Guns helping lower crime?
 

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7192/protectny0.jpg


I post this here instead of politics so the hippies won't have to find something else that doesn't fit their world view to rationalize away.

I find the bold part the most amusing, but there you have it kids. I love how the gun hater is claiming the crimes by permit holders are not being reported, thats cute.

Allowing law abiding citizens concealed weapons not only do not cause additional crime but also may well lower the crime rate. Who woulda thunk it?

Now for someone with only recreational gun experience, what would you recommend for home protection? I was planning on getting my wife a .223 but thats a target rifle and not all that practical.
Note this article was first seen on fark.

I'm no expert but I think a shot gun is kind of the defacto standard in home defense.

This is surprising... why?

Lawful people trained in the basics of marksmanship covertly carrying lawfully registered firearms in order to defend themselves just in case they get mugged.

I think I understand this because I own and carry firearms... You know the best part? They government lets me do it because I passed their qualification tests.
...

WillRavel?

...

UsTwo,

HANDGUN: Any double action 4" barreled .357 Magnum revolver by Smith & Wesson or Taurus would be a fine "load and forget" home defense handgun. Only gun you'll ever need for a whole lot of reasons. You can load it and leave it forever. No springs to weaken, no mags to fumble or lose, no chamber to jam, no slide to get stuck, and hell, you can use the gun as a club when it runs outta rounds. 100% reliable. Both manufacturers' most recent models feature an integral firing mechanism key lock (for if you have children or wanna sleep with it locked for some reason).

S&W 686 .357 Magnum

Taurus Tracker .357 Magnum

Get some HKS speedloaders and train with them. Ammunition should be Federal Hydrashock or Winchester SXTs. These guns are as easy pie to use. .357 Magnum revolvers can also use .38 Special ammunition, which has less power / kick for training purposes or if your wife is squeamish about recoil.

HKS 6-Shot Speedloader

IMPORTANT: Make sure you keep a high-quality 3v flashlight next to the gun and reloads. Train with the use of the flashlight and handgun in your own home in the dark. Surefire is a popular choice.

Surefire Nitrolon 3V flashlight, your most important home defense tool

ALSO: I'd seriously consider getting a 12 gauge shotgun or pistol-caliber carbine instead of a handgun. I've mentioned the reasons numerous times in other threads. Lemme know if you want me to rehash. Gun talk gets me hard.

Winchester 1300 12 gauge slide-action shotgun, 7 shot mag

Bushmaster 9mm AR-15 style semi-automatic carbine, 30 shot mag

Its not registered guns that are a problem. How often do you hear of a murder taken place by a person who lawfully purchased and owned a gun? So yea, another useless news article if you ask me

WRONG. It gives me a serious woody.

I don't get it crompson... you mean to say a plastic?? oh man, I am hilarious!

Ustwo can you please link your article?

Thanks Crompsin thats EXACTLY what I was looking for.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2008801060602

Thank you. I'm sure you'd ask the same thing if I provided an article that was really anti gun with stats to back it up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-h...e_b_77895.html

You do know what you just linked really has nothing to do with, well anything discussed here right?

For your wife:

If she does not have much firearms experience, she should have something simple, easy to operate, and easy to use (I.E. not intimidating, heavy, or lots of recoil).

I would recommend either a good, simple pistol or a pump shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot, depending on her personal preferences and comfort level.

Any firearm that she is comfortable holding and using in an emergency will be infinitely better than the super deadly cannon that she can't handle. Many women have trouble operating most revolvers due to the distance to the trigger and the force required for the double action trigger. Smith and Wesson makes a line of revolvers designed for women, if you want to go that route. There are many good automatic pistols available, just make sure whatever you buy fits her comfortably so she can pull the trigger and work the safety (if present) easily.


If she is not gun/defense oriented, I don't think you will have much luck getting her to practice reloading or effectively using a flashlight. My wife is willing to go shoot, and is comfortable using some of my firearms, but she is not about to practice using a flashlight while shooting, doing rapid reloads, etc. And to expect her to do so in an emergency would be a mistake. If she remembered the flashlight, she would likely not operate the weapon well as she would be screwing around with a light. A weapon-mounted light is an option, but while helpful isn't really necessary.

I leave a nightlight on in our hallway to keep this from being a problem. My wife can see well enough to ID and engage a bad guy, and doesn't have to worry about anything else.

For you: Crompsin's advice is dead on, though I personally don't see much value in a 9mm carbine, you get pistol performance out of a package the size of a real rifle.

