[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...cials-say?lite


I wonder how long it will take for the lefties to start pushing for tougher requirements for purchasing a bow and arrows. Just goes to show that if someone really wants to kill people, they don't need to use a firearm and they will find a way to get it done.

[F1VENOM]

They should outlaw cinder blocks.

[drgonzo]

Because the number of bow and arrow slayings is comparable to the number of gun slayings.

No legislation or regulation will arise from this.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

They should outlaw cinder blocks.

That's fine, I could still bludgeon someone to their demise with an old VCR if I really wanted to.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Animal_Mother

That's fine, I could still bludgeon someone to their demise with an old VCR if I really wanted to.

Outlaw those too.

[Lazarusrat]

Word is the guy's wife and Casper College professor where having an affair. He killed her, then the Professor with and arrow to the head . He then slit his own throat. Dude was pretty hard core to slit his own throat.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Because the number of bow and arrow slayings is comparable to the number of gun slayings.

No legislation or regulation will arise from this.

So then why the attention on "assault weapons" and magazines holding more than ten rounds when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap revolvers and automatics that only hold six or seven rounds? The number of murders with "assault weapons" are statistically insignificant compared to those committed with small handguns.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

So then why the attention on "assault weapons" and magazines holding more than ten rounds when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap revolvers and automatics that only hold six or seven rounds? The number of murders with "assault weapons" are statistically insignificant compared to those committed with small handguns.

I have no idea what the answer is but if we want to get statistical we have to take into account the number of people who own guns, bows, and assault rifles. I would assume that significantly more people own bows than assault rifles and therefore the low numbers of bow killings compared to guns would be insignificant where the low numbers of assault rifle killings to guns wouldn't be.

If every person in the country owns a gun and a bow but only 5% owned an assault rifle, the difference between a lot of gun and few bow deaths would be important, but the difference between a lot of gun deaths and a few assault rifle deaths would be expected.

[ElJefe13]

I want to know if the numbers are similar between bow shootings vs assault rifle shootings and bow kills vs assault rifle kills. Assault rifles are lot more deadly, and I'm wondering whether this might be skewing the results.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

So then why the attention on "assault weapons" and magazines holding more than ten rounds when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap revolvers and automatics that only hold six or seven rounds? The number of murders with "assault weapons" are statistically insignificant compared to those committed with small handguns.

It is true that rifles are implicated in far fewer homicides than pistols, but 10+ round magazines are pretty common these days. Legally acquired equipment that was covered by the AWB was used in almost every recent high profile mass murder -- Fort Hood, Arizona/Giffords, Virginia Tech, Colorado Theatre, etc.

It's worth noting that according to some statistics I've seen, revolvers are fading as homicide tools, with the advent and popularity of semiautomatic handguns with larger ammunition capacity. Revolvers are also rarely implicated in mass killings, not the least reason for which is their limited ammunition capacity.

In the end, though somewhat misguided, assault weapons regulations do regulate tools (firearms) that are far more commonly used in killings than bows and arrows. Assault weapons or rifles may be less commonly used for homicide than non-AW pistols, but bows and arrow use is essentially nonexistent.

Furthermore the mindset fostered by the idea of assault weapons, that of using firearms offensively rather than defensively, is considered by many to be the real driver of gun violence in America.

[F1VENOM]

Magazine capacity won't stop people from killing each other. It may limit the amount of deaths in some cases but you can easily make extended capacity magazines from existing magazines.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Or you could carry more magazines. In an extremely populated or crowded area like a shopping mall or movie theatre, you can still get a lot of kills even with having to do a couple of magazine changes.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Animal_Mother

Or you could carry more magazines. In an extremely populated or crowded area like a shopping mall or movie theatre, you can still get a lot of kills even with having to do a couple of magazine changes.

Depends on your amount of preparation.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

It is true that rifles are implicated in far fewer homicides than pistols, but 10+ round magazines are pretty common these days. Legally acquired equipment that was covered by the AWB was used in almost every recent high profile mass murder -- Fort Hood, Arizona/Giffords, Virginia Tech, Colorado Theatre, etc.

It's worth noting that according to some statistics I've seen, revolvers are fading as homicide tools, with the advent and popularity of semiautomatic handguns with larger ammunition capacity. Revolvers are also rarely implicated in mass killings, not the least reason for which is their limited ammunition capacity.

In the end, though somewhat misguided, assault weapons regulations do regulate tools (firearms) that are far more commonly used in killings than bows and arrows. Assault weapons or rifles may be less commonly used for homicide than non-AW pistols, but bows and arrow use is essentially nonexistent.

Furthermore the mindset fostered by the idea of assault weapons, that of using firearms offensively rather than defensively, is considered by many to be the real driver of gun violence in America.

