Shortforbob

irresponsible gun owners?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ah, fult text, from the database you dont have.

If I controlled flsenate.gov, it would not have stupid crap on there about banning my .22.

But it does, so you can see that I don't control it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

joey's database is quite amusing to me.  I envision him hunched over his computer, multiple harddrives whirring and whizzing in the background with him cackling:  "Oh, jeffy - I've got you now" or "Tom is being mean to me, so I'm going to store this post and use it against him in a couple of years to get him back, bwwwwaaaaahhh!"

 

74d2b8a7fc357cf91d76d82c3e6d6a23--dont-j

Poor Jeff. You guys say offensive things, which inevitably fall in a pattern. The pattern of your thoughts might come back to haunt you. 

Let's take yesterday. Jeffie, how did you like the summary of page one of your Chicago snippets? I have three more pages I can use the next time you use the code word for the Great American Gun Tradgedy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bpm57 said:

You are the one who pulls up posts from 3+ years ago.

Yet you can't recall or find your own posts.

Hi bpm57. A hearty good morning to you.

You weren't here in 2012 and 2013, eh? PA is full of armed bullies, and at that time, as a group, they were glad to see me.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Yet you can't recall or find your own posts.

Not exactly. I won't go looking for your vague references to whatever nebulous butthurt is inconsequential, but du jour, from DeadEye Dick. If you have an issue with a statement I've made, just cite the statement, and we'll chat away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 12:38 PM, chinabald said:

What was the definition of assault weapons in that study, and what was their definition of high capacity magazines? I am certain the devil is in the details. 

You are pegging my amusement factor. Yer killin' me here! For some de-ranged reason, you thing that you can confuse this issue with the impossibility of defining AW's. It's so warped, it's hillarious. And it gets lots of airtime.

You need to meet the Parkland High Debate Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You are pegging my amusement factor. Yer killin' me here! For some de-ranged reason, you thing that you can confuse this issue with the impossibility of defining AW's. It's so warped, it's hillarious. And it gets lots of airtime.

You need to meet the Parkland High Debate Club.

The problem of defining "assault" weapons is one reason Adam Winkler and I oppose such bans.

On 2/22/2017 at 8:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I agree with Adam Winkler on this issue.

 

 

Adam Winkler on banning mean-looking weapons.

Magazine Ban Won't Help

Quote

Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.


Asked in an interview about mean looking weapons bans:

Quote

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise.

...

When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.



Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence

Quote

we already know that banning assault weapons won't reduce gun crime or deaths. Worse, the bans may make it harder to enact more effective gun control laws.

The problem starts with the term itself. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war.
...

America's gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don't reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The problem of defining "assault" weapons is one reason Adam Winkler and I oppose such bans.

Well, that's nice. The two of you are getting hosed on this, hosed by Heller. And the AW's constutional collapse, based on Heller, caused serious mental deterioration in Tom Ray. Heller has been most useful.

Every single "battlefield weapon, our .22's" post, hundreds of them, is PTSD, caused by Heller. LMFAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

(Winkler's article) When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.

Here we have the Winkler AW gag from Tom's database, for the third time.

Well, this information is outdated, and incomplete. And Winkler's bar for succcess here was a weakened ban, a gutted one. gIt was even grandfathered, and given a shelf life. THAT BAN HAD SIX FATAL FLAWS BUT WORKED?

Quote

Va. data show drop in criminal firepower during assault weapons ban

By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi

Washington Post Staff Writers 

Sunday, January 23, 2011; 9:17 AM

 

The number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by Virginia police dropped during a decade-long federal prohibition on assault weapons, but the rate has rebounded sharply since the ban was lifted in late 2004, according to a Washington Post analysis.[...]

 

Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.

 

"Maybe the federal ban was finally starting to make a dent in the market by the time it ended," said Christopher Koper, head of research at the Police Executive Research Forum, who studied the assault weapons ban for the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice Department.[...]

 

The pattern in Virginia "may be a pivotal piece of evidence" that the assault weapons ban eventually had an impact on the proliferation of high-capacity magazines on the streets, said Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

 

"Many people, me included, were skeptical about the chances that the magazine ban would make a difference back in 1994," Wintemute said. "But what I am seeing here is that after a few years' lag time the prevalence of high-capacity magazines was declining. The increase since the ban's repeal is quite striking."

 

The analysis by The Post is possible because of a little-known database of guns seized in Virginia. The database, called the Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse, has information on more than 100,000 firearms recovered by more than 200 local police departments since 1993. A federal law in 2003, known as the Tiahrt Amendment after the congressman who sponsored it, banned the release of federal data on guns recovered in crimes.

 

Last year, The Post mined the database to pierce the secrecy imposed by Congress on federal gun-tracing records. The analysis found that a fraction of licensed dealers in Virginia sell most of guns later seized by police. The vast majority of the guns in the database were confiscated because of illegal-possession charges. But thousands were swept up in the wake of assaults, robberies and shootings.

 

 

Many, many assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective. NOTE: This source threw a national LE forum and invited the NRA. The NRA participants attended without participation or voice, except for the photo shoot.  Source: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Quote

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

  • A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.
  • Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997).
  • The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
  •  
  • The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
  • Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
  • The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
  • Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingto...1012204046.html
  •  When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
  • Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997.
  • 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired.
  • Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010).
  • http://www.artonissu...d-indiscriminate-mass-shootings

 

(Edit: link added)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Many, many assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective. NOTE: This source threw a national LE forum and invited the NRA. The NRA particioants attended without participation or voice, except for the photo shoot.  Source: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Hee hee. States source, but no link.

Suspected actual source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect for Winkler's fine work elsewhere, these are not innocent or inconsequential guns. And the pattern of their abuse is clearly inreasing.