Don't necessarily discount a .223 or one of its variants as Crompsin posted. Heck, my Bushmaster DCM rifle is what I use, but the AR Carbines are small enough to keep in a drawer, yet they also have an intimidation factor.

In fact, a good friend of mine (and former CMP Highpower teammate) scared a robber out of his home with an empty M1A. He had his handgun with him, but did not want to shoot if he didn't have to. Being behind a closed door, he simply yelled "I'm armed", allowed the bolt on the rifle to snap shut, and the thief panicked and booked as fast as possible. No actual confrontation took place.

To add to this,

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...ying-homicide/

In other words, the police don't want to admit that 'subjects' can defend themselves adequately.

Remington 870, 20" barrel, pistol grip with stock, tactical flashlight to identify and blind potential threats, 00 buckshot through an open choke. Ring sights or a red dot wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

Buy five boxes of 25, shells, you and your wife each take two, go to the range, put the target out to 7 yards for one box, then somewhere around the longest line of sight in your house, and practice. Set the gun down on the rest, one of you calls out "go!" from a safe spot, the other picks up the gun, pumps it if you don't plan to keep one in the chamber, paints the target with the flashlight, then fires at center of mass.

If the range is a small, friendly place and nobody else is there, ask if they can dim the lights, and get multiple targets, at least one each of a person holding a gun and an unarmed person (you'll probably have to get a hostage target, or just one with the person not pointing the gun at you.) Run the target out on the line, the proceed with the drill. It's not an ideal simulation, but it will help familiarize you with distinguishing threats from unarmed intruders. It may be legal to shoot someone who's in your home unarmed, but if you can minimize the chance of shooting if you don't have to, it's better for you in both legal proceedings and from a psychological and ethical standpoint.

I'd also like to once again bring up the fact that the only violent crime known to have been committed with a legally owned machine gun was an off-duty police officer murdering a drug dealer with his Mac-10.

It says fewer gun deaths. Note that between 2001 and 2006, Michigan saw an increase or little (or rebounding) change to the following crimes (measured as an index per 100,000 people): murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and vehicle theft.

Another interesting statistic, too, is how many of these crimes were committed by those with CCW permits. As the OP article suggests, 1 out of 100 permits are revoked. Some of these were as a result of major crimes being committed.

I'd like see how these "laws reduce crime." What crime, exactly, are they talking about? I'm not saying that the publicity of CCW permits wouldn't reduce crime; I'm just curious to know which crimes were affected the most. I'm thinking property crimes would suffer the greatest impact.

But that's the whole idea. Full-size rate of fire and controllability. Handgun ballistics. This isn't a SWAT kill-kill-kill gun, this is a home defense piece.

That and they don't make many pistol caliber carbines in .45 anymore. The Marlin Camp .45 and the Timberwolf .357 were real beasts but they stopped production.

Timberwolf. Great gun, hard to find.

Winchester's short-short .44 Magnum cowboy carbines are a great choice for home defense, too.

Baraka Guru: Even if they don't reduce crime, they do allow individual citizens to take responsibility for their own safety. Even if crime as a whole remains constant, the CCW law gives those who want to excercise it, the ability to increase their level of personal security and decrease their individual chances of becoming a victim.

As a fan of personal responsibility, I don't see the downside to this.



What I failed to convey in my previous post about firearms choices was that for someone who is not going to spend a great deal of time getting familiar with their weapon, absolute simplicity is paramount, IMHO.

For home defense probably a shotgun is the best choice. If you want a handgun then any of the 9mm semi-autos like Glock or Beretta would be a good choice, plus light and easy to carry if you decide to later.

With a pump action shotgun just chambering a round is enough to scare most intruders. I bought my wife a Benelli M3 Super 90. It can be selected for pump action or semi-auto.

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/ben_m3s90.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/ben_m3_switch.jpg

Type: selective pump-action or semi-auto recoil inertia operated
Gauge: 12
Length: 1040-1200mm
Barrel length: 500-660 mm.
Weight 3.2-3.5 kg
Capacity: 8 rounds in underbarrel tube magazine


The Benelli M3 is an updated version of the Benelli M1 shotgun. M3 uses same inertia recoil semi-automatic system as earlier Benelli M1, but with addition of the another Benelli patented feature, which allows to the shooter to lock the semi-automatic action and switch to the manually operated pump-action mode and back in the matter of seconds. The action type switch is located at the forward end of the forearm, and is formed as an annular knurled ring. Rotation of this ring either engages the action rods of the pump system and locks the semi-automatic recoil system, or disengages the action bars, locks the forearm and allows the inertia recoil system to operate the action automatically. This greatly improves the versatility of the shotgun, allowing it to fire low-powered ammunition (mostly of special purpose, such as less-lethal rubber or tear-gas projectiles) in the manually operated pump action mode, and to fire full power combat loads with slugs or buckshot in rapid semi-automatic mode. Underbarrel tubular magazine usually holds 8 rounds for police or military versions, or less in some civilian models.

