Potential interview question: Do you own any guns?

[ElChamaco]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Actually the most common use of guns in the US is hunting. Something that is extremely necessary in certain areas where excess breeding of deer, turkey, etc would screw with the ecosystem and leave too many of a given species to starve.

But based on the things you're saying you probably don't understand the importance of hunting either - and probably have no desire to understand any of it.

Since when do people hunt with handguns? If you want a big long hunting rifle that doesn't bother me that much. It's very unlikely that this will end up in the streets.

Let me clarify that I'm talking about handguns, something I should have been more clear about in my initial post. I don't have a super strong opinion on hunting rifles since they are irrelevant to urban crime.

 

[willen101383]

I own 12 long guns and 2 pistols. I would actually say none of your business if I was asked this question...because that has nothing to do with my academic ability.

 

[willen101383]

Since when do people hunt with handguns? If you want a big long hunting rifle that doesn't bother me that much. It's very unlikely that this will end up in the streets.

Let me clarify that I'm talking about handguns, something I should have been more clear about in my initial post. I don't have a super strong opinion on hunting rifles since they are irrelevant to urban crime.

and FYI people DO VERY FREQUENTLY hunt with handguns. And it is also very unlikely any responsible gun owner's handguns will end up on the streets. Get past me, 3 large dogs, my security system, and somehow break into/ carry my 450 pound gun safe out of my house and you might have a shot at getting one of my pistols on the street.

 

[ElChamaco]

notsureifsrs

Gun control would work as well as drug control and prohibition, which did absolutely nothing to contain drug usage and alcohol consumption. Do you think manufacturing guns in mass quantities is difficult? All you would be doing is creating a massive new black market that is great for gangs and criminals but horrible for every citizen. We shouldn't encourage criminals to be armed, while law-abiding citizens to get murdered by them because they don't know how to work the black-market as well.

Gun control works quite well in other countries (ones that coincidentally have more liberal drug policies oftentimes) and is fundamentally different than drug prohibition. Though I agree on your points re drugs.

Legalize drugs and inner city crime ends overnight. "Regulate" guns and you just create an awesome new black market and enterprise for criminals, while leaving the law-abiding citizens in the dust.

This is overly simplistic, though an opinion I used to share. Legalizing drugs isn't going to end inner-city poverty, in fact it will remove one of the main sources of incomes in the inner-city. I do think that a more intelligent drug policy could limit violent crime though. I would expect armed robbery and other forms of crime to go up at least a bit in response to losing drug revenue, however. On the whole there is no denying that US drug policy is horrible and hurts both the US and the rest of the world.

 

[LEUNIT]

I want a gun because it will make me look super cool.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Since when do people hunt with handguns? If you want a big long hunting rifle that doesn't bother me that much. It's very unlikely that this will end up in the streets.

Let me clarify that I'm talking about handguns, something I should have been more clear about in my initial post. I don't have a super strong opinion on hunting rifles since they are irrelevant to urban crime.

You didn't say handguns. You said guns.

If we're talking about handguns then the majority of your argument still goes to crap because gang crime (and crime South of the Border which was the primary concern of your original argument) predominantly use automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Not the average handgun.

Yes, according to ATF statistics half the guns most commonly used for crime in the US are normal handguns. However, it doesn't not specify murder, gang violence etc. And is actually referring to a lot of personal murder (eg wife kills cheating husband), rape, theft, etc. Not the urban crime you are referring to.

You started your points by arguing about gang violence and drug cartels. But its nice that you're changing your argument as you go along to try not to be proven wrong.

 

[ElChamaco]

and FYI people DO VERY FREQUENTLY hunt with handguns. And it is also very unlikely any responsible gun owner's handguns will end up on the streets also. Get past me, 3 large dogs, my security system, and somehow break into/ carry my 450 pound gun safe out of my house and you might have a shot at getting one of my pistols on the street.

I wasn't aware of that. I'm not a hunting expert, and do not profess to be, so I appreciate the insight. I would be interested in knowing what the used of hanguns are in hunting, just out of curiosity.

In any case, like I explained in another post, the point isn't whether your particular gun will end up in the street. Consumer demand of pistols and the stymieing of efforts to implement stringent gun control by gun buyers supports the production of guns and increases the pool of guns that can be diverted, often even before they make it to you, the consumer.

 

[ElChamaco]

You didn't say handguns. You said guns.

If we're talking about handguns then the majority of your argument still goes to crap because gang crime (and crime South of the Border which was the primary concern of your original argument) predominantly use automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Not the average handgun.

Yes, according to ATF statistics half the guns most commonly used for crime in the US are normal handguns. However, it doesn't not specify murder, gang violence etc. And is actually referring to a lot of personal murder (eg wife kills cheating husband), rape, theft, etc. Not the urban crime you are referring to.

You started your points by arguing about gang violence and drug cartels. But its nice that you're changing your argument as you go along to try not to be proven wrong.

