What should the limit on magazine capacity be?

[FeebMaster]

Well it looks like the AWB will soon sunset and with it the magazine ban. After that I guess it will be time to start working on a new ban. What should the new limit on magazine capacity be?

[patdem]

1. I feel for ALL those postmen having to carry all those magazines

I think a family should not be able to subscribe to more than three per month...even that is alot...have you ever seen a home that gets about 20 magazines per day?? multiply that by the number of customers on a postmans route...no wonder they go postal!! :shrug:

[TX-RAT]

2. I like Canada's version.

[iverglas]

3. ah, the usual quibbles

Copy Canada.
5 for rifles.
10 for handguns.
No limit for .22s.

I wasn't aware we had a different limit for handguns (the limit for rifles is indeed 5).

But even so, you can't "copy Canada", by adopting those limits, unless you *also* impose the tight restrictions on handgun possession that exist in Canada.

So the limit would actually go "10 for handguns, *if* you have met the requirements for possessing a handgun".

Handguns are "restricted firearms".

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html

"restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/sec17.html

17. Subject to sections 18 <transportation> to 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as indicated on the registration certificate, or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer.

20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun

(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals;
or

(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/sec28.html

28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) or the importation by an individual of a restricted firearm under paragraph 40(1)(c) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied

(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun

(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or

(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is

(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-207/whole.html
Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations
<when ss. 20 and 28 above apply>

Without all of that, imposing a 10-bullet limit on handgun magazines just wouldn't be "copying" Canada.

And anything less than copying Canada would, of course, be madness.

[FeebMaster]

4. Well I was just speaking of magazine capacity.

You could certainly adopt Canada's magazine capacities without adopting all of the other Canadian firearms laws. Although I don't see why anyone would want to copy Canada's firearms laws.

[Lefty48197]

7. I'm guessing the twelve thousand Americans that get killed by handguns

annually may see a need for Canadian style gun control laws. Canada takes steps to insure that insane people don't get their hands on guns. I can understand why the NRA opposes such restrictions.

[FeebMaster]

8. Twelve thousand killed by people with handguns?

That only leaves two thousand or so killed by rifles and shotguns. Are your numbers accurate? I mean I know handguns are most often used in crime, but it hadn't occurred to me that rifles and shotguns made up that small of a percentage.

Canadian style gun control isn't going to save anyone, since the limit on magazine capacity for handguns there is 10 and the limit on magazine capacity here is 10 for new magazines at least, though there are plenty of old ones still around. Besides, it only takes one bullet to kill someone.


"I can understand why the NRA opposes such restrictions."

Yes, well that's how they pay the bills, opposing gun control and all that or at least saying they do.

[iverglas]

9. well, here ya go

Twelve thousand killed by people with handguns?
That only leaves two thousand or so killed by rifles
and shotguns. Are your numbers accurate?

Pretty close, I'd say.

These figures are slightly ancient history now, but I'll let someone else hunt up current figures/trends.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada.

Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

Let's say a population of, very roughly, 262 million.

That makes 12,576 handgun homicides a year (4.8/100,000).

Total firearm homicides: 14,934 (5.7/100,000).

Non-handgun homicides: 2,358.

Of course these figures are hypothetically precise, but nonetheless look quite a lot like 12,000 and 2,000. And they can still be used to determine the average handgun:non-handgun firearms homicide ratio for the period -- and it's more than 5:1, in favour of handguns.

When you actually look at the choices an awful lot of people make with all that "freedom", sometimes it just doesn't look like such a shit hot thing.

No wonder serious firearms control efforts in the US pretty much started out as "handgun control".

And no wonder Canada and the rest of the civilized world just doesn't think it's wise for them to be floating around all over the goddamned place.

[FeebMaster]

10. Well there you go then.

Let's hope they renew the AWB so people will stop killing each other with handguns. Haha.

"No wonder serious firearms control efforts in the US pretty much started out as "handgun control"."

Sure if you count that whole no handguns in the mail thing as the start of serious firearms control efforts in the US. Or were you talking about all those laws at the state level to disarm blacks? In fact the first really big federal law had nothing to do with handguns by the time it passed. It regulates machine guns, silencers, and the dimensions of rifles and shotguns. Actually, it's a tax law. That's how they did that sort of thing back then. It's how they banned drugs the first time around. Nice try though. Better luck next time. You folks should really read all these laws you're always talking about.

[iverglas]

11. no need to

You folks should really read all these laws you're always talking about.

I guess you're talking to someone other than the person to whose post you were responding. Far from "always talking about" those laws of yours, me, I have little to nothing to say about them. You may have noticed.

I was alluding, fairly vaguely I admit, to the "Handgun Control Inc." thing I've heard tell of, when I referred to how "serious firearms control efforts in the US pretty much started out". Note that I said "efforts", not laws. I don't regard any of the firearms laws in the US -- including your assault weapons ban -- as "serious firearms control efforts".

So your little lesson in US firearms laws just missed its mark, I guess, eh?

But you learned something, right?

[FeebMaster]

12. Gee and here I thought you were the one trying to educate me

"No wonder serious firearms control efforts in the US pretty much started out as "handgun control"."

on firearms laws in the US.


"I guess you're talking to someone other than the person to whose post you were responding. Far from "always talking about" those laws of yours, me, I have little to nothing to say about them. You may have noticed."


Yes, I have noticed.


"So your little lesson in US firearms laws just missed its mark, I guess, eh?"

As always.


"But you learned something, right?"

Nothing I didn't already know.

[iverglas]

13. Nothing you didn't already know?

Then I guess that wasn't you saying

Twelve thousand killed by people with handguns?
... Are your numbers accurate? ... it hadn't occurred to me that rifles and shotguns made up that small of a percentage.

just a couple of short posts ago.

I dunno. Maybe that meant something other than "I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US" ...

Of course, you can quote what I said about "handgun control" one more time and imply that it means what it didn't mean, if that's what you're doing and if you like ...

[FeebMaster]

14. Gee iverglas maybe you could point out where I said

"I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US"

I mean you put quotes around it and everything so I think I'd recall saying it, but it's just not coming to me. Maybe you could link me to whatever post I said that in.


"Of course, you can quote what I said about "handgun control" one more time and imply that it means what it didn't mean, if that's what you're doing and if you like ..."

Oh, I wouldn't want to imply you said something other than you meant. Or is that meant something other than you said? Maybe it was said something other than you said. It couldn't be that you meant something other than you meant because then, clearly, you wouldn't have said anything and certainly no one would know what you meant if you hadn't said anything. In any case, I wouldn't want to imply that. You know all about handgun control, I'm sure. Keeping guns out of the "wrong hands," as it were, whoever those might belong to.

[iverglas]

15. I guess I'd better just give up

Yup. I surrender.

My saying

Maybe <WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH I QUOTED> meant something other than "I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US"

was obviously an attempt to persuade someone that you had actually said "I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US". Yes siree. A really dumb and exceptionally transparent and clumsy attempt to make it look like you had said something you didn't say, but that's me, alright.

Meanwhile, I'll keep wondering what

Twelve thousand killed by people with handguns?
... Are your numbers accurate? ... it hadn't occurred to me that rifles and shotguns made up that small of a percentage.

could possibly have meant if it did NOT mean "I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US". Unless it was some weird kind of attempt at sarcasm, a possibility I considered and then discounted because I just couldn't see what the point of it would have been at all.

And my advice to you would be to find a punctuation reference work and study the proper uses of quotation marks before getting so, uh, clever again in future.

You know all about handgun control, I'm sure.

Goodness does know what you're babbling about, I assume. I surely don't. But far be it from me to question the things that you claim to be sure of.

Keeping guns out of the "wrong hands," as it were, whoever those might belong to.

And I wonder whom *you* might be quoting there -- 'cause it sure as hell ain't me, and that sure as hell ain't any kind of accurate representation of anything I've ever said.

[FeebMaster]

34. If you say so.

"Yup. I surrender.

My saying

Maybe <WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH I QUOTED> meant something other than "I didn't know that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicides in the US"

...

And my advice to you would be to find a punctuation reference work and study the proper uses of quotation marks before getting so, uh, clever again in future."

Well you just keep wondering. I'm sure you'll figure it out. Oh, and thanks for the grammar lesson.


"Goodness does know what you're babbling about, I assume. I surely don't. But far be it from me to question the things that you claim to be sure of."

You're probably right. Best not to bring the subject of handgun control up.


"And I wonder whom *you* might be quoting there -- 'cause it sure as hell ain't me, and that sure as hell ain't any kind of accurate representation of anything I've ever said."

I don't believe I was quoting anyone. I would have used quotes if I had been. Are you saying you don't want to keep guns out of the wrong hands?

