So You Support Gun Control...

I have been thinking long and hard about what I can contribute to this debate. Sure I have posted lots in-thread, but as far as starting a new discourse on a new facet of the debate I have waited.

According to the FBI's 2011 Uniform Crime Report, long guns (both semi-auto and bolt, "assault" and conventional) account for fewer than 350 deaths per year in the United States. Conversely, handguns of all stripes account for over 6,000. Also of note: there was exactly 1 murder in the "sniper category"...and it lists a handgun being the weapon used. Also interesting is you are more likely to be murdered by a shotgun than a rifle and you are TWICE as likely to die from someone's fist.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and is present in millions of homes (estimated 3.3M AR's sold 1986-2009). Yet it (and it's brothers) account for such a small number of homicides that scientifically speaking, the results would be thrown out of the report.

Speaking of reports, here's the 2004 NIJ report on the effects of the first AW ban. Tucked in among the many "perhaps", "mights" and "coulds" (which try to sugar coat the facts), pg. 97 states:

Having said this, the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AW s were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun cries, but it is not clear how often the out comes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading.

And remember, this was the era of Miami Vice and the tec-9/Uzi fad.

Why then have lawmakers and anti-gun lobbyists targeted military style semi-automatic rifles as such a pressing problem? Clearly by any metric devised, handguns are by far the bread and butter of illegal sales, homicides and criminal intent.

Likewise, limiting clip capacity will have no appreciable impact on homicide rates either. I don't imagine most murders taking 11 consecutive rounds to get the job done. Lemme restate that last NIJ report sentence from above:

[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

In Columbine, Harris used a Hi-Point 995, a semi-automatic rifle which was ban-compliant (10 round magazine). He just opted to empty 13 magazines rather than 7. An ugly argument might even point out that repeated firing is highly inaccurate (NIJ report), and a shooter with a higher capacity magazine would experience more misses while simultaneously depleting his ammunition reserves, thus potentially saving more lives.

Of all the things that have stood out to me in researching, reading and rebutting this issue, targeting the entirely wrong class of gun might just be the most important for people to realize. I have my own ideas as to why, but I would ask the pro-control camp to answer me one honest question:

Why these guns and clips, if they aren't the problem,

if they aren't going to "save the children"?

In all honesty the only reason I can think of for the ban on platforms firing 5.56mm and 7.62mm, is to limit the potential for "scavenging" from the military in the case of civil uprising.

I do expect 9mm, .40cal, and .45cal to be next on the chopping block.

The desire to ban "evil looking" weapons is simply to provide a crack in the dam, so to speak.

GREAT THREAD, Gonna fall on a lot of deaf ears, though. Most of the anti-gun crowd knows exactly why, but they are all engaged in diversionary arguments in an attempt to muddy the truth. The ones who actually believe that banning guns will "save children" are just plain... intellectually deficient.

Originally posted by 200Plus
In all honesty the only reason I can think of for the ban on platforms firing 5.56mm and 7.62mm, is to limit the potential for "scavenging" from the military in the case of civil uprising.

I do expect 9mm, .40cal, and .45cal to be next on the chopping block.

The desire to ban "evil looking" weapons is simply to provide a crack in the dam, so to speak.

The reason they are targeting ARs and other "assault weapons" is because they are the most efficient tool with which to defeat tyranny.

A bolt action rifle vs. a semi-auto or full-auto rifle with 30 round mags. Not really a fair fight is it? Tyrants don't like a fair fight, remember that.

The real reason is that they are politicians and they need something to hate or support so that they can be seen to be doing their job and get elected and if the electorate in their area don't like guns then you will hate guns until the day they decide they want them and suddenly as if by magic you'll do a 180 degree turn and support them and make it look like you're a gun totting person since birth

reply to post by blamethegreys


I hate the term "Clip". The M1 Garand takes a "clip", while the AR15 takes a box style magazine. And both are semi automatic.

en.wikipedia.org...(ammunition)

But I digress. These proposed bans will do absolutely nothing to prevent other mass shootings. Nothing whatsoever regardless of what is said.

It may even make the shooters more accurate and deadly when they realize that they have to train with their firearms rather than spray and pray.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I have seen many men carrying full auto rifles with 30 round mags frozen and eliminated by two men with bolt actions. Its a matter of knowing a weapon system. Firing on full auto or as fast as you can pull the trigger is a hollywood scene (or a Fobit), unless it is for supressive fire situations.

A majority of the weapons that will be banned are chambered in common (NATO) calibers, are they not?

I'm beginning to agree with the theory that this is some kind of reverse psychology by the gun manufacturers.

What better way to support the gun business than to create a false sense of scarcity.

It's the rule of supply and demand and in a down economy the gun business was slow.

