Yokkiziikzekker
Well-known member
The most pro-gun of us all are those who want to use guns to take guns and consolidate those guns into the hands of the police. -shrug-
The most pro-gun of us all are those who want to use guns to take guns and consolidate those guns into the hands of the police. -shrug-
Why not? They certainly seem to be obsessed with Trump whom they accuse of being a dictator (when dictatorial practices by the US executive extend FAAAAR before Trump, lel). Both sides of the aisle have argued in favor of disarming the citizens, even Trump himself argued for taking the guns first and going through due process later.IIRC, isn't the reason gun control isn't working in cities like Chicago and NYC and DC is because there's a vibrant internal gun-smuggling trade in the US? Where gun-runners go to states or areas with looser gun laws, purchase firearms, and then bring them back to the gun control areas and sell them on the street? That's why the Democrats are pushing for nation-wide gun control, because without those rules being imposed from coast to coast, no gun control scheme can ever properly work?
(And no, I don't buy the "Democrats want to be a socialist dictatorship" argument, it sounds like histrionics.)
IIRC, isn't the reason gun control isn't working in cities like Chicago and NYC and DC is because there's a vibrant internal gun-smuggling trade in the US? Where gun-runners go to states or areas with looser gun laws, purchase firearms, and then bring them back to the gun control areas and sell them on the street? That's why the Democrats are pushing for nation-wide gun control, because without those rules being imposed from coast to coast, no gun control scheme can ever properly work?
(And no, I don't buy the "Democrats want to be a socialist dictatorship" argument, it sounds like histrionics.)
Why not? They certainly seem to be obsessed with Trump whom they accuse of being a dictator (when dictatorial practices by the US executive extend FAAAAR before Trump, lel). Both sides of the aisle have argued in favor of disarming the citizens, even Trump himself argued for taking the guns first and going through due process later.
Mostly they're just stolen. You don't tend to see large rings of straw purchasing because there's no profit in it. Nobody is going to pay full price for a gun just to sell it do some banger thug at a discount.IIRC, isn't the reason gun control isn't working in cities like Chicago and NYC and DC is because there's a vibrant internal gun-smuggling trade in the US? Where gun-runners go to states or areas with looser gun laws, purchase firearms, and then bring them back to the gun control areas and sell them on the street? That's why the Democrats are pushing for nation-wide gun control, because without those rules being imposed from coast to coast, no gun control scheme can ever properly work?
(And no, I don't buy the "Democrats want to be a socialist dictatorship" argument, it sounds like histrionics.)
Mostly they're just stolen. You don't tend to see large rings of straw purchasing because there's no profit in it. Nobody is going to pay full price for a gun just to sell it do some banger thug at a discount.
Where do you think criminals in those countries get their guns from?Do you seriously think that our porous southern border will be able to keep guns from Central-American Failed and Near-Failed States out?
Have you considered putting your glasses back on?This looks a lot like victim blaming to me.
So why are you restricting explosives?You aren't going to stop someone who wants to commit a mass shooting by restricting guns. Somebody that unhinged will use explosives or firebombs instead. What are you going to do? Outlaw gasoline because it can be used to make molotovs?
Step one, decriminalisation.If you want to solve gun related crime then the first step is to solve the War on Drugs.
I support the full legalization of all drugs. I think drug use is idiotic but also think that the government has zero right to control what you choose to do with your own body.Step one, decriminalisation.
Drug use should be treated as a medical issue rather than a legal issue. Although considering the US medical system, that would probably drive drug prices through the roof and encourage even more black market drug trade...I support the full legalization of all drugs. I think drug use is idiotic but also think that the government has zero right to control what you choose to do with your own body.
