Question for anti-gun:

[spartan231490]

snip

Ack, OP too long. Anyway, all I'm going to say is I'm not against guns I just think that one should be required to have a license to own and use one and each firearm should have to be registered. After all you have to have a license to drive a vehicle and your vehicle has to be registered and vehicles aren't even classified as weapons. So how unreasonable is it to require that people have a license to use a gun and to register their guns?

Registration often leads to confiscation. California instituted a registration law for many semi-automatic weapons in the late 80's and within 2 or 3 years they passed another law and confiscated every one of those registered weapons.

Also, from what I've found, registration laws don't seem to reduce crime rate.

One time can hardly be considered "often." Besides that's not the part I'm advocating.

It was an example. It's happened far more than just once, Christ.

 

[Daeric]

I think I'd rather use this report, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf then anything that contains the words daily mail in it.

Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.

It even has quite a few nifty charts and tables at the bottom of which table 3 is probably the most helpful.

 

[Darkmantle]

You have a poor understanding of forensics then. Gun registries are important and useful in tracking down criminals. You can often Identify what kind of gun has been used by shell casings and other methods. If you have a list of everyone who owns that model of gun, you have narrowed your suspects.

You know the TYPE of gun. That might be helpful when there are only a handful of people with that kind of firearm but what about in a country with 300 million guns?

Sure, the fact that my HK has a polygonal barrel means that you know it is an HK (or IWI) but that does not help you to figure out whether the killer was me or the other 9 people I know (in Austin alone) that own HK or IWI firearms of the same caliber.

Besides can't a bullet be traced back to the gun that fired it? I assumed that part of CSI was based on real life forensics and not something the creators pulled out of their ass.

I have never watched CSI but I can tell you that a casing is not enough to identify a firearm on its own (unless there are very special circumstances. Read above.

Narrowing a murder down to 10 people is nothing to laugh at, it provides direction for investigators. Lets them collect DNA samples and possibly a search warrant on the suspects. It's a pretty crucial bit of evidence.

 

[Royas]

ElPatron - you have NO idea what you're talking about.

I legally purchased my very own AK47 for $300 from a co-worker with absolutely no paper work involved at all. (and before anybody wets their pants, I bought it as a collectors item.)

You did no such thing, or if you did, you now are the proud owner of an illegal firearm that will get you put in jail for a long goddamned time. What you probably have is an AK style semi-automatic rifle, but it is certainly not an AK-47, any more than an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is an M-16 assault rifle. It may look similar, and may even be mistaken for one in a quick glance, but it isn't one.

Getting a fully automatic weapon legally in the USA is not easy. You can do it if you have clean record and a lot of money, but it's not something you go to Wal-Mart and pick up. Given the extreme vetting and background checks full-auto owners have to go through, I'm pretty comfortable knowing that civilians own them. And why shouldn't I? The people I know who own them are all former military officers, police officers and federal agents.

And they are a lot of fun to shoot, even if it does cost a rather large amount of money in ammunition. Those things eat ammo like I eat candy bars... very quickly and you're out before you know it.

 

[tsb247]

but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

Well, in the North Hollywood shootout, the body armour of the criminals meant they could hold off the LAPD until SWAT arrived, the police went to get rifles from a local gun shop because their pistols weren't powerful enough. Though the one SWAT killed was killed by them shooting him in the leg.

And...a handgun round nearly identical to the .223? Citation needed there.

A .22 magnum isn't nearly the same as a .223 (5.56mm) round. Yes, it's similar in caliber (differing by .003in), but the conical shape of a 5.56 gives it different ballistics due to the fact that it handles differently (better) at supersonic speeds. However, there is a handgun out there that comes quite close. the FN Five-SeveN fires a 5.7x28mm round that is designed to pierce armor. However, the AP rounds are restricted and civilians can only purchase the hollowpoint and ballistic tip rounds. I own one, and it is a joy to shoot. It is one of the most accurate handguns on earth, and it is capable of hitting targets at 100yds with a skilled shooter behind it.

Why won't you see them in the hands of the average criminal? They are EXPENSIVE!!!! They are ~$1200 each, so law-abiding citizens can barely afford them most of the time, and the ammunition is also quite expensive at ~$22.99 (for 50) minimum and up to ~$56.99 (for 50) max. It all depends on where you get it, and it's not exactly a type of ammunition that is commonly sold at Wal-Mart either. It must be ordered or come from a larger retailer.

I also enjoy pointing out that is a a civilian gun shop that allowed the police to bring a stop to the North Hollywood shootout. Had those types of firearms been illegal, the police would have been helpless in that particular case.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A .22 magnum isn't nearly the same as a .223 (5.56mm) round. Yes, it's similar in caliber (differing by .003in), but the conical shape of a 5.56 gives it different ballistics due to the fact that it handles differently (better) at supersonic speeds. However, there is a handgun out there that comes quite close. the FN Five-SeveN fires a 5.7x28mm round that is designed to pierce armor. However, the AP rounds are restricted and civilians can only purchase the hollowpoint and ballistic tip rounds. I own one, and it is a joy to shoot. It is one of the most accurate handguns on earth, and it is capable of hitting targets at 100yds with a skilled shooter behind it.