[iverglas]

16. oh, btw

Canadian style gun control isn't going to save anyone, since the limit on magazine capacity for handguns there is 10 and the limit on magazine capacity here is 10 for new magazines at least, though there are plenty of old ones still around. Besides, it only takes one bullet to kill someone. (emphasis added)

... if you have a gun to put it in. I assume you meant to add.

I mean, I suppose you could use that bullet to kill someone by shoving it down his/her windpipe, or leaving it lying on the floor so s/he would slip and fall on it ...

And we're back to that funny little feature of "Canadian style gun control". The laws (that, in this case, do amount to noticeable efforts) don't just restrict the number of bullets that are allowed in magazines ... they make it kinda hard to get hold of that particular kind of firearm to put 'em in.

It just wouldn't matter how many tomatoes you were allowed to put in your basket -- if you didn't have any bread, you still couldn't make a tomato sandwich.

[FeebMaster]

35. That's nice

but we're discussing magazine capacity in this thread. I figured since the gun control crowd was so clueless when it comes to guns and the current gun laws it might be best to keep things a bit more simple. That's why this poll asks "What should the limit on magazine capacity be?"

[library_max]

37. And then the issue of Canadian gun laws came up.

And Lefty48197 mentioned the number of handgun killings, to which you replied that you didn't think that number could possibly be correct. And then iverglas documented the numbers for you. After which you brought up (out of the blue) laws about handguns in the mail, state laws to disarm blacks, and a lot of other irrevelant hoo-ha. And things went downhill from there. So if you want to see who dragged the subthread so far off topic, I have a mirror you can borrow.

[TX-RAT]

38. Shoot low Max their ridding Shetlands.

[FeebMaster]

39. You're just upset that your side is losing the poll. (nt)

[FatSlob]

21. Uh, they don't.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The NRA fully supports the laws already on the books that prohibit the crazy from owning or possessing firearms of any sort.

[library_max]

45. Assuming, of course, that every crazy person in the U.S.

has been judged legally insane. Which would be kind of a tough argument to sell.

[skippythwndrdog]

5. I'm just tickled pink

that I don't live in Canada. Thankfully, I can own as many handguns, rifles, and shotguns as I can afford. I can also load them up with any magazine capacity I want. Come September, I'll even be able to buy shiny, newly manufactured high capacity magazines just because I can.

It's a personal freesom issue.

Now if we can just repeal everything back to pre-1934 standards, I'll be a completely happy camper, still, as I am now, without a single urge in the world to shoot anyone.

[FatSlob]

22. I'm with you.

I would never want to live in such an awful freedom-restricting place.

[iverglas]

25. hey, that makes us even!

I'd never want to live in such an awful brain-atrophying place.

;)

[FatSlob]

26. Then move out of Canada!

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

28. while FeebMaster is investigating the uses of quotation marks

... perhaps he'll find some useful information about the conditional voice for you.

[FatSlob]

30. Whatever you say, my love.

I have no idea what the technique of using the conditional voice has to do with anything here.

[library_max]

36. And oh, the pride with which he said, "I know you are, but what am I?" /nt

[iverglas]

27. <aargh, wrong place>

.

[MrBenchley]

31. In the peculiar world of the "pro gun democrat"

Canada is a brutal tyranny but Somalia is a happy paradise, where everyone has guns...

And Nelson Mandela is mostly renowned for unjustly denying people concealed weapons permits....

[Romulus]

32. no stretch too great

for the anti-gun-owner crowd :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

33. no stretch at all, rom...just an accurate rendering of the crap

posted here by our trigger-happy chums day after day afte day after day....

[EconGeek]

47. Somalia's not that bad...

It gets a bad rap in the media, but if you notice, they don't ahve a central government, and they are not at war. They are not having ethnic cleansing... etc.

they are a functional anarchy, that only has troubles when the UN, the US or Britian come in and try to impose a government on them.

They had widespread gun ownership, and were able to throw off a brutal dictator... and decided not to replace him with a different federal government.

Imagine if hte US states had a judicial system to arbitrate between the states, but didn';t have a federal government-- would Kansas invade Oklahoma?

Would Texas and Louisiana be at war?

That's what Somalia is now-- a bunch of states with local government and little violence. They also, believe it or not, are not that poor. They have relatively high levels of wealth because tehy don't have much to spend their money on, so they just accumulate it.

Though they are starting to get a lot of private schools.

Anyway, somalia isn't what its often portrayed as...

[library_max]

50. Oh yeah, Somalia's a peaceful paradise.

Check it out.

http://www.google.ru/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=somalia+fighting

[RoeBear]

41. I wonder...

...if we could copy, say the speed limits in Canada. Or would we have to adopt all of your traffic laws also?


"But even so, you can't "copy Canada", by adopting those limits, unless you *also* impose the tight restrictions on handgun possession that exist in Canada."

[library_max]

42. She means that it wouldn't really be doing as Canada does

to adopt some of their measures and standards and not others. Of course it would be possible to do so, but that wouldn't be "copying Canada."

[iverglas]

43. yeah, eh ...

Imposing Canada's limit on magazine size, which applies to firearms that can be acquired by anybody who wants one in the US and can be acquired by hardly anybody in Canada, would be "copying Canada" ... kinda the way that making vasectomies legal for women to have, but not for men, would be "equal rights" ...

[Romulus]

44. here you go, Roebear, for your reading pleasure

http://www.eohc.ca/legal_handgun.htm

PROCESS FOR OBTAINING A LEGAL HANDGUN FOR TARGET SHOOTING

The process for legally obtaining a handgun for target shooting in Canada can seem long and complicated. However, it is well worth the effort as once the redtape is dealt with, you will be able to enjoy a very rewarding, challenging and fun sport. After getting all of the paperwork in place for your first handgun purchase, it usually only takes a day or two to buy each additional handgun.

*snip*

Forward the License application with proof of Safety Course completion, photo and appropriate fees to the Canadian Firearms Centre in Miramichi, New Brunswick.

Police background checks will be completed as well as reference and spousal checks (the authorities seem to have given up on reference checks as they are too time-consuming {and probably the most valuable part of the screening process!!}).

If anything shows up on these checks, even if you were a victim of a criminal act (theft, assault, etc.), the application will be forwarded to the Chief Firearms Office (CFO) of your province for further investigation.

If approved, a firearms license will be produced and mailed to the applicant (currently 1 to 2 months)

Join an approved handgun club, such as the Eastern Ontario Handgun Club.

Complete a mandatory Club level handgun safety course and serve a probation period.

Fill out an application for an ‘Authorization to Transport (ATT)’ – club executive will forward to the CFO along with their recommendation for processing.

Further police checks may be done along with a second computer record check.

If approved, an ATT will be mailed to the applicant, or in Ontario, to the club.

At this point, you may purchase a handgun from a gun shop or an individual. The registration must be called in to Miramichi (1-800-731-4000) for approval.

*snip/more*

[MrSandman]

6. Banning detachable magazines...

Is the only logical deterrent to tactical reloading. Since I do not accept that as an alternative, there should be no limit.

[-..__...]

17. "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."

---- William B. Ruger.

Magazines... schmagazines; belt fed will be the wave of the post-ban future!

[Romulus]

18. Did Bill really say that?

Oh, well. Just wondering.

This magazine thing is the only argument that gives the pro-AWB crowd a leg to stand on if they are REALLY concerned about reducing the amount of "spraying" that can be done by a criminal with a firearm.

I think the 10-round limit works, but the precedent worries me. My Sig p239 only holds 7 rounds in the magazine (+1 in the chanber). A S&W revolver only holds 6. I would feel OK with just those numbers, as long as I knew I could quickly reload if needed.

Who is to say the next law will mandate that 6 & 7 are "too many for honest men?" :shrug:

[iverglas]

19. okay, I have to ask

I think the 10-round limit works, but the precedent worries me. My Sig p239 only holds 7 rounds in the magazine (+1 in the chanber). A S&W revolver only holds 6. I would feel OK with just those numbers, as long as I knew I could quickly reload if needed.

Do you live among marauding herds of bad-tempered elephants?

[FatSlob]

23. I know the question was not directed towards me,

but I have to ask, "What the hell do elephants have to do with anything?"

[Cicero]

24. Maybe iverglas means marauding herds of bad-tempered Republicans

Lord knows, I'd want to have a lot of firepower handy if that were the case where I lived. Fortunately, any neighbors I know what are Republicans seem to be pretty even-tempered, and they don't run around in any kind of herd, marauding or otherwise, so that's alright.

:crazy:

Later,

[EconGeek]

48. The reason you want standard capaticy, or higher capacity magazines...

IF you've ever gone to a range and shot for awhile, what was the most frustrating thing?

Reloading.

