The argument that gun control is useless because more people are killed by hammers.

[Grantuspeace]

Is tantamount to saying, deaths caused by breast cancer don't matter because heart disease is a bigger killer.

[samsingh]

1. kick

[jeff47]

2. It also suffers from the whole "not being true" problem.

First, they used the stat for rifles, which aren't used as often for murder. Handguns are.

Second, they used the stat for all blunt-force object murders. So hammers, baseball bats, wrenches, lead pipes, candlesticks (in the conservatory with Miss Scarlett) and so on.

All guns vs. all blunt-force objects, gun win hands-down.
Rifles vs. hammers, rifles wins hands-down.

[gejohnston]

3. not quite

all long guns including shotguns
The first is correct
the second is debatable.
One more thing
bare hands vs long guns, bare hands wins 2-1

[DanTex]

5. Are you making things up again?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but guns kill far more people than hammers.

[gejohnston]

6. more personal attacks?

merely correcting an error.

[DanTex]

7. What personal attack?

I'm just pointing out that guns do, in fact, kill a lot more people than hammers.

[gejohnston]

8. seriously?

5. Are you making things up again?

I never said they didn't.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. such a sense of security with that side they can't even be bothered to remember when they

have insulted, attacked or broad brushed smeared the other side.

[Grantuspeace]

4. Mea culpa for accepting the hammer premise.

Hammer as a weapon of choice? Pretty guilible on my part to accept that without question.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. Violence in America has reached epidemic proportions. Until the impetus/motivation factor is

addressed the act or implementation of the act is negligible.

We are attempting to place a band-aid on an area that requires skillful surgery.

[spin]

12. That's a common myth.

It has no support from statistics published by the FBI and the DOJ.

Violent crime is actually at levels last seen in the late 60s.

Crime in the United States

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

However I feel we can do far better. Some sensible changes to our current laws would help. Better mental health care would also be positive. Since a significant amount of violent crime is a result of gang activity, we might target such gangs and treat them like terrorist organizations, which they are. Such gangs finance much of their activity through the sale of illegal drugs. It is obvious that our War on Drugs is a total failure and was lost decades ago. Perhaps we should consider making some drugs legal.

Firearm manufacturers promote the idea that crime is everywhere and responsible and honest citizens should consider buying a firearm for self defense. Those who support extremely strong control suggest that a large number of gun owners are irresponsible and potentially bloodthirsty vigilantes looking for the opportunity to kill another person. Both views are unrealistic and propaganda to promote gun sales or the banning, buy back and possibly the eventual confiscation of certain classes of firearms.

We can take logical measures to improve our gun control laws. I was just listening to a report on CNN that said that 74% of NRA members agree that the NICS background check should be required for all private sales of firearms and gun store owners agree. I am part of that 74%. I never sell one of my firearms to an individual that I don't personally know and he/she has to have a concealed weapons permit. While such a measure would not solve all of our problems it would be a good step as long as the expense of using the NICS background check was held to a reasonable fee.

I feel we can actually reduce violent crime and gun violence significantly if we have a rational and honest debate on the issue. It is true that we could eliminate all gun violence if we could simply ban and confiscate all firearms and totally prevent smuggling these items in from other nations. Unfortunately there are 80,000,000 gun owners and 300,000,000 firearms in our nation and we have a strong gun culture that simply doesn't exist in many nations. Banning and confiscating all firearms or certain firearms might be accomplished on a state level but is politically impossible on a national level.

But I will admit that I might be wrong and I see no problem with some in the gun control movement pushing for truly draconian gun laws. Voters will eventually decide the issue as should be appropriate in any democracy such as ours.

[Skyline]

13. Excellent post.

Thank you for posting that. The FBI statistics are excellent to see, I feel you are correc on everything.

As a gun owner I am also for background checks on private sales, the only time I have ever done so was to my life long friend who is in the Marine Corps, I felt ok selling to him but gun shows should be monitored as well as most every gun sale. Just like they are when buyin from an FFL.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. guns are teh bad and teh evil. it is their fault. they make us do bad things.

only a dumbass would vote to keep their guns. either that or they have been put under the spell cast by the evil gun.

only the law should have the guns because their badges protect them from the evil spell cast by the gun.

its true. I read it on the internet. it is all true. every word.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. I said VIOLENCE. the all encompassing word. not just crime. not just rape. not just

domestic abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse. gang rape. black on black.