M3 Super 90 is available with various barrel lengths and stock options, with fixed butt and semi-pistol or pistol grips, or with top-folding butts and pistol grips. Sight options include shotgun-type open sights, rifle type open sights, ghost ring (diopter) sights and various mounts for red dot or low magnification telescope sights and tactical flashlights and laser pointers.

I think Crompsin nailed it with a .357 revolver or a pump/auto shotgun. I personally wouldn't recommend an automatic pistol or semi auto rifle for home defense unless using firearms is a hobby of yours. Although anything is better than nothing.

KISS principle imo for home defense.

That's a lot of barrel to be swinging around, methinks.

How can guns lower crime when gun control is broken?

whoa, how much is that? :oogle:

Well.. in one third of the studies, removing "broken" gun control had no effect on crime... so it's not always the case that law-abiding citizens looking out for their own security lowers crime.

About $1000 last time I checked.

Well I guess if the barrel is too long it could always be shortened (sawed off) like Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame did but we all know what happened to him.:)

At the very least it shows that allowing concealed carry permits does not INCREASE crime and why limit liberty if it has no positive effect and may well have a negative one?

I'll try to make this more clear:
Under ENFORCED and UNBROKEN gun control, the statistics from the OP are likely to change significantly. Recognizing that existing gun control isn't enforced and procedures set up are not followed, it's unfair to scrap the entire idea. Is this more clear?

You mean how strong gun control has made the UK safer?

Come on now will drop the liberal hat, you are wrong on this one.

Please, stop recommending pistols for home defense. Most pistol rounds, even popular hollow points, will penetrate further through common building materials than .223 or 00 buckshot. There's nowhere to mount a proper sight or flashlight (critical for a nighttime defense gun) and only massive revolvers that are unwieldy, heavy, and vastly overpowered for use on human targets approach even half the sight radius of the shortest Title I shotgun (I don't think I have to specify that Title II guns are almost always a bad idea for home defense.)

UK crime rates are insignificant compared to the US. Do your homework before chastising people.

Remove gang violence from US crime statistics and see where we end up. I haven't done the math in a few years, but it brings us pretty close to the rest of the world. I see that as evidence that our socioeconomic and education systems are broken rather than our gun control laws.

(unzips his fly for an epic pissing match with a fellow gun nut)

Check this out: http://www.theboxotruth.com/index.htm

Oh really?

Do yours.

London has more violent crime than New York.

The US murder rates are higher, take out gang violence and we are the same as the rest of Europe, and as a white male I have less chance of being murdered than many of my European counterparts.

Time to shatter another liberal illusion.

You're comparing the safest large city in the US to the most violent large city in the UK. Apples to oranges to the Nth degree. Compare London to LA and then we'll talk.
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
So? Take out soccer violence and Spain is crime free but that has nothing to do with anything. The US has gangs, therefore they're a part of the stats. You can't just edit them out because you don't have Crypts outside your office.

"Please, stop recommending pistols for home defense."

I don't. At all. I recommend a shoulder-fired weapon for home defense. If people are set on a handgun, that's their choice. I recommend safe weapons... period.

"There's nowhere to mount a proper sight or flashlight (critical for a nighttime defense gun)."

Golly gosh! How did we ever defend our homes before that trendy Picatinny rail or tritium sights!? I have both items on most of my firearms, but ya know what? Proper training whups technology every time. 'Nam proved that much.

"Most pistol rounds, even popular hollow points, will penetrate further through common building materials than .223 or 00 buckshot."

Which would explain why 9mm and .45 handguns are so popular with military, L.E., and civilians everywhere. Which one of these is going to hit a man at 300 yards and which one is going to be stopped by a concrete block? .223 or 9mm? Penetration my ass. .223 is lighter, goes faster, and has more range. It is a rifle round. Home defense with a .223 is silly for numerous reasons. Why not home defense with an AK47? C'mon, man.

Buckshot, on the other hand, doesn't have any of the issues of a rifle round. No uniform rifled twist to direct energy, it has a random "musket ball" spin. It is part of a large group of soft, round projectiles. Buckshot is a superior home defense choice because the of the "big slap" wound capability, short range of the weapon and lack of power behind any individual projectile.

