The Guns and Ammo Thread

[Thrawn]

Why don't gun shops ever get robbed?

Is that a fact? I don't think so.

I guess it does happen once in a while...

http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/guntalk/config.pl?noframes;read=32508

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_gun_shop_shootout.htm
(The above link also has the real story of what happened)

If you can find me a link to a gun shop robbery that went well I'd like to see it.

Why is the violent crime rate so much higher in states with the strictest gun laws?

Is _that_ a fact?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri_percap-crime-violent-per-capita

DC has some of the strictest gun laws. California does too and it are 11th.

Washington is really easy to get guns (where I live) same with Oregon and those are at 29 and 32 respectively.

Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you're more likely to hurt someone that makes you angry.

You can't shoot anyone if you don't have a gun. I think it's way easier to shoot before you can even think about what the fuck you are doing.

Seriously, if there were true, there would be so many more dead people.

I have opened my mouth before I even thought about what the fuck I was doing in arguements with my lady but even then, when I am as mad as I have ever been there are things I don't say, let alone going for a gun or throwing a punch. Jesus.

Another example of how you are wrong happened here in washing last year I believe. A guy pulled out an AK47 and started shooting people in the Tacoma Mall. A civilian with a CPL pulled a gun on the guy but didn't shoot him and was shot a paralized instead.

Even when the average Joe is in a situation where they NEED to shoot someone they still hesitate.

Most people don't go when there is no going back.

I can get in my car and run someone over just as easily as I could go get my gun and shoot them.

Yeah, I know MANY arguments that ended like, "You called me a WHAT? Stay where you are, I'm gonna get my fucking my car and run you over, motherfucker!"

You've never heard of road rage? More common than gun violence? I think so.

 

[SuAside]

http://gunfacts.info/ for you muricans.

http://gunfacts.be/ for ze belgistanis.

 

[welsh]

Suaside- I hope that's not more of that BS about how gun ownership deters crime. Best as I recall, that data was proved to be crap.

 

[Sander]

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri_percap-crime-violent-per-capita

DC has some of the strictest gun laws. California does too and it are 11th.

Washington is really easy to get guns (where I live) same with Oregon and those are at 29 and 32 respectively.

Neat. But don't pretend that this proves anything, whatsoever. There is no graph of gun-related crimes, and considering the complexities surrounding demographics and the make-up of states it's utterly impossible to link the crime level to strictness of gun laws.

You've never heard of road rage? More common than gun violence? I think so.

Of course. However, fatal intentional killings with cars are, of course, not frequent and more importantly this again says absolutely nothing considering the widespread use of cars vs. the relatively limited ownership, let alone use, of guns.

SuAside: the case study is largely concerned with the effects of a very recent, local law that is extremely strict on the local situation. It isn't really relevant.

 

[welsh]

It's a mistake to make a snap shot and say,
"Oh look, strict gun laws don't work." That's a correlation vs casuation problem.

States and municipalities pass gun laws to address a social problem- gun violence. SO you would assume that there is a problem with high gun-related death rates.

WHy do some states have higher gun related crime rates than others? A lot of reasons.

 

[SuAside]

Suaside- I hope that's not more of that BS about how gun ownership deters crime. Best as I recall, that data was proved to be crap.

i think for the muricans' it's a bit of everything.

anyway, it depends on how you read the stuff, i guess. if nothing else, it has some interesting statistics.

for me, it shows that gun ownership or loose gun laws doesn't equal crime nor does it equal safety. if anything, it is culture that weighs the hardest. there are numerous examples of loose firearms laws in a high crime area, loose firearms laws in a low crime area, tight firearms laws in a high crime area, and tight firearms laws in a low crime area. firearms laws, loose or tight aren't the answer to controling crime.

an intersting statistic for me is that a legal (licensed) gun in Belgium is 15 times less dangerous than an illegal (non-licensed) firearm. yet most laws passed recently in belgistan crack down on legal weapons and are actually creating more illegal firearms as they go along. great job...