Reloading magazines is a pain... you lose focus and your thumb hurts after awhile.

So, if you have a 30 round magazine for your pistol, you can shoot a lot longer before reloading.

Its not because you've got 30 people attacking you, its because you want to put 30 holes in the paper.

Really, the primary use of guns in this country seems to be taking down criminal paper targets... 7 billion rounds sold a year, and less than a tenth of a percent of it is used in self defense or police work.

[library_max]

49. Yeah, great.

So what we're really talking about is the God-given right to put holes in pieces of paper from a distance. Well hell, that sure is worth 30,000 people being killed each year.

[slackmaster]

51. False dichotomy

Banning target shooting would not stop criminal misuse of firearms.

[library_max]

52. And nobody said it would.

EconGeek said that the reason to support unlimited magazine capacity is to make target shooting more convenient. I maintained, and maintain, that that is a suck-ass reason for giving criminals and potential criminals more magazine capacity.

[slackmaster]

53. Everybody is a "potential criminal"

Most of us never become criminals, and criminals aren't even allowed to have guns in the first place so what difference would magazine capacity make if laws were being enforced.

[library_max]

54. Where would a criminal or someone who planned to be one

get a high-capacity magazine if it wasn't legal to manufacture, own, or sell one? Snap his/her fingers and pull it out of the air?

And the fact that everyone is a potential criminal is kind of my point. "Most of us" isn't good enough with 30,000 gun deaths per year, which is dozens per day by the way.

[slackmaster]

55. This question is so easy I can't believe you are seriously asking it

Where would a criminal or someone who planned to be one... ...get a high-capacity magazine if it wasn't legal to manufacture, own, or sell one?

From another criminal, of course!

:dunce:

"Most of us" isn't good enough with 30,000 gun deaths per year, which is dozens per day by the way.

Most of those are suicides.

Of those that are not suicides, most are one criminal shooting another.

And none of them involve me.

[iverglas]

57. c'mon now, you can do it

Where would a criminal or someone who planned to be one... ...get a high-capacity magazine if it wasn't legal to manufacture, own, or sell one?
From another criminal, of course!

You can do it. C'mon.

And the net increase in the number of high-capacity magazines in the hands of criminals would be _________ - ?

[slackmaster]

58. If you make possession of something illegal

Then every person who has one instantly becomes a criminal.

People don't vote for politicians who advocate policy changes that would criminalize their personal property.

[library_max]

59. "And none of them involve me."

Don't tell me. You didn't mean that they way it sounded either. "I'm all right, Jack, screw you" wouldn't apply here either, no doubt, and I'm sure you're all ready with a hearts-and-flowers explanation of how I've misjudged you again. Mean nasty old me.

:nopity:

And that "from another criminal, of course" line thorougly deserved the dunce cap you gave it. If criminal A has no possible access to an object, neither has criminal B.

[FeebMaster]

61. Hmm.

73% want no restrictions. That must sting.

[iverglas]

86. yeah, eh?

It's just so odd how the answer you get depends on whom you ask ...

[FeebMaster]

88. It sure does.

I asked DU, they answered. Of course online polls are meaningless. This one was no doubt freeped or something.

[library_max]

94. Or something, yeah.

And you didn't ask DU, you asked JPS. There is a difference.

[FeebMaster]

100. Is there?

J/PS is part of DU. You're just upset that your side is losing this poll.

[library_max]

112. Try it in GD and see if you get the same numbers. /nt

[FeebMaster]

115. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2163980

[-..__...]

29. I forget the exact details.

Back around 1993 when the AWB was in committee hearings, there were discussions regarding magazine capacity. Bill Ruger had some participation in those discussions. He originally proposed a 15 round maximum and his suggestion was accepted. However, at some later date during the committee hearings, the max capacity was reduced to 10 rounds.

By Rugers reasoning, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Allegedly his concern was that the AWB/magazine capacity would kill the production of the Mini 14 and Mini 30. So, rather than face that risk, he went along with the 10 round language.

The "No honest man..." statement was made to Tom Brokaw during a TV interview.

Later on, Ruger realized he had made a deal with the devil and tried to make amends by donating $1,000,000 to the NRA.

"Who is to say the next law will mandate that 6 & 7 are "too many for honest men?"

How about this for "common sense" gun-control? :crazy:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.4876:

Pocket Rocket Elimination Act of 2000 (Introduced in House)

HR 4876 IH

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF THE EASILY CONCEALABLE PISTOLS KNOWN AS `POCKET ROCKETS'.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(z)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or transfer a handgun that is--

`(A) capable of holding 2 or more rounds of ammunition; and

`(B) less than 7 1/2 inches long.

[Columbia]

40. Prohibition of Pocket Rockets less than 7 1/2 inches long?

You're going to upset a few people with that...

[MrBenchley]

20. Well, that IS hilarious

Quoting a gun maker on honesty is like quoting a Bu$h crime family member on integrity....

Wonder what Sun Myung Moon or the stick-up artist who used to head S&W has to say on the subject...

[7th_Sephiroth]

46. unlimited

i want a p-90 with a 100 round capacity

[mbnd45]

56. I will be buying as many

100-round drums as I possibly can after the ban sunsets. If there is a ban in the future that will make posession of them illegal, and it looks like it will pass, I promise you MrBenchley and the rest of your gang, that I will sell them "on the street" to whoever wants them. No law will be broken, because they will have been sold JUST BEFORE the new law takes effect. Whether or not the new owners will turn them in is NOT MY PROBLEM!

[library_max]

60. Hurry, hurry, hurry! Getcher murder weapons here!

Escaped lunatic? No problem! Drug dealer? No problem! Mass murderer? No problem! We accept MasterCard, Visa, money orders, and blood-soaked currency in all denominations!

I see a future for you in the firearms industry, friend.

[FeebMaster]

62. A magazine would make a poor murder weapon.

They don't really do anything. You'd have to beat someone to death with one.

[Endangered Specie]

65. I think there is a fair compromise here...

No bans on magazines.
Just ban the guns they are used in.

Seems alot of people here jack off to hi-capicity bullet holders, do they look like big breasts or something? :shrug:

[-..__...]

69. Now that you mention it...

"Seems alot of people here jack off to hi-capicity bullet holders, do they look like big breasts or something?"





I guess they do!

In all honesty, I applaud your observation/statement... most here would make some sort of disparaging "penis" reference or insult.

Although, if you use a bit of imagination (from the pic I posted), that could also be a teeny-weenie being inserted into the cleavage of a set of hi-capacity DD juggs.

I wonder what Freud would have to say about this?

[Endangered Specie]

71. I think Freud...

would be really concerned, to say the least.

[FeebMaster]

77. They tried that.

Unfortunately, since the gun grabbers are so incompetent and ignorant when it comes to the current gun laws and with guns in general, all they managed to do was take the bayonet lugs and flash suppressors off of some guns.

[FatSlob]

90. "jack off to hi-capicity bullet holders" Real mature.

You've been reading MrBenchley's posts too much.

[Endangered Specie]

64. I really hope this is sarcasim.

[Endangered Specie]

63. If someone wants to shoot down a whole bunch of folks...

magazine size aint gonna matter too much, you gotta ban the whole gun.

[Columbia]

66. If someone wants to kill a whole bunch of folks...

Firearms bans ain't gonna matter too much, you gotta ban the whole person.

[Endangered Specie]

67. Funny they seem to work in other countries.

[Columbia]

68. Prove it

[Endangered Specie]

70. ...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

[Columbia]

73. Correlation does not imply causation

[Endangered Specie]

74. Yes, but it doesnt rule it out either...

and shouldnt the burden of proof be on the pro gun people to show that guns dont increase crime?

I picked that mainly for the essay, not the statistics part. Ive seen numerous Statistics and studies of all kinds that can go both ways.

[MrSandman]

75. How does he do that?

His crime rates all seem to stop at 1993, but he is able to say the Brady Bill reduced the crime rate.

:wow:

[Columbia]

76. Onus is on the side making the positive claim

Would you give me the power to incarcerate you because I believe you will commit some future crime and have the onus on you to prove that you will not?

As for stats going both ways, that is a very good indicator that the issue is far less simple than the more guns = more crime argument as well as the more guns = less crime argument.

[iverglas]

84. if only ...

the issue is far less simple than the more guns = more crime argument ...

... anybody had ever made that argument, that simply.

I've heard so much about it, I've waited with bated breath for it to be made, but to no avail so far.

I dunno, is "more guns = more crime" even an "argument"? Sounds like an assertion, an allegation of fact, to me. I guess what I need is for someone to make that assertion, and then take a shot at substantiating it, and then use it to argue for or against something ...

Will no one take up the glove??