You are right that I wasn't clear. I mean handguns for the US context. However, you are absolutely wrong about most inner city crime being committed with anything but handguns. This is a well documented fact and easily confirmed by anyone with any experience or knowledge of the dynamics of inner city crime. It's not a point even worth contesting.

We could also exert more pressure on limiting the production of automatic guns and put restrictions on US arms sales more generally. In addition to providing a great portion of the illegal weapons in the world, we are one, if not the biggest, legal arms supplier.

 

[willen101383]

I would probably buy a Glock 23 .40. It'll last forever and .40 is considered the most efficient in terms of overall usability and stopping power.

My daily carry weapon is a Springfield XD40 Sub Compact in .40 SW. Great great great gun. I have a crimson trace laser grip on there too for added utility should I ever need to draw and fire rapidly.

40 is a great load but I may upgrade to 10mm (the "more potent" parent cartridge to the .40 sw) And for all yall glock lovers...try out an XD before you jump on the glock bandwagon. A bit pricier but the trigger is stellar compared to a glock trigger (not that im hatin on glock because they make a fine pistol)

 

[willen101383]

I wasn't aware of that. I'm not a hunting expert, and do not profess to be, so I appreciate the insight. I would be interested in knowing what the used of hanguns are in hunting, just out of curiosity.

In any case, like I explained in another post, the point isn't whether your particular gun will end up in the street. Consumer demand of pistols and the stymieing of efforts to implement stringent gun control by gun buyers supports the production of guns and increases the pool of guns that can be diverted, often even before they make it to you, the consumer.

Most states you cant use anything semi auto to hunt. So people use larger revolvers to hunt with. .44 magnum comes to mind. I actually have never hunted with either of my pistols. I carry them hunting in case the deer needs a coup de grace...although with the caliber I use to hunt nothing short of an elephant is making it very far.

As far as gun control etc goes...I am not going to open up that can o worms because I actually have an exam tomorrow and cant post on SDN all night....but I believe there needs to be more regulation in the industry somehow.

Jared Loughner fell through the cracks and that is 100 percent unacceptable to me and any respectful gun owner I know. I have absolutely zero issue with preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals/children. The issue in my mind is preventing this...while not mucking with my right to legally and respectfully own my firearms. Hell I would be down for making some sort of "card." In order to get this card youd need to get a COMPREHENSIVE background check, with some sort of psych evaluation by a psychiatrist/psychologist to be completed every 5 years. Card would have your picture and perhaps a fingerprint on it. The retailer would have to swipe the card into some national database that would verify the card isnt a forgery. Doesnt seem like too much of a burden to me...and im one of the most pro gun dudes out there.

Shooting/hunting is a pretty big pastime for me. I reload my own ammo and hit the range at least once a week. No better stress reliever while in med school...trust me on that 🙂.

 

[ElChamaco]

Most states you cant use anything semi auto to hunt. So people use larger revolvers to hunt with. .44 magnum comes to mind. I actually have never hunted with either of my pistols. I carry them hunting in case the deer needs a coup de grace...although with the caliber I use to hunt nothing short of an elephant is making it very far.

As far as gun control etc goes...I am not going to open up that can o worms because I actually have an exam tomorrow and cant post on SDN all night....but I believe there needs to be more regulation in the industry somehow.

Jared Loughner fell through the cracks and that is 100 percent unacceptable to me and any respectful gun owner I know. I have absolutely zero issue with preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals/children. The issue in my mind is preventing this...while not mucking with my right to legally and respectfully own my firearms. Hell I would be down for making some sort of "card." In order to get this card youd need to get a COMPREHENSIVE background check, with some sort of psych evaluation by a psychiatrist/psychologist to be completed every 5 years. Card would have your picture and perhaps a fingerprint on it. The retailer would have to swipe the card into some national database that would verify the card isnt a forgery. Doesnt seem like too much of a burden to me...and im one of the most pro gun dudes out there.

Shooting/hunting is a pretty big pastime for me. I reload my own ammo and hit the range at least once a week. No better stress reliever while in med school...trust me on that 🙂.

Are you completely committed to maintaining the legality of handguns? It seems that it may be a minor inconvenience to SOME hunters but that they wouldn't have that hard of a time working around not having a handgun.

 

[willen101383]

You are right that I wasn't clear. I mean handguns for the US context. However, you are absolutely wrong about most inner city crime being committed with anything but handguns. This is a well documented fact and easily confirmed by anyone with any experience or knowledge of the dynamics of inner city crime. It's not a point even worth contesting.

We could also exert more pressure on limiting the production of automatic guns and put restrictions on US arms sales more generally. In addition to providing a great portion of the illegal weapons in the world, we are one, if not the biggest, legal arms supplier.

The thing about limiting automatic weapons is that any semi auto weapon can be VERY easily made into a fully automatic weapon. I have a Ruger mini 14 (which is a semi auto rifle) chambered in .223 (what your garden variety AR-15/M 16 fires). If I felt like being a criminal all it would take was a dremel and about 2 minutes and that thing would be fully auto.

