CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

[Shryke]

It took 3 pages to Nazis?

Man, I'm disappointed in this thread.

[The Progressive]

Lol what with all the gun porn in this thread? I bet all the gun nuts were masturbating most furiously when that came up.

[Lily Valley]

Lol what with all the gun porn in this thread? I bet all the gun nuts were masturbating most furiously when that came up.

I, for one, have been quite enjoying the gun porn. Traded my guns in for a giant dog with the kid around. Now with my army of teenagers getting so big and loud I don't really need the gun. I still want one once I can afford to have the safe installed. I've got to switch up from the shotgun though so I don't shoot my dog if I need it. Sigh. Compromises....

Edit: Stupid commas

[thecryptile]

Oh, so when you said "Confiscation", you meant "Assault Weapons Ban". You know, something completely different.

Confiscating semi-autos is still confiscation. Cuomo was also talking about pistols with a 8 to 10 round magazines, only someone who was completely ignorant about guns would consider a pistol with an 8 to 10 round magazine an "assault rifle".

Most anti-gun organizations in the US have historically advocated handgun control and confiscation of handguns. They only switched to attacking rifles when they realized they couldn't get traction on pistols.

I've been thinking about it, and there are some good things about Communism:

The Mosin-Nagant 91/30: Originally designed in Tsarist times and modified by the Soviets in 1930, this rifle is fairly common in the US. The rifle of famed Soviet snipers like Vasily Zeitsev and Tanya Chernova, the Nagant uses the 7.62x54R round. A bit unwieldy even in the cut down configuration that was used in the Great Patriotic War, these rifles are cheap and reliable like most Soviet fire arms. http://www.cabelas.com/product/Mosin-Nagant-Model-Rifle/710007.uts

The Tokarev Pistol: Chambered in a 7.62 mm cartridge based on the German Borchhardt designs and heavily influenced by Browning's 1911, this beauty was issued to officers of the Red Army in WWII. Until the advent of the 357 magnum, the 7.62 Tokarev was the highest velocity cartridge in the world. http://www.jgsales.com/handguns-c-16_235.html

The Makarov Pistol: Ivan's answer to the Walther PPK, firing a slightly more powerful round, the 9x18mm Makarov. Don't confuse it with the 9x19mm Luger round. Like the Walther, the Makarov is easy to conceal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makarov_pistol

The Simonov Carbine (SKS): A 10 round semi-automatic design from WWII, the SKS was a favorite of the Viet Cong. It is a scaled down version of an anti-tank rifle, the PTRS-41. It fires the same 7.62x39mm round as the AK-47, though with its longer barrel it has somewhat greater range. In the mountains of Southwest Virginia, this affordable product of Communism is regarded as a great brush gun. Get the Chinese versions over the Romanian models. http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/634/Guns/Rifles/SKS-Rifles.htm

The AK-47: Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Soviets, this select fire assault rifle is heavily based on the German Sturmgewehr 44. it fires the same 7.62x39mm round as the SKS. Though less accurate and much heavier than it's Capitalist counterpart the M-16, this weapon is cheap, low maintenance, and ultra reliable. The AK-47 and its clones are perhaps the most popular gun in the world. Mikhail Kalashnikov, the designer, wasn't allowed to copyright the AK for ideological reasons; but he wised up for the 22 LR version. For semi-auto civilian legal versions, Chinese production is preferable to Romanian. http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/8/Guns/Rifles/AK-47-Rifles.htm

[sologdin]

People who remember history, instead of revising it. Disarmed people are vulnerable to tyranny and genocide. We saw it in the Soviet Union, we saw it Nazi Germany

see? shilling. the nazis relaxed weimar's gun control. the soviets at one point restricted ownership to their own party members, who ended up being one of the main victims of stalin. we should follow those inferential chains to the point where mentioning gun control in connection with genocide becomes an embarrassment.

unjustified mass confiscation will not be tolerated by Freedom loving people.

i still think the state should confiscate firearms for any antisocial act, such as second offense parking ticket.

some foreign intelligence agency financing your activities?

how cool would that be?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

NM

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

i still think the state should confiscate firearms for any antisocial act, such as second offense parking ticket.

What about giveing a LEO the "evil eye"?

[sologdin]

is that a real case? it sounds stupid enough to be real.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

No, sarcasm.

:)

[MisterOJ]

I've pretty much stayed out of these gun control threads, but was having a discussion with some coworkers yesterday and this question came up:

"If the U.S. banned all guns and imposed harsh punishment for anyone caught with a gun (say, minimum 20 year sentence) do you think we would see an increase or decrease in the number of violent deaths each year?"

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I've pretty much stayed out of these gun control threads, but was having a discussion with some coworkers yesterday and this question came up:

"If the U.S. banned all guns and imposed harsh punishment for anyone caught with a gun (say, minimum 20 year sentence) do you think we would see an increase or decrease in the number of violent deaths each year?"

