F
FghtinIrshNvrDi
Guest
Yes, I realize that.
- Status
X
XndrK
Guest
Especially since Chicago and DC already tried and failed (cf. District of Columbia v. Heller).
Also, a couple of nice charts: The number of new guns in the United States per year.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/guns_manuf.jpg?itok=Do_Y28Aa
The United States homicide rate (again, per year).
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/homicide_51yr.JPG?itok=-_z6lBiI
I for one don’t see a correlation.
F
FghtinIrshNvrDi
Guest
I see an inverse relationship. 
P
Paganus
Guest
True, but legally speaking, only the stripped lower is the actual rifle. Hopefully his righteous anger will be satisfied with executing only that particular wicked block of metal and the rest of the innocent lower assembly and the delightful upper and all the joyful accessories will be spared his wrath and donated to the happy home of the hopeful owner of a lonely stripped lower. It’s hard to say from the article. He does not seem to be a reasonable man.
O
otjm
Guest
Take out Chicago and a few other high murder rate cities, and the second figure goes even lower.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
LOL!
I have met few anti-gunners who are.
Please take 15 minutes to watch this video. Stephen Crowder, if you are unfamiliar with the name, is a journalist, comedian, and staunch conservative. In this well-produced video, he pretends to be an anti-gun activist and gets other anti-gun people to show their ignorance and naiveté on the subject of guns and how so many of them simply have no idea what they are talking about. For example, some people say a wood-and-metal hunting rifle is OK but a “scary-looking” AR-15 should be banned, and then are shocked to learn that them ammunition used in the hunting rifle is twice as big as what is used in the AR-15.
youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
F
FghtinIrshNvrDi
Guest
Edited for accuracy.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
delauro.house.gov/images/pdf/SAFERStreetsAct114th.pdf
Speaking of AR lower receivers. Here’s a proposed gun law I can get behind. It would provide a $2,000 tax credit (spread across two years) to any person turning in an ‘assault weapon’ as defined under the law.
Best part is that it defines just the stripped lower receiver as an ‘assault weapon’. So- $2,000 tax credit for a ~$120 item. That would stimulate lower receiver production, provide a tax credit large enough for a replacement lower and a good build with money left over. Taxpayer wins, manufacturers win and folks pushing the law get to feel good about themselves for all those destroyed blocks of aluminum.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this law moving forward and actually being enacted.
O
otjm
Guest
You mean there might actually be someone looking at this thread who did not know that Chicago was a Democratic city???Edited for accuracy.
O
otjm
Guest
Given the almost absolute lack of any knowledge of weapons and their parts, I don’t know - it just might fly right through…
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Not really.Given the almost absolute lack of any knowledge of weapons and their parts, I don’t know - it just might fly right through…
Allow me to explain. A rifle such as an AR-15 is made up of many parts. Two of the major parts are simply called the “upper” and the “lower”. The “lower” is the part where the trigger mechanism is and, for purposes of the law, constitutes the “gun”.
Most people when they buy an AR-15, buy a fully-assembled AR-15 that is ready-to-shoot straight out of the box. However some hard-core enthusiasts like to but their guns piecemeal and put it all together themselves. Most of the parts - the stock, the barrel, the sights, various accessories, and even the upper - can be purchased unrestricted. But when you purchase the lower, you must go through the full background check and pass all the other requirements just as if you were purchasing a fully-assembled gun. A typical lower can be had for as low as $120.
So if such a law were in effect, savvy gun owners would, in effect, be selling the government a $120 gun for $2000 (paid for by the taxpayers, of course) then taking their $1880 profit and buying more guns.
So basically, it is a bad idea, won’t solve any “gun problems” and will cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
It wouldn’t be quite $1,880 in profit given, as you point out, you still must pay for the background check/state registration processing fees. Unless you complete an 80% lower you bought on sale for ~$65 where you avoided those costs. Then there’s a bit more profit although you half to throw in about 4-6 hours of labor if you do it on a jig. (Almost no labor if you use a CNC machine- but I think to be fair you’d need to count part of the cost of the machine against the profit).
I think it would help in increasing the production of lowers which would address the ‘gun problem’ of manufacturing not keeping up with demand spikes.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
OK. The numbers might be a little off, but you get the idea.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Yeah, I actually completely agree with what you wrote and was just being pedantic and using it as an opportunity to bring up the 80% lowers. It’s just one of those proposals, like most gun laws, that seem to have been written by someone with absolutely no knowledge/understanding of the reality of firearms---- or---- someone using it as an opportunity to sneak in something.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Or pandering for votes from people too dumb to know any better.
A
anon67074017
Guest
I thought that churches supported gun rights.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
There are a lot of pages in this thread and I have not read them all. So sorry if this was posted earlier.
Exerpt from the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy position paper titled “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice”, 2000. This position was adopted by the entire conference.
All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse. As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns (“Policy Foundations and Directions” 4).
A footnote to this section states:
However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. “Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated ‘call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990), 10.
Also:
The Vatican is a strong proponent of including handguns in the the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which would better regulate the flow of conventional arms. (source: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace). This of course would hinder international marketing efforts of US gun makers and is opposed by these companies.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
It appears then that the Church leadership, like so many others, is also woefully ignorant of the simple logic that criminals do not care about gun laws any more than any other law.
It is a sad but true fact that some people are wont on killing others. Cain killed Abel with a rock. Later on, there were clubs, then spears, then arrows, then guns. Someday guns may be obsolete and we’ll do our killing with laser pistols or particle beams weapons.
A gun is just a tool. Guns and knives are completely banned in prisons, yet prisoners create “shanks” out of whatever scrap materials they can find and do their killing that way.
Truth be told, the most dangerous weapon on Earth is not the gun, but the Human Mind.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
I agree with the Bishops. Complete elimination would be ideal. Even if it’s not possible we should work towards it because the less guns, the less deaths by guns.
The human mind + a gun is more dangerous. Even if you are a good guy with a gun, accidents happen. If you own a gun you are more likely to be shot.
motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
From the same article, here is a chart that shows that the more gun owners in a state the more people die by guns.
F
FghtinIrshNvrDi
Guest
Mother Jones is not a reliable source - it’s a radical left wing outfit that produces sophist statistics to help people think banning guns is smart. It’s not. Between lies, damned lies, and statistics, these are completely the most abhorrent of all, “statistics.”
- Status