 

[Musclemass]

Most developed European and Asian countries do not have laws permitting widespread gun ownership. Most also do not have as much violent crime, murders, or gun deaths that we have in the US.

To me, the various arguments advanced by the NRA crowd about constitutional intent or practical requirements (wild animal management?) are *****ic and specious. It's a simple question about what kind of society and country do we want to have, and I'm sorry that the vocal views of such a minority make so many suffer. I'd confiscate all guns tomorrow given a chance.

For those of you who have a macho problem, buy cowboy boots and start smoking cigars, that way you're only endangering yourself.

 

[alwaysaangel]

You are right that I wasn't clear. I mean handguns for the US context. However, you are absolutely wrong about most inner city crime being committed with anything but handguns. This is a well documented fact and easily confirmed by anyone with any experience or knowledge of the dynamics of inner city crime. It's not a point even worth contesting.

Again, you started by discussing drug cartels and urban crime (which I took to mean gang violence). The bigger issue in these categories is semiautomatic and automatic weapons. Not the AVERAGE handgun like I said.

The number of handguns involved in crimes may be large, even in urban centers. However, a lot of those crimes are going to be smaller subsets and less significant than gang violence and drug cartels (which again was YOUR initial argument, not mine). A 100 handguns are used in 100 random acts of violence in an urban center and each is confiscated as evidence and counted as one of the most common weapons used for crime. A single automatic rifle is used to kill 100 cops in Mexico as part of a drug cartel. Which one are you more concerned with? So that I'm understanding your argument correctly, because I don't feel you're being clear. They are completely separate issues. (I'm not really concerned with either as I think that has nothing to do with my right to bear arms).

Consumer demand of pistols and the stymieing of efforts to implement stringent gun control by gun buyers supports the production of guns and increases the pool of guns that can be diverted, often even before they make it to you, the consumer.

All the more reason I should have one.

 

[willen101383]

Are you completely committed to maintaining the legality of handguns? It seems that it may be a minor inconvenience to SOME hunters but that they wouldn't have that hard of a time working around not having a handgun.

Yes because personally I shoot handguns a lot and carry my handgun for protection almost every day (except to school/fed buildings etc). I actually was robbed at gun/knifepoint with 2 of my friends in montreal my senior year of college. Sort of changes your perspective on your safety.

I am very pro gun...but im not some sketchy southern gun dude. I agree that something needs to be done to stop gun violence and am definitely down for preventing guns for getting to people who have no legal right owning them.

 

[patel2]

Here's why gun's are needed for law abiding citizens. Listen from 5:30 onwards as the hero owns the village idiot, Ed Schultz

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ElChamaco]

The thing about limiting automatic weapons is that any semi auto weapon can be VERY easily made into a fully automatic weapon. I have a Ruger mini 14 (which is a semi auto rifle) chambered in .223 (what your garden variety AR-15/M 16 fires). If I felt like being a criminal all it would take was a dremel and about 2 minutes and that thing would be fully auto.

My suggestion is to severely limit the production of all guns, though I feel less strongly about the awkwardly large hunting rifles that people would have trouble tucking in their pants and storing under their car seats.

Even internationally I'm fairly certain the majority of murders are carried out with handguns except in the cases of HIGHLY militarized cartel type operations like we are seeing in Mexico. Even in that case its not absolutely clear that the MAJORITY of murders are done with non-handguns. In the US context handguns are by far the most important contributors to murder. I'm less certain about the international scene simply because I've spent less time researching that context.

In any case my stance is that all firearm production should be limited and gun control dramatically tightened.

 

[willen101383]

Most developed European and Asian countries do not have laws permitting widespread gun ownership. Most also do not have as much violent crime, murders, or gun deaths that we have in the US.

To me, the various arguments advanced by the NRA crowd about constitutional intent or practical requirements (wild animal management?) are *****ic and specious. It's a simple question about what kind of society and country do we want to have, and I'm sorry that the vocal views of such a minority make so many suffer. I'd confiscate all guns tomorrow given a chance.

For those of you who have a macho problem, buy cowboy boots and start smoking cigars, that way you're only endangering yourself.

Sources on that first statement? Ive heard people say gun violence is worse...and ive heard people say gun violence is better.

I do 100 percent agree with you about the NRA and some of the arguments are that are made for gun ownership. The constitution was written how long ago...and its clear times have changed. But you need to respect the fact that WAY more of the US is rural than urban and firearms really do have utility to those people living in rural areas. I dont know where you are from but I am assuming you dont live in an area where a bear attack is a real reality.

Do I need to hunt? No. Do I need to shoot? No. But its something I enjoy and I am responsible doing it. Does that give you the right to take away my guns because you think they are bad no.

