this deal."

"How many 93-year-old men do you think there are in this town who would take that license number down?" Richardson said. "That's great. I think that's fantastic."

After his family heard about the incident, Thomas said his grandchildren and great-grandchildren asked him if he was going to "pull a Jose Canseco" and start giving out autographs.

"I don't know what to charge them," he said.

Nope. Defensive gun use is BAAAAD. Criminals aren't afraid of LACs with guns. They will take guns away from feeble old men every chance they get. :rolleyes:

So you state that CC IS reducing crime?


Actually, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, California's crime rate peaked in 1992. In the 5 years prior to the passage of the Brady Bill (1989 to 1993), California's VCR increased 10%, in the 5 years during the Brady Bill (1994 to 1998), California's VCR went down 31%.

You mean that according to your interpretation of FBI statistics CA crime rate peaked in 1992 but according CA's legislative analyst it peaked in 1980. I believe that I'll take their interpretation of their data over your interpretation of the FBI's data.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/calfacts/2000_calfacts_program_trends_part4.html



Crime increased in California throughout the 70's up until 1983, in 1983,84,85, there was a slight reduction in crime but in 1986, crime started to increase again, right up to 1993. Any reduction in crime due to the above Project would appear to be minimal at best?

Again your interpretation of FBI data not the legislative analyst of CA.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Neighbors, cops back 'snitch' in shooting (http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2587783)
Injured teen's family wants charges, but homeowner claims self-defense
By Cecily Burt, STAFF WRITER

OAKLAND — A North Oakland man branded a "snitch" because he reports and photographs drug dealers around his home may face assault charges after shooting and wounding a 16-year-old neighbor who confronted him in his front yard.

Neighbors and police have rallied to the defense of Patrick McCullough, who they believe only shot the youth in self-defense. The youth's mother is pressing the district attorney to file charges.

Deputy District Attorney James Lee said Friday his investigation of the Feb. 18 incident is over and a decision should be made next week. Lee could be charged with assault or carrying a concealed weapon, or not charged at all, Lee said.

McCullough, who lives near Bushrod Park with his wife and young son, said he had spent part of that Friday afternoon watching Power Ranger cartoons with his son before heading out to shop for dinner, leaving his wife and son at home.

When he walked outside, McCullough said about a dozen young men and a couple of women were standing in front of his house. Someone called him a snitch, and when he replied, the 16-year-old charged him, McCullough said. They traded blows, McCullough said and the group started circling around; somebody threw a stick at him.

At that point, he said, the 16-year-old ran to a separate group standing near his neighbor's property, and he heard him ask for a pistol. When McCullough saw another man lift his shirt, showing a gun in his waistband, and the youth reach for it, McCullough said he feared for his life and didn't hesitate.

McCullough said he was aiming for the youth's torso and hit him in the arm. McCullough was arrested and spent the night in jail. The youth, who
lives down the street, was taken to Highland Hospital and treated for a damaged artery, Lee said.

McCullough and his wife moved into the home in 1994 with the help of Oakland's first-time homebuyers' program, which requires them to keep the house for 20 years.

He has made no attempt to hide his reports to the police when he sees drug dealing in the neighborhood, and in April 2003 he caught the ire of Wayne Camper, who, with two associates, beat and kicked him in his front yard.
Camper was charged with assault. In the middle of the trial, Camper was shot and killed by a rival drug dealer.

McCullough said he has suffered much more harassment since then, and started carrying a gun, which he has owned for quite awhile, whenever he leaves the house. Just a few months ago, he said, somebody heaved a 15-pound chunk of concrete through his front window.

He said he is not a vigilante but someone who has been forced to protect himself and his family in the sanctity of his home.

"If I was a vigilante, and I have weapons, why haven't I gone out and shot anybody?" he asked. "I didn't shoot Camper, and if this kid hadn't said 'give me a gun,' I wouldn't have shot him either."

Lt. Lawrence Green, PSA commander for North Oakland, has gone to bat for McCullough and stepped up patrols around his house.

"He's the victim, he's the one that was jumped by a group of kids," Green said.

"They precipitated the entire event, and when they are referring to him as a snitch, they are upset about him calling police.

"It's an escalation of events that started with Wayne Camper (the dead drug dealer). Nothing would have happened if the kids would not have confronted him," Green added.