"And only massive revolvers that are unwieldy, heavy, and vastly overpowered for use on human targets."

A S&W .357 Magnum is hardly considered heavy or unwieldy. .357 Magnum has a long history of being one of the best man-stoppers out there (86% "one shot drops" according to FBI stats). Hardly too powerful by any stretch of the imagination. Modern ammunition is of a low flash powder variety and modern hollow point or frangible bullets are very effective at not bouncing around.

"...approach even half the sight radius of the shortest Title I shotgun."

Yeah, because sight radius is so important at across-the-room distances.

...

Okay, bed time.

Shotgun it is then...

Yeah... as everybody on this thread has said:

Get a 12 gauge shotgun with the buckshot size of your preference.

Most importantly, though... get a flashlight and train with your tools.

As GI Joe told you many years ago: "Education is your best defense."

And knowing is half the battle... GI JOE.

Mr. Self Destruct:

I don't think a pistol is the ideal defensive weapon by any means. However, I do think pistols are often a good compromise. They are easy to lock up, can be easily kept out of sight yet still quickly accessible, easy to use (revolvers anyways), and are generally 'less threatening' which is actually pretty important to a lot of people. It sounds silly, but my wife won't touch the shotgun, but she is perfectly comfortable using a pistol. I have known a lot of women (and a few men) who are simply not comfortable handling larger firearms.

Also, it is easy to take a pistol to any indoor/outdoor range to practice. Since USTWO specifically mentioned that he was interested in a firearm for his wife and he seems to be the driving force behind acquiring a home defense weapon (I.e. she isn't off getting her own gun), I am assuming that his wife, like mine, is only lukewarm about firearms. As such, knocking her around with some OO buck is probably not the best way to get her to go back to the range or feel comfortable with a defensive weapon. But a .357 loaded with light .38 loads is an easy weapon to learn on, easy to shoot, not threatening (for the shooter, at least), and generally ameniable to someone who is not a fellow gun nut. Which means she is far more likely to actually have it available and/or use it if it ever becomes necessary.

If his wife is experienced and not 'shy' around weapons, then a shotgun is a much better choice.

And while Pistols are decidedly harder to shoot well, and have a very limited range, they are plenty accurate enough for a bedroom or hallway encounter, even at night.

Tactical lights are another aid to those who are willing to learn how to use them in conjunction with a firearm. But unless you have one with a pressure pad, they really take time to get used to, which USTWO's wife probably isn't going to bother with (again, I'm assuming she is somewhat like mine).

Besides, even over here in afghanistan, I keep a pistol near my bed because it takes too long to get up, grab and shoulder a long gun from bed.


I guess this whole debate probably boils down to a percieved difference in ability. I agree that a shotgun is the better weapon, but not that it is better for everyone in all circumstances.

Can we take out gang violence from the rest of Europe as well? How well will the comparison hold up then? London alone has at least 169 gangs.

Do you usually shatter "illusions" by overlaying it with another?

Please compare population sizes, numbers of violent crimes and be aware that after you make your shocking discovery that the US puts rapes and sexual assaults into our violent crime statistics and the UK doesn't to add icing to your discovery.

I've done this before, I won't do your google homework for you this time.

I'm mixed on this point. for novice firearm owners/enthusiasts, I'd agree that the shotgun is a better home defense weapon, however, handguns can be just as effective in the hands of more experienced people by choosing the type of round and the grain used and still be safe from over penetration.

You are being presumptuous and are missing the point. You wanted to take out a chunk of data to make an unequal comparison. Why is this?

Don't worry about my homework, I'm fine with it as always. Why not do yours? Are you going to answer my question or not? I would prefer statistics with a fair comparison, such as a rate per 1,000 or 100,000 people.

If you don't want to do this, then fine. It was a rhetorical question because your suggestion was weak. Why take gang violence out of the U.S. equation to compare it to the U.K. equation with it intact?

Not only did you have help last time, but ended up being wrong. Now you're on your own and acting like "oh well I already proved my points elsewhere *link missing*" and then do an end-zone dance.

I'll bust a cap in ALL your asses.

cool website.


I don't want to get on which weapon is best for self defense... because I think its mostly personal preference/comfort with the chosen weapon


Before I took the class for my CHL I was talking with my uncle(hes a class III FFL) and he said to practice shooting in situations like what you would encounter in a self defense situation... at night/evening, varying distances, varying shooting positions, and without ear protection(just once tho)

all I have to say about the no ear protection is DAMN guns are loud... those little yellow foam bits sure make a world of difference... shooting a pistol feels so much more intense and concussive without the earplugs. I'm glad I did it so I know what to expect... I dont think asking the baddies to wait while I stick fluorescent colored foam in my ears will work
*shrug* just a neat little aside...