Why won't you see them in the hands of the average criminal? They are EXPENSIVE!!!! They are ~$1200 each, so law-abiding citizens can barely afford them most of the time, and the ammunition is also quite expensive at ~$22.99 (for 50) minimum and up to ~$56.99 (for 50) max. It all depends on where you get it, and it's not exactly a type of ammunition that is commonly sold at Wal-Mart either. It must be ordered or come from a larger retailer.

Well, firstly the 5.7 isn't that special, you have the 4.6 designed for the MP7 and the Indian army has developed themselves a PDW using a shorter 5.56 round. Of course, the FiveseveN is made by FN, who have a good reputation, but then again, so do H&K. Not sure about the Ordnance Factories Board, though.

Secondly, the 5.7 has, what, one third of the energy of the 5.56 NATO?

AI also enjoy pointing out that is a a civilian gun shop that allowed the police to bring a stop to the North Hollywood shootout. Had those types of firearms been illegal, the police would have been helpless in that particular case.

Erm...police officers did get civilian guns from a nearby gun store, but I was under the impression that the people who got them didn't get back in time to fire them at the suspects.

One of the suspects shot himself after his gun jammed and he'd been injured in the arm. The other was shot in the leg by SWAT, was arrested, and bled out before the paramedics got there.

 

[ElPatron]

Writers make it convenient for a criminal to get caught in TV shows even if the case is complex. In real life not even DNA can be considered conclusive.

Are you serious??? That is why your justice system is such a colossal fail.

Yes, it is a fail. I'm European, I live in Portugal.

I know that I am not a lawyer, but bear with me. DNA proves nothing. It can have been planted to incriminate someone or even passed accidentally before. TV shows pretend that DNA is a silver bullet but the fact is that if we all believed in it, no questions asked, a lot of innocents would be in jail.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Banning guns won't work in the US, because guns have been ingrained in the US culture since it's existence. When DC banned handguns in the Capital, murders rose over a hundred percent because of it.

Enforcing an "effective" nationwide ban would involve America being put into a full on police state, with many disgruntled people and criminals refusing to give up their weapons. Yes, banned guns in the UK works, because guns were never allowed anyways.

It won't work. It will never work. If you think it would ever work, sorry, but you're wrong. It's an unfortunate truth.

 

[ElPatron]

...I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing anymore... you're getting confused.

I am not confused. I am saying exactly the same thing I have been for the last few posts.

Narrowing a murder down to 10 people is nothing to laugh at, it provides direction for investigators. Lets them collect DNA samples and possibly a search warrant on the suspects. It's a pretty crucial bit of evidence.

Yes, but the HK has polygonal rifling, which I'm not even sure it can be used to compare marks. Glocks have polygonal rifling too, and there are millions of glocks in the US.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-460571.html

Basically:
>not enough evidence to ID a shooter
>completely useless if the gun is illegal and unregistered
>so far casings have never been used in a trial
>wear on the barrel will change the rifling marks cut on the bullet
>it requires non-deformed bullets, which won't be easy because they are usually supersonic or near supersonic
>changing barrels will throw the evidence off

Yes, banned guns in the UK works, because guns were never allowed anyways.

They were allowed. They are still allowed. But the fact is that many *kinds* of weapons were banned because of a kneejerk reaction. The population wanted them to go, so the government did what they wanted.

If the American population as a whole wants to get rid of guns, the fact that there is no registry will allow criminals to buy millions of guns. On the other hand, if the government doesn't want guns, the civilians will retain their firearms.

 

[Leadfinger]

I'm concerned that in the U.S., firearms not only don't protect the rights of the people, but they actually are eroding other rights. To give an example, because anyone that a cop pulls over may be armed, routine traffic stops in some parts of the U.S. have begun to resemble armed confrontations where the officer actually has his hand on his sidearm ready to blaze away. Whenever I'm pulled over, I just put my hands up on the dash where the cop can see them, because I don't want to be shot.

 

[Darkmantle]

Narrowing a murder down to 10 people is nothing to laugh at, it provides direction for investigators. Lets them collect DNA samples and possibly a search warrant on the suspects. It's a pretty crucial bit of evidence.

That is 9 people that I know of in a city of 820,000. God knows how many more people in this city alone have a firearm with a polygonal barrel. That does not even include the people who could be from out of the area that are just visiting.

Doesn't matter, every bit helps, lets say only 100 people have a gun that matches the evidence, thats 100 out of 820 000. I think that's significant, and many police forces agree.

Or lets say you have 4 suspects, but only 1 owns a gun that matches the weapon used at the scene. Narrows it down there.

When used in concert with other evidence it can be a powerful tool for catching criminals.

 

[nexus]

The arrogant Brits on this site make me want to gouge out my eyes. You all say the same thing in lock-step of one another and it's ludicrous, so stop it.

If you want to argue, then argue. Stop making shit remarks on "Americans are stupid", etc. It just makes you sound naive, and stupid.