Quote

2017 Koper

This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following:

  • (1) guns recovered by police in ten largecities,
  • (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing,
  • (3) guns used in murders of police, and (4) guns used in mass murders.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some esti- mates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be
used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.
Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 42% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7?shared_access_token=H7WIdVt9jxnON1Awc5ToR_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4-J03BnlAvTuPUbrl6RG61MjWuIhotqM5neBUrmiEGQS91MnBoG19xfNL2ReIBghAaGOiiPoxwLlHnzh7xZuPKxcOXIngebXbxSX6-XcltQ3i6C5SWLLVR_9s2B4jhkPo=

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Hi bpm57. A hearty good morning to you.

You weren't here in 2012 and 2013, eh? PA is full of armed bullies, and at that time, as a group, they were glad to see me.;)

I guess you deserve the "10K posts" award, with a "V" for valor, for taking on all the bullies in here you disagreed with, Joe.

Or, clearer version: I don't really give a damn how many years you have been flogging your indoor militia nonsense in this forum. It only means you have plenty of free time to spew your "understanding" of legal opinions.

At least you now know what vacated means, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are pegging my amusement factor. Yer killin' me here! For some de-ranged reason, you thing that you can confuse this issue with the impossibility of defining AW's. It's so warped, it's hillarious. And it gets lots of airtime.

Since you won't define it, Joe, I guess we will have to go with state law, again. As has been mentioned a dozen times before.

https://www.marlinforum.com/attachments/marlins-99-jpg.5026/

One of these is an evil AW under NJ law, and has been since 1990.

Under bills proposed by the current NJ legislature (similar to bills proposed in other states), these would be banned as an AW:

http://www.pardini.it/img/HP.jpg

Clearly these are weapons of choice for criminals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2018 at 10:53 AM, jocal505 said:

You are pegging my amusement factor. Yer killin' me here! For some de-ranged reason, you thing that you can confuse this issue with the impossibility of defining AW's. It's so warped, it's hillarious. And it gets lots of airtime.

You need to meet the Parkland High Debate Club.

If its impossible to define AWs, how can you regulate them? Are you going to go to the definition of pornography, "you know it when you see it"? If that's the case we are back to regulating guns because they are black and scary looking, not for any functionality concern, just they look dangerous. '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 10:21 AM, chinabald said:

Yes, I support the restrictions that are currently in place and would like to see them enforced better. Especially the ones that involve straw buyers. I think that is a bigger issue then its made out to be and the enforcement of those laws has been weak. 

I think that if the folks who advocate for increasing restrictions actually looked at the statutes on the books, found gaps, and pointed to those specific instances, they'd have a lot better chance at gaining support from the pro 2nd folks than they do w/the constant clamor to "do something" .

What you said?  We've all said it before - and there's a balance, if people actually will accept one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still laughing. You self-generate confusion, about AW definitions, and a prime defense mechanism. And Tom Ray is the bext example of this anywhere. He has inflicted confusion on our community, say he just can't discern between common .22's and battle guns.

His loud grievance is based on the terms of his holy grail, the Heller case.  Heller gets scorn now, Heller isn't good enough any more, and you won't be getting anything better in this envoronment.

The pinheads can't accept this or that definition of an AW, therefore battle guns are good to go in retail stores. Really? No wonder you are losing this struggle.

20 hours ago, bpm57 said:

I guess you deserve the "10K posts" award, with a "V" for valor, for taking on all the bullies in here you disagreed with, Joe.

I was not entirely alone, I had Bull Gator.

You missed quite a few underwear girls with guns. By 2016, the loudest and crudest of the bullies retired without a whimper. Two others now face a lot of voices which were silent back when.  Things have changed, substantially, and Sandy Hook was the sneaky turning point.

20 hours ago, bpm57 said:

At least you now know what vacated means, right?

Is that what happened to Tom's outdoor gun victory called Peruta vs. San DIego?

From Tom's database, to bmp57's:

marlins-99.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that if the folks who advocate for increasing restrictions actually looked at the statutes on the books, found gaps, and pointed to those specific instances, they'd have a lot better chance at gaining support from the pro 2nd folks than they do w/the constant clamor to "do something" .

What you said?  We've all said it before - and there's a balance, if people actually will accept one. 

I think the NRA would gain a lot of credibility if they went out and did that on their own. The any law that impinges on my gun freedom is a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 4/30/2018 at 6:57 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance - Adam FUCKING Winkler

 

Hey joey, what say you about your boy's opinion on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

If its impossible to define AWs, how can you regulate them? Are you going to go to the definition of pornography, "you know it when you see it"? If that's the case we are back to regulating guns because they are black and scary looking, not for any functionality concern, just they look dangerous. '

Well.... DUH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
34 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that if the folks who advocate for increasing restrictions actually looked at the statutes on the books, found gaps, and pointed to those specific instances, they'd have a lot better chance at gaining support from the pro 2nd folks than they do w/the constant clamor to "do something" .

What you said?  We've all said it before - and there's a balance, if people actually will accept one. 

I think the NRA would gain a lot of credibility if they went out and did that on their own. The any law that impinges on my gun freedom is a lost cause.