Hell, I am taking it that you are into lifting judging by your username. You are inherently making yourself more dangerous in a fight. Does that mean we need to ban lifting? No. Does that mean you are a ***** who goes out looking for fights? No it doesnt. Granted that is a pretty piss poor analogy...but something I just had to throw out there.

 

[ElChamaco]

Again, you started by discussing drug cartels and urban crime (which I took to mean gang violence). The bigger issue in these categories is semiautomatic and automatic weapons. Not the AVERAGE handgun like I said.

Yes, in fact the majority of urban drug crime utilizes handguns as well as the rest of murders, an important fact itself. Handguns probably the majority of firearm murders worldwide outside of a war context as well, though I am not certain. See my previous post in response to wilner.

 

[patel2]

Sources on that first statement? Ive heard people say gun violence is worse...and ive heard people say gun violence is better.

I do 100 percent agree with you about the NRA and some of the arguments are that are made for gun ownership. The constitution was written how long ago...and its clear times have changed. But you need to respect the fact that WAY more of the US is rural than urban and firearms really do have utility to those people living in rural areas. I dont know where you are from but I am assuming you dont live in an area where a bear attack is a real reality.

Do I need to hunt? No. Do I need to shoot? No. But its something I enjoy and I am responsible doing it. Does that give you the right to take away my guns because you think they are bad no.

Hell, I am taking it that you are into lifting judging by your username. You are inherently making yourself more dangerous in a fight. Does that mean we need to ban lifting? No. Does that mean you are a ***** who goes out looking for fights? No it doesnt. Granted that is a pretty piss poor analogy...but something I just had to throw out there.

Unfortunately this attitude has been all too prevalent in D.C.

 

[alwaysaangel]

This thread is giving me a seriously craving for a trip to the shooting range.

 

[willen101383]

My suggestion is to severely limit the production of all guns, though I feel less strongly about the awkwardly large hunting rifles that people would have trouble tucking in their pants and storing under their car seats.

Even internationally I'm fairly certain the majority of murders are carried out with handguns except in the cases of HIGHLY militarized cartel type operations like we are seeing in Mexico. Even in that case its not absolutely clear that the MAJORITY of murders are done with non-handguns. In the US context handguns are by far the most important contributors to murder. I'm less certain about the international scene simply because I've spent less time researching that context.

In any case my stance is that all firearm production should be limited and gun control dramatically tightened.

Cool. That is your opinion and I respect you for it. You know my opinions as well. I think it would be silly to say that there isnt an issue with handgun crimes occuring...and I definitely support measures to stop this. But in my opinion tightening gun control (in the typical sense) isnt going to do much. It would honestly take so insanely long to get all the guns off the streets if we stopped production of handguns...that none of us would even see the affects in our lifetimes (in my opinion). Any comments on my "ID card" idea? I think that would be a pretty good idea. Perhaps also requiring a legit gun safe as well. You should see the safe I have....unless you are a gorilla you arent getting this thing out of my house in the 18 seconds before my house alarm dials the cops. Hell you are lucky if you are getting it out of my house in anything less than 2 hours...and thats with 3 big guys helping you.

 

[ElChamaco]

Sources on that first statement? Ive heard people say gun violence is worse...and ive heard people say gun violence is better.
.

It's well documented that the US has a much higher murder rate than countries of comparable wealth and even more than many much poorer countries.

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

for a quick and dirty look at comparative stats.

 

[willen101383]

This thread is giving me a seriously craving for a trip to the shooting range.

Too bad you dont live in Philly. My boy(another med student) go AT LEAST once a week. Going to the indoor range sat, then to the 100 yd outdoor after that to break our shoulders with some slugs and my 45-70 govt hot loads Ive been handloading!

 

[ElChamaco]

Cool. That is your opinion and I respect you for it. You know my opinions as well. I think it would be silly to say that there isnt an issue with handgun crimes occuring...and I definitely support measures to stop this. But in my opinion tightening gun control (in the typical sense) isnt going to do much. It would honestly take so insanely long to get all the guns off the streets if we stopped production of handguns...that none of us would even see the affects in our lifetimes (in my opinion). Any comments on my "ID card" idea? I think that would be a pretty good idea. Perhaps also requiring a legit gun safe as well. You should see the safe I have....unless you are a gorilla you arent getting this thing out of my house in the 18 seconds before my house alarm dials the cops. Hell you are lucky if you are getting it out of my house in anything less than 2 hours...and thats with 3 big guys helping you.

I'm not an expert on specific gun policy so I can't say with absolute confidence what would or wouldn't work. With my background it is easier for me to see the problem than propose fully developed policy solutions. Other people I know study this more directly and would probably have a more specific policy ideas.

I do think guns should be destroyed but any measure tightening their regulation would meet my approval. Even if it would take a long time to take all the guns off the street we might as well start now and do what we can to prevent more entering circulation. However, as I said, I don't think the issue is YOUR particular gun being stolen but the massive production of firearms in the country that are readily diverted AND exported.