VIOLENCe, no matter the vehicle, is epidemic.

the definition of epidemic in the facility where I work:

90 beds/ 2 with the flu.

epidemic. lock down.

but, yeah the guns need to go. they are Teh Evil. they will put a Spell on You.

[Skyline]

16. Violence is no worse today than before

In history. Just look at every great empire through history, violence has always been high. Man as a whole is a violent race, romans would throw you into a pit with a lion if you disagreed with them, they did this as entertainment, they held gladiator battles where people would fight to the death with weapons as entertainment.

History is wrought with violence and the truth is, violence in the USA is on the decline, and what is there about half is gang/drug related.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. I will qualify to say that: in certain geographic locations violence is epidemic and has been

throughout history. the geographic locations have changed over the course of years but, in the strictest sense, there is an epidemic.

it does not take much to define epidemic as I showed you in the above post.

but, it is the gun's fault. they are Teh Evil. they will put a spell on you. hypnotize you.

[Berserker]

20. You have to

sing this to them to reverse the evil.

I put a spell on you, because you're mine
You better stop the things that you're doin'
I said, "Watch out, I ain't lyin'", yeah
I ain't gonna take none of your, foolin' around
I ain't gonna take none of your, puttin' me down
I put a spell on you because you're mine, all right

I put a spell on you, because you're mine
You better stop, the things that you're doin'
I said, "Watch out, I ain't lyin'", yeah
I ain't gonna take none of your, foolin' around
I ain't gonna take none of your, puttin' me down
I put a spell on you because you're mine, all right and I took it down
CCR

[JoeBlowToo]

27. Credence Clearwater Revival was the cover band on that song...

It was written and performed originally by Screamin' Jay Hawkins

Although Hawkins' version did not make any charts, several later cover versions have done so. Nina Simone's version reached # 23 in the US Billboard R&B chart in 1965; it also reached # 49 in the UK singles chart that year, and # 28 when it was reissued in 1969. The version by The Alan Price Set reached # 9 in the UK in 1966, and # 80 on the Billboard Hot 100. Creedence Clearwater Revival's version reached # 58 on the US Hot 100 in 1968. In the UK, Bryan Ferry's version reached # 18 in 1993, and the version by Sonique reached # 36 in 1998 and # 5 on reissue in 2000.[1][2][3] The song has been recorded by numerous other artists. The song version by Jeff Beck featuring Joss Stone, was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal at 53rd Grammy Awards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Put_a_Spell_on_You

[Berserker]

29. Interesting

Thanks for posting that.

[Bay Boy]

18. I too would be in favor of background checks

for private sales. But I would like to hear how it would work first.

I would be willing to discuss safe storage laws too. I feel that many guns used in crime are stolen
and if keeping guns locked up would help in that area I would discuss that.

At the very least I would like to see public service announcements encouraging safe storage.

[spin]

19. I also like the idea of public service announcements. ...

to promote safe gun storage and firearm safety training.

I would like to see some made to discourage the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms. These could emphasize that anyone caught engaging in these activities could expect to spend a long time in jail. Of course the penalties would have to be strictly enforced and even increased.

[Bay Boy]

25. Definitely going after straw purchasers...

...would be a good thing. I think I've seen some type of sign at a gun store saying straw purchases were illegal before.
But if some felons gets his girlfriend to go to the store to make an illegal purchase for him a placard on the counter is probably too late to make a difference. Have PSAs on why straw purchases are illegal.

[jpak]

11. Turn off Rush and FAUX

Teh Stoopid will go away.

yup

[spin]

21. In order to form an informed view on any subject ...

it is necessary to listen to all sides and carefully evaluate their arguments.

Fox News is far from "fair and balanced" but MSNBC has its own bias as does CNN. Listening to only one of these channels can lead to a distorted view as all have excellent points to make in favor of their positions. If I have an interest in a subject that is receiving attention I watch all three channels and then do my own independent research.