I actually agree with that.  I think that's an excellent idea.  I'm going to write a letter to WLP in the morning and do just that to suggest the NRA leads an effort to tighten enforcement of existing laws and fill any gaps.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with that.  I think that's an excellent idea.  I'm going to write a letter to WLP in the morning and do just that to suggest the NRA leads an effort to tighten enforcement of existing laws and fill any gaps.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

If the NRA got in front of the problem, they could have a stronger negotiating position and could have a greater impact on public perception resulting in lawmakers making weaker demands. No one wants to fix this problem; if the NRA took charge, they could control their destiny.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with that.  I think that's an excellent idea.  I'm going to write a letter to WLP in the morning and do just that to suggest the NRA leads an effort to tighten enforcement of existing laws and fill any gaps.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

I think somebody suggested something similar earlier or in one of the other recent threads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, mad said:
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with that.  I think that's an excellent idea.  I'm going to write a letter to WLP in the morning and do just that to suggest the NRA leads an effort to tighten enforcement of existing laws and fill any gaps.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

I think somebody suggested something similar earlier or in one of the other recent threads

I'm sure.  I know I specifically brought up enforcing existing gun laws numerous numerous here.  But the NRA twist is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I think the NRA would gain a lot of credibility if they went out and did that on their own. The any law that impinges on my gun freedom is a lost cause.

I see Jeff already replied, but, I agree.  if both sides did this, I suspect that we'd find a few things: 1) There aren't as many legal loopholes as popular understanding would have us believe, and 2) the overlaps should be no-brainers for quick, cooperative improvements, which should provide the basis for future cooperation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I see Jeff already replied, but, I agree.  if both sides did this, I suspect that we'd find a few things: 1) There aren't as many legal loopholes as popular understanding would have us believe, and 2) the overlaps should be no-brainers for quick, cooperative improvements, which should provide the basis for future cooperation. 

Which is why the left won't EVER EVER do it.  Why?  Because GUNZ!  Because Assault Weaponz!  Because high capacity magazinez!  That's all they really care about.  They don't care about saving children, its about scary stuff and us not having a right to it.  

Actually that's harsh and unfair.  They do care about children, I'm sure.  But they are more than happy to use dead children as a means to an end rather than actually trying to make a real difference.  Because if they were truly interested in making a real difference, BL and his elk wouldn't be so focused on toolz this whole time and look at ways we can get people to stop killing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure.  I know I specifically brought up enforcing existing gun laws numerous numerous here.  But the NRA twist is interesting.

It was specifically NRA, and I think went as far as offering to let the NRA responsible and culpable as well in some ways. Hopefully somebody will remember. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Which is why the left won't EVER EVER do it.  Why?  Because GUNZ!  Because Assault Weaponz!  Because high capacity magazinez!  That's all they really care about.  They don't care about saving children, its about scary stuff and us not having a right to it.  

Actually that's harsh and unfair.  They do care about children, I'm sure.  But they are more than happy to use dead children as a means to an end rather than actually trying to make a real difference.  Because if they were truly interested in making a real difference, BL and his elk wouldn't be so focused on toolz this whole time and look at ways we can get people to stop killing each other.

You state a position that doesn't work unless you examine the motives for both sides. What do you expect the left to do when you want to arm all of America? It seems to me, that the gun lobby doesn't care about the violence, but merely cares about the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If they could actually sit down and discuss the parameters,  they might be able to hammer out terms that calm both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mad said:

It was specifically NRA, and I think went as far as offering to let the NRA responsible and culpable as well in some ways. Hopefully somebody will remember. 

hey mad, disturbing avatar, what's it from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 4/30/2018 at 7:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance - Adam FUCKING Winkler

 

Hey joey, what say you about your boy's opinion on this?

I don't agree, first off, that the '94 ban was ineffective, even as flawed as the law was. And I must point out that a better law, for a duration of time, would have better results. 

Secondly, your memory is poor. Mr. Winkler's academic position is that strict scrutiny will allow gun restrictions, since the rights within Heller will sort out to be symbolic themselves. Winkler volunteered that info, I posted on it twice.

Third, I reject the symbol of the AW as a household item, or as a desirable consumer product. So yeah, ban away, and reject the ugly symbol of such violent "patriotism."

Fourth, you are under-reporting an increasing problem with AW's. This report is from last year, Koper 2017.

Quote
  • Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%). 
  • Assault weapons account for 13–16% of guns used in murders of police.
  • Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.
  • Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.
  • Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 42% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mad said:

I think somebody suggested something similar earlier or in one of the other recent threads

A few of us did.

Seems pretty obvious to any non-fanatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You self-generate confusion, about AW definitions

So define them, Joe. Show off your "nuanced beliefs" and define what an AW is. Complain about it all you want, but firearms that you claim are not banned anywhere have been banned in NJ for over 25 years. No amount of misdirection can change that. You have been told this before. The law in question has been has been posted in here before - consult your DB if you don't believe me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 3to1 said:
7 hours ago, mad said:

Had it for years, but the moving gif function was disabled for a long time. It’s used to be more disturbing. 

giphy.gif.0f9f3dcf2636754b2805d33a664e7086.gif

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Cochon_Danseur

that's funny. cheers.

Yeah "funny" in the sense of being disturbing..... but oddly appropriate

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So define them, Joe. Show off your "nuanced beliefs" and define what an AW is. Complain about it all you want, but firearms that you claim are not banned anywhere have been banned in NJ for over 25 years. No amount of misdirection can change that. You have been told this before. The law in question has been has been posted in here before - consult your DB if you don't believe me.

 

Asked and answered. I'm only here to yuk about this phenonemon, and to stay in touch with all the angst.  Even chinabald is stumped. The world has stopped until your elk can accept a definition.

But Heller, your holy grail decision, gave you individual rights, so consider this definition, from Heller, as quoted in Kolbe on p46:

Quote

 Thankfully, however, we need not answer all those difficult questions today, because Heller also presents us with a dispositive and relatively easy inquiry: Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment? See 554 U.S. at 627.

DeadEye Dick:  but firearms that you claim are not banned anywhere have been banned in NJ for over 25 years.