[Columbia]

89. Perhaps you missed Post 70

[library_max]

97. We certainly missed any refutation of the facts presented in post 70.

[MrSandman]

103. Gun sales have continued since 1993...

yet the firarm homocide rate has declined.

[library_max]

106. Not by much.

Still much, much higher per capita than England, Canada, or Australia. Crime went down some because the mean age of the population went up. Older people commit fewer violent crimes.

[MrSandman]

110. Sure does look like the highest year(1993)...

was cherry picked.

[library_max]

111. According to your chart, the highest year was 1980.

Baby Boomers were averaging around the age of twenty, a prime age for homicide.

Even using 2001 figures, the US has about three times as many homicides per capita as Canada or Australia, four times as many as England.

[MrSandman]

117. Data was still picked after conclusion...

Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. (14)


After all post 1994 figures were available:

Furthermore, when guns are involved in the vast majority of murders -- 70 percent and growing -- it is clear that the "solution" and the "problem" are one and the same. One might also ask how a nation achieves a high murder rate in the first place without guns. After all, it's not easy to kill by clubbing, stabbing or hanging; these methods lack the super-ability and feasibility that guns provide. This is borne out by the fact that the murder rate is significantly lower in places where these are the primary murder methods. An even stronger rebuttal is the effect of gun control laws. If the above pro-gun argument were true, we should expect to see the murder rate climb, not fall, after the passage of gun control laws. But the introduction of gun control in Washington D.C., Kansas City, Canada, the Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment, and the Brady Law shows that the murder rate indeed falls.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

And it has to be about more than saving lives: Guns account for less than 10% the number of deaths than tobacco.

Of course, the anti tobacco folks realize, largely, how futile prohibition is. Nineteen hits on tobacco in Health/ED/SP

[library_max]

119. It takes a while for exact numbers to come out.

You don't know what data was and was not available when that piece was put together. You just don't like the conclusions and can't refute the facts themselves.

[MrSandman]

Unless the number of guns declined...

the falling firearm death rate showsa the aegument is not as simple as more guns = more crime or more guns = less crime.

Enough data was available for it to be stated that the Brady Bill reduced crime.

[library_max]

123. What was actually stated re: the Brady Bill

is that the murder rate fell, which it did.

The data for the report were not based on time comparisons, so trying to refute them with time comparisons is irrelevant. The relationship between guns and crime was established for the time period of the figures. Are you trying to say that more guns used to equal more crime, but not any more?

[MrSandman]

127. I am saying it is not that simple...n/t

[library_max]

129. But all you can do is say it. You can't support it. /nt

[MrSandman]

131. IIBL...If crime rates have both...

risen and fallen without corresponding rises and falls in gun ownership, then it is the obvious conclusion.

Yes , absence of guns will reduce firearms deaths. Prohibition of guns on the other hand???

[library_max]

132. At most, that means there's more than one factor.

But guns are a factor we can control, as opposed to, say, the mean age of the population.

Of course prohibition or restriction of guns would reduce the number of guns, eventually. Drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are easy to grow or make and very cost effective to smuggle. Guns aren't.

[MrSandman]

134. Guns aren't...

respectfully disagree.

[library_max]

136. Again, you say it but you don't support it.

You can grow pot in your basement. You can make gin in a bathtub. You can smuggle millions of dollars worth of cocaine in a briefcase or a plastic bag you can swallow. You can make alcohol by letting apple cider go bad.

[MrSandman]

183. And firearms can be...

stolen from law enforcement/military (e.g. M1921's during Prohibition and MP-5's in the West Germany in the 70's)

Improvised in a garage. Primitive shotguns are especially easy to make.

Smuggled.

Modified from any legal firearms. (See the shotguns used by Klebold and Harris).

No I do not support the WOD, Prohibition, or forced disarmament.

[library_max]

184. Where is the support for this?

You have to go back to the 70s and all the way to Germany for a significant example of guns stolen from law enforcement/military.

You say that shotguns are easy to make. Have you ever made one? Do you know someone who you know for a personal fact has made one? Or is this just an urban legend?

"Smuggled" is likewise easier to say than to do. I live on the Mexico border, where drugs move back and forth like nothing, and I can tell you that the Mexican authorities take gun trafficking very, very seriously.

Modified from legal firearms begs the question. If there are legal firearms for civilians, then what difference does the modification make?

[skippythwndrdog]

192. Is it just me, or are you advocating guilty until proven innocent? n/t

[iverglas]

204. it's just you

Reasonably well informed people actually know what "innocent until proved guilty" means.

[library_max]

78. So - wait -

What would satisfy you? A controlled experiment? Take two identical countries (oh, wait, there aren't any two identical countries), give one of them strict gun laws and the other no gun laws at all (oh, wait, you can't dictate national policy for the purposes of an experiment), control all the other factors (oh, wait, see if you can figure this one out for yourself), and then see what the difference is in killings and other violent crime?

What we have here is a willful disregard for the facts. The cultures that are most like ours, Anglo/American and Anglo period, that have strict gun controls, have much lower murder rates per capita than we have. So unless "prove it" is a childish taunt deliberately intended to be unsatisfiable, it is proved.

[Columbia]

92. Statistics

It is a basic tenet of statistics that correlation does not imply causation. One must take into account all the factors that may play a role in shaping a certain trend. Of course, the correlation does not even exist here regarding gun control in the first place so you can't even argue that.

Your assertion that, "The cultures that are most like ours, Anglo/American and Anglo period, that have strict gun controls, have much lower murder rates per capita than we have" is false from the first line, because there there is no culture that is like ours.

And I take offense to your "Anglo/American and Anglo period" remark as a non-Anglo and I find it somewhat racist that you would even assert such a thing that race has anything to do with murder rates.

On top of that, you speak of "willful disregard for the facts" yet you provide none.

If you really are concerned about reducing murder rates, here's a tidbit for you: look up the relationship between the war on drugs, poverty, unemployment, and murder rates. You will find a much stronger correlation and base for argument there.

[library_max]

95. What a load of nonsense.

When I say "culture," where do you get "race"?

All your noise about correlation and causation would make more sense if we were in an area where experimentation was possible. But as we are talking about benefits to society as a whole, you can't experiment on society as a whole.

The facts were already provided. If you need a review, here it is. The murder rates in Australia and Canada are about one third of ours per capita (33% and 38% respectively), while UK's is 25% of ours. Gun murders in Australia and Canada, 12% and 20% of ours, UK 3% of ours. And I've been to all three places. Like it or not, their cultures are more like ours than any other nation's - certainly more than, say, Switzerland.

But of course there's nothing I can say that will overcome a fundamental unwillingness to hear anything that doesn't support your argument.

[Columbia]

118. Slow your roll, pardner

You do understand what "Anglo" means right? Here's a link in case you were unclear: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anglo

In contemporary American usage, Anglo is used primarily in direct contrast to Hispanic or Latino. In this context it is not limited to persons of English or even British descent, but can be generally applied to any non-Hispanic white person. Thus in parts of the United States with large Hispanic populations, an American of Polish, Irish, or German heritage might be termed an Anglo just as readily as a person of English descent. However, in parts of the country where the Hispanic community is smaller or nonexistent, or in areas where ethnic distinctions among European groups remain strong, Anglo has little currency as a catch-all term for non-Hispanic whites. ·Anglo is also used in non-Hispanic contexts. In Canada, where its usage dates at least to 1800, the distinction is between persons of English and French descent. And in American historical contexts Anglo is apt to be used more strictly to refer to persons of English heritage, as in this passage describing the politics of nation-building in pre-Revolutionary America: “The ‘unity’ of the American people derived... from the ability and willingness of an Anglo elite to stamp its image on other peoples coming to this country“ (Benjamin Schwarz).

And correlation and causation is not "noise" as you put it. You cannot state a relationship exists between two factors without looking at other possible external factors. For example, did you know that there is an extremely high correlation between children's shoe size and reading skill? Does that mean shoe size causes the increased reading skill? Of course not, older children have larger feet as well as better reading skills due to education.

I seriously encourage you to take a basic course in statistics before you accuse others of spouting "noise."

[library_max]

128. Ah, the typical, cheap, "go take a course" sneer.

Doesn't prove anything, doesn't even mean anything, but it's always handy when one runs out of actual arguments.

On the Anglo matter, I said culture, very clearly. You are trying to gin up something to complain about because (and this is becoming a theme), you have no actual response to my argument.

The crucial matter in correlation studies (which are legitimate research, by the way) is legality. The course you must have taken must have taught you what that means. It means that there is a logical connection between the two factors, observable in real life, and that there is no identifiable third variable (such as age in shoe size and reading ability) which would logically account for the correlation.

The study in post 70 showed a clear correlation between the availability of guns and violence. If you would like to refute that, what you need to do is postulate a third variable that accounts for the correlation. Then you'd have to demonstrate that your third variable actually does govern the other two.