You get over flinching from recoil, muzzle flash, and noise.

You tune out the noise and the ringing in your ears.

Think a pistol hurts? Try shooting an M249 indoors!

my ears are ringing just *thinking* about that. Guns are so damn loud - really makes the movies seem absurd :surprised:

I'm thinking the shotgun is the way to go. I've got pretty damn good aim but at close range potentially in the dark, why take a chance with missing. Also a bit harder to take a shotgun from someone.

Thanks for the advice.

Mosserg 500. Remington 870. Winchester 1300.

Check out www.GunBroker.com for ideas on price.

That's the basis of my statement that .223 will penetrate less than most pistol rounds.

I cant hear for shit anymore.

:(

what part of box o truth are you getting that from- they forund that drywall stops nada, and that 12 pine boards will not stop 5.56, where 8 or nine stopped the pistol rounds they tested..... where on that site are you finding that 5.56 does not penetrate more than a pistol round?

I should say, after exhaustive searching, that there is quite a debate on the penetration of 5.56, and it seems to hinge on weight of the bullet- the idea being that normally because the projectile is so light, and the energy so high, the 5.56 will get busted up and spend most of its energy on whatever it hits first, become unstable as hell in flight, and either hit the ground or break up into very small fragments- though some sources say the 62 grain steel core will not reliably do this, and tends to stay intact and use the much greater than a pistol round energy that it has to go through quite a bit of stuff...... the fbi likes the 5.56, as their tests showed it was less likely to overpenetrate than most pistol rounds- No one should think, however, that any rifle, pistol, or buckshot round will not go through several rooms in your house, however.......

Sure... Hornady TAP .223 is fine for CQB. Fancy pants ammo is great. Military steel core ball? Not so much.

I'd rather have a heavier bullet for up close, myself. Odds are ya only get a single shot. Make it count.

This whole ammo versus platform debate? I like two-handed weapons in pistol calibers for home defense (Bushmaster 9mm CAR). A rifle caliber pistol would be the exact opposite of my first choice. A straight pistol (H&K USP 45) followed by a straight rifle (CAR-15) would be next preference, then maybe something like my cute little ProOrd Type 97 CAR-15 pistol.

Meh, I was worried more about maximum range than penetration. Penetration is rarely an issue when drywall / flat windows are involved but how far a 9mm will fly versus how far a .223 will fly isn't any mystery.

I think this silly sub-debate is less caliber-size concerned and more projectile-type concerned.

Using prefragmented rounds (preferred) or hollowpoints for home defense is a good idea.

"In buckshot we trust."

I'm glad there is gun control here in the UK. The violent crime that we do get (largely from young idiotic louts) would be much worse if the perpetrators had easy access to guns.

perhaps, but here, if someone kicks in my door to rob me, I can shoot them, while you guys are forced to cower in fear, and can be sent to prison if you oppose them with force, even in self defense- and here my 5 foot tall wife can effectively defend herself against a 7 foot tall attacker- more than you poor brittons can say- So I guess I would rather be a citizen than a subject......

news flash, if the perps already have guns, what does it matter whether they have easier access? The only thing your UK gun control has done is eliminate your right to defend yourselves.

Because most ignorant citizens blame the hardware for crime activity and wouldn't confront your above fact unless they outlawed thumbs, too.

This logic, applied differently, sounds like this:

If the terrorists already have networks and resources, what does it matter whether they have more? The only thing the American war on terrorism has done is eliminate Americans' civil rights.

Explosives, small arms, and biological & nuclear weapons don't kill people, terrorists do.

Seriously, this binary absolutism doesn't sit well. Also, I always found "perps" to be a funny word. Kinda like "pervs."

...have deadlocks, security screen doors, double pane windows, big dogs, mase, tasers, clubs, knives, axes, swords, and a PLETHORA of other options that don't involve cowering. But it's really inconvenient for people to ignore these options because guns are really hard to excuse outside of some bizarre and unlikely situation involving self defense, such as a violent home invasion.

Most crime in the UK is either petty or drug related.

Oh, I almost forgot alarm system. Did you know that 9 of 10 convicted burglars agreed that they would avoid a house protected by an alarm system?(US Department of Justice, 1999) That's a funny statistic when compared with that which addresses how many would avoid a house protected by a gun, which is decidedly less. But again, these are inconvenient facts when one is trying to excuse being armed just in case.