 

[Sorrow]

Another example of how you are wrong happened here in washing last year I believe. A guy pulled out an AK47 and started shooting people in the Tacoma Mall. A civilian with a CPL pulled a gun on the guy but didn't shoot him and was shot a paralized instead.

Even when the average Joe is in a situation where they NEED to shoot someone they still hesitate.

Most people don't go when there is no going back.

True .
And people say that modern people are turned into killers by violence in television and computer games...

The truth is that most of modern people are completely unprepared to use violence in self-defence or defending fellow citizen. That's why there's a rise in violence - people are less likely to go to war, there's no box in schools - so, it's not that people are more violent now - people are more peaceful and defenceless.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I serve and protect the public. That makes me a better person.

Shoot the criminals, shoot them dead, teach them lessons. That's real good.

The one thing I don't agree too, is issuing all kinds of weapons to civies.

 

[Thrawn]

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri_percap-crime-violent-per-capita

DC has some of the strictest gun laws. California does too and it are 11th.

Washington is really easy to get guns (where I live) same with Oregon and those are at 29 and 32 respectively.

Neat. But don't pretend that this proves anything, whatsoever. There is no graph of gun-related crimes, and considering the complexities surrounding demographics and the make-up of states it's utterly impossible to link the crime level to strictness of gun laws.

It proves that strict gun laws does not equal less violent crimes.
Also, I posted that because, yes it IS a fact that states with strict gun laws seem to have more violent crimes.

Does this fact alone prove that having guns in the hands of civilians lower crime? No, of course not. But when you also bring the low robery rate of gun shops into question you start to get a clearer picture.

Gunshops have lots of guns and lots of cash. Guns trade good on the underground market. High value target. So why arn't they robbed more? Because criminals fear civilians with guns.

You've never heard of road rage? More common than gun violence? I think so.

Of course. However, fatal intentional killings with cars are, of course, not frequent and more importantly this again says absolutely nothing considering the widespread use of cars vs. the relatively limited ownership, let alone use, of guns.

I wouldn't consider gun ownership as limited as you would think. My home as 3 guns and 2 cars. My girl friends parent's home as 10 or 15 guns and 4 cars. My friends average 3 guns and 1 car. There are a ton of guns out there and people who own guns often own more guns then cars.

I think if you give someone the finger they are more likely to try and run you off the road than shoot you.

 

[Sander]

It proves that strict gun laws does not equal less violent crimes.

No it doesn't. It proves exactly dickshit because there is no way of conclusively drawing a correlation between gun laws and demographics with the statistics we have. This means that you can't draw *any* conclusion from that.

Who knows, maybe stricter gun laws do mean a less frequent occurrence of violent crimes but is this effect not showing up because other circumstances are increasing violent crimes by a greater amount. This is impossible to know.

Also, I posted that because, yes it IS a fact that states with strict gun laws seem to have more violent crimes.

Again: unproven. I've seen a selective citing of four states or so. There are fifty of them.

Does this fact alone prove that having guns in the hands of civilians lower crime? No, of course not. But when you also bring the low robery rate of gun shops into question you start to get a clearer picture.

Gunshops have lots of guns and lots of cash. Guns trade good on the underground market. High value target. So why arn't they robbed more? Because criminals fear civilians with guns.

Because criminals, given the choice, will go for a safer and easier target. That is simple human logic, but all this means is that criminals will avoid places with guns if they can instead rob a place that has a smaller chance of having a gun. If every place has a gun, however, it may very well be that the distribution of crimes becomes equal amongst every shop. The fact that gun shops don't get robbed doesn't mean that there are less robberies, only that the robberies move to other places.

I wouldn't consider gun ownership as limited as you would think. My home as 3 guns and 2 cars. My girl friends parent's home as 10 or 15 guns and 4 cars. My friends average 3 guns and 1 car. There are a ton of guns out there and people who own guns often own more guns then cars.

