It is simple, most people want a gun for self protection, hunting or just the joy of target shooting. So, limit weapons to bolt action rifles, pum[p action shotguns or single action pistols and eliminate all semi-automatic weapons. Clips or magazines shall be limited to 8 or less bullets. The weapons mentioned are more than sufficient for self protection, hunting or target shooting. This would eliminate the kind of mass shootings we have seen over the past few years. We do not want people walking down the street loaded for bear and willing to take out anyone they deem a threat or who they just hate. This is not the old west although after seeing what happened in Florida where an armed man follows an unarmed man and provokes an incident, shoots the unarmed man and then claims self defense, maybe we are becoming the "Wild West" again. At least that is what it sounds like.
What you don't understand is the bad guys already have all these and can get their hands on them relitivly easy.
That's not true. The evidence from Cook & Ludwig shows that the transaction costs associated with acquiring illegal weapons remains significant
Under McDonald, Miller, and Heller banning all semi's would be unconstitutional. Semi-automatic weapons make up 80% of the weapons in use, making them common. The supreme court has ruled that weapons "in common use for lawful purposes" cannot be banned.
Have a look at this movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw A lot of those AKs are Chinese made, which means they're more likely than not full-auto. How do you suppose they got those? I will bet my life they didn't get them legally. Since full-autos are pretty hard to get for even a law-abiding citizen, those AKs were likely imported by drug smugglers and sold to those gangs. Guns are not the problem, criminals will get their hands on them no matter what.
Exactly what I keep saying, bad guys already have the guns. Limits on clips and restrictions on certain firearms won't change that. I go by what I see, states with more relaxed gun laws see a lower gun murder rate per 1000 people as well as a lower violent crime rate than other states like New York. If a criminal knows you are weak and defensless, they will be more likely to target you for a violent crime. In a society where more people carry guns without so many rediculous restrictions, criminals are a lot less eager to commit a crime. Humans as any other species here on planet earth, have it built into their dna to attack the weakest. Those with mental deficiencies tend to go more towards their more animal instincts. So to hell with all these one sided studies, let's use common sense, gun control has done more bad than good in the past, strengthening it will only make it worse. It doesnt take studies from a couple of one sided morons to figure it out.
Allow all guns but ban ammunition , this will leave all sides satisfied and it will be best government trolling ever
I'll stick with the objective evidence thanks! Again the evidence suggests otherwise. Will some criminals always acquire weapons? Certainly! However, gun control is found to have statistically significant effects on crime. Those crime reductions prove your comment wrong
Well please Reiver, lets just assume your right. After all it is commonsense. The problem is enforcement against a culture where the firearm is central cultural icon with almost religious significance in some quarters. The Gun, much like the Motorcycle is a cultural symbol of American Freedom, myth based or not. Its true. The last time US Government attempted widescale confiscation of firearms after the passage of the brady bill. 10 US Government Agents and 86 American Civilians were killed in raids, and then a right wing terrorist blew up a federal building in retaliation costing more lives. Trying to disarm America en masse would be like Charlemagne trying to disarm the saxons. It took an entire lifetime and mass slaughter and deportation. This isn't idle talk. The proof is in the body count above.
Let's not forget that much of the evidence into the effectiveness of gun control is from America. You've gone for a gun ban red herring. This is about, as always, rational gun control
You should be honest and claim your studies are done almost exclusively from data gathered from Western and other modern, industrialized countries. To say that gun control has been effective in Mexico would an outright, laughable lie. Man up and tell us what the gun control laws are in Mexico and how well that has worked out lately---what the "significant effects on crime" have been. Of course no one can collect accurate crime data, that is any data at all from so many 3rd world ****holes. Ignoring a good portion of the world you will persist in your ultra-narrow focus on guns based on cherry-picked studies then proclaim: "More guns=more crime." How well did the people under Stalin's fist do after he banned guns from private ownership in 1929? How many unarmed millions were liquidated during his watch? Would it be accurate to say "Less guns=more atrocities?" W
You know that isn't true. e.g. de Souza et al (2007, Reductions in Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalisations in Brazil after Gun Control, Health Affairs, Vol. 26, pp. 575-584). Here's the abstract: This paper provides evidence suggesting that gun control measures have been effective in reducing the toll of violence on population health in Brazil. In 2004, for the first time in more than a decade, firearm-related mortality declined 8 percent from the previous year. Firearm-related hospitalizations also reversed a historical trend that year by decreasing 4.6 percent from 2003 levels. These changes corresponded with anti-gun legislation passed in late 2003 and disarmament campaigns undertaken throughout the country since mid-2004. The estimated impact of these measures, if they prove causal, could be as much as 5,563 firearm-related deaths averted in 2004 alone.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a amazing source for our side. "It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently" counterproductive. Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds. However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard. The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population). For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report: If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661) Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns. The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain: [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original) It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive. Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should. Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
That's the problem when you're completely reliant on the secondary sources: you can refer to weak evidence without knowing it. The research article is neither an empirical study or a satisfactory review of the empirical evidence (with most of the econometric evidence not covered).
I'm pretty sure if a much better armed henchman's tyrannical boot was planted firmly on your neck because you missed him with your single shot firearm, the last thing you'll be be wondering is why didn't he comply with your suggestions.
