Knowing that the anti-gun crowd is comprised of people of such intellectual aptitude brings me a great deal of relief. You don't have to waste time debating them, they just come out and look like morons all by themselves.
That last gun, which i have no clue at all what its name is....is no joke!!!! serious business, if thats actually legal to own...godamn......
There is a form with the BATFE that has to be completed, it also has to be signed by the head law enforcement officer from your area. If it is all approved and you pay the transfer tax then you can legally own a full auto weapon. This is the same for suppressors too. Depending on your state law the weapon may need to be registered with your state as well.
thanks.... its says "BROWNING 1919" in the text of my post.... its a machine gun that is still in use today, as it was made in the year 1919. check out the 1919 web site here http://www.1919a4.com/modules.php?name=Jig
Oh take a figgin pill!! learn to take a little bit of a joke..Is it just me..or is this sight becomming full of uptight old men with their underwear shoved to far up thier ass's
As others have noted, guns do not cause murders, but they merely help in the commission of said act. Maybe Americans are just violent people? To refer to statistics: The United States has a homicide rate of 5.70, with 3.72 involving firearms. 39% of American households have guns. Britain, conversely, has a 1.41 homicide rate, with .11 of those involving firearms. 4.7% of households in Britain have firearms. Already, it is clear that England's homicide rate is much lower than that of the United States. On the other hand, 27% of Switzerland's population has some sort of firearm, but only shows a .58 homicide rate involving firearms (1.32 total homcides). This is a completely arbritrary counterfactual, but I suspect that if the US enacted a gun control policy similar to Britain's, very little, if anything, would change. Maybe the non-gun homicide rate would increase, but I don't see the overall homicide rate decreasing. Instead of drive-by shootings we'd have drive-by knifings Yes, the US has a relatively high (not the highest) homicide rate by firearms, but we also have a higher homicide rate in general.
I have stickers of this printed up and ready to go for any gun control advocate that will promise to display this on their mailbox or front door.
I would venture to guess that *LEGAL* firearms ownership is more prevalent in less urban areas since most of the urban areas in the US have strict gun control laws. I wonder how are crime statistics would change if we took the top 50 largest cities in the US and excluded their crime statistics from those of the US? How much would the violent crime rate drop? It would be interesting to see.
I'm 28, so my AARP membership application isn't in the mail just yet. FWIW, I have absolutely no problem with humor. Just as soon as you post something that's funny, I'll be the first one to laugh. On the other hand, if you post mindless dribble that fails to elicit so much as a smile, I might accidentally miss the humor. Sit back, take another sip of your Ensure and relax. Getting this pissed off is obviously making you spell like a 3rd grader.
That would be very interesting to see. To be fair though, taking out the largest urban areas would also greatly slant the numbers in favor of gun lobbyists. Probability alone would mandate that the vast majority of violent crimes take place in urban areas where the largest segment of the population live.
I have a 50cal sniper, which I use for girl-scouts coming to my door from long rang to sell me cookies, and I also keep a Desert Eagle on me at all time in case one of them get too close to my door.
Perhaps, but is it probability alone, or is there a correlation between stricter anti-gun legislation and higher crime? The traditional arguments against the above possibilities is that lax gun laws in neighboring areas allow the influx of firearms by gun smugglers. But if that's the case, why don't those same neighboring areas experience the same gun-related crime? For those that buy into the "gun smuggling" argument, why don't criminals expand their enterprises into a fresh untapped market with lax gun laws (neighboring states)? Perhaps its because the criminals fear encountering a potentially armed pool of victims? Alternatively, could there be a correlation between the less homogenous population found in urban environments compared to less urban environments? Proponents of gun control often cite the low gun crime rates of several countries with strict gun laws as proof that gun laws work. However, with very few exceptions, these countries all have very homogenous societies. This contrasts starkly with much of the US; you'd be hard-pressed to find a country that is less homogenous. Even for those countries cited for their low crime rates, I wonder where most of their gun crimes occur (more urban or less urban) and how homogenous the populations are?