I love that Brits think "Americans live in perpetual fear because they own guns." Ugh. Most people that own guns (everyone I know owns a gun) does so by keeping it in a locker or locked cabinet. The only people that keep "guns under the pillow" and all that nonsense are people unfamiliar with firearms.. i.e. if anyone got a gun in the UK, they'd put it under their pillow.

According to your bulletproof logic, the more guns, the more crime and the more fear. I live in a rural population where literally every house is guaranteed to have at least one gun. Be it a hunting rifle, or a shotgun. Some people collect firearms, because a lot of people shoot them for recreation. Now, by this logic 'more guns = more violence", I should be living in utter terror, when in fact gun violence is incredibly low to the point of being non-existent. People are comfortable with guns here, and no we do not "carry them everywhere in fear". Typically you only see a gun in public during hunting season when they're on gun racks in the cab of a truck, unloaded.

I'm really quite sick of this. Everyone that argues gun control on this site does so because they want to shit on America, and it pisses me off. and I am the *last* person here that should care about America, or nationalism. Really no one wants to live in the Orwellian pisshole formerly known as the UK, so you can keep your values to yourself.

 

[WhiteandNeardy99]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

Whilst a lot of people just used it as an excuse to go out and loot, the offical reason being used by the rioters when the LONDON riots first kicked off and not the England riots which were copies and came later, was because the police shot someone.

 

[DancePuppets]

Really no one wants to live in the Orwellian pisshole formerly known as the UK, so you can keep your values to yourself.

Not Orwellian, according to the studies it's about the same as the US when it comes to any measure of freedom and behind states such as Norway. Not "formerly" the UK, definitely still called that, has been for a while (not doing much for your countrymen if people have been insulting the intelligence of Americans there). Also has one of the highest rates of immigration in Europe so seems a fair few people would like to live here.

Wrong on all counts. Good job.

On the original topic, I tend to like guns being illegal over here, it makes me feel safer when I don't see armed police everywhere. This is not measurable in any way realistically and is entirely my own opinion.

 

[ElPatron]

Doesn't matter, every bit helps, lets say only 100 people have a gun that matches the evidence, thats 100 out of 820 000. I think that's significant, and many police forces agree.

Or lets say you have 4 suspects, but only 1 owns a gun that matches the weapon used at the scene. Narrows it down there.

When used in concert with other evidence it can be a powerful tool for catching criminals.

Didn't you just read that there are many people with polygonal rifling barrels?

Besides, asking 100 or even 1000 people for DNA samples (you talked about DNA samplesin another post) just because they own a gun of the s model used in a crime? I am no lawyer, but I think the time it would take to convince a judge to collect 1000 DNA samples would be enough to fuck up the rifling. If you could actually get the warrant. I'm not sure.

For a gun to match the evidence it would have to be confiscated and tested first. I could claim the gun as stolen the day before the murder and fake a break-in. I could swap barrels. I could modify the rifling.

I could buy an illegal, unregistered gun and ditch it.

Not Orwellian, according to the studies it's about the same as the US when it comes to any measure of freedom and behind states such as Norway.

(...) highest rates of immigration in Europe so seems a fair few people would like to live here.

(...)

On the original topic, I tend to like guns being illegal over here, it makes me feel safer when I don't see armed police everywhere. This is not measurable in any way realistically and is entirely my own opinion.

There's also a lot of immigrants in the US. Immigration doesn't prove anything.

The UK is almost reaching Orwellian stage so let's not get hasty.
http://news.sky.com/story/2731/teen-charged-over-dead-soldiers-facebook-post

When I was in London, something serious must have happened because the cops were sporting MP5 submachine guns and eotech sights. Cops are not armed but they have to bring the big guns whenever something serious happens, which honestly doesn't make any difference.

And guns are not even illegal. Even children as young as 11 have been granted Shotgun Certificates, and the police actually requires a reason to prevent British citizens from owning a shotgun.

 

[Darkmantle]

Doesn't matter, every bit helps, lets say only 100 people have a gun that matches the evidence, thats 100 out of 820 000. I think that's significant, and many police forces agree.

Or lets say you have 4 suspects, but only 1 owns a gun that matches the weapon used at the scene. Narrows it down there.

When used in concert with other evidence it can be a powerful tool for catching criminals.

Didn't you just read that there are many people with polygonal rifling barrels?

Besides, asking 100 or even 1000 people for DNA samples (you talked about DNA samplesin another post) just because they own a gun of the s model used in a crime? I am no lawyer, but I think the time it would take to convince a judge to collect 1000 DNA samples would be enough to fuck up the rifling. If you could actually get the warrant. I'm not sure.

For a gun to match the evidence it would have to be confiscated and tested first. I could claim the gun as stolen the day before the murder and fake a break-in. I could swap barrels. I could modify the rifling.

I could buy an illegal, unregistered gun and ditch it.
b]

Couple things, notice I said "in concert with other evidence"? It can narrow 10 suspects down to two, as I have stated. It would never be used alone to justify a warrant, that's silly and I have never suggested it should be.

And most people don't pre-meditate their murder enough to not use their own gun. something like 75% of murders are heat of the moment, committed by people who never re offend.

You have a twisted version of what makes a killer, and it's clouding your judgement.