Such butthurt about NJ, for 25 years. Your statement is not very honest.

  • I have discussed the reasons why NJ might make any 18-round model off limits.
  • And I've discussed Pelleteiri's unfired Model 60, and the circumstances of the warranted and lawful seizure of the gun.
  • I've discussed the three Marlin 60 models which resulted from the illegality of the 18 round model (in some, but not all, places).
  • I have justified why other .22's are banned as well, buster: if they have LCM platforms.

So, reading comprehension-wise, don't say I claim no .22's have been banned. Look for the nuances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah "funny" in the sense of being disturbing..... but oddly appropriate

-DSK

sure, it's a little obscene, but it's the kind that doesn't do any damage unless it gives you recurring nightmares.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

A few of us did.

Seems pretty obvious to any non-fanatic.

Can you or anybody else point to the original posted recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:
Quote
  • Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%). 
  • Assault weapons account for 13–16% of guns used in murders of police.
  • Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.
  • Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.
  • Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 42% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

You're being Douchengenuous joey.  

"And other high capacity semi-automatics" describe almost every single handgun on the market aside from revolvers.  Lumping those in to pad your stats shows you to be the fraud you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You're being Douchengenuous joey.  

"And other high capacity semi-automatics" describe almost every single handgun on the market aside from revolvers.  Lumping those in to pad your stats shows you to be the fraud you are.

I don't know, but I think they are talking lcm platforms. But tell us about all your current butthurt on the other high capacity handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

as quoted in Kolbe on p46

So you are admitting that the militia clause is meaningless?

I mean, you have read that part of Heller, right? That whole part, not just a couple of sentences taken out of context. You might try the same thing with Henderson's dissent in Wrenn as well.

18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I have discussed the reasons why NJ might make any 18-round model off limits.

Yeah, they called it an AW, which you deny...

18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I'm only here to yuk about this phenonemon, and to stay in touch with all the angst.

Of course you are, which is why you had such a meltdown over your misunderstanding of shall issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Yeah, they called it an AW, which you deny...

You may call it that, or not call that. I don't sweat it either way, but you are worked up about it either way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

You may call it that, or not call that. I don't sweat it either way, but you are worked up about it either way. 

Would you have destroyed your .22 if it were a single shot bolt action version like one of mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Would you have destroyed your .22 if it were a single shot bolt action version like one of mine?

Afraid so. It's the principal in play. What U called hypocrisy was simply a guy who loved guns, but knew better than to encourage them. I hope you enjoy yours a bit, just for me.

I had a Remington long barrel single shot at age 10. It got a ton of use, but after that I never adapted to more than a few shots at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Afraid so. It's the principal in play. What U called hypocrisy was simply a guy who loved guns, but knew better than to encourage them. I hope you enjoy yours a bit, just for me.

I had a Remington long barrel single shot at age 10. It got a ton of use, but after that I never adapted to more than a few shots at a time.

Sounds like you were deep part of the gun culture you hated so much.  Think of all those years you pushed gunz on society.  Think of all the "gun mentality" you created and endorsed in all that time.  Hell, you even started as a child.  You parents should have been in prison for the gun enablement they gave you.  I wonder how many died as a direct result of your gun fetish?  How do you look yourself in a mirror everyday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sounds like you were deep part of the gun culture you hated so much.  Think of all those years you pushed gunz on society.  Think of all the "gun mentality" you created and endorsed in all that time.  Hell, you even started as a child.  You parents should have been in prison for the gun enablement they gave you.  I wonder how many died as a direct result of your gun fetish?  How do you look yourself in a mirror everyday?

PHILLY Remember the steps which Rocky Balboa ran up in training? I lived across the street, at 65th IIRC. Four-part a copella vocals at night, with the little ones jumping on abandoned cars, and junkies roaming about looking for stuff that wasn't bolted down.  It was an average area, other areas were much worse.  Many hookers standing under city hall bldgs at night.

DETROIT Aretha Franklin would visit her Dad in style on Sunday Mornings. He lived across the street. The local street punks helped me get the stolen station wagon back.

ALBQ I would fix the kids bikes, would take them joy riding and camping in the foothills, and I got them a scooter to ride. They slit my tires, and stole the scooter. I ran the local 3800 vertical foot Sandia Crest trail a lot.

No gun, no guitar. A well-regulated effort. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

PHILLY Remember the steps which Rocky Balboa ran up in training? I lived across the street, at 65th IIRC. Four-part a copella vocals at night, with the little ones jumping on abandoned cars, and junkies roaming about looking for stuff that wasn't bolted down.  It was an average area, other areas were much worse.  Many hookers standing under city hall bldgs at night.

DETROIT Aretha Franklin would visit her Dad in style on Sunday Mornings. He lived across the street. The local street punks helped me get the stolen station wagon back.

ALBQ I would fix the kids bikes, would take them joy riding and camping in the foothills, and I got them a scooter to ride. They slit my tires, and stole the scooter. I ran the local 3800 vertical foot Sandia Crest trail a lot.

No gun, no guitar. A well-regulated effort. 

 

 

Which one of those did you jump OVER cars for a living?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Which one of those did you jump OVER cars for a living?

That was a gag, not a gig. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Remember the steps which Rocky Balboa ran up in training?

You mean the art museum?

6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I lived across the street, at 65th

25th? 65th Ave & 65th St are not near the art museum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 5/2/2018 at 8:42 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Would you have destroyed your .22 if it were a single shot bolt action version like one of mine?

Afraid so. It's the principal in play. What U called hypocrisy was simply a guy who loved guns, but knew better than to encourage them. I hope you enjoy yours a bit, just for me.

So even owning a single shot .22 is bad? Wow, I didn't know. One more bad thing I was unwittingly doing.