Guys, put your objective hats on and analyze the data to determine a conclusion, instead of deciding on a conclusion( pro-gun) and finding an argument to support it. Data clearly shows that USA has 5.7% homicide rate with 3.72% caused by firearms. Britian shows a 1.41 homicide rate with .11 caused by handguns. If you subtract all firearm homicides 3.72% from overall USA homicide rate 5.7% you get 1.98%. For Britian you get 1.41% minus .11% you get 1.3%. That tells you if you take handguns out of the equation the homicide rates are much closer between the two countries and they are not that different. For the post'er who claim britian is a much more homogenized society than USA is incorrect, instead I believe Brtian has very similiar demographics to USA given the huge influx of foreigners. They do have major crime issues just like USA. What does the data tell you? The predominate variable between the two countries is the readily available presence of handguns in the USA. What makes up the 3.72% homicides with firearm number? Handguns make it very easy to commit a murder by premeditation or in heat of moment. It removes the extreme violent act required to stab or hack with knives or beat someone over the head with a baseball bat. So easy for a gangbanger to squeeze of a clip from a moving car and take out five people, let see him do that with knives. Most of the examples I list would not occur or if another weapon is used the loss of life is greatly reduced. -mugger shooting victim; mugger may still use knives but will definitely cut down on deaths -gang member shoot other gang member or innocent victim; reduce dramatically, no such thing as drive by knifing -road rage; eliminated -jealous boyfriend/husband shoot gf/wife/other party; reduce -accidental shooting at home; eliminated -shooting at clubs; eliminated, reduce to other weapons -crazy postal workers; eliminated -psycho gun toting high schoolers;eliminated -criminal shooting police;eliminated for most part Britian's data clearly show that if you strictly control handguns it reduces the homicide rate. You never hear of the examples I listed above happening in Britian. The root of problem is the easy access to handguns in USA. With a driver license you can buy large numbers in certain states. Gun control will only work on a national level. Allowing states to control it has not worked. Once a gun is made/born it basically has an immortal life span, it'll go from owner to owner and chances are it will end up as a tool in a crime. See gun running story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_GUN_RUNNING_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT And for those who argue that succesful defence gun stories are not publiziced and only crime with gun stories are highlighted I find that argument completed ridiculous. The media loves to run successful vigilante type stories because they know the public loves the good guy win angle, instead they bury random murder stories because it is so common in certain cities its no longer newsworthy. And you know why the medial rarely report successful defense stories? BECAUSE IT RARELY HAPPENS!!! -People getting mugged typically do not get to pull the gun first -Storekeepers getting robbed do not get to pull the gun first -Home invasion robberies, homeowers do not open door with guns in their hands In fact the last thing you want is for the victim to pull a gun, in those heated situations its typically the victim who gets shot. I used to own and carry a Sig Sauer 228 9mm. Walked into an armed robbery once, had a 357 revolver stuck in my face and herded to back storeroom as they cleared out the cash register. Good thing I did not have my gun with me at that time or it could've turned out worse. They took money and left. Most criminals are not cold blooded murderers. It's only in heat of moment they may commit a heinous act, if I had the sig and started shooting it would had turn ugly real fast. See following article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_COUPLE_KILLED_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT "If you ban guns, a criminal will find a way to get one, and only criminals wil have them" Not true. If you make the penalties stiff (10 year mandatory) enough for illegal gun possession, it will deter even criminals from possessing them. This is proven by data from countries like Britian, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan..etc. There are criminals in these countries who are just as violent, yet they resort to knives and pipes. Look at the statistics, there systems work! Yes, the harden professional criminal may get a gun, but for random street thug it is unheard of, especially in the societies I just mentioned. And typically in these societies, a gun is only used on professional jobs (big stake robbery or contract killing), you never hear of a gun being used for random street crime. Controlling guns will limit flow of supply and slowly remove firearms from street level criminals. Each firearm removed from circulation reduces the chances that gun will cause a crime. "Gun ownership by public deter criminals" No, the criminal will still commit the crime, he will just look for a different victim. Solution is not to deflect the criminal to other victims, it is to disable the criminal by disarming him. He may still commit a crime but with less deadly consequences. Conclusion- don't just blame Americans as overly violent, yes, they watch too much hollywood, but if you remove guns from society I guarantee the homicide rate will go down. But to say USA has a better gun control policy than other countries is like a .125 hitter telling the .375 national league batting champion that the former is the better hitter even though the statistics proved otherwise. As I stated earlier, I don't pretend to have the one bullet solution, but I can conclude from the data and real life experiences what is working and what is not. Given that USA has the highest homicide rate, you cannot argue that it is working.
Bond, I must say that there is almost no objectivity in your "data" and you are comparing apples to oranges. A good place to start would be to focus on large cities in the US that currently have some sort of bans on firearms. Then take a look at which portion of the firearm related crimes were committed by non-registered/non-legal people and firearms. For example, you may or may not know that the city of Chicago will not allow "normal" people register handguns anymore (since 1982). Feel free to thank Jane Bryne. Chicago likes to teeter with the highest homicide rate in the nation. Another fine example of this similiar to Chicago is D.C. Once the above data is obtained, take the large cities that allow citizens to be armed and look at the firearm related crimes that were committed by non-registered/non-legal people and firearms. I think you'll be a little surprised at what you find. Keep in mind...I'm not really familiar with any related info outside the US.
Like I said, state by state or city by city banning is useless. It must be control nationally to have desired effect. Have feds enacted 10 year sentence for illegal handgun possession and have it strictly enforced. That will have a desired effect. The goal is to remove all handguns in circulation and strictly control license owners. This will not eliminate all handgun homicide but will reduce it dramatically. You want more data? None of these states require a permit to puchase a handgun. It is too easy to own a gun. One needs to take driving test for driver license, but nothing to own a gun. TEN WORST STATES FOR MURDER, 2003 STATE PER 100,000 (1) Louisiana 13.0 (2) Maryland 9.5 (3) Mississippi 9.3 (4) Nevada 8.8 (5) Arizona 7.9 (6) Georgia 7.6 (7) South Carolina 7.2 (8) California 6.8 (9) Tennessee 6.8 (10) Alabama 6.6
It is regulated and enforced at the national level in the US. Do you live in the US? Firearm licensing is already strictly controlled. Increasing/decreasing the sentence for whatever means nothing for people that are law-biding citizens. Then you have the whole enforcement issue. How do you enforce laws in which people don't abide by at an effective level? I would recommend looking at the data that is already available before you make your decisions.