A person who does the same as I do might well end up with a far different view. Much will depend on the person's upbringing and personal life experience.

Admittedly I have more of the pro gun rights viewpoint than you do or ever will. That may be because I might not be making this post had not my mother had access to a handgun and was able to stop an attack from a rapist who might have killed her. That is definitely a major factor for why I support civilian ownership of firearms which are undeniably lethal weapons.

[rrneck]

22. Well, if we don't allow people to touch hammers, they won't hit anybody with them.

[spin]

23. While I am a strong supporter of gun rights ...

I do support reasonable gun control.

I feel that honest, responsible and mentally stable people should be allowed to own firearms if they chose.

The problem is how do we create legislation that limits firearm ownership to such people. I feel that it is totally impossible to prevent all tragedies caused by firearms in the hands of those who own such weapons but I feel we can do better than we we currently are if both sides of the issue work together to find areas they can agree on.

One factor largely ignored by our main stream media is that firearms can be used by honest citizens to stop violent crime.

[Richard_uk]

24. Guns are for cowards

I would contend that you need to be much braver to attack a person using a hammer (or knife or club) indeed with any weapon where you would have to get up close and personal to your victim. I know that when I was in the infantry, the thought of actually having to use my bayonet horrified me.

Guns however allow an attacker to keep his/her distance, they enhance the attackers ability to flee (e.g. as in a drive by). The attacker would experience less "splashback", the physical effort needed to fire a gun is little.

Guns, the first choice for cowardly criminals. How many of these criminals would commit their crimes if they had no access to guns?

[Skyline]

26. It would not stop them

Criminals get their guns illegally and would continue to. The war on drugs has only increased the problems and trust me, ban guns and the cartels will open shop.

[Kolesar]

28. File that one under: "fucked analogy" eom

[safeinOhio]

34. Didn't happen with strict laws on full autos

Almost a ban, high fees and tough background checks along with registration and long prison time for possession. So, where are all the cartel open shops?

[gejohnston]

35. but they are used in Europe more than here

besides, they were rarely used back then. Most of them were stolen from the cops and National Guard. They just happened to make the news. Of course the mob had theirs.

If gangsters in UK can get SMGs, I doubt the NFA is keeping them out of the cartel's hands.

[safeinOhio]

36. But crime gangs here don't use them and

there has not be a big black market as the poster suggest happens when restrictions are in place. There are millions of full autos AKs in the world and cheap overseas, yet they don't make it to our shores.

[gejohnston]

37. they are all in Mexico, but seriously

Seriously, I think there are cultural influences. Even before UK had any gun laws, criminals rarely if ever used guns. Starboard Tack explained it as UK thugs did not view guns as "wimpy" or uncool. Being a former UK cop, I'll take his word for it. I have read that Japanese cops until the US occupation preferred swords over pistols because pistols were unmanly.
A higher percentage of murders are committed with guns now than in the early 1960s when you didn't need a straw buyer, just Sears catalog and cash to pay COD. The "bad boys" in the infotainment industry had switchblades for the most part. I think pop culture influences such things more than laws.

[safeinOhio]

38. Look at the video game industry and Hollywood,

no shortage of full autos. Not like those in the gang wars wouldn't love to have them for their turf wars, yet where is that black market? The laws are working on the restriction of guns. People just don't want to go to jail for a long time. The bump kits for Bushmasters are selling like hot cakes, only because they are legal.

[gejohnston]

39. military FPS and so, why isn't it working in Mexico?

If they have any sense of history, the mob using machine guns pissed people enough to demand serious enforcement. The St Valentines Day Massacre did start the push for NFA, help push the end of Prohibition, but it also told the mob it had to be more low key.
Ultimately, we are both speculating and we know it. Perhaps someone should do a survey.
Bump kits are selling? You must have a lot of mall ninjas with more money than brains in your neck of the woods.

On a lighter note, have you ever come up with an product idea then thought "naw that's so stupid no buddy in their right mind would buy something like that" then someone does, and people buy it? To me, that is what bump kits 100 round drums are.