I think if you give someone the finger they are more likely to try and run you off the road than shoot you.

If only because they're more likely to be in a car than carry a gun.
Also, again, selective citing of three cases proves absolutely dickshit. The fact that gun ownership (by your own words) is concentrated with a relatively small group of citizens, in fact, *proves* that people are more likely to own a car than a gun (assuming equal distribution of cars and guns, which seems to favour your side). Furthermore, I not only said ownership but also *use*, and it should be extremely obvious that people use their cars a shitload more than they use their guns.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

20 err... 32killed + Goddess knows how wounded defenceless, gunless students. They were on mercy of a single armed man.

At the time of the post there were 20 confirmed. Would you liked it if I speculated?

Wrong. One student had plenty of guns.

Edit (didn't see Sander's post)

Furthermore, I not only said ownership but also *use*, and it should be extremely obvious that people use their cars a shitload more than they use their guns.

How many cars and how many guns you people own depends on the money and on the personality you have. A comparison here, well taken apart by Sander, is totally bullshit. You need a car for going places, whilst you need 10 guns to do what?

Now Thawn, unless Audi or Toyota makes your damn guns, this comparison makes no sense.

Anyway, there is no proven corelation between gun laws and crime rate, the only way to cut down this type of crime is to outlaw guns.

What's your argument here, outlawing cars just because you own 5 guns and 2 cars? I use it to drive places, whereas the gun, I use it to fucking kill things. Don't beat around the bush, that's why anyone would buy a gun for....to kill shit!

I don't know any poor bastard who buys 3 Hondas to kill 30 students.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

When I think of what happened yesterday at Virginia Tech it makes me pretty scared. The reason is because at my school (Northern Arizona University) you are not allowed to have firearms on campus. The same I assume with Virginia Tech. Well, after yesterday I want to wear my gun to class everyday.

If I guns were allowed on campus and something like that happened in my classroom with me carrying - that shit would be over in a couple seconds - not a couple hours

 

[Dove]

Shoot the criminals, shoot them dead, teach them lessons. That's real good.

I believe you are highly misinformed about law enforcement.

The one thing I don't agree too, is issuing all kinds of weapons to civies.

As far as I know, no country in the world ISSUES guns to civilians. Unless in time of emergency.

 

[DammitBoy]

Unless you people can keep this civil, don't turn this into a gun laws discussion thread. And since you apparently can't, don't.

Especially Dammitboy! This is not asshelmets, so don't try to post as if it is. Also, Smoke Jaguar, don't post contentless flames. *If* you flame people, at least post some content.

Dude, I posted exactly twice and both times I talked about the guns I own and what I do with them.

I didn't post 'contentless' flames at all.

Fucker.

 

[nospaces]

Shoot the criminals, shoot them dead, teach them lessons. That's real good.

I believe you are highly misinformed about law enforcement.

The one thing I don't agree too, is issuing all kinds of weapons to civies.

As far as I know, no country in the world ISSUES guns to civilians. Unless in time of emergency.

well the swiss sort of do


and, if there is no corrilation between gun laws and lower crime, why have the laws in the first place?

 

[Dove]

Well, that's interesting.

Of course I'm not conceding, since the Swiss issues them to their military. Since every male is military for a certain period, obviously they would all get guns. I'm sure they have to give them up when their commitment is over.

There truly isn't much of a difference between crime rates and gun laws. One thing everyone needs to be aware of of, people are going to have guns whether it's illegal or not.

There are some silly gun laws out there, but the only one that makes sense is banning, or limiting access to the more extreme stuff.

 

[Sander]

Dude, I posted exactly twice and both times I talked about the guns I own and what I do with them.

I didn't post 'contentless' flames at all.

Fucker.

I don't recall accusing you of posting contentless flames.

Well, that's interesting.

Of course I'm not conceding, since the Swiss issues them to their military. Since every male is military for a certain period, obviously they would all get guns. I'm sure they have to give them up when their commitment is over.