Re: the bolded part. It could mean there's a school Principal involved in the story and you haven't told us. It could mean that you consider the gun an actor in the situation and its wishes are in play as a principal. It could mean that you're concerned about the principal of your investment, which wouldn't make a lot of sense since you destroyed it. What it could not mean is what you intended: It's the principle in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 3:23 PM, Steam Flyer said:

I never did understand why you think .22s are harmless

hmm...

12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Please point out where anyone has "vilified the wealthy."

Straw man?


So you do know what those are, huh?

OK, please point out where I said .22's are harmless. Or just admit it was a stupid strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 4:17 AM, 3to1 said:

that's funny. cheers.

Your welcome, got no idea what I was searching for when i found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 4:30 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah "funny" in the sense of being disturbing..... but oddly appropriate

-DSK

That was the appealing part about it.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

PHILLY Remember the steps which Rocky Balboa ran up in training? I lived across the street, at 65th IIRC. Four-part a copella vocals at night, with the little ones jumping on abandoned cars, and junkies roaming about looking for stuff that wasn't bolted down.  It was an average area, other areas were much worse.  Many hookers standing under city hall bldgs at night.

DETROIT Aretha Franklin would visit her Dad in style on Sunday Mornings. He lived across the street. The local street punks helped me get the stolen station wagon back.

ALBQ I would fix the kids bikes, would take them joy riding and camping in the foothills, and I got them a scooter to ride. They slit my tires, and stole the scooter. I ran the local 3800 vertical foot Sandia Crest trail a lot.

No gun, no guitar. A well-regulated effort. 

 

 

You lived across the street from C.L. Franklin and you knew him as Aretha's Dad? Am I reading this correctly that you were able to get a stolen station wagon back for him, with the help of local street "punks"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, chinabald said:

You lived across the street from C.L. Franklin and you knew him as Aretha's Dad? Am I reading this correctly that you were able to get a stolen station wagon back for him, with the help of local street "punks"? 

I can't say we knew him, beyond a bit of waving. The station wagon was ours, parked directly across the street from his house. The punks were my little pals, I knew them pretty well. Wiki says that Rev. Franklin was shot dead in that house a few years later.

Again, a visit was made by to us by a city or county official (someone you may know). They had meals on wheels to us the following day, and they offered me a county job with a van, a staff, and an office. Hell, I was on foot, and had finally found my way into that local culture. I wouldn't have spent five minutes relating to a secretary or driver in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 8:18 PM, Importunate Tom said:
On 3/20/2018 at 3:23 PM, Steam Flyer said:

I never did understand why you think dogballs are harmless, but for the record I am not in favor of "banning" anything. I am in favor of making it more difficult for crazy and/or murderous people to get gunz. I am in favor of people who own firearms to take responsibility for their safe and proper use.

Are you in favor of making it easier, or less responsibility?

I'm starting to think you may be immune to evidence on this issue.

How about a couple of links to non-gun threads where I've brought up guns? You won't find them, but you still keep asserting they are there. They're not. Why are you pursuing that lie?

I have never said dogballs's are harmless. Why would you say such a thing? I just don't think my dogballs is a "weapon of war."

8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
2 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

One can only guess at the causes of overall market preferences.

I'd guess it's because "assault" weapons that fire the censored caliber of ammo are cheap and fun, more so than others, resulting in more sales. It's true around the world.

And they're just fine, perfectly safe, nobody ever gets hurt from dogballs caliber guns, right Tom?

Sorry to return to the actual point, my bad, just being a liberty-squashing gun-grabber again.

-DSK

You could return to a point I have made instead of coming up with the same silly straw man again.

If the TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs were politically defensible in America, that is.

As I told you before, I have never said that our guns are harmless. I just point out that the rhetoric on "weapons of war on our streets" doesn't seem to match the actual guns covered by the bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

You could return to a point I have made covered up instead of coming up with the same silly straw man again.

If the TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs were politically defensible in America, that is.

As I told you before, I have never said that our guns are harmless. I just point out that the rhetoric on "weapons of war on our streets" doesn't seem to match the actual guns covered by the bans.

Umm, I dunno if you ever said they were "harmless" but you sure don't seem to like to mention the fact that lots and lots of people get killed by point-two-two gunz

Given the above fact, anybody who is interested in lowering firearms deaths and injury would be illogical and stooopid to leave them out of any consideration, regardless of what they're called.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Given the above fact, anybody who is interested in lowering firearms deaths and injury would be illogical and stooopid to leave them out of any consideration, regardless of what they're called.

Are we going to call the bans and confiscation programs "considerations" now? OK.

I don't think that considering our squirrel shooters will have any effect at all on firearms deaths and injuries. Consideration programs tend to mostly result in "boating accident" reports from owners of previously-legal property because most of us feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

...     ....

I don't think that considering our squirrel shooters will have any effect at all on firearms deaths and injuries. ...    ...

FIFY

Because nobody ever got killed with a dogballs, right?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 12:36 PM, Steam Flyer said:

FIFY

Because nobody ever got killed with a dogballs, right?

-DSK

 

Why do you intentionally twist what I actually said?

Please quote accurately, otherwise people might think you're just another far-left loony-tunes gun grabby troll.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Why do you intentionally twist what I actually said?

Please quote accurately, otherwise people might think you're just another far-left loony-tunes gun grabby troll.

 

Very clever, huh?

On those rare occasions when I quote you, it's always full ad accurate. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you feel like thinking, or think you feel like.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responsible gun owners? Or vigilantes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Responsible gun owners? Or vigilantes?