These news gun laws will probably just be another temporary stance.

Just like the previous assault weapons ban.

The military industrial complex is always thinking of new ways to up their bottom line.

The gun lobby has too much support from politicians to ever be forced into something they didn't plan on and agree to.

They all know that they can change the laws any time they wish.

This is just another way for TPTB to divide the nation and keep people focused on pointless arguments while they spend our tax dollars on more bureaucracy.

reply to post by Maxatoria


That's how it's supposed to work. However in the real world the politicians form an opinion about something and if their electorate doesn't agree, they use the MSM to change their minds through half-truths, information out of context, skewed statistics, emotion, and demonizing the opposition

This is why marijuana is illegal, why we have the patriot act on the books, why the bailout happened, as well as a slew of other things. This can be seen now as well with the anti-gun crowd pushing the gun legislation. If this was really important to the public they would have demanded this legislation during the fast and furious scandal or after looking at gun related deaths before sandy hook.

Does anyone else here feel that if Fast & Furious was a success (instead of a horrible failure) then we'd have seen this exact same legislation a few years ago?

I don't support gun control and hear are the facts...
Just the facts

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The real reason is that they are politicians and they need something to hate or support so that they can be seen to be doing their job and get elected and if the electorate

This mostly. I've said it before, but it's the "people's" fault that there is even a gun ban debate. They need the politicians to act like they're doing something to placate the people.

Everyone knows that people will find a way to kill other people no matter what they take away. Heck, in a near-by town some kids just strangled some other kids.

I'm not saying I'm pro-gun or not. Although, I generally post as if I'm anti-gun to get people all riled up and spark some debate on the subject.

I happen to think that guns have their place. I don't think that people should be able to walk around with them and I don't think they really deter crime, but I won't begrudge people something that makes them happy as long as they don't shoot anyone I know with them. I don't know how to make that a reality

I just read on MSN that the new York Gun law messed up, they did not provide an exclusion for cops, The NYPD are just like the citizens now they are not allowed to carry no more the 7 rounds in their pistols. I bet that gets a slurry started when they are used to carrying 15 round clips. This could get interesting real fast, seeing as the law is set to go into effect in march. The link: news.msn.com...

reply to post by blamethegreys


Great post, and this being a 'conspiracy' website allows me to freely state that I believe all of this information has been accurately processed by those who are implementing the new laws on assault weapons and magazine limits. It doesn't make sense to consider the 'official' reason as to these new measures because of the information you present, however; if you consider that the reason for these new laws is to disarm the masses from decent military grade weaponry, then it makes alot more sense. What with all the economic trouble and more and more questionable political paths being taken by the American government - eventually there will reach a point where the American people might actually decide to take arms and fight against their corrupt government. It would be much easier, I think, to quell this uprising with a government military holding assualt weapons and near infinite ammo - meanwhile, the people only having shotguns and rifles with limited ammo per weapon ( for the most part ).

reply to post by AwakeinNM

The reason they are targeting ARs and other "assault weapons" is because they are the most efficient tool with which to defeat tyranny.

This. Not so much to defeat tyranny, but their efficiency in any defensive or offensive situation where firepower is needed.

And I do support gun control. >> Two hands folks. Don't be careless.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Why these guns and clips, if they aren't the problem,
if they aren't going to "save the children"?

I'll give as honest answer as I can; to prevent or reduce killing sprees. No one seems to care if 15 different people kill 15 other people with handguns. They do care if one person kills 15 people with a semi-automatic rifle.

More importantly, of the nine options the president has proposed the only one I hear being discussed is the AWB. My question for the anti-gun-control folks is this:

Why do you vocally oppose only one aspect of the issue?

Amazingly enough, gun-control literature seems never to have explored the problem of getting weapons away from people who very much want to keep them in the nightstand drawer.

There is a peaceful Demonstration organized for Jan 19th in all 50 states. There is more information for your state is below. Please share this with every Red blooded American you know. "United We Stand" This is our chance to show our politicians how strong Gun Owners Of America are, and How United and determined we have become on preserving our 2nd Amendment Rights.
b4in.com...

reply to post by 200Plus


I agree 100% I think you nailed it.

Everyone knows that people will find a way to kill other people no matter what they take away

Wrong, where do you people get these ridiculous ideas? Of course there are a few people that are intent on killing a specific person that will use a different weapon, but most people would be too scared to attack people without their metal penis- I mean gun.
How many teenage gangsters do you think will be trying to hold up stores with slingshots? What about drive by shootings? It would be pretty hard to accidentally shoot people through their walls without firearms.

reply to post by CB328


The UK disagrees with your last post.

I guess nobody was murdered before guns were invented then, do tell.