 

[willen101383]

It's well documented that the US has a much higher murder rate than countries of comparable wealth and even more than many much poorer countries.

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

for a quick and dirty look at comparative stats.

Its interesting that Israel (where more or less EVERYONE has a gun...I have a whole side of my family there) has a much lower murder rate. However Canada also has a much lower murder rate than the US..and from what I understand gun ownership is much much more common in Canada.

Its the inner cities obviously and growing up where violence is a way of life+ guns that is the problem. Not guns themselves necessarily.

 

[ElChamaco]

Too bad you dont live in Philly. My boy(another med student) go AT LEAST once a week. Going to the indoor range sat, then to the 100 yd outdoor after that to break our shoulders with some slugs and my 45-70 govt hot loads Ive been handloading!

It's funny you mention Philly, a city particularly scarred by gun violence. 99% of which is committed with handguns. Do you go to temple by any chance?

 

[willen101383]

I'm not an expert on specific gun policy so I can't say with absolute confidence what would or wouldn't work. With my background it is easier for me to see the problem than propose fully developed policy solutions. Other people I know study this more directly and would probably have a more specific policy ideas.

I do think guns should be destroyed but any measure tightening their regulation would meet my approval. Even if it would take a long time to take all the guns off the street we might as well start now and do what we can to prevent more entering circulation. However, as I said, I don't think the issue is YOUR particular gun being stolen but the massive production of firearms in the country that are readily diverted AND exported.

Just curious. Have you ever actually held a gun? Have you ever fired one? My shooting buddy and I were discussing the fact that it seems like most anti gun types have never even touched or fired a gun....and that once you actually fired one your opinions might change to some degree.

My fiance was the most anti gun type id ever met before she moved in with me. I finally got her to the range and she was like "oh wow thats it?" Like she was expecting the world to end when she pulled the trigger.

Okay I am going to the dog park because these maniacs are going crazy. Ill check in to see what develops here. Good thread.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Too bad you dont live in Philly. My boy(another med student) go AT LEAST once a week. Going to the indoor range sat, then to the 100 yd outdoor after that to break our shoulders with some slugs and my 45-70 govt hot loads Ive been handloading!

Yeah indoor ranges are harder to find where I am. Also, I can't have a gun in campus housing. Next time I visit my parents though I think I'll go. I usually use a little fishing .22 but my dad has a classic .38 Smith and Wesson that is SOOO smooth to shoot!

I find it incredibly relaxing.

 

[ElChamaco]

Its interesting that Israel (where more or less EVERYONE has a gun...I have a whole side of my family there) has a much lower murder rate. However Canada also has a much lower murder rate than the US..and from what I understand gun ownership is much much more common in Canada.

Its the inner cities obviously and growing up where violence is a way of life+ guns that is the problem. Not guns themselves necessarily.

You are right that guns are not themselves the problem. Violence and crime is a symptom of severe social inequality in the United States (something the US is NOT matched in by Israel or Canada). The problem is that guns GREATLY facilitate this uniquely American form of violence (unique at least amongst the wealthy countries).

 

[willen101383]

It's funny you mention Philly, a city particularly scarred by gun violence. 99% of which is committed with handguns. Do you go to temple by any chance?

No no...I go to PCOM. I actually live outside of Philly but frequently need to enter the "death zone" obviously LOL. Its bad here...it really is. I actually started carrying daily once I moved here.

 

[ElChamaco]

Just curious. Have you ever actually held a gun? Have you ever fired one? My shooting buddy and I were discussing the fact that it seems like most anti gun types have never even touched or fired a gun....and that once you actually fired one your opinions might change to some degree.

My fiance was the most anti gun type id ever met before she moved in with me. I finally got her to the range and she was like "oh wow thats it?" Like she was expecting the world to end when she pulled the trigger.

Okay I am going to the dog park because these maniacs are going crazy. Ill check in to see what develops here. Good thread.

No but I'm not opposed to doing so. I have however seen the destruction gun violence has wreaked on specific families and entire communities more generally through my research.

 

[JK47]

To answer the original question, it is not a legal question to ask. Pleading the 5th just indicates you do own one. I suspect that most of the time the person asking that would like to hear that you own none. This would be a great time to spin the question or answer the question with a question!

The 2nd Ammendment of the United States Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The intent: To allow people the freedom to bear arms, and make it a right and not infringe it. It also helps prevent tyranny (think of what happened in Darfur) which was a main concern of the founders of this then infant country that just fought its way out from under a different tyranny. "People" was defined by DC vs. Heller as an individual person.

It says nothing about for hunting only, or sporting only, of self defense only. It is a very general freedom.

Arms as defined even back in the 1800's were current and up to date military arms which included shoulder fired shotguns and rifles as well as pistols. Cannons are considered "artilery". Explosives are considered "ordinance". Small arms are considered weapons used by an individual person. "The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces."