Errr..no, they don't. They get to keep them.

 

[welsh]

Violent gun stats in the US?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Note that most of the violent homicides done with handguns is done by young people, usually teens-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

You might want to look at more crime stats-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv05.txt
or-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm

Despite all this concern about violence, violence is generally going down.

That many gun purchasers are probably middle to upper middle class does not fit well with some of the realities of violent crime.

Violent crime is often visited upon the poor, disproportionatly among blacks.

The data here-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

is interesting. Note that the high rate of murders among Blacks are drug related.

Also note that Whites are more likely to kill family members than Blacks. Also whites are more likely to use poison or arson than blacks. Also whites are more likely to kill someone over a problem in the workplace or over a sexual relationship.

That whites are more likely to kill as a consequence of gang activity is interesting though. Felony Murder is also a puzzle.

(Not sure how owning a gun is going to deter those crimes).

The way to deal with this problem would be more law enforcement and better social services to reduce poverty.

But that would cost taxes. It would be cheaper and more fun to buy guns.

 

[welsh]

Double post! Ah... but I'm an Admin dammit!

Ok some more stats-
From the FBI-
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html

When it comes to family- Wives are more likely to be killed by husbands, than husbands by wives. Girlfriends are more likely to be killed by boyfriends, then boyfriends by girlfriends. But if you're a sister, you're pretty safe from your own family (at least as far as homicides go).

Check this-

Law enforcement reported 533 justifiable homicides. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 341 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 192 individuals.

Compare that

An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, an increase of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure.

to over 16,000 people murdered in 2005. I would think that defensive use of handguns hasn't really worked all that well. Just because you're thinking it's justifiable doesn't necessarily mean it its.

So in terms of justifiable homicides- not a lot, and most were done by the cops.

Let's balance it out. Are you more likely to kill a "bad guy" in the midst of an argument, or shoot your girlfriend or wife over a domestic dispute?

Considering that most of the people here are probably not dealing drugs, living in the city, and are black- the brutal truth is that you're probably in a dangerous age group. The good news is that you grow out of it.

You're probably not likely to get involved in a crime related shooting.

But you may come home, get into an argument with your girlfriend or wife, get a little durnk and shoot her.

Personally, I have seen plenty of domestic disputes and I can understand why cops are worried about getting involved in those. When people get pissed they sometimes stop to act rationally. I am not sure how adding a gun to that makes anything all that much better.

Also note that while it is possible to kill someone without a gun, guns are overwhelming used to commit violence. So this "there is no relationship between guns and murder" is bullshit.

 

[Thrawn]

I must be honest. It is really difficult to keep up with this thread so I'll bow out of the argument with a few words.

A shooting took place at a Virginia Law school in 2002. You can find the article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200209\NAT20020917a.html

Here are some snippets:

(CNSNews.com) - After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns.

More...

Jowyk began researching his law school's gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

As for the question of why we have gun laws if they don't work... ask yourself the same thing about drug laws. How often do people re-offend? How much has the Coast Guard lowered the street price of drugs? How effective have these laws been? Not very...

So why do we have them? Because you can't do nothing. I support 100% criminal background checks for gun purchasers. I support my state's 7 day waiting period on handguns. I support Virginia's laws to limit you to 1 gun purchase a month, this all makes sense.

But some of these laws do nothing. Having a "No Gun Zone" only prevents law abiding citizens from having guns (Although I do support the ideas of no guns in a bar... intoxication + firearms = stupid). How many more people would have died in the 2002 shooting had the two students not gone for their weapons?

On another note...

Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes rose slightly (by 0.4 percent) from 17,380 in 2000 to 17,448 in 2001.(1)

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2001.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348;Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

More people were accidently killed as an "accidental" result of alcohol than on purpose with a firearm. Maybe we need more restrictions on alcohol...

So that about sums it up really. I won't respond anymore and I'll let the rest of you have the last word.

On a final note I will post some gun pictures at some point.