Oh, let's get down the REAL problem:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13...gesture_46.jpg

This damn finger. It's dangerous. It should be regulated or banned.

DID YOU KNOW: This finger caused well over 75% the deaths during WWII. From machine guns triggers to grenade pins to tank levers to flamethrower buttons to the finger that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

DAMN YOU, FINGERS.

...

This would be why the US has such a low rate of crime compared to other comparable gun-controlling countries, right?

Gun crime? Sure. We'll give you that. We actually HAVE guns.

...

Crime in general? Get real. The US is pretty damn safe.

Let's not even talk about Asia / Africa.

Why not?

Total Crime per capita

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
#2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
#3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
#4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
#5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
#6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
#7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
#9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
#11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
#12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
#13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
#14 France: 62.1843 per 1,000 people
#15 Seychelles: 52.9265 per 1,000 people
#16 Hungary: 44.9763 per 1,000 people
#17 Estonia: 43.3601 per 1,000 people
#18 Czech Republic: 38.2257 per 1,000 people
#19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
#20 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people

Data's a little old (2000), but you get the idea.

Maybe you're thinking about crime and poverty?

. . . . .

And about the finger: Good analogy. This is what I'm talking about. We look at guns vs. no guns, and meanwhile we forget about all the in-betweens.

#59 India: 1.63352 per 1,000 people

Wow. Hard to choke that one down.

...

But, yeah, I just clowned myself in this thread.

Research prevails, ignorance strikes again!

We need more good guys with guns and less bad guys with guns. We're doing pretty well in the legitimate market, the black market is the problem. Responsible and legal gun ownership is a good thing and the fear of guns and gun owners by a large segment of the population, combined with lack of knowledge of these things is a problem. I don't think everyone should have a gun, hell, I don't think 90% of the people out there should even be allowed to drive, but when someone is willing to train to use a gun and carry it for protection of self and others, violent crime will decrease, not increase.

As we scale up inspections of imported goods, more illegal guns will be found entering the country. Norinco took a huge hit when the ATF found the big undeclared shipment of giggle-switch AKs a few years ago, it's going to be another year or two before they can get anything other than a few shotguns back on the US market, and only because someone signed a contract to manufacture in the US for them. When it's on that scale, one or two finds can put a big dent in the black market.

The biggest demographic of illegal gun buyers and owners is gang members. With crackdowns on gangs increasing (at least in my area,) illegal guns are being seized constantly and taken out of the hands of people who will cause harm with them. Violent criminals should be punished very severely when they have tools that allow them to commit violent crimes. I would support heavy recommended sentences for anyone who has a gun in their possession during the commission of a violent or coercive crime.

Here's a question that never gets answered: what happens between production and illegal ownership? What goes wrong?

In 1994, Norinco was caught shipping 2000 AK47s to the US; these were determined to be headed to Oakland, CA for sale to gang members. Since automatic weapons are still found in the possession of gang members, it's reasonable to think that this kind of thing has happened repeatedly and not been discovered.

Some dealers knowingly sell to criminals or turn a blind eye to shady sales, and those dealers are typically shut down by the ATF. Some guns are stolen, some bought privately from people who either don't know or don't care about the legality of the buyer owning a gun. Some are bought by gang members who keep clean criminal records so they can straw purchase guns for the gang. Crime guns are passed around and sold to other gangs to disrupt the evidence trail.

The biggest gun violence demographic is gangs, both perpetrators and victims, and it seems logical to me that they should be the largest target of investigations and prosecutions. I would consider it reasonable to study the feasibility and potential effectiveness of adding convictions for gang-related activity to the list of disqualifications for legal gun purchases. Investigations into gangs should look at the sources of illegal guns and focus on ways to shut down those channels without affecting legal owners.

Very good information, MSD. I wasn't aware that Norinco had such a blatant role in providing guns to criminals. Were they punished in any way?

define illegal ownership?

You know the hypothetical people who invade your home with guns and threaten your family? The ones you own guns to protect your family from? Them. Criminals. Gang members. People who buy guns from the trunks of cars.

There is a problem with that. I can legally buy a weapon from the trunk of a car. I believe you can also do so in the states of louisiana, mississippi, new mexico, arizona, and a host of others. In fact, any state that does not require a 'purchase permit', does not regulate private sales, as it should be.

As to the other categories you stated, wouldn't it be of higher prudence to make the criminal use of a weapon illegal instead of mere ownership?

So i'll ask again, how do you define illegal ownership? Why should ownership of anything be regulated?