Machine guns made before 1986 (fully automatic, not semi-automatic), short barreled rifles, shortbarreled shotguns, Destructive devices (over .50 caliber and some shotguns and all grenade launchers), Suppressors (silencers), and AOWs (Any Other Weapon, i.e. pen guns, cane guns, shotgun pistols, pistols with foreward verticle grip etc) are all legal to own in America but they must be registered with the NFA, and you must pay a $200 tax (except for AOWs which is $5 tax), submit fingerprints, passport photos, a big federal form, submit to an FBI background check, and have a Chief Law Enforcement Officer sign off on the purchase and this takes many months and is very expensive. This is so restrictive that in the history of the NFA the only crimes that involved the use of registered machines guns were only two, and one of them was be a deranged cop.

The BATFE regulates all firearms, tobacco, alcohol, and explosives in the US. Explosives in the form or grenades, grenades that get launched, rocket warheads (like used in bazookas) and all other forms are so heavily restricted that only the military or MAYBE some police depts can buy them. These things can not be purchased at gun shows or gun stores, and if they end up in Mexico it was because they were stolen from the military.

I think a large percentage of gun related crimes (100% to be exact) would be reduced if the person using the gun simply did not commit the crime. The only argument that makes sense is that guns may (not always) increase the efficiency of a criminal killing. That being said, if all guns were banned, I would highly expect to see an increase in killings using kitchen knives etc.

As to gun laws, if the current gun laws were enforced 100% then we would not be having many problems. The solution: do a better job enforcing current laws. What good would more laws do as long as the criminals were not concerned about breaking the laws in the first place which first made them criminals?

 

[ElChamaco]

No no...I go to PCOM. I actually live outside of Philly but frequently need to enter the "death zone" obviously LOL. Its bad here...it really is. I actually started carrying daily once I moved here.

Unless you frequently walk through the ghettoes of Philly picking fights with drug dealers or at bars full of drunk people you don't need your gun. I think an over exaggerated sense of fear makes people feel like they need this protection. Even in a place like Philly, living outside of the ghetto shields you from 90% of street crime. Even IN the ghetto your chance of being violently victimized is statistically low (though obviously elevated) if you aren't picking fights, selling drugs or helping women cheat on their boyfriends. Even if you are unlucky enough to get mugged, 99.9% of the time all you are going to lose is you wallet.

If you pull a gun on someone during a robbery likely you will be shot, or you might kill some 15 year old kid who may have been one of the lucky miraculous kids who actually make it from the ghetto even with inauspicious beginnings. Given that the vast, vast majority of muggings, especially unresisted, end without violence I would rather lose 10 dollars than be shot OR kill some kid.

 

[ElChamaco]

That being said, if all guns were banned, I would highly expect to see an increase in killings using kitchen knives etc.

I'd rather drug disputes and bar fights be settled with kitchen knives instead of handguns. So would the occasional (albeit rare) five year old girl who accidentally gets shot because she made the mistake of wanting to play outside right before the eruption of a gun fight.

 

[gettheleadout]

What's the point in even arguing about this though? Guns (including handguns) are legal to own and will probably continue to be legal to own. If you make them illegal, there will still be 500 million handguns in circulation in the U.S., and the number of handgun crimes will only go down negligibly.

 

[ElChamaco]

You could start destroying the remaining handguns and the price of street handguns would increase and they would become less accessible. The effects may not be felt immediately, but that's not really the point.

There really is no point to arguing since policy is not instituted on internet message boards BUT it is a topic of particular personal and academic interest and concern so I let myself get roped in, even though I probably should've known better. 🙂

 

[Doctor246853]

How would you respond to this?

I'm really bored... Hypothetical answers GO!

YOU RACIST!!!! (Im black)

 

[JK47]

I'd rather drug disputes and bar fights be settled with kitchen knives instead of handguns. So would the occasional (albeit rare) five year old girl who accidentally gets shot because she made the mistake of wanting to play outside right before the eruption of a gun fight.

I would agree with those two statements. Stray shots are dangerous but are of course not usually responsible for injuries, but still can be. And of course that's one reason guns are regulated much more than knives! Also, depending on caliber and bullet type, as well as knife type, the knife can be more lethal.

And of course the best bar fight settled with kitchen knives would be if they had only 60 minutes to make the best tasting dish using the secret ingredient; Fennel! They would probably both taste like crap though, they would both loose. The point is, get people to stop fighting and try to come up with a good tasting dish using Fennel! I'm sure it can be done.

 

[ElChamaco]

I would agree with those two statements. Stray shots are dangerous but are of course not usually responsible for injuries, but still can be. And of course that's one reason guns are regulated much more than knives! Also, depending on caliber and bullet type, as well as knife type, the knife can be more lethal.

And of course the best bar fight settled with kitchen knives would be if they had only 60 minutes to make the best tasting dish using the secret ingredient; Fennel! They would probably both taste like crap though, they would both loose. The point is, get people to stop fighting and try to come up with a good tasting dish using Fennel! I'm sure it can be done.

