R
RandomAlias
Guest
Must be those other factors.
- Status
U
upant
Guest
i think you need more data
i would want to see how many private sale background checks were actually performed.
9 states without private checks had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate. 2 other states were under 2% for a total of 11 states
2 states with private checks had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate. 7 states were under 2% for a total of 9 states
interesting
I
ILoveYeshua
Guest
I know having sub-par teams can be frustrating but I don’t see myself taking it out on my fellow Americans with lethal force 
Mark121359
Well-known member
Yes, you bet gun control is ridiculous. Hell, I’d own a A-10 Thunderbolt ll GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm. Gatling-gun if I could find a place to mount it. Watch the vid below and see if you think anyone would attempt any nefarious activity at my residence with that piece of serious hardware hanging around for protection!
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
MA’s neighbor Vermont has even fewer gun-related homicides/capita, yet VT has the absolutely lowest level of gun control of any state in the USA. Ponder that fact for a bit using the brand of thinking you’re trying to sell here.
VT and Wyoming are similar in size and identical in their dearth of gun control laws yet their gun-related violent crime rates are quite different. Again, think about that. There are HUGE cultural and socioeconomic differences between two states. On the other hand while VT and Washington, DC are almost identical in size, WDC has among the strictest gun control laws in the US and a far higher level of gun-related violent crime. Back to the HUGE cultural and socioeconomic differences between two.
Try as you might (many already have), no where in the US can you show that an increase in gun control laws have been followed by a decrease in gun-related violent crime rates. Simply put, gun control does not work.
Your comments about “better roads, schools, and sports teams” in this context is offensive.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Your chart isn’t showing “background checks vs no background checks”, it’s showing “background checks for private sales vs no additional background checks” (whatever “no additional background checks” means – for instance, it lumps together Ohio (no background checks) and Florida (background checks, but ostensibly not for private sales?)).
Any ideas what percentage of gun sales are “private sales”? In other words, is the left-hand chart showing most, some, or few of the sales out there? How about the right-hand chart?
A
anikins
Guest
So go California, so goes the rest of the county. The future is bright.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
No, that’s clearly not going to happen when it comes to banning guns, thanks be to God.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Simple. It’s nuts because the two firearms shown above are identical in function and firepower, yet one is a prohibited “assault weapon” and one is completely legal in California.
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
You make a very good point. No one here can provide any statistics that actually prove that increased gun control actually decreased gun-related violent crime. People have long tried and they have long failed.
K
KathleenT
Guest
I have that one in 40 S&W. Love that gun!
I actually got it because I moved to Chicago to go to school. Handguns were illegal but anything with a 16" barrel was allowed.
It was the dumbest thing. I was a lone woman in my 20s living in an apartment. I was NOT going to use a high power rifle for self defense, in case the round traveled through countless walls hitting who knows what. So I got the Kel-tec in 40 S&W (which is a pistol round, for those of you who aren’t familiar with guns.) I ended up with a more powerful gun for self-defense than I would have had if I just brought my pistol.
But Chicago was safe from me, I guess?
Yes, gun control is almost always ridiculous and often forces gun owners into choosing more powerful guns than if they were left to their own devices.
But again, love that gun!
I actually got it because I moved to Chicago to go to school. Handguns were illegal but anything with a 16" barrel was allowed.
It was the dumbest thing. I was a lone woman in my 20s living in an apartment. I was NOT going to use a high power rifle for self defense, in case the round traveled through countless walls hitting who knows what. So I got the Kel-tec in 40 S&W (which is a pistol round, for those of you who aren’t familiar with guns.) I ended up with a more powerful gun for self-defense than I would have had if I just brought my pistol.
But Chicago was safe from me, I guess?
Yes, gun control is almost always ridiculous and often forces gun owners into choosing more powerful guns than if they were left to their own devices.
But again, love that gun!
R
Rhubarb
Guest
They aren’t identical in function. One is smaller in a number of ways, and has an adjustable stock.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
You are wrong. They are identical in function.
The “California Model” is 1" longer overall.
So? While the adjustable stock is valuable when teaching women and children how to shoot, it doesn’t change the function of the firearm.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Thanks for your real-world comments. I have held off buying a SUB-2000 until it is chambered for the 10MM – my favorite semiautomatic handgun caliber.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Size with regards to weapons is a function. It changes the way it can be hidden, stowed, and carried. Same with the stock. Both things alter the way the gun can be used. That’s changing the gun’s function. Therefore, since A does not equal B, they are not identical in function. And I’ll be more than happy for people who don’t understand or agree to pack up and leave the state.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Not in this case. The folded gun is an inch longer. Further, the pin which keeps the stock from telescoping and the muzzle brake could be removed in minutes.
It’s not a matter of “understanding.” You’re actually trying to sell your belief that the “California additions” change how the SUB-2000 can be used. That’s simply untrue.
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
You haven’t shown anything to be untrue. You just said the things can be removed “in minutes”. That means there’s a difference in functionality that requires minutes to bridge. You just proved my point for me.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Your stated belief that the modifications to the SUB-2000 “California edition” “changes the way it can be hidden, stowed, and carried” is simply untrue.
Yup – not that anything would need to be removed for the above to be true. Read what I actually wrote. Please don’t try to spin my words.
Wrong! See above!
It’s absolutely crazy to see someone actually try to defend such gun control laws on the basis of the real functionality/firepower of this firearm! It’s all window dressing. 100% Amazed you think you can sell this.
Last edited:
There’s no evidence that the chart proves a causative relationship.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Statistics never prove causation, only correlation. But the chart does not even show a correlation between illegal homicides and states with background checks laws. All gun homicides are not illegal.
- Status