Major sources for black market guns are weapons stolen from Army or Police arsenals (this is the major source of cartel weaponry with South American military personnel doing a lively trade in depot stores), and smuggled weaponry from the Far East or from Eastern European countries. Other sources, mostly of lower quality weapons, are the Middle East and Africa (big surprise there). There are (roughly) 550 million personal firearms (rifles and handguns) floating around which is enough to arm one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral question that faces us is how do we arm the other 11?Not quite, the majority are bought from the black market, according to this DOJ report. At least on the user end, I'm not quite sure how those guns get to the black market, but given the relatively short time between pruchase and recovery for many guns, straw purchasing seems likely.
Major sources for black market guns are weapons stolen from Army or Police arsenals (this is the major source of cartel weaponry with South American military personnel doing a lively trade in depot stores), and smuggled weaponry from the Far East or from Eastern European countries. Other sources, mostly of lower quality weapons, are the Middle East and Africa (big surprise there).
The second bit highlighted in green is highly dubiously sourced. Basically, nothing good or honest ever came out of Chicago. Organized criminal gangs these days tend to hold stocks of black market weaponry as "gun libraries" with their members borrowing a gun for a specific act and then returning it (and woe betide them if they lose it). It's not uncommon for recovered weapons to have been used in multiple unconnected crimes.
Street gangs who are the most prolific users of illegal weapons buy cheap stuff smuggled in from abroad.
Makarov PMs are common handguns and AKs are commonplace rifles.
See somebody shooting a full-automatic AK-47 or AK-74 and its almost certain you're looking at a smuggled weapon.
The bit about gang gun libraries is interesting because it does show that these guns are around for a long time. When they are recovered, they have long histories, sometimes a decade or more.
The problem is that you are using a very narrow source base. Chicago is a very dubious source for any kind of data since the agencies there sing the company song (ie Democrat) to the exclusion of anything else.
I'd suggest you look at FBI, BATFE and ICE data rather than that from a single , highly corrupt city.
A good example of what happens south of the border was the story of the Zetas. They were formed by the Mexican government as an elite anti-cartel strike force and given the best equipment the Government could by. The strike force looked at what they had, what they were being paid and promptly joined the cartels. Then they took them over. That's pretty much standard down there. The cartels use military-grade hardware which one cannot buy in US gun stores. The flow of weaponry across the southern border is south-to-north, not north-to-south.
By the way, look through the DoJ report you quote and you'll see it virtually discounts straw purchases as a source of criminal handguns (0.2 percent of the total). There is also a problem with its database in that it was constructed using criminals in prison. By definition, that's the unsuccessful ones. Also, criminals lie (hoodathunkit) and the information they part with is not reliable. Inplicitly the report authors recognize this when they state that successful criminals purchase guns legally because they have never been caught and thus don't have criminal records. Also, they are not in prison so their outlook is not included.
Well thats fairly easy. For that just look at FBI murder statistics by weapon. You will find that AR-15s are less likely to end a life than household objects like hammers are.) A coherent way of measuring the types of guns banned in combination with how dangerous they are. Some form of weighted average system and higher values going to more dangerous guns.
Well thats fairly easy. For that just look at FBI murder statistics by weapon. You will find that AR-15s are less likely to end a life than household objects like hammers are.
Kind of. Its not allowed for deer depending on the state but it is allowed for boar and coyote typically. Definitely a no on big game like Elk as far as I'm aware. There's some myth that 5.56 is high powered, but that's bs. Assault rifles fire intermediate cartridges which means it is between a pistol round and a full sized rifle round in power. The round type was designed by the germans in WWII because they found that the average combat engagement distance was typically under 200m, and full sized rifle rounds are high powered enough to reach out and be effective much further than that but weren't necessarily as good closer, and good luck trying to hit anything at 200m with a pistol. So the intermediate round was invented as a cartridge looking for a gun until the STG-44 came about. The round the AR-15 fires is also intermediate and optimized for combat, but optimized for combat just doesn't equal lethality.Hell, isn't 5.56 considered inhuman to use for hunting human sized animals, because it's not lethal enough to kill them quickly and reliably?