Maybe they are protecting property from being looted or burned. They don't seem to be threatening anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F_L said:

Maybe they are protecting property from being looted or burned. They don't seem to be threatening anyone.

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, F_L said:

Maybe they are protecting property from being looted or burned. They don't seem to be threatening anyone.

Fear of your fellow American neighbors, government and local police is strong in your country, perhaps that's a good thing to fix first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

Fear of your fellow American neighbors, government and local police is strong in your country, perhaps that's a good thing to fix first.

We can trust our neighbors with (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in most parts of America. Fear is what led Canada to the confiscation program for those weapons. So go figure out how to fix your own fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Harmless” .22 calibre Rabbit Rifles
Kill More People Than Any Other Type of Gun

Contrary to their popular image as low-powered “bunny guns,” .22-calibre rimfire rifles are commonly used in multiple shootings. In seven recent mass(1) killings involving .22 rifles in Australia and New Zealand alone, 54 people died by gunfire

Multiple Shootings With .22 Rifles, 1971-1997:

Data from police and coroners’ records

Mass shootings in Australia & New Zealand in which the primary weapon was a .22 rifle:

Date

20/06/94 31/03/93 24/09/81 06/09/71

Place

Dunedin, NZ Cangai, NSW Campsie, NSW Hope Forest, SA

Perpetrator(s) V P K

Primary Weapon

Semi-auto .22 rimfire rabbit rifle 2 x .22 rifles
Semi-auto .22 rifle, 10-shot mags .22 rabbit rifle

Date

13/11/90 09/08/87 19/06/87

Place

Aramoana, NZ Hoddle St, VIC Top End, NT/WA

Perpetrator(s)

David Gray Julian Knight Josef Schwab

V P K

13 1 14 7 0 7 5 1 6

Secondary Weapon

Remington semi-auto .22 rifle Ruger 10/22 semi-auto .22 rifle Brno .22 rifle

Weapon

.22 hunting rifle (only weapon)

David Bain Leabeater & Steele Fred Daoud
Cliff Bartholomew

5 0 5 5 1 6 5 1 6 10 0 10

Mass shootings in Australia & New Zealand in which a .22 rifle was a secondary weapon:

Known Overseas Mass Shooting in which a .22 rifle was used: Date Place Perpetrator(s) V P K

25/09/95 Toulon, France Eric Borel 11 1 12

Serial Killer Ivan Milat Also Used Two .22 Rifles

Key

V: Victims Shot Dead

P: Perpetrators Shot Dead

K: Total Killed

In the 1989-1992 Belanglo Forest backpacker murders, serial killer Ivan Milat also used an Anschutz .22 calibre rifle and a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic .22 rifle to kill three of his seven young victims. This was not a “mass shooting,” and is not included in the tables above.

The .22 Rifle is the Most Commonly Used Gun in All Firearm Homicides

For every victim of a mass shooting which grabs the headlines, nine more Australians and New Zealanders die in less newsworthy gun murders. Most of these are domestic killings in which licensed male gun owners typically shoot members of their own family.(2, 4, 6)

Again, several studies show that the ubiquitous .22 rimfire rifle, the largest-selling firearm and the gun readily at hand in many homes,(3) is also the gun most commonly used in suicide, homicide and accidental shootings.

Philip Alpers, March 1998. 22R Fact Sheet, Page 1 of 2

Research Studies, Australia and New Zealand

In Brisbane, .22 calibre rifles were used in 66% of gun suicides and 55% of gun homicides (4)
In New South Wales, 76% of all guns used in suicide were .22 calibre rifles (5)
Throughout Australia, .22 calibre rifles were used to kill 43% of firearm homicide victims, making this the gun most commonly used in murder and manslaughter shootings (6)

In Auckland, New Zealand, .22 calibre weapons were used in 46% of all gun deaths -- more than any other firearm (7)
Throughout New Zealand, 32.5% of firearm homicide victims were killed with a .22 calibre rimfire rifle; 20% with a semi-automatic .22 rifle and the remaining 12.5% with a single-action .22 rifle. Guns of this calibre were the most common type used in murder and manslaughter (2)

Conclusion

These figures suggest that to allow .22 calibre “bunny guns” to escape firearm restrictions would be to exempt the most common agent of gun death and injury.

The registration of individual firearms (in addition to owner licensing) is a proven public safety measure in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. As a direct result of tight control and owner-accountability for each handgun and restricted weapon (machine guns, etc.), these have always been the firearms least frequently used to kill in suicides, accidental shootings and crime. Of the four comparable countries, all but New Zealand now register every type of firearm. In New Zealand, sporting rifles and shotguns -- the guns most commonly used to cause death and injury -- remain the only firearms exempt from registration.

Notes and References:

  1. 1)  A mass murder is defined as one in which five or more victims died by homicide in proximate events in a civilian setting, not counting serial killings or the suicide or justifiable homicide of any perpetrators.

  2. 2)  Alpers P, Morgan B. Firearm Homicide in New Zealand: victims, perpetrators and their weapons 1992-94. A survey of NZ Police files presented to the National Conference of the Public Health Association of New Zealand. Knox College, Dunedin, 28 June 1995.

  3. 3)  Among all firearms, by far the biggest seller is the semi-automatic .22 rimfire rifle (Robert Brewer, secretary of the Firearms Traders Association of Victoria. The Age, 11 May 1996); In New Zealand, the most common firearm is the .22 calibre rimfire rifle, probably involved in more incidents each year than any other firearm type (Forsyth, C I H. Firearms in New Zealand. NZ Mountain Safety Council Manual #19. July 1985, p. 4); Victoria Police figures show the .22 calibre rifle is the most commonly owned rifle in the state (Melbourne Herald Sun, 9 May 1996).