Or you could huff and puff and blow up another smokescreen. That'd probably be easier for you.

[Columbia]

135. No sneer, just simple education

And I already gave you many variables in Post 92 that show true correlation together.

Additionally, it is well known that despite highly restrictive gun control, homicide in the UK has been steadily rising. If your theory were to be believed, it should be decreasing as gun control increases. There are many other examples of such occuring around the world.

'Homicide' - Long-term national recorded crime trend in UK


And here yet again is a link to the CDC report that could find no evidence supporting the claim that firearms laws prevent violence: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[library_max]

137. You didn't show any correlations whatsoever in post 92.

Gun control isn't "increasing" in the UK. It has remained the same. The fact remains that the UK has a small fraction (1/4) of our murder rate per capita, even with the increase you mention. Maybe their mean age is going down as ours goes up.

As for the CDC, remind me again - who controls the federal government? Isn't it Republicans? Don't civil servants working under the Bush administration already have a pretty impressive record for not picking up on facts that were unpopular with the boss?

[Columbia]

142. Handguns were banned in the UK in 1997

Which closely coincides/correlates with the rise in homicide. Am I saying that is the cause? No, I'm not. There are probably many other factors at play including possibly mean age dropping.

Now why in the world would the CDC endorse the idea that there is no evidence that gun control prevents violence during a Republican administration when some of the most stringent gun control legislation is passed during GOP rule?

[library_max]

144. Actually, the numbers don't start moving up

until two or three years later (depending on when in 1997), according to your chart.

Which brings me to two questions. One, where does that chart come from? And two, why are the numbers after 1998/99 in blue while the earlier numbers are in black? It couldn't be because they're estimates and not hard numbers, could it?

[Columbia]

147. Look at the picture properties

It's from a UK site: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

They are concrete numbers, as for why they are blue... beats me, they don't indicate why. Survey procedures changed in 2002, but that still doesn't account for the previous years. Perhaps it was to indicate when the handgun ban began?

Here is one for 'More serious wounding or other act endangering life' - Long-term national recorded crime trend

[library_max]

151. Thanks for the tip on picture properties.

I found out from the website (Home Office Crime Statistics for England and Wales) what the blue means. "In 1998/99 we made general amendments to the Counting Rules (which is why all the long-term recorded crime trend charts show a change of colour in 1998/99." And, "In April 2002, we again revised the Counting Rules to incorporate the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), a new common standard for recording crime across all police forces. This last change has had a huge impact on police recorded crime figures." And, "In many cases, the NCRS has led to an increase in police recorded crime figures, making it look like more crimes were committed, when that might not be the case." And, "There has also been a more general impetus over recent years, both from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and from the Home Office, to increase the recording of crimes reported to the police, which will also have an impact on the recorded crime figures, and will generally make them higher."

Here's the link for all that: www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page107.asp

Also, under "Understanding the chart," www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp it says "In 2002/03 the total number of Homicide offenses in England & Wales was 1,048. The increase in homicides in recent years must take account of the victims of Harold Shipman, whose deaths occurred some years prior to when they were recorded, and the 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK in 2000/01 (all Manslaughter offenses under Homicide). The trend in overall recorded violent crime has been significantly affected by police recording changes, and is in striking contrast to the trend in violence evidenced by the British Crime Survey."

[Columbia]

153. Hmm...

Ok, so assuming that the '98 and '02 reforms increased the crime upwards, we should only see jump up in '98 and then from there we can look again at the trend. It seems to me there is still a trend upward even after the change in standards.

Additionally, what is up with the excuses on the website? "Umm yeah, don't look at that years stats, just because there were a lot of murders doesn't mean there were a lot of murders..."

[library_max]

154. Explaining vagaries in the data isn't "excuses"

When you record figures longitudinally, there are inevitably going to be some variations in the way those figures are recorded, if only because of new technology. It is more valid and more responsible to detail those changes and their impact instead of just sweeping them under the rug.

Did you look at the British Crime Survey graph? I can't seem to copy and paste graps, but it was dramatically different. The link was right there at the bottom of page, second link I gave you.

[Columbia]

156. The trend still exists though

And this is what I found on that link:

How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales. (more...)

Note: Violent crime, as measured by the BCS, includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences.

About this graph:


______________________________

So, apparently non-gun related crimes have decreased slightly since about 1995 and flattened out whereas more serious violent crime including homicides has increased in about the same period. If I hazard a wild-ass guess, I could say that perhaps the criminals are becoming less fearful and more violent since the handgun ban since it is almost guaranteed that their victims are disarmed. But more analysis would be needed before that can be concluded of course. Anyone want to interview UK criminals for some insight?

[library_max]

158. The gun ban was in 1997, right?

So what happens in the next few years after 1997 isn't flattening out, it's a drop down to 1991 levels. And remember, that's with the various reporting changes that tend to show an increase in crime. So when you say less fearful and more violent, the facts appear to show exactly otherwise. The "more serious crimes" are included here, just not homicide.

[Columbia]

162. Not exactly

It says, "It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences."

So that graph shouldn't even be affected considering it excludes firearms offences. The homicide and "more serious wounding" graphs still show an upward trend despite the handgun ban and the reporting changes (which should only affect 1998 and 2002). I'm not saying that the handgun ban did cause the rise in homicides (although they may very well have), but that there is no evidence that it reduces it.

Fixed me speeling

[library_max]

164. This should be obvious, but

when they change the reporting pattern in 1998, it effects 1998 and every year after 1998. When they change the reporting pattern in 2002, it affects 2002 and every year after 2002. They don't change the reporting patterns just for the fun of changing them back.

Gun controls were quite strict in England before the 1997 ban. I think it might be a mistake to expect to see a dramatic shift in any direction.

Anyhow, you still don't have any explanation of why England has 25% of our homicide rate per capita. They do have unemployment and drug laws there too, you know.

[Columbia]

166. Yes, but...

There were no reporting changes between 1998 and 2002 and the trend still continued higher in the years in between. It did not go any lower, that's for sure.

Again, I'm not arguing that gun control did have an effect either way, I'm arguing that it did not.

As far as comparisons between England and the US, you will find that we spend a LOT more money on the War on Drugs than the UK does. Remember, we do not just have one federal agency "fighting" it. Local police departments, Customs & Border Patrol, DEA, ATF, FBI, and even the military all have a hand in it.

We spent a total of $40 billion on it last year. http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

"More than 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations. This is more than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined."
http://www.alternet.org/story/18641

[Columbia]

155. This is why I think the US has a high homicide rate

_____________________________________

Amendment XVIII - 1919

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
_____________________________________

Amendment XXI - 1933

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
_____________________________________

Drug Enforcement Administration established 1973

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/index.html
_____________________________________




_____________________________________

Just my humble opinion...

[library_max]

157. The unemployment graph doesn't correlate worth a damn.

Peaks in 1950 and 1959 when there are valleys in the homicide graph, big peak comes in 82 or 83 when homicide is on the downslide, low numbers in the 90s when homicide was up. As for Prohibition, the uptrend started too soon and ended too late for your correlation, and likewise 1973 is a the end of a long uptrend, not at the beginning of one - right after 73, homicides drop. Also, legality is questionable. You'd have to do something to demonstrate that Prohibition or the DEA actually had some involvement in a significant percentage of homicides. Guns do, as we already know.

[FeebMaster]

159. The drug war was being fought long before

Nixon declared war on drugs.

[Columbia]

160. It's not perfect

First of all, prohibition:

"Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law-enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol affected government coffers. On such points as these, the modern "War on Drugs" has been compared to Prohibition. There is disagreement on the validity of this argument."

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

As for the unemployment graph, those couople years off do perplex me, but the number and duration of spikes do correlate in the general timeframe. Any ideas everybody?

Also, prior to official DEA establishment, the War on Drugs steadily increased during the 60's until it the Bureau of Narcotics needed to be enlarged to the DEA to accommodate the workload. Additionally, the Drug Abuse Control Amendments were passed in 1965 by Johnson.

Overall, I think Prohibition and the War on Drugs are the most powerful factors affecting homicide and crime while unemployment and poverty are secondary factors.

[library_max]

161. I don't see any homicide numbers in the Prohibition quote.

Heck, I don't even see the word "homicide," or any synonym. That's not much support for the idea that Prohibition was responsible for an upsurge in homicides, much less the War on Drugs.

[Columbia]

163. You won't get much support for that argument on DU

Generally, most people accept as fact that prohibition caused an increase in violent crime including homicides, which is precisely why it was repealed in 1933.

[library_max]

165. Where are you getting your dates for "War on Drugs"?

And again, Prohibition shows a continuation of an uptrend that was already in progress.