Excellent and creative solution to a complex problem!

 

[willen101383]

Unless you frequently walk through the ghettoes of Philly picking fights with drug dealers or at bars full of drunk people you don't need your gun. I think an over exaggerated sense of fear makes people feel like they need this protection. Even in a place like Philly, living outside of the ghetto shields you from 90% of street crime. Even IN the ghetto your chance of being violently victimized is statistically low (though obviously elevated) if you aren't picking fights, selling drugs or helping women cheat on their boyfriends. Even if you are unlucky enough to get mugged, 99.9% of the time all you are going to lose is you wallet.

If you pull a gun on someone during a robbery likely you will be shot, or you might kill some 15 year old kid who may have been one of the lucky miraculous kids who actually make it from the ghetto even with inauspicious beginnings. Given that the vast, vast majority of muggings, especially unresisted, end without violence I would rather lose 10 dollars than be shot OR kill some kid.

You are forgetting the fact that I train with my firearm at least once a week...usually twice a week. I am EXTREMELY proficient to say the least. As in have no problem hitting you shot after shot under duress in your left ventricle...not right...left. As far as your assumption that I would be shot if I fired my weapon during a robbery that is most likely a lie. You dont pull a gun and brandish it. That is against the law. If my gun comes out of my holster it is coming out and immediately being fired. There wont be words exchanged, there wont be a "stop or ill shoot." I will immediately withdraw my weapon and fire as many shots as I see fit..or until you stop the attack.

As for pulling a gun during a robbery PA law states that you must take all appropriate measures to diffuse the situation prior to using deadly force, unless deadly force is being used upon you. WHich means you have to give up your wallet. The only way I would fire in that situation is if I or my friend or loved one was in direct danger of being killed or gravely injured.

As for staying out of harms way by being out of the ghetto that is also not true. I was robbed with my friends at gun/knife point in a very mainstream area in montreal on a main street. Not even two months ago 4 houses on my street were burglarized at around 3:30pm on a sunday afternoon. Ever heard of home invasion? Its a reality. Maybe not where you grew up or live, but it is a reality. I grew up in upstate NY in a pretty nice area (my dad is a specialist doc and worked his whole career in the glory days of medicine...so draw your own conclusions from that). In high school a house down the road from us was home invaded, the people kept hostage for like 12 hours while they ransacked the home, and beat the living **** out of the husband. It is my right to protect myself and my home and I will do so...no matter how miniscule you think the risk is.

Insurance companies exist for a reason. Whats the chance that you will crash your car into someone and cause 200k worth of hospital related expenses. Pretty small no? But are you willing to drive without insurance (all legal issues aside)? I am sure youre a healthy late teen/early 20 something. Do you roll around without health insurance? Probably not. What is the chance that my house will burn down/flood/have a tree fall on it. Most likely next to nothing. Do I not have a homeowners policy? Of course not.

My pistol is my LIFE insurance. I will probably never have to use it...and sure as hell hope I dont have to. But if and when the time arises I need to protect myself or my loved ones from danger I sure as hell will be glad to have the equipment to do so.

 

[willen101383]

i would agree with those two statements. Stray shots are dangerous but are of course not usually responsible for injuries, but still can be. And of course that's one reason guns are regulated much more than knives! Also, depending on caliber and bullet type, as well as knife type, the knife can be more lethal.

And of course the best bar fight settled with kitchen knives would be if they had only 60 minutes to make the best tasting dish using the secret ingredient; fennel! They would probably both taste like crap though, they would both loose. The point is, get people to stop fighting and try to come up with a good tasting dish using fennel! I'm sure it can be done.

lmao

 

[loveoforganic]

I have a rifle, and use it very often for target practice even though i have never gone hunting, and I actually wouldnt want to. Going down to the range when youre bored, and putting some lead 400-500 yards away on a target beats playing video games....at least for me. At around the same time I was interviewing, I was also going to the range like once a week, so it came up as I was talking about my hobbies. Marksmanship is actually not as easy as it looks. I talked about it at the school that I am going to attend, so I guess its how you come across. As long as you dont come across like a menacing psycho with a gun, youre ok.

What do you shoot? I've been dying to pick this hobby up but just don't have the money. If I secure a gap year job, I'll probably pick up some kind of ar with a varminter upper in 223, but would really really love a 110 ba 338 if I felt like reloading

 

[willen101383]

What do you shoot? I've been dying to pick this hobby up but just don't have the money. If I secure a gap year job, I'll probably pick up some kind of ar with a varminter upper in 223, but would really really love a 110 ba 338 if I felt like reloading

I highly recommend reloading. I reload 45-70, .40sw, and .45ACP. Aside from the fact that I can reload for like a qtr the price of buying...its so relaxing and just fun to reload. Prob isnt worth reloading .223 though. I get 500 rds of .223 for like 120 bucks shipped....cant really beat that.