Explain the national regulation and how it's enforced. What is not clear to you about enforcement? Get caught with handgun without a license you get a long jail term. There is no vaild reason for anyone to be carrying an unlicensed firearm. If you are law abiding then you have no worries. Perps get stop routinuely for other matters, if he's so unlucky to be carrying then he goes to jail. Once word gets out others will think twice about carrying. This deterrent works in other countries. Aagin two pro-gun guys offered their opinions on why gun control doesn't work yet fails to address the data. So much for asking for objective thought. USA HAS THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE BY HANDGUNS, you guys are defending an undefensible position. The current system is not working.
Don't believe everything you copy off the internet to make your point! Look at #5. Buying A Firearm In California 1. What is the minimum legal age to purchase a firearm in California? (a). 18 years of age for rifles or shotguns (b). 21 years of age for handguns 2. What is the waiting period for firearm purchases in California? (a). 10 days, calculated as ten, consecutive, 24-hour periods commencing with the initiation of the DROS process. 3. What is the DROS process? (a). DROS stands for Dealer Record of Sale. It is the system used by the California Dept. of Justice wherein background checks are conducted for purchasers of firearms. It is also the method in which handgun sales registration information is obtained. 4. Who is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms in California? (a). Persons convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, persons addicted to narcotics, persons adjudicated to be mentally defective, persons who are under the restrictions of a temporary restraining order (domestic violence) are amongst the persons who may not purchase or possess firearms. A very specific list of felony and misdemeanor offenses that prohibit firearms ownership is available for review at any licensed dealer. 5. What are the additional requirements necessary for purchasing a handgun? (a). Handgun purchasers must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (or qualifying exemption), provide evidence of residency and perform a Safe Handling Demonstration. 6. How does one obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate? (a). By successfully passing the written HSC test. The test consists of 30 questions; passing scores are 23 answers correct or more. The cost of the taking test and receiving the card is $25. Study booklets are available in any Turner’s Outdoorsman location for .50. The test may be taken during normal store hours. The HSC is valid for 5 years from date of issuance. 7. What documents are necessary to show evidence of residency? (a). Utility bills from within the last 90 days, property deeds, permanent military station orders, lease or rental agreements or government issued permits, licenses or registrations are acceptable proofs of residency that meet the CA DOJ requirements. (NOTE- alien residents, immigrant aliens and non-immigrant aliens must provide residency that also meets Federal guidelines.) 8. What is the Safe Handling Demonstration? (a). The Safe Handling Demonstration is a set of firearm handling skills that must be performed by the purchaser with the gun they are purchasing or with a gun of the same model as the one that is being purchased. The skills include checking that the handgun is empty, unlocking it, loading it with a dummy round, unloading it and relocking it. This demonstration is performed at the time of DROS. 9. Why do I have to buy a gunlock or trigger lock with the purchase of my gun? (a). California law requires that all firearms sold, be transferred with a trigger lock, cable lock, qualifying gun cabinet or lock box, or gun safe. Persons who already own a safe or lock box can sign an affidavit attesting to ownership of those devices. 10. What if the gun I am purchasing comes with a gunlock, trigger lock or other safety device? (a). If the device that comes with your gun is on the “approved” list than you will not need to purchase another gunlock or cable. 11. Is there a limit to the number of firearms that a person can purchase at one time? (a). California law limits the purchase of handguns to no more than one handgun transferred from a dealer to an individual within any 30-day period. Note- Firearms transferred between individuals, that are transacted through dealers, (known as Private Party Transfers), are exempt from the one-handgun-a-month restriction. b. California law does not limit the number of long guns (rifles or shotguns) purchased by one person or within any specific time period. 12. What does the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban mean for California Dealers or Gun Owners? (a). For the most part, the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban does nothing to change California’s restrictions on the sale or possession of California designated “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines. As in other areas of firearms law, CA law supersedes Federal law. 13. I am selling my gun to a friend, how do I do it? (a). Sales conducted between unlicensed individuals are called Private Party Transfers. PPT’s must be brokered through licensed dealers. Both parties must be present at the time of the sale. The purchaser bears the cost of the transaction ($30) and must meet all of the qualifications as outlined above. The firearms will remain at Turner’s Outdoorsman during the 10-day waiting period. 14. Why are some models of handguns not legal for sale in California? (a). CA law dictates that only those guns deemed “not unsafe” may be sold. In order to be listed, handguns must be submitted to the state for testing. Not all manufacturers have submitted each of their models for testing by the state.