If the guns in the back of a car were obtained illegally, which is implied, then the sale is not covered by the lack of a purchase permit. The idea is that people who would not pass background checks are bypassing that system in order to obtain weapons. Did you even read this:
Would you take issue with this situation or allow it? Because it's starting to seem as if you're okay with gang members being armed.
I'll tell you what, why don't we take all of the ex convicts who were convicted for using firearms in their crimes move into your neighborhood and let them have guns. Then you can tell me about how gun ownership shouldn't be regulated.

If the guns were stolen, then they wouldn't belong to the seller anyway, so the implication is really false.

There are many ways to bypass a background check, which is why there shouldn't even be one. All the system does is retard the ability of decent people to buy guns.

Again, why are we criminalizing mere possession? Possession should not be a criminal act, the actual crime of violence with the weapon is what we should be pursuing.

You are seriously deluded if you think that every ex-con avoids possessing a gun. They are doing it in your very own neighborhood as you type and all with the current regulation there in california as strict as it is. In reality, the only ones the regulations affect are the law abiding people who wish to protect themselves.

To add to this thought, WHY should an ex-con, who has supposedly paid his debt to society, be denied the right to effectively defend his own life, home, and family?

The implication is that the guns are "illegal", so it's not only not false, but it's perfect.
Bias impacted opinions aside, that's the worst reason to get rid of a law in history. "Some people get around it, so it should be abolished".
You're right. If the FBI finds an Islamic fundamentalist group in the US with a nuclear weapon we're SOL because they only have the weapon. It's just possession, which shouldn't be a criminal act. Just because they came upon it by illegal means and they're likely to use it to kill people doesn't mean that our police should be pursuing it.
Stop right there, hot shot. If you're going to head in this direction I'm leaving the thread along with all my perfectly valid points because we all know how this conversation goes once it turns from factual discussion to personal insults. Are you capable of having this discussion without insulting people?
Unless you have evidence that ex-convicts who were convicted of gun crimes can pass background checks, I'll have to ask that you reexamine your answer or post some rather serious evidence.
Because paying one's debt is not the same as earning trust.

guns are not illegal, therefore your implication is false.

Thats not what I said. Because the law affects ONLY law abiding people, it should be abolished and that those who commit criminal acts with guns should then be prosecuted.

a nuke is not a gun, this is a worthless argument and only shows your desperation.

before you get all insulted, read the rest of the statement as it applies perfectly.

A background check should not be required for the exercise or enjoyment of a right and if said convict cannot be trusted on the outside, why is he outside?

so we're back to only letting people exercise rights when YOU trust them? can I have that power also?

The guns are stolen property. It's illegal to be in possession of stolen property. This isn't complicated.
You think background checks don't effect people that don't pass?
A nuke is a weapon and the only way that you seem to register the seriousness of the situation is by comparing it to it's ultimate interpretation.
"You're delusional if you believe *insert exaggerated and incorrect interpretation of what I said here*" is still an attempt t call me delusional.
Why? because you can't be imprisoned because you could commit a crime. Intent alone cannot convict and that's as it should be. The funny thing is that if you read into your argument, either people are trustworthy or they should be in jail. Do you understand the concept of why black and white thinking is wrong?
You trust an ex convict found guilty of using a gun to have a gun. I call bs.

This thread belongs in politics.

Mmmmmm lets see

Shot gun or a sword wielding dog with bees in its mouth armed with little tasers.

I'm still getting the shot gun.

Dogs crap all over.

Lets try this again.
You defined illegal ownership as 'People who buy guns from the trunks of cars', therefore you must be stating that all guns sold out of trunks are illegal. I then told you that private sales are not regulated in the state of texas, therefore if someone sells me a gun out of the trunk of his car, this does not make the gun illegal. You then restated that you are implying that guns sold out of trunks of cars are illegal, which I again told you is false. This must be more complicated to you than it is to me if you're unable to understand that.

No, because people that couldn't pass a background check can buy guns just about anywhere else.

:rolleyes:

do you believe that all ex-cons strictly obey gun laws? If you do, then guess what? You would be delusional. That's not an insult, that's reality.

First off, you should know better than anyone that intent alone can convict. You've posted about these things under the Bush admin many times. Are all of your claims then false? Secondly, whether people are trustworthy or not is irrelevant. It's all about actions so I'm hardly on the black and white line with this argument.

call whatever you like. I've known a few that I would trust with a gun, simply because i've actually got to know them, but that's beside the point. Whether they are trustworthy or not is also irrelevant because if the ex-con really wants a gun, he's going to get a gun. Nothing you, or the government, can do to stop him.