Well, I think pretty clearly an increase when those who own guns choose not to give them up. I mean, in all honesty, if the government did that, I'd feel morally justified to shoot at the people trying to collect.

[MisterOJ]

Well, I think pretty clearly an increase when those who own guns choose not to give them up. I mean, in all honesty, if the government did that, I'd feel morally justified to shoot at the people trying to collect.

OK. But once you get all those people who are shooting at the authorities because they don't want to hand over their guns behind bars - do we see an increase or decrease in the number of violent deaths in the U.S.?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

OK. But once you get all those people who are shooting at the authorities because they don't want to hand over their guns behind bars - do we see an increase or decrease in the number of violent deaths in the U.S.?

I don't think ou get them behind bars. I think the stupid law is repealed once people start shooting/refusing to turn over their weapons, and I don't think the military provides any assistance to a government openly violating the Constitution.

I mean, if we're going with made up fact scenarios, mine is just as valid as yours.

[MisterOJ]

I don't think ou get them behind bars. I think the stupid law is repealed once people start shooting/refusing to turn over their weapons, and I don't think the military provides any assistance to a government openly violating the Constitution.

I mean, if we're going with made up fact scenarios, mine is just as valid as yours.

Look, I know it'll never happen in a million years. But I think you just answered my question. If we could get rid of most guns in the U.S., we'd see a (potentially significant) drop in the number of violent deaths in this country each year.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr.OJ,

Not necessarily. There are a lot of unregistered firearms out there. The people who would be rounded up are those for whom there are records of firearm ownership. Those with unregistered weapons would still be armed and under your logic "dangerous".

[Sci-2]

Yeah, the idea that confiscation results in a significant drop is, IMO at least, rather optimistic.

We don't know the number of criminals who'd be emboldened knowing that their victims don't have guns.

People who used guns to deter crime might turn to less effective means, ones which increase the fatalities among innocents.

[MisterOJ]

Mr.OJ,

Not necessarily. There are a lot of unregistered firearms out there. The people who would be rounded up are those for whom there are records of firearm ownership. Those with unregistered weapons would still be armed and under your logic "dangerous".

I don't doubt that.

I don't think we could ever get rid of every gun. People would still have them. But I believe that if we made them illegal and put in harsh penalties for even being found with a gun in your possession, we'd see a decline (probably a sharp decline) in the number of shootings and violent deaths.

Would people still be shot and killed sometimes? Yes. But I really believe it would become more of a rare occurrence, whereas today it is fairly commonplace. How many lives would be saved if we cut the number of shooting victims down just just a third though? Lots.

Personally, I think that's a third conservative estimate. But even if it cuts violent deaths by only one-tenth, that's a lot of lives saved. The price would be giving up guns though. I think those lives are worth it. Many (most?) people don't though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr.OJ,

Well good luck in getting the 2nd Amendment repealed by Constitutional amendment as that is what would be a necessary prerequisit to putting your plan into operation.

[MisterOJ]

Mr.OJ,

Well good luck in getting the 2nd Amendment repealed by Constitutional amendment as that is what would be a necessary prerequisit to putting your plan into operation.

Look, I said I know it would never happen. I just think common sense says we could save lives by making guns illegal. Maybe a lot of lives. Most people don't seem interested in that though. So, it'll never happen, sadly.

[Stag Country]

I've pretty much stayed out of these gun control threads, but was having a discussion with some coworkers yesterday and this question came up:

"If the U.S. banned all guns and imposed harsh punishment for anyone caught with a gun (say, minimum 20 year sentence) do you think we would see an increase or decrease in the number of violent deaths each year?"

I would say yes. As an economic analogy look at the smoking bans. People insisted that passing these bans would cripple local businesses such as bars, night clubs, restaurants, etc. While smoking is not necessarily a constitutionaly protected right in the same manner as bearing arms, I think the analogy still holds. Here in Cincinnati we got an upfront view of how that played out.

Right across the river is North Kentucky, where no smoking ban was in place and areas like Newport on the Levy hosted a variety of nightlife options that were deemed far superior to the areas in Downtown Cincinnati, which just a few years ago mostly didn't really exist since many had closed down in the wake of the race riots in the early 2000's. Just a few years after the ban, you can visually see a major difference. Northern Kentucky, for lack of a better term, is dead in the water. Meanwhile, the downtown in Cincinnati, across the river, is thriving.

Is all of this due to the smoking ban? Of course not. But I think it emphasizes that these bans are not end of the world their opponents make them out to be. Personally I don't care if they are banned or not, but we do have a serious problem with gun control in this country and far too many people are being killed each year by firearms. You do have to wonder how the statistics would play out if firearms weren't as widely available as they currently are now.