Anyway, you're not just saying that Prohibition led to some increase in homicides. Your original argument was that Prohibition, unemployment, and the War on Drugs are the principal reasons why the US murder rate is so much higher than developed countries with strict gun laws.

[Columbia]

167. Google

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhu26.htm

"And again, Prohibition shows a continuation of an uptrend that was already in progress."

How do you account for the precipitous drop in 1933?

"Anyway, you're not just saying that Prohibition led to some increase in homicides. Your original argument was that Prohibition, unemployment, and the War on Drugs are the principal reasons why the US murder rate is so much higher than developed countries with strict gun laws."

Quite right, and I still stand by it.

[library_max]

169. You can stand by it all you want, but you haven't supported it.

Once again, they have unemployment and drug laws in England. If they don't spend as much money (per capita? did you support that?), why would that difference quadruple our per-capita murder rate?

Having read the site you posted for War on Drugs, I'm confused. Which of the many, many dates in the article did you use, and why?

[Columbia]

170. Like I said, the drug war began in the 60's

And the article illustrates that. It continued with Johnson's Drug Abuse Control Act in 1965 and the pinnacle was the formation of the DEA in 1973. I'm just demonstrating the escalation of the war on drugs is what led to the sharp uprise in homicide in the 60's and 70's.

If you want more information about the horrible effects the War on Drugs has had on this country, feel free to google it or better yet, post a thread in GD about the WOD it's relationship to crime/homicide.

Also, if you look at international drug incarceration, you will also find that the nations with the highest incarceration rate also have higher homicides. Sorry, I don't have time to google it now, but maybe tonight, or again you can post on GD or JPS and get a lot of information quickly.

[library_max]

176. The date you used was 1969.

What, in the article you cited (or any factual source) leads you to use that date?

You certainly haven't demonstrated that the War on Drugs is what led to the sharp uprise in homicide in the 60s and 70s. First of all, you're very fuzzy on your dates. Second, a lot of other things were happening in the 60s and 70s, in case you've forgotten. And third, there's that little matter of legality (in the correlation sense). There's nothing to indicate that a significant percentage of US homicides are drug-related, much less drug-war-related. I don't care if you can get a bunch of people in GD or JPS to say so - that isn't proof.

Is your argument really that the War on Drugs is responsible for three out of every four US homicides? Because that's the per-capita ratio by which our homicide rate exceeds England's. And again, they do have drug law enforcement over there too.

[Columbia]

194. I never once mentioned 1969

And I was not fuzzy on my dates. Reread my posts.

So what else happened in the 60's and 70's that led to a sharp rise in homicide? The Civil Rights movement, although both violent and non-violent, did not often lead to death. Vietnam war casualties are not tabulated.

Here is a good article discussing the war on drugs and it's effect on violence and homicide. Some key selections:

"In an analysis of New York City's homicides in 1988, Paul Goldstein and his colleagues concluded that 74 percent of drug-related homicides were related to the black market drug trade and not drug use."

"As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the nationwide emphasis on arresting drug dealers may have produced a labor shortage, which contributed to the high mortality rate of the 1980s. “Every time you jail a drug dealer, you open up a new opportunity for an enterprising young man. What does he do to compete for this job? He kills for it.”"

http://www.csdp.org/edcs/page24.htm

Another good article from the ACLU:

"In the same way that alcohol prohibition fueled violent gangsterism in the 1920s, today's drug prohibition has spawned a culture of drive-by shootings and other gun-related crimes. And just as most of the 1920s violence was not committed by people who were drunk, most of the drug-related violence today is not committed by people who are high on drugs. The killings, then and now, are based on rivalries: Al Capone ordered the executions of rival bootleggers, and drug dealers kill their rivals today. A 1989 government study of all 193 "cocaine-related" homicides in New York City found that 87 percent grew out of rivalries and disagreements related to doing business in an illegal market. In only one case was the perpetrator actually under the influence of cocaine."

http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp19.html

Another one about the US and UK:

"The history of the drug trade is that supply always meets demand. Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist, puts it thus: "Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolises the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved of resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault." (note 7) The main result of the United States war on drugs is a prison system bursting with petty drug offenders, most of them African-Americans.

Britain has never been as warlike as the United States in efforts to control drugs. British policy is, however, essentially prohibitionist, and yet about seven million people in Britain have taken cannabis at some time in their lives."

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/bmj1.html

One more about the US and Europe from Ma Jones:

"Over the past five years, Americans have voted in favor of nearly every significant state initiative to reform drug policies, from legalizing medical marijuana in Arizona, to banning the seizure of assets of accused but unconvicted drug dealers in Oregon, to last year's Proposition 36 in California which mandates treatment instead of incarceration for drug users. In most cases, that public support came despite strong opposition from the federal government.

Our allies in Europe have gone much further. The US has had no firmer friend in Europe than the United Kingdom. But even as the UK has enlisted wholeheartedly in the war on terror, it has taken steps towards declaring peace in the War on Drugs.

In late October, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that the British government will soon abandon the policy of arresting people for marijuana possession. Blunkett also indicated that the New Labour government is ready to discuss expanding the medically-supervised distribution of heroin to addicts, while some Labour members in Parliament have called for reducing the penalties for the manufacture, sale and possession of Ecstasy.

"The drug war, in Western Europe at least, is essentially over," says Paul Flynn, a Labour member of Parliament since 1987 . "Our course is irreversibly moving toward legalized, regulated markets in so-called soft drugs, availability of drugs like opiates for those who are addicted through various health systems, and a more pragmatic approach to substance abuse generally throughout Europe." "

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2001/12/walters.html

[iverglas]

205. lordy, talk about yr correlation = causation

"This is why I think the US has a high homicide rate"

Can I interpret that as meaning

"I think this is why the US has a high homicide rate"?

(I mean, I think that the reason "why <you would> think that the US has a high homicide rate" is, well, because it does.)


An absolutely piss-poor correlation (which is actually negative for the times around 1950 and 1960, from what I see) = causation.

And yet the reasonably strong correlation seen in, e.g., Canada in recent years, in a fairly all other things being equal situation, between strengthened firearms control and reductions in firearms homicides and firearms-facilitated crimes (e.g. robbery with firearm) ... well, that's as nada. Ditto the relatively strong correlation between homicide rates and levels of firearms control seen in cross-country comparisons.

I'd sure like to see that 100-year homicide rate graph cross-tabbed with a number of other things. Like firearms ownership rates in the population, and specifically the rate of ownership of particular kinds of firearms.

Strikes me that the rise in the homicide rate around 1970 would probably correlate rather well with the rise in the rate of handgun ownership, for starters.

[Columbia]

206. The war on drugs didn't exist in the 50's

And that is the primary factor in my theory (and it's just that - a theory). Without the war on drugs, unemployment is not so much a factor because there would be no profitable underground blackmarket to work in. With drug prohibition, people may turn to crime as they lose their jobs - people not looking for work are not part of the unemployment numbers.

As for gun ownership was well as handgun ownership, the number of guns nationwide have been rising throughout the last century including handguns.

If you would like to postulate your own theory about the rise in homicides in the 60's then be my guest and show us some data.

[iverglas]

207. no, you be my guest

If you would like to postulate your own theory about the rise in homicides in the 60's then be my guest and show us some data.

I've posted data about changing patterns of firearms ownership in the US -- and specifically the shift from long arms to handguns, and from firearms owned for hunting/rural purposes to firearms owned for "protection" (or, obviously, criminal purposes) -- more than once. I can't imagine how you might have missed it. I believe that figures for rough numbers of handguns in circulation in the US, for instance, are pretty readily available.

Discussion really doesn't consist of Person A posting something and demanding that Other Persons rebut it, all the while acting (whether from ignorance or for some other reason) as if no one had ever said anything on point ever before.

So we'll take my data as given. Since it is.

And then maybe we can discuss how the fact that something like 5/6 of firearms homicides in the US are committed with handguns might not be somehow related to the wide distribution of handguns in the population ... and the fact that homicide rates rose simultaneously with the rise in the number and distribution of handguns in the population.

No one would suggest that the "war on drugs" is not a factor in the homicide / firearms homicide rates in the US. But it has to be said: the war on drugs doesn't make people kill people (any more than guns make people kill people), right?

Of course the "war on drugs" -- and its attendant exacerbated marginalization of already marginalized groups in the population -- is a factor in homicide rates.

Why you would suggest (if that's what you're suggesting) that the prevalence of handguns is not also a factor in homicide rates, I don't know.

Don't you think that if the combattants on the non-governmental side of the war on drugs had access to machine guns, they'd be using them -- and even more people would be dead?

What they have now is virtually unrestricted access to handguns. I can do the math.