McCullough said he plans to petition the city to let him out of the contract with no economical hardship because staying in the house is not safe for him or his family.
So, we have a guy who is forced by contract to remain in a house surrounded by drug-dealing punk thugs who have shown that they intend him harm. When a teenager attempts to get a gun (a Federal Felony) in order to shoot the homeowner (another felony) while the homeowner is being beaten (another felony), HE gets arrested.

At least the beat cops are on his side, even if California "law" isn't. I just wonder when the Civil Suit from the scumbag punk teen's family will bankrupt the guy. :headbang:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


So, we have a guy who is forced by contract to remain in a house surrounded by drug-dealing punk thugs who have shown that they intend him harm. When a teenager attempts to get a gun (a Federal Felony) in order to shoot the homeowner (another felony) while the homeowner is being beaten (another felony), HE gets arrested.

At least the beat cops are on his side, even if California "law" isn't. I just wonder when the Civil Suit from the scumbag punk teen's family will bankrupt the guy. :headbang:

When you're involved in a situation where you actually have to fire a gun in self-defense, make sure that you're the only one left to tell your side of the story.

If I ever have to actually fire, I plan on emptying the magazine. I find it highly improbable that someone could survive nine rounds of 230gr +P Golden Saber 45 ACP in the chest.

His relatives may sue, but Virginia is not the state to do it in. That, and I'll be the only witness.

Home intruder shot by occupant
Resident spent night in his garage, anticipating return visit after previous thefts (http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9846342p-10701490c.html).

By ROGER W. HOSKINS
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: January 29, 2005, 04:23:48 AM PST

Greg Collins kept watch in his garage Wednesday night, two loaded shotguns by his side. He was on guard for thieves who had burglarized his Modesto home on Hackberry Avenue six times in three weeks.
Collins fell asleep but was awakened about 5:26 a.m. by a loud crash when someone opened the garage door and a large box he had laid against it scraped across the floor. The intruder turned on the lights and walked into the garage, toward a large piece of plywood that covered tools.

Still groggy from sleep, Collins grabbed a shotgun and told the intruder to freeze.

"He lunged at me," explained Collins. "I was very scared and I was panicky. He took about one step. I aimed low and shot him."

The intruder was wounded in the left elbow and hip. The wounded man begged Collins not to shoot again and ran. Collins left his gun behind and followed the wounded suspect part of the way down Hackberry to Needham Avenue.

Michael Sanchez, 29, of Modesto, ran two blocks before collapsing in the doorway of the Modesto Inn. He was treated at Doctors Hospital. He is expected to be released in a couple of days. When he is released, police say they will arrest him and charge him with burglary.

Modesto police spokesman Rick Applegate called the shooting "justified. (Collins) acted in self-defense."

Police said Sanchez has a criminal history for theft and an outstanding $100,000 warrant for his arrest in connection with the burglary of the La Loma Grace Brethren Church on Nov. 4.

Modesto police cautioned the public about imitating Collins or trying to take the law into their own hands.

"Private citizens are discouraged from using lethal force absent a threat to innocent lives," said Lt. Dave Cooperider.

And Applegate said ambushing bad guys was a really bad idea. "I'm not recommending someone lie in wait because the potential of them getting hurt increases."

That said, Applegate said, there was no "bad" in this story. "The guy locked his door and put a box in front of the door. The suspect took away his options. He put Collins in a position where he had to act."

Neighbors near the Hackberry home were quick to close ranks around Collins.

Asked if she thought the shooting was justified, April Weitl, 28, replied, "Absolutely."

Weitl lives directly across the street from the Collins home, which is being remodeled with an additional floor.

"Greg came over a week ago and expressed concern over constant break-ins," said Weitl. "My husband and I tried to keep an eye on the house, but when you're renovating, it's hard to know who belongs and who doesn't."

Neighbor could relate

Weitl said her garage had been burglarized before she started leaving the dogs out at night. She felt personally threatened when she was confronted at her home by what she termed "two drug users."

"Two men approached me in my car and I had the kids so I drove off and came back," said Weitl.

Loretta Carhart, 65, lives across the street and two houses down from Collins. "You doggone betcha I'm glad he shot him.

"There's been a bunch of burglaries." she said. "Another guy on Hackberry has been burglarized twice and two houses on Virginia were hit. I know one of the Virginia homeowners has a gun, too, and he thanked Greg for getting that guy."