[SCRKBA]

40. I am a machine gun owner so I thought I'd weigh in

Machine guns were first regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, again in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (ban of importation), the Firearm Owners Protection Act (Hughes Amendment) of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 922(o)) and finally a ruling by the ATF changing the definition of a machine gun to include a device which will convert a semi auto into a machine gun which also took place in 1986. There are other BATFE rulings that apply to machine guns but do not directly involve the definition or laws directly concerning them so it's not worth mentioning here.

As you say, there were high fees, registration and background checks required to own a weapon associated with the NFA. This includes Short Barreled Shotguns (shorter than 18.5&quot , Short Barreled Rifles (shorter than 16&quot , Silencers, Destructive Devices, Machine Guns and "Any Other Weapons". An AOW is a firearm that doesn't fit into any other category such as pen guns and pistols with separate forward grips (essentially a pistol with 2 grips). The rest of the categories should be self explainable.

In 1934 the high fee (actually a tax in the form of a stamp) of $200 was thought to be a ban of sorts because $200 was a lot of money and therefore, unaffordable to most people. A Thompson submachine gun for example cost around $200 and a Ford automobile was around $400. Combine the weapon and tax, it would cost just as much as a vehicle. Only the wealthiest of people could afford to pay such a high price for a firearm. Fortunately, the $200 tax stamp was set so that it couldn't be adjusted for inflation so $200 is the price today which isn't too much compared to $200 back then. There is no actual ban in place on the federal level although some states ban machine guns outright.

From 1934 to 1986, around 150,000 machine guns were added to the registry before the FOPA Hughes Amendment stopped registration of machine guns for civilian ownership. Machine guns cost little more than their semi auto counterparts during that time. An AR-15 could be bought for around $350 and a Colt M16 could be had for around $400 plus the $200 tax. Conversion devices such as Registered Lightning Links, Drop In Auto Sears and FNC sear packs could not be given away. I've heard stories of dealers literally having bags of conversion devices that they couldn't get rid of.

The prices only started rising in recent times due to the internet and the availability of information. There are many myths revolving around machine guns and most people automatically believe whatever they hear. My grandfather (long time firearm collector) thought that the tax was due every year for every firearm. This isn't true. People believe that you give up your 4th Amendment rights and Law Enforcement can inspect your firearm in your house whenever they want. This isn't true either. Another is you have to have a special "class 3" license. Yep, not true. These are some examples of myths revolving around NFA firearms which a lot of people believe and are in part why more people didn't buy them while they were cheap.

Machine guns were relatively cheap and not difficult to own (If you can own a pistol, you can own a machine gun). From 1934 to 1986, not a single crime was committed with a legally owned machine gun. In fact, there have only been 2 crimes involving legally owned machine guns. The first was a Law Enforcement Officer who murdered an informant in Dayton OH 1988. The second there isn't a whole lot of information on. I believe it was a dealer who murdered either his wife, her boyfriend or both. Not sure how it happened or when but it was also in OH. As far as I have researched, there has not been a crime involving a silencer.

There have been many crimes involving illegally owned machine guns however. During the 30's and 40's the mobs had them and I'm sure they still do today. Clyde Barrow carried a cut down Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). The Hollywood Shootout is another example and I'm sure there's many more.

Today, they prices are through the roof. Registered Lightning Links which couldn't be given away cost around $7500 today. Registered Drop In Auto Sears which couldn't be given away cost around $14,000. M16's depending on condition and collector value can go for around $9000-$25000. M60 belt fed Light Machine Guns are around $35,000 today. There are M134's, Mk19's and M249 machine guns on the registry and they go for around $200,000 to $350,000. They are all readily available if you have the money.

To call the National Firearms Act and FOPA Hughes Amendment a success in ending crimes involving machine guns isn't correct in my opinion. There were a lot of factors involving ownership of machine guns such as the lack of knowledge, myths, prohibition and organized crime. Machine guns weren't a problem back then (outside of the mob) and aren't a problem today. The only thing the NFA and FOPA Hughes Amendment have accomplished is slowing advancement of firearm technology and driving up the price of firearms. In my opinion, the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional but that's a topic for another day.