Don't you think that if the people toting the guns and doing these shootings were having to tote rifles or shotguns around instead, their scope of action might be just a little more limited? (Especially if it were just a tad more difficult for them to get hold of even those things ...)

[MrSandman]

72. Like in Madrid...

or Northern Ireland
or Munich
or Jerusalem
or WTC
or OK City...?

[library_max]

79. Perhaps you could explain what you're talking about. /nt

[MrSandman]

80. In support of Columbia's post...

#66: If someone wants to kill a whole bunch of folks...


Firearms bans ain't gonna matter too much, you gotta ban the whole person.


67. Funny they seem to work in other countries. (Reply to 66)

Anecdotal events where gun control failed to stop the killing of a "whole bunch of folks" in support of #66.

Gun control either failed or was irrelevant.

[library_max]

81. Gun controls won't stop people from dying of old age, either.

And they won't stop people from being killed in war zones.

So what?

What relevance does it have to the question of whether or not magazine restrictions will save lives to bring up war zones and terrorist incidents?

[MrSandman]

82. Magazine restrictions were not the topic:

63. If someone wants to shoot down a whole bunch of folks...


magazine size aint gonna matter too much, you gotta ban the whole gun.

[library_max]

83. Okay, I'll accept that for the sake of argument.

It doesn't change my point. Wars and terrorist incidents are irrelevant to a discussion of the effectiveness of gun controls. We are all prepared to concede that people die from other causes besides gunshot wounds inflicted by civilians.

[iverglas]

85. yup, us firearms control advocates

We just know that firearms control measures are like that old email virus ...

If you receive an Email with the subject line "Badtimes" delete it IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT READING it. This is the most dangerous Email virus yet.

Not only will it completely rewrite your hard drive, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It also demagnetises the strips on your credit cards. It reprograms your ATM access code, screws up the tracking on your VCR and uses subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness settings so all your ice cream melts and your milk curdles. It will give your ex-boy/girlfriend your new phone number. This virus will mix antifreeze into your fish tank. It will drink all your beer. It will even leave dirty socks on the coffee table when you are expecting company.

It will hide your car keys when you are late for work and interfere with your car radio reception so you hear only static while stuck in traffic. When executed "Badtimes" will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will replace your shampoo with Nair and deodorant with Surface Spray. It will give you Dutch Elm Disease and Tinea. If the "Badtimes" message is opened in a Windows95 environment, it will leave the toilet seat up and leave your hairdryer plugged in dangerously close to a full bathtub.

It will not only remove the forbidden tags from your mattresses and pillows, but it will refill your skim milk with whole milk. It has been known to disregard 'Open This End' labels and can make you 'Push' a door that says 'Pull' and vice versa. It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve. These are just a few signs.

You have been warned!

Yup, firearms control measures will put an end to war, stop all men everywhere from seeking to control and harm women, make all parents responsible, turn all teenagers cheery, and convert every bank robber and drug dealer in NYC into a social worker.

Or so I apparently think.

[MrSandman]

87. And civilians intent on mass murder do not need guns.

Or are willing to steal/buy them from available sources, even in countries with strict gun control.

[library_max]

96. Yet those countries have murder rates which are small fractions of ours.

It is ridiculous to compare war zones with the United States of America. We haven't had a civil war in well over 100 years.

[MrSandman]

102. Not war zones...

Mass murder crime scenes. Don't believe I listed a war zone.

[iverglas]

104. no, gosh, perhaps you didn't

Don't believe I listed a war zone.

But you still mixed up a few fruit, doncha think? I mean, if you're being completely, 100% candid?

The "mass murders" you referred to were events in which the aim was to kill multiple people for a purpose. Not just to kill multiple people. And in those events, who got killed was completely irrelevant; the targets were whoever was there at the time.

When Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb, he wasn't aiming to kill toddlers or secretaries or delivery people. He was aiming to kill whoever happened to be in a particular building.

When Marc Lépine toted his Sturm Ruger mini-14 with the 3 30-round magazines into the University of Montreal, he wasn't targeting specific individuals -- but he was targeting specific kinds of individuals. Women engineering students, or, as he put it, "feminists". He methodically killed 14 of them, after, in one classroom where he went, ordering the men out of the way. A bomb just wouldn't have quite served his purpose.

I think you'll find that to be the case with many people who use firearms to kill other people for reasons other than to terrorize a population and influence a government. And of course, where you and I are at, there seem to be a whole lot more of those kinds of people -- people whose purpose has nothing to do with terrorizing and influencing -- than of the other kind.

Firearms control isn't going to stop all people intent on killing large numbers of random people. Just like it isn't going to do your laundry.

Bombs work well when you're just trying to put an abortion clinic out of operation, and, if you're lucky, kill a few people inside. But when you're looking to take out Dr. Bernard Slepian in particular where he sits eating soup by his kitchen window, a bomb might not be the most reliable or practical method; an SKS is, and in fact was (after being bought at the A to Z Pawn Shop in Old Hickory, Tennessee, under a false name), a much better tool. Of course, that one wasn't banned, I gather. But then, he was only looking to kill one guy.

[MrSandman]

105. Well, I always thought murder was murder...

Do you think Tim McVeigh wanted to kill anyone, or federal employees. I don't know since he, too, was killed.

Does it make any difference to the vics of 9/11 that they died because they were there? Endangered Specie did not specify motives of mass murder. Maybe he did mean specific victims.

I believe my point was:
Firearms control isn't going to stop all people intent on killing large numbers of random people. Just like it isn't going to do your laundry.

BTW, there is no proposal to ban enough weapons to have prevented Slepian Murder. Trapdoor Springfield (single shot) is not proposed to be banned.

[library_max]

108. If we can get rid of all the gun murders, or even cut them by two thirds

I'll be satisfied. As iverglas and I already pointed out, gun control is not a pill to cure all ills - just those ills caused by guns.

[library_max]

107. Jerusalem? Northern Ireland?

Civil wars have been going on there. Can you please pretend that the facts matter?

The other places you mentioned involved isolated incidents. There's a difference between an isolated incident and a pattern of 30,000 firearm deaths per year, more than twice as many per capita as any developed country with gun controls.

[FeebMaster]

113. The majority of those firearm deaths are suicides.

Are you not pro-choice on the right to die?

[library_max]

121. Certainly not for kids, who make up over 1,000 of those suicides.

And the other slightly-less-than 15,000? To hell with them, eh?

[FeebMaster]

124. To hell with them?

Not at all. What do you think I am some sort of puritan religious type or something? I fully support their right to die and think no less of them for their choice.

How did you arrive at that over 1,000 number anyway? To get over 1000, using the 2001 numbers, you'd have to include 20 year olds. Do you consider 20 year olds kids?

[library_max]

130. I used the 1999 numbers, which were the most recent I could find.

They yielded 1,078 suicides for ages 5-19. I couldn't find numbers that cut off at 18. But really, is nitpicking the point here, or is the death of about 1,000 kids per year the point?

[FeebMaster]

133. The 1999 numbers for 18 and under are 809.

The 2001 numbers for 18 and under are 656. It drops to 558 in 1999 and 451 in 2001 if you take out 18 year olds, who are adults as far as I'm concerned. In 2001 guns weren't even the number one choice for suicide for people under 18.

Is there a point? I don't know, you tell me. I just want to keep the numbers accurate.

[library_max]

138. Where are you getting your numbers? /nt

[FeebMaster]

139. That WISQARS thing at the CDC

I think slackmaster linked it the other day.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus.html

[library_max]

140. Yes, that's where I got the 1,078 figure for 1999.

Here's the report:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdf

Click on Firearm Deaths in the table of contents and then go to table 17. The line on intentional self-inflicted (suicide) gives 103 for 5-14 years, 975 for 15-19 years.

From what report, out of the enormous number of reports at that site, are you getting your numbers? Because I searched "firearm suicide" and 1999 was the best I could find.

[FeebMaster]

141. If you follow the Data from 1999 and later link

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

you can have it break it down for you with various options. It has data up to 2001.

[library_max]

145. That link isn't on the page you gave me.

Why can't you just post a link to the 2001 report? I posted you a link to the 1999 report.

[FeebMaster]

146. Sure it is.

Click on the "Data from 1999 and later" link in the first link I posted.

I don't have a link to the 2001 report or I'd post that too.

I used the handy chart generator thing I linked because I'm lazy.

[FatSlob]

91. Follow the yellow brick road to despotism,

and ban them all!

[library_max]

98. Yes, despotisms like Japan, England, and Australia.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[FatSlob]

99. Germany, China, Russia.

Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Slobodan Milosovic, and many others would be proud.

[iverglas]

101. I bet

They all liked a good scrambled egg, too.