Carhart said she was not ready to buy a gun. "But I do know some judo and karate. They've broken into my back yard a dozen times this last year. They've stolen a bicycle and my tools from my toolshed and parts off an exercise bike.

"They're coming from that Modesto Inn," claimed Carhart. "That's why we need security around there."

John Hinckley, a next-door neighbor, said he "slept through everything. I woke up when the police knocked on my door."

After the police left, he found his back door wide open. Somebody had pried it but nothing was taken. Evaluating the morning's events, Hinckley endorsed Collins: "I'm glad he defended his property."

Painter Jeremy Ojan was on his way to Collins' home to place a bid on work there. He arrived on the scene while police tape still surrounded the property. Initially worried, he breathed a sigh of relief when he heard the homeowner was OK, and his mind quickly returned to business: "As long as (the job) is still up for bid."

Rumor shrugged off

When he heard a rumor that the suspect might lose an arm because of the shooting, Ojan shrugged it off. "If (the suspect) loses it, he won't be able to climb through windows again. It's good that people are fighting back."

Collins said he didn't want to kill Sanchez. "I'm a Christian man. I don't want to hurt anyone."

That was why he used a light round, a No. 6 BB, in his shotguns. "That's what I use to hunt pheasant and I wasn't going to buy (heavier round) that might kill somebody."

Collins and police said he had been robbed at least six times in three weeks. Police confirmed Collins had reported two thefts, the latest on Tuesday.

In the first burglary, thieves took $5,000 worth of tools from the building contractor. Collins said he was hit again and again after he replaced some of the tools.

"They broke in Tuesday night but they left a lot of tools behind. I knew they were coming back."

He said he told his wife and an employee on Wednesday that "tonight's the night."

He also said he called police and told them he was going to sleep in the garage with his shotgun.

Applegate confirmed an officer had spoken to Collins on Wednesday about the thefts and his plans.

Collins initially asked reporters and photographers not to use his last name or show his face. But he changed his mind.

"I don't mind people knowing there is someone living here who would do this. Maybe this will stop it.

"This was about more than just losing my tools. My family has stayed here. It's about my right to live here."

Collins concluded that his conscience was clear. "I don't feel bad. I felt worse when I was being robbed all the time. This guy has cost me enough already. I'm going to work."

Staff writer Roger W. Hoskins can be reached at 578-2311 or rhoskins@modbee.com.
Let see: He could have killed the guy with a single, heavier-load shotgun blast, but didn't. He could have shot the guy a second time, but didn't. Oh yeah. Guns are terribly deadly implements of utter destruction. :rolleyes:

When you're involved in a situation where you actually have to fire a gun in self-defense, make sure that you're the only one left to tell your side of the story.

If I ever have to actually fire, I plan on emptying the magazine. I find it highly improbable that someone could survive nine rounds of 230gr +P Golden Saber 45 ACP in the chest.

His relatives may sue, but Virginia is not the state to do it in. That, and I'll be the only witness.
Actually I don't care for the "panic defense", but since the law is so written as to make emotional appeals the rule, I am forced to agree.

And Zaxon, sorry that you think everyone has free rights, in a perfect world that could happen, but unfortunately controlling a minority has to take precedence over giving a majority their 'rights'.

Should taking photos of naked children be allowed simply because most people see it as a child, maybe art, maybe just something normal?
No, because although that gives the majority freedom, it also allows the minority of people who will abuse pictures of children to have their own wicked way...

80 million is a minority in this country, this is true. But I can't see stepping on the rights of 80 million people as being justified in any sense.

You know what? My parents still have photos of me naked in a tub, when I was a kid. Should they be sentenced?

If the child was assaulted in some manner, I would be the first person in line howling for the creep's hide. Molestation is still just that. It seems what you're saying is that no naked photos of children shall ever be taken because there is the small chance that someone might steal them and whack off to 'em--just in case.

There are no rights being infringed by making the infringement of others' illegal. You get your rights, they get theirs--no one gets to step on someone else's rights. Me having a gun on my person is not infringing anyone else's rights. I'm not doing anything to anyone else. Molesting a kid, that's infringing on somebody else's rights.

His relatives may sue, but Virginia is not the state to do it in. That, and I'll be the only witness.
Virginia laws can be just as stupid as California ones.