Automatics are becoming more common, but the vast majority used in crimes still hold fewer than ten rounds. They are $100 zink alloy junk guns made by Raven, Skky, Hipoint, Jimenez, Cobray, and other crap companies and typically chambered in low pressure cartridges like .22lr and .380 auto. These firearms were unaffected by the ban and are used the vast majority of gun crimes.

"Assault Weapon" is an invented term, and the firearms the term covers have no increased lethality or killing capacity than semi-automatic rifles not covered by the ban. The ban, aside from the magazine capacity restrictions, made it illegal to include too many cosmetic feature that were deemed unacceptable by people who don't know anything. They are rifles like any other, and are very rarely used in crimes because they are expensive and too large to conceal. In Florida, the majority of "crimes" these firearms are used in is simple possession, and after that are typically robberies and one-on-one murders during the commission of a crime. They type of firearm used would do nothing to change these results. The story is pretty much the same throughout the country.

Banning magazines of increased capacity is a waste of time. If the firearm has a detachable magazine, with minimal practice a magazine change takes literally two seconds. If someone is planning a mass shooting they are probably going to practice magazine changes, and 5 less rounds per magazine is not going to deter them or have any real effect on the number of people shot. Again these mass shootings are very infrequent, and I don;t think trying to legislate away infrequent and unpredictable behavior of crazy people makes a whole lot of sense. Additionally, magazines are not difficult to manufacture, there are already millions upon millions in circulation, and it would be as impossible to stop their importation as it is narcotics.

If you want to do something to reduce mass shootings, improve the instant check system already in place by keeping it updated with mental records. At the moment the NICS is frequently out of date, but if improved is the best tool to preventing someone from purchasing a firearm who isn't supposed to. This won't do a whole lot to curb your typical violent crime, as the average time from purchase to use in a crime is 15 years. We have a problem with criminal activity and a culture among our low income populations that embrace it. Trying to eliminate the means by which crimes are committed does not address the real problem, and will do little if anything to reduce the number of crimes committed.

[barrel roll]

I like revolvers. They don't leave shell casings.

[Umami]

Nobody's going to outlaw bows, all this gun control talk is off topic. OP is just trolling.

/thread.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Legally acquired equipment that was covered by the AWB was used in almost every recent high profile mass murder -- Fort Hood, Arizona/Giffords, Virginia Tech, Colorado Theatre, etc.

The fort Hood and Arizona shootings were carried about by pistols.


AWB - Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:


X -[*] Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
X -[*] Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
X -[*] Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
X -[*] Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
X -[*] A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.


Good job trying to make people believe that the firearms used in those shootings were in fact covered by the AWB.


EDIT: Look at the bright side. At least he didn't take an arrow to the knee.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

The fort Hood and Arizona shootings were carried about by pistols.


AWB - Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:


X -[*] Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
X -[*] Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
X -[*] Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
X -[*] Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
X -[*] A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.


Good job trying to make people believe that the firearms used in those shootings were in fact covered by the AWB.


EDIT: Look at the bright side. At least he didn't take an arrow to the knee.

Fort Hood:
FN Five-seven pistol
Smith & Wesson .357
Magnum revolver

Arizona:
9mm Glock model 19 pistol

To be clear, none of those weapons fall under the AWB?

**I am not saying that you are wrong or implying that they should be. I am simply seeking clarification.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I like revolvers. They don't leave shell casings.

I like my supressed .22 with small cloth bag sewn over the ejection port.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Fort Hood:
FN Five-seven pistol
Smith & Wesson .357
Magnum revolver

Arizona:
9mm Glock model 19 pistol

To be clear, none of those weapons fall under the AWB?

**I am not saying that you are wrong or implying that they should be. I am simply seeking clarification.

No. None of them had any of those features. Well, the magnum revolver might have been over 50 ounces. Stainless steel is heavy.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Fort Hood:
FN Five-seven pistol
Smith & Wesson .357
Magnum revolver

Arizona:
9mm Glock model 19 pistol

To be clear, none of those weapons fall under the AWB?

**I am not saying that you are wrong or implying that they should be. I am simply seeking clarification.

No, there were legal under the ban but the larger magazines would have been prohibited for sale if they were new manufacture. Magazines already in the country/manufactured before the ban went into effect were readily available, though more expensive than before. The FN pistol didn't exist at the time of the ban, but would have been legal. Additionally, any weapon possessed before the ban could be sold and have banned features. They were more expensive than ban compliant rifles (pre-ban/port-ban guns). It is similar to the hugely inflated prices in the transferable machine gun market but not as bad.

Originally Posted by slateman

No. None of them had any of those features. Well, the magnum revolver might have been over 50 ounces. Stainless steel is heavy.

It has to have two of the arbitrarily selected features. The weight alone would not qualify it.