Serious collectors are some of the most trustworthy people on the planet. We (NFA community especially) are the most knowledgable about firearm laws and firearms in general. I have had to inform many police officers about gun laws concerning machine guns when at public ranges (I have the BATFE on speed dial and have copies of my forms and the law just in case). I have no intention of doing anything which would compromise my hobby and collection.

Criminals on the other hand, by definition don't follow the law. With the right tools, knowledge and material, any semi auto can be converted. Something as simple as a shoestring can be used to convert some guns and in fact, the BATFE ruled that shoestrings can be considered machine guns themselves... Yeah, wrap your head around that. That opinion was later reversed.

Responsible owners have and always been responsible. Criminals have and always will be criminals. Laws and bans only affect 1 of those 2 groups of people.

[Agschmid]

41. So... why don't we deal with the criminals then?

Any suggestions on how to do that since you "We (NFA community especially) are the most knowledgable about firearm laws and firearms in general."

Welcome to DU, make sure you read TOS.

I'm sick of the whole "we just can't deal with the criminals" mantra... suggest a solution.

[safeinOhio]

42. More machine guns.

[SCRKBA]

45. It isn't that we can't deal with criminals

Many here would suggest the War on Drugs is a failed plan. I completely agree. It costs the US millions or billions of dollars and the drug trade still goes on and people that want to use drugs, still use drugs. Countries like Portugal have decriminalized drugs and I read a thread where drug abuse had dropped somewhere around 50%. Is that thought "we just can't deal with drug users" so we're going to let people do what they want"? The answer to me is "NO". We decriminalize drugs which stops organized crime surrounding the drug trade. Decriminalize other things which revolve around organized crime such as prostitution. It's a legal and safe profession in many countries like Australia and throughout many part of Europe.

We did the same thing with the end of Prohibition under (I believe) the 21 Amendment. Once alcohol was outlawed, the organized crime element took control and established speak easies and trade routes. Naturally, they wanted to protect their investment so they armed themselves and would fight whoever opposed them. Once decriminalized, we took away their product so that there was no money to be made.

Criminalizing guns does very little to actually solve the "problem of gun violence". DC, Chicago and Detriot have some of the highest murder rates and yet have some of the strictest gun laws. England has a ban on handguns and after established the rate of gun related homicide went way up and now it's down the the rate before the law was enacted... Hardly successes. Many say that in the 16 years since Dunblane there hasn't been another school shooting so that reflects success. Well, there weren't really any school shootings prior to that so 1 instance doesn't show a trend so it's impossible to compare rates prior and after the ban went into effect.

The problem isn't the tool that's used. The problem is violence and crime in general which occasionally leads to homicide. So how do we solve the crime problem? Where is the majority of crime located at? The FBI keeps these statistics and can be narrowed by sections of cities and even neighborhoods. Who is working on improving these neighborhoods?

Thank you for the welcome. I haven't yet read the TOS but I will be sure to do that.

Take care.

[gejohnston]

30. since no one is supporting criminals having guns,

let me ask you this: Is the victim just as cowardly if he or she uses a gun against the attacker?

[LibertyFox]

32. I'm fine with being a coward

If I'm the one still alive at the end of the day.

[cbrer]

31. It's a much larger argument than that

By concentrating on the weapon, we could miss the largest factors and therefore, possibly the most valuable paths towards cutting down on gun violence.

New studies based on research indicate possible behavioral pathologies because of lead poisoning, misformulated psychotropic drugs, or copycat behaviors based on other data.

I'm not suggesting, for or against, that we take a look at the registration process, or possibly magazine capacities.

I'm just saying let's step back from the emotionally charged reactions that politicians love to run with and find some fucking cures.

[safeinOhio]

43. Mandatory heavy metal blood testing

for all firearm purchases.

[iiibbb]

33. Yes, the far better statistic are the estimates of defensive gun uses.

Which on their low side are an order of magnitude greater than murder rates, and may even be two orders of magnitude greater.

[Dash87]

44. Another: "cars are more dangerous than guns"

Both arguments make no sense, because both objects' main purpose isn't to destroy things.

It's like arguing that rocket-launcher ownership is fine because Aspirin kills more people every year.