Woman gets prison term in fatal shooting (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782558263&path=!news&s=1045855934842)

BY ALAN COOPER
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER May 6, 2005

Lloyd Jamal Whitaker Jr.'s departure on Sept. 29 from the home he had shared with Carolyn Taylor did not go smoothly.

He had made several trips to his car with boxes of belongings from the house in the 1300 block of Enfield Avenue.

But Taylor, 33, told police that he had choked her during one of his trips back to the dwelling, and she had locked the door behind him and put a .22-caliber pistol in her pocket.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said. The bullet lodged in Whitaker's pelvis, and he bled to death from what appeared at first to be a superficial wound.

Taylor pleaded guilty in January to involuntary manslaughter, and Richmond Circuit Judge Richard D. Taylor sentenced her yesterday to serve three years and four months in prison. :headbang: She needs a new lawyer. Sombody call Ayoob.

Before she was sentenced, Carolyn Taylor apologized to Whitaker's family and added, "I never meant for him to die. . . . The gun that I had took his life, but I feel that it might have saved my life."

Whitaker's parents testified that his departure from the home was part of an effort to get his life on track. "It's like a part of me left," Lloyd Whitaker Sr. told the judge. "He should have been allowed to leave as he was preparing to do and we wouldn't be here." Here are the appeals to emotion. Bah.

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Diane Abato told the judge that Taylor could have left the apartmentShe LOCKED THE DOOR...[/quote] or called police to keep the confrontation from escalating.[/quote] As if the police would have had time to decide to come, then get there before he returned from the car to kick in the door. :rolleyes:

"But as so often happens in this city, people arm themselves and think that solves the problem," she said. It stops people from choking you though...

Somebody fire Ms Abatoir please.

She didn't have a protective order. That would have made all the difference. But it's really hard to get one.

She didn't have a protective order. That would have made all the difference. But it's really hard to get one.
I'm sorry. You didn't have a government issued order "protecting" you from that random axe-weilding maniac. You have to go to jail now (to live with axe-weilding maniacs) :headbang:

I'm sorry. You didn't have a government issued order "protecting" you from that random axe-weilding maniac. You have to go to jail now. :headbang:

You have to demonstrate that the person poses an immediate threat to life and limb. Witnesses help, as would marks that you had on your neck while he was choking you.

If you demonstrate this in advance, you get a protective order. Sort of like getting a hunting permit.

If you don't have the protective order, you have to hope you're in the right situation with the right witnesses.

You have to demonstrate that the person poses an immediate threat to life and limb. Witnesses help, as would marks that you had on your neck while he was choking you.

If you demonstrate this in advance, you get a protective order. Sort of like getting a hunting permit.

If you don't have the protective order, you have to hope you're in the right situation with the right witnesses.
I know, but that's just bogus as hell. I don't know if California's PO/Self Defense laws are that bad.

You mean that according to your interpretation of FBI statistics CA crime rate peaked in 1992 but according CA's legislative analyst it peaked in 1980. I believe that I'll take their interpretation of their data over your interpretation of the FBI's data.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/calfacts/2000_calfacts_program_trends_part4.html




Again your interpretation of FBI data not the legislative analyst of CA.

You are correct that the crime "rate/100K" peaked in 1980. There were, however, more actual crimes committed in 1992.
This is all according to FBI data.

Canuck likes playing w/ wording and the numbers. His standard tactic is to bounce between percentages/raw numbers/total crime/violent crime/etc. to make his arguement sound authentic. They're all "facts", just highly skewed facts.

Like I stated that crime started dropping in '92. He then came back w/ violent crime only dropped .001% and dropped more in '93 to make it seem like I was being disingenous.

Or showing that NY's violent crime rate dropped 25%

during a certain time period while NH's rose 150%. He didn't state, however, that NH was exponentially lower than NY in the first place and that even w/ the increase, it was a quarter of NY's.

BTW, here is a link of various gun laws throughout the nation as of 2000.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx#

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_pelleteri.txt

Long story short:

Man was arrested and convicted for owning an "assault rifle'. The weapon in question: a Marlin model 60 .22 semi auto that held 17 rounds. The rifle had never been used and still retained the tags from when it was recieved ten years previous.

The courts statement:

When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril . In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license.

Get that, "highly dangerous offensive weapon" .

Here's a Marlin 60:

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/selfLoading22wTubularMag/60.htm

Note: The guy owned an older one. The new ones only have 14 round capacity.