 

[loveoforganic]

Yes, I certainly wouldn't be reloading 223. $9 lapua otoh... 😛 Don't have money for either at the moment though... So.. 🙁

 

[willen101383]

Yes, I certainly wouldn't be reloading 223. $9 lapua otoh... 😛 Don't have money for either at the moment though... So.. 🙁

haha 45-70 is about 60 dollars for 20 rounds! So similar in price! LOL @ .338 lapua....never fired one yet. The closest thing to that in a long range cartridge ive fired is the 6.5 grendel my buddy has. AR platform competition rifle. Its a long story how he acquired this monster...but he has range data from its previous owner claiming it shoots 1.5MOA @ 600 yrds...which I would believe considering he can shoot cloverleaf groups at 100 yards ALLL day long.

Not that its in the same league...but ever fire a mosin nagant? I purchased one a few weeks ago. That 7.62x54r is a pretty sick ass cartridge in terms of terminal ballistics....not to be confused with your run of the mill 7.62 AK rounds.

 

[willen101383]

Yes, I certainly wouldn't be reloading 223. $9 lapua otoh... 😛 Don't have money for either at the moment though... So.. 🙁

OH and if you have a cabelas around you they have a Lee "anniversary" reloading setup thats like 90 bucks and pretty much gets you in the door with everything you need minus dies and brass/primers/bullets obviously.

 

[loveoforganic]

I haven't fired a nagant, but I hear very good things (great things given the price you can pick them up for.

 

[ElChamaco]

You are forgetting the fact that I train with my firearm at least once a week...usually twice a week. I am EXTREMELY proficient to say the least. As in have no problem hitting you shot after shot under duress in your left ventricle...not right...left. As far as your assumption that I would be shot if I fired my weapon during a robbery that is most likely a lie. You dont pull a gun and brandish it. That is against the law. If my gun comes out of my holster it is coming out and immediately being fired. There wont be words exchanged, there wont be a "stop or ill shoot." I will immediately withdraw my weapon and fire as many shots as I see fit..or until you stop the attack.

As for pulling a gun during a robbery PA law states that you must take all appropriate measures to diffuse the situation prior to using deadly force, unless deadly force is being used upon you. WHich means you have to give up your wallet. The only way I would fire in that situation is if I or my friend or loved one was in direct danger of being killed or gravely injured.

As for staying out of harms way by being out of the ghetto that is also not true. I was robbed with my friends at gun/knife point in a very mainstream area in montreal on a main street. Not even two months ago 4 houses on my street were burglarized at around 3:30pm on a sunday afternoon. Ever heard of home invasion? Its a reality. Maybe not where you grew up or live, but it is a reality. I grew up in upstate NY in a pretty nice area (my dad is a specialist doc and worked his whole career in the glory days of medicine...so draw your own conclusions from that). In high school a house down the road from us was home invaded, the people kept hostage for like 12 hours while they ransacked the home, and beat the living **** out of the husband. It is my right to protect myself and my home and I will do so...no matter how miniscule you think the risk is.

Insurance companies exist for a reason. Whats the chance that you will crash your car into someone and cause 200k worth of hospital related expenses. Pretty small no? But are you willing to drive without insurance (all legal issues aside)? I am sure youre a healthy late teen/early 20 something. Do you roll around without health insurance? Probably not. What is the chance that my house will burn down/flood/have a tree fall on it. Most likely next to nothing. Do I not have a homeowners policy? Of course not.

My pistol is my LIFE insurance. I will probably never have to use it...and sure as hell hope I dont have to. But if and when the time arises I need to protect myself or my loved ones from danger I sure as hell will be glad to have the equipment to do so.

Anyway, perhaps entertaining theoretical mugging situations is not the most productive conversation. The idea is that if you make someone nervous thats holding a gun to you they are likely to discharge it as you are withdrawing a weapon. In any case, this isn't really my point. I'm glad to hear that PA requires you to hand over your wallet and that you wouldn't entertaining using a firearm in that situation anyway.

I understand your reasoning re having a gun being insurance, the only problem with it that I have is that having insurance doesn't put anyone else in danger while the laws and massive firearm production that allows you to have a handgun do. Perhaps there is a reasonable middle ground as you've suggested that could reduce the number of guns, especially those in the street, without forcing people who insist on having a gun in the house.

 

[bige11]

Many of you miss the point on this issue as I am sure you do on many of the other issues. The reason we allow guns in this country is because we are FREE! Unlike Europe or Asia, we are still somewhat free people. In a free society (ideally), you are allowed to own anything you wish, until you take that liberty and/or freedom from someone else. It isn't up to any of you to tell me what I can own and whether or not it will help keep me safe or not. Those statistics could be debated for days, but they really don't matter! Remember, if they can take one freedom (guns), they also can take your other ones! "They that would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

Secondarily, there has never been a despotic government that ruled tyrannically over a population that was armed. That's just a fact.