  4. 4)  Cantor, C H, Brodie J & McMillen J. Firearm Victims: Who Were They? Medical Journal of Australia, Oct 1991; 155:7:7:442-446. This study examined all 587 firearm deaths in Brisbane, 1980-1989.

  5. 5)  Vinson, T. Intentional Shootings. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research, Statistical Report 2, Series 2. May 1975, pp. 1-3. A survey of 97 gun suicides in NSW, July 1973 to June 1974.

  6. 6)  Data on Firearms and Violent Death. Brief prepared for the Commonwealth Police Ministers’ meeting of 10 May 1996. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1996.

  7. 7)  Firearm-Related Deaths by Type of Firearm, Auckland Coronial District 1978-87. Unpublished data set. Section of Forensic Medicine, Dept of Pathology, University of Auckland School of Medicine, 1990.

    Philip Alpers, gun policy researcher E-Mail: alpers@iconz.co.nz
    PO Box 90-227 Auckland 1030 New Zealand Fax: 64 (9) 376-4212 Ph: 64 (9) 376-3999

    March 1998. 22R Fact Sheet, Page 2 of 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What caliber has killed the most people?

12 Answers
Clint Jahn
Clint Jahn, Consultant
Answered Apr 24 2019 · Author has 1.5k answers and 2.9m answer views
 
Originally Answered: What caliber kills the most?

Statistically, within the United States anyway, that would be the 22 Long Rifle cartridge.

The 22 bolt action rifle is the most common of all firearms, found in the household of nearly every gun owner. Even if you hate guns, chances are you have one of these in attic or in storage that you inherited from a relative. They have been used in many suicides and acts of domestic violence.

Back in the 1960s and continuing well past the 90s, the most common handgun used in street crime was the “Saturday Night Special”… a derogatory term used by anti-gun politicians to refer to inexpensive handguns marketed primarily to poor people. Often, the frames were made from cast zinc alloy and they were unsafe to carry with a round chambered because they tended to discharge if dropped. The RG-14 snub revolver and the Jennings J-22 were both extremely popular with a retail price of about $75… both were chambered for 22 Long Rifle and they have been recovered from thousands of crime scenes.

The reason the 22 Long Rifle has killed so many people is because it is so popular. These guns are everywhere, even in gun free zones like NYC and Chicago, where most gun crimes seem to occur. A gun runner can use a straw buyer to purchase a case of cheap 22 pistols at a discount, close to $50 per unit, then resell them to gang members for $300 each. That is a bigger profit than selling cocaine with less risk, and why a gangbanger is more likely to have a zinc 22 than a far more expensive Glock.

This is just statistics… sort of like trivia… the 22 Long Rifle is actually far less deadly than most other calibers and used extensively for target shooting, from plinking to competition. Most of the guns chambered for 22 Long Rifle are deemed so innocuous they are specifically excluded from many gun bans.

C. R. Jahn, author of FTW Self Defense

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, astro said:

For every victim of a mass shooting which grabs the headlines, nine more Australians and New Zealanders die in less newsworthy gun murders. Most of these are domestic killings in which licensed male gun owners typically shoot members of their own family.(2, 4, 6)

Again, several studies show that the ubiquitous .22 rimfire rifle, the largest-selling firearm and the gun readily at hand in many homes,(3) is also the gun most commonly used in suicide, homicide and accidental shootings.

Philip Alpers, March 1998. 22R Fact Sheet, Page 1 of 2

Research Studies, Australia and New Zealand

In Brisbane, .22 calibre rifles were used in 66% of gun suicides and 55% of gun homicides (4)
In New South Wales, 76% of all guns used in suicide were .22 calibre rifles (5)
Throughout Australia, .22 calibre rifles were used to kill 43% of firearm homicide victims, making this the gun most commonly used in murder and manslaughter shootings (6)

...

Conclusion

These figures suggest that to allow .22 calibre “bunny guns” to escape firearm restrictions would be to exempt the most common agent of gun death and injury.

Ummm... those are licensed gun owners, so they have complied with the restrictions. A guy like me can't legally own a semiauto .22 in Australia. These were citizens who had an approved reason for owning one. So they didn't escape firearm restrictions at all.

It would probably be best if your grabbers started going after museum collections to solve this problem. Oh, wait... they already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, astro said:

What caliber has killed the most people?

12 Answers
Clint Jahn
Clint Jahn, Consultant
Answered Apr 24 2019 · Author has 1.5k answers and 2.9m answer views
 
Originally Answered: What caliber kills the most?

Statistically, within the United States anyway, that would be the 22 Long Rifle cartridge.

The 22 bolt action rifle is the most common of all firearms, found in the household of nearly every gun owner. Even if you hate guns, chances are you have one of these in attic or in storage that you inherited from a relative. They have been used in many suicides and acts of domestic violence.

Back in the 1960s and continuing well past the 90s, the most common handgun used in street crime was the “Saturday Night Special”… a derogatory term used by anti-gun politicians to refer to inexpensive handguns marketed primarily to poor people. Often, the frames were made from cast zinc alloy and they were unsafe to carry with a round chambered because they tended to discharge if dropped. The RG-14 snub revolver and the Jennings J-22 were both extremely popular with a retail price of about $75… both were chambered for 22 Long Rifle and they have been recovered from thousands of crime scenes.

The reason the 22 Long Rifle has killed so many people is because it is so popular. These guns are everywhere, even in gun free zones like NYC and Chicago, where most gun crimes seem to occur. A gun runner can use a straw buyer to purchase a case of cheap 22 pistols at a discount, close to $50 per unit, then resell them to gang members for $300 each. That is a bigger profit than selling cocaine with less risk, and why a gangbanger is more likely to have a zinc 22 than a far more expensive Glock.