Guns don't fetch. :expressionless:

DK, let's start over for the sake of sanity and actually sticking to the point. I'll ask my question again:

Using MSD's post about Norinco as a jumping off point, where do criminals who use guns in their crimes get their guns from?

not having read the actual facts of the case, i'd first have to say that criminals get their guns from any source outside of the current law. To do so, they either have to steal them, or conspire with another entity to get around the limitations of the law. In most cases, this isn't hard to do.

While I understand that law enforcement agencies like to use possession laws to make prosecuting said gangbangers easier, they have a larger effect against a majority of the populace by placing limitations, restrictions, and hurdles for citizens to exercise a right. I don't believe this was the intent of the constitution....to make the majority suffer because of a minority.

What would you do to prevent violent criminals who use guns in crimes from getting guns (other than simply arming everyone)?

keep them in prison. That is the only sure way of keeping them from using guns against the rest of the law abiding population. In other words, if you commit a violent crime with a WEAPON (gun, knife, club, etc.) then you get life in prison with no chance for parole.

This, though, suggests that you believe one of two things: either there aren't many criminals who use weapons or we have plenty of room in our prisons.

In response to the loss of manufacturing jobs to places like China and India, America is seeing a spike in converted prison towns.

There ARE many criminals who use weapons and we WOULD have plenty of room if we prosecuted the right crimes. For instance, if we'd stop jailing simple marijuana possession for years on end and stop releasing violent criminals who use weapons after a few years, we might see a balance in the way society reacts and has to act.

Should I be worried when I start finding myself agreeing with you in a gun thread? I totally agree with this post.

should you be worried? not at all. It's a fresh look at freedom and liberty. welcome my friend.

They were banned from importing anything but sporting shotguns for ten years and still aren't getting anything in. Some guy in the midwest signed a contract to make replacement parts for them and will eventually make the guns, but I won't be buying any because even if they hadn't tried to arm the segment of our population responsible for the most violent crime, they're still a company based on child and slave labor (technically really bad sweatshops with no safety precautions around heavy machinery and firearms, but close enough.)

Why not arm everyone- it seems to work for switzerland- they seem to have little problem with home invasions, drive-by's and such.... and they have a whole bunch of handy assault rifles.... why does no pro gun control person study their success.....

Comon Fire, research!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Their crime rate has nothing to do with gun ownership.

We're be a lot better off just letting the people who want to arm themselves do so.

We have and it's fallen on deaf ears. Mainly because 'it's insane to give everyone a gun'....

I'm not sure about that.

This creates a lot of people who have no understanding of firearms, are terrified of them, and think its 'best' if they are outlawed.

Having a gun use and safety class mandatory for all high school students might not be a bad thing for all in the long run.

The knee jerk reaction of course is we will have more school shootings or some such, but that same knee jerk reaction to gun crime has proven to do just the opposite after they ban them.

It probably would also help if we could stop fostering the 'guns are only for criminals' urban propaganda that has flourished for the last 35 years.

Oh, I don't disagree with that, but once everyone realizes that guns aren't evil and can be fun in addition to being able to save them in worst-case scenarios, I think we'd be better off not pushing for anyone to own and/or carry who isn't 100% ready to take on the responsibility of carrying a gun for self-defense.

All political correctness and sensitivity aside, of the things guns are made to do, the primary purpose is to allow the user to escape from imminent death or harm by killing the assailant before he can do any harm. Nobody should own a gun for self-defense unless they understand that self defense with a gun requires willingness to kill another person. I hope that I will never so much as have to consider touching a gun in response to a threat, but I realize that if I am armed and faced with a life-or-death situation, that there will be no warning shots, the bad guy's gun will not be shot out of his hand, I will have to shoot first unless the attacker ceases to pose a threat to my life in the time it takes to draw and aim.

I just don't think that the majority of people are willing to make that commitment.

I might play with a gun on a range (if I were massively bored and possibly drunk), but there's no way I'm having one in my home. As such, training me wouldn't make much sense.

not to preach, but one should never play with a gun while drunk, much as one should never drive drunk- i am sure that was in jest- Further, note, that I in part believe that our problem is cultural, and the banning of items will not matter a damn bit, a determined person will kill the shit out of his neighbors somehow..... what we should do is work on is personal responsibility- once the will to harm is there, it is going to happen, whether with a gun or a rock or a bomb- really, with our culture like it is, if you ban guns, and somehow keep CRIMINALS from getting them ILLEGALLY, then the bombs will start going off- look at iraq- I see us going that route rather than toward any other end.....

No sence arguing.

I am a warrior.