[library_max]

109. Judas Iscariot, Vlad the Impaler, Ming the Merciless, Darth Vader,

why stop when you're on a roll? Surely you can think of some more irrelevant villains to name-drop. It's gotta be so much easier when you don't give a fying fluck about facts, logic, or relevance to the argument. You don't even have any facts that associate a single one of your betes noir with gun controls. But then, why bother with real facts when you think your opinions are facts?

The real fact is that there are three developed countries which are culturally most like the United States. All three have strict gun controls, and all three have murder rates that are much less than half ours per capita. And none of them remotely resembles a despotism of any kind.

On edit: referring to Canada, England, and Australia, not Japan.

[FatSlob]

114. I believe that the disarming of the populace will inevitably

lead to despotism. The government will have no possible opposition, and will therefore be able to impose whatever will it wishes upon the the citizenry. There must be a force to counter the government. I am certain that Canada, Britain and Australia will slip into hell over time.

[library_max]

120. Oh, "I believe."

Screw facts, screw logic. FatSlob "believes." That settles it, obviously.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Endangered Specie]

122. hahaha...

Arguing the need for guns to protect yourself from government is laughable... For one thing, the government has the military, the US military. Somehow I doubt the civilian population, no matter WHAT small arms they have, stand a snowball's chance in hell.

In spite of how many times Ive heard the pro-gun crowd suggest they could put up a fight (usually in an attempt to sound manly) I doubt theyd be much more of a challenge then did the Iraq army of Gulf War II.

Furthermore, allowing the people to own vastly more firepower than the government could lead to an equally worse fate, anarchy.

[FatSlob]

173. Allowing the government a monopoly on force leads to tyranny.

Think, Hitler, Mao, Stalin.

[library_max]

175. Government = monopoly on force.

Unless you're the "government" of Afghanistan.

Think . . . , well, just think at all. That'd be nice.

[Endangered Specie]

177. And I suppose that you would have been able to stop those regimes

If only theyd let you have your guns?

Most governments DO have a monopoly on force, that is kind of ESSENTIAL for any government to function.

A government needs two things in order to function:
1-Means of revenue.
2-Means of persuasion (force), and that includes not having it shared.

[FatSlob]

178. I disagree.

If the government has a monopoly on force, then it can become tyrannical. See, in case you forgot, we operate under the whole "consent of the governed" thing. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep it consensual.

[Endangered Specie]

179. The purpose of amendment 2

was to protect state militias.

The consent of governed comes in the form of a voting booth.

[FatSlob]

180. This is one debate I'm not getting into because...

I'm going on vacation in the morning. BTW, you are wholly wrong on the state militia thing. You'll have your opinion (wrong), and I'll have mine (right), and we'll never change our minds. I'll see you all in a week or so.

[library_max]

181. Not getting into?

Or quickly getting out of, after six posts?

[FatSlob]

190. Did you miss the part about me going on vacation in the morning?

I guess so. Reread carefully. I've got to finish packing and get to bed. Goodnight, see you on or about the 16th.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FeebMaster]

182. The consent of governed comes in the form of a voting booth?

Does that mean when most people don't vote the government no longer has the consent of the governed?

[Endangered Specie]

196. Well, the government isn't going to care as much about the people who dont

Why do you think politicians tend to ignore younger peoples issues and focus alot on senior citizen issues... 5 seniors for every 2 youth vote.

edit: Not voting is a choice, you can choose to have the government recogonize your opinion or not. In a way, if no one voted, then yes the govt would not have the consent of governed.

[FeebMaster]

197. That wasn't the question.

Where is the cutoff point? 50%? 20%? 10%? When does the government no longer have the consent of the governed?

[Endangered Specie]

198. The ability to vote is what indicates whether the govt has consent.

Its not based on the % of actual turnout.

[FeebMaster]

199. Ability to vote indicates consent?

Even if most people don't vote? Do the elections have to be legitimate? Is consent still implied if sham elections are held?

[Endangered Specie]

200. I'll amend that:

The free ability for all adults (I think the voting age needs lowering) to have the opprotunity to have an equal say with a legitamite vote without intimidation or fear. I thought that was implied.

And yes, if only 2% vote in aa perfectly equal and legit election, its still consent.

[Columbia]

202. So, if 51% of the voters vote to slaughter the other 49%

Does the 49% have to bend to the will of the majority since consent is implied by their vote?

[iverglas]

125. not just!

He's CERTAIN, too!

[FatSlob]

172. Yup, I believe. Way to be adult there.

[Crachet2004]

150. With 87% of their population against the war in Iraq...

Britain sent troops anyway. That is how much they think of the opinion of their own people in that largely unarmed and alleged "democracy".

There are some lines government simply cannot cross, given a properly armed citizenry.

In our system of checks and balances, there has to be a check on the Police Power...that would be the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Why is it 2nd? It is THAT important.

Finally, people are starting to smarten up and realize.

[library_max]

152. Another true believer

with nothing but his personal opinion to support him.

[FatSlob]

174. Heck, I said the same thing about you.

[Crachet2004]

185. I have this poll, and the one in GD, which are a whole lot more...

Relevant than the ones YOU drag in here from the corporate media-who wish us nothing but harm! The polls you have are saying: 'Here Liberals, heres a nice new poll for you! It says almost 80% of Americans support you on gun control! Now go run in the election on this issue, so we can kick your ass for the umpteenth time!' Sheesh.

The polls here on DU are of, by and for liberals, for the most part...and how you can argue with that, is beyond me.

The interesting thing to me, is how many people must have seen the one in GD, but simply didn't bother. Thousands of people, mostly very left in orientation-like me.

This is what some of us have been talking about...gun control is a dead duck.

[library_max]

186. A self-selected sample isn't valid - ask slackmaster.

The poll I dragged in here (actually, it was MrBenchley and CO Liberal) was a scientific poll conducted nationwide. 57 people responding to a web poll isn't even representative of DU. It doesn't mean that gun control is a "dead duck," at least not in the real world.

And as for the "corporate media" wishing us harm by foisting accurate, scientific polls on us - here's your tinfoil hat, what's your hurry?

:tinfoilhat:

[Crachet2004]

187. Uhhuh. Well, we will just have to wait and see what happens with...

The "sample" in Congress prior to the sunset on the AWB come September. My guess is, the Democrats will run from it as if it were death itself.

You should probably keep the tinfoil, you will no doubt need it to explain why the sun is going down on your pet issue, that is supposed to be so popular.

And of course the GD poll isn't scientific...merely interesting. It DOES seem to show however, that many liberals have no interest whatever in guncontrol...can't even be bothered to click on a simple DU poll.

How DO you explain that?

[iverglas]

168. doog dawg

In our system of checks and balances, there has to be a check on the Police Power...that would be the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

People actually (claim to) believe this?

Are there no schools in your country to teach them (right from wrong)??

[MrSandman]

188. I believe it is Second...

Because of ratification dates. All of the BoR, IIRC, were considered equal.

[solinvictus]

93. Belt fed

Of course, you're naturally limited by as much as you can carry.

[Paladin]

116. TRY THIS SIMPLE FORMULA

Confused about what your magazine capacity ought to be? Just use this simple formula:

1. First take your I.Q. rating and divide it by 5.

2. From that number, deduct 2 rounds for every article of camoflage clothing you possess.

3. Deduct another 2 rounds for each gun show you've attended in the last year.

4. Deduct 5 rounds each for membership in the NRA or GOA.

5. Deduct 2 rounds for every Ted Nugent CD you own.

The resulting number is how many rounds you're entitled to. Happy shooting.......

[Endangered Specie]

126. I have a simpler one..

For banana/stick magazines:

given x to be the desired potrayal to the world of size of your penis, in inches length, use a x*3 magazine.

For drum magazines:

given y to be the desired potrayal to the world of size of your gonads, in millimeteres diameter, use a y*2 magazine.

[slackmaster]

171. I came up with 33

I guess I'll have to sell my two 40-rounders on eBay.

[FatSlob]

189. 25 Rounds?! That rocks.

Thanks for the new law.

I deducted 2 rounds for one gunshow and 5 rounds for my NRA membership.

[FeebMaster]

191. Damn my paintballing days! (nt)

[FeebMaster]

143. You know what's really interesting about this poll?

So far, and I think it's fair to say we're probably near the end of this one at almost 150 posts, so far no one has voted for the current magazine ban of 10 rounds or less.

[-..__...]

148. I'm willing to bet that the results of this poll ...

had been expected either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x76306

[FeebMaster]

149. That one was good too.

DU is a lot more pro-gun than some people would have you believe.

[skippythwndrdog]

193. As I stated in GD: 2 gallons is about right

[Endangered Specie]

201. Time to put this one to sleep, 200.

[RoeBear]

203. Not before...

...I vote.