This is just statistics… sort of like trivia… the 22 Long Rifle is actually far less deadly than most other calibers and used extensively for target shooting, from plinking to competition. Most of the guns chambered for 22 Long Rifle are deemed so innocuous they are specifically excluded from many gun bans.

C. R. Jahn, author of FTW Self Defense

 

You must have missed this one Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

We can trust our neighbors with (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in most parts of America. Fear is what led Canada to the confiscation program for those weapons. So go figure out how to fix your own fears.

No!

Originally Answered: What caliber kills the most?

Statistically, within the United States anyway, that would be the 22 Long Rifle cartridge.

The 22 bolt action rifle is the most common of all firearms, found in the household of nearly every gun owner. Even if you hate guns, chances are you have one of these in attic or in storage that you inherited from a relative. They have been used in many suicides and acts of domestic violence.

Back in the 1960s and continuing well past the 90s, the most common handgun used in street crime was the “Saturday Night Special”… a derogatory term used by anti-gun politicians to refer to inexpensive handguns marketed primarily to poor people. Often, the frames were made from cast zinc alloy and they were unsafe to carry with a round chambered because they tended to discharge if dropped. The RG-14 snub revolver and the Jennings J-22 were both extremely popular with a retail price of about $75… both were chambered for 22 Long Rifle and they have been recovered from thousands of crime scenes.

The reason the 22 Long Rifle has killed so many people is because it is so popular. These guns are everywhere, even in gun free zones like NYC and Chicago, where most gun crimes seem to occur. A gun runner can use a straw buyer to purchase a case of cheap 22 pistols at a discount, close to $50 per unit, then resell them to gang members for $300 each. That is a bigger profit than selling cocaine with less risk, and why a gangbanger is more likely to have a zinc 22 than a far more expensive Glock.

This is just statistics… sort of like trivia… the 22 Long Rifle is actually far less deadly than most other calibers and used extensively for target shooting, from plinking to competition. Most of the guns chambered for 22 Long Rifle are deemed so innocuous they are specifically excluded from many gun bans.

C. R. Jahn, author of FTW Self Defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, F_L said:

Maybe they are protecting property from being looted or burned. They don't seem to be threatening anyone.

the fok , since when is standing in public ,  armed , non threatening ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mid said:

the fok , since when is standing in public ,  armed , non threatening ?

 

Since people seem to feel safe walking right by the terrible, deadly threat perhaps? Public displays of guns, even in museums, may be terrifying to Aussies but that doesn't mean the whole world feels that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, astro said:

No!

Originally Answered: What caliber kills the most?

Statistically, within the United States anyway, that would be the 22 Long Rifle cartridge.

The 22 bolt action rifle is the most common of all firearms, found in the household of nearly every gun owner. Even if you hate guns, chances are you have one of these in attic or in storage that you inherited from a relative. They have been used in many suicides and acts of domestic violence.

Back in the 1960s and continuing well past the 90s, the most common handgun used in street crime was the “Saturday Night Special”… a derogatory term used by anti-gun politicians to refer to inexpensive handguns marketed primarily to poor people. Often, the frames were made from cast zinc alloy and they were unsafe to carry with a round chambered because they tended to discharge if dropped. The RG-14 snub revolver and the Jennings J-22 were both extremely popular with a retail price of about $75… both were chambered for 22 Long Rifle and they have been recovered from thousands of crime scenes.

The reason the 22 Long Rifle has killed so many people is because it is so popular. These guns are everywhere, even in gun free zones like NYC and Chicago, where most gun crimes seem to occur. A gun runner can use a straw buyer to purchase a case of cheap 22 pistols at a discount, close to $50 per unit, then resell them to gang members for $300 each. That is a bigger profit than selling cocaine with less risk, and why a gangbanger is more likely to have a zinc 22 than a far more expensive Glock.

This is just statistics… sort of like trivia… the 22 Long Rifle is actually far less deadly than most other calibers and used extensively for target shooting, from plinking to competition. Most of the guns chambered for 22 Long Rifle are deemed so innocuous they are specifically excluded from many gun bans.

C. R. Jahn, author of FTW Self Defense

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Since people seem to feel safe walking right by the terrible, deadly threat perhaps?

if the cops weren’t there i genuinely don’t know what would have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Sure.

It looks like a group of people peacefully practicing their 1A rights, another group their 2A rights. I fail to see the outrage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

if the cops weren’t there i genuinely don’t know what would have happened.

"we were met with anti-protesters, automatic weapons, and hatred."

The woman appears to be a drama queen. Either that or she didn't get the "anti-protesters, automatic weapons, and hatred" on camera. Even the cops didn't seem overly concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, F_L said:

"we were met with anti-protesters, automatic weapons, and hatred."

The woman appears to be a drama queen. Either that or she didn't get the "anti-protesters, automatic weapons, and hatred" on camera. Even the cops didn't seem overly concerned. 

The protest is about police violence on blacks. Of course the cops wouldn't be concerned if a few of the right folks took out a few of the wrong folks.

Is there something in the water down there?

9 hours ago, F_L said:

It looks like a group of people peacefully practicing their 1A rights, another group their 2A rights. I fail to see the outrage. 

So this is the local well-trained militia? Nice uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 1:25 PM, Ishmael said:

Responsible gun owners? Or vigilantes?

This is an example of a vigilante in action. I'm pretty sure she fired at the fleeing vehicle due to being angry about the threat to her life and her son's life and the theft of their car. Those aren't good enough reasons to shoot. If the crooks were trying to run one of them over, it might have been a justifiable use of a gun but it sounds like a vigilante in action and I don't support it.

See the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now