It is unreasonable to change laws based on essentially a statistical anomaly. Not to mention hardly any legislation beyond a full ban and confiscation could have prevented such a tragedy and then it is still not certain.

1/9/2013 10:32:45 AM

Can we change the law based on the the statistical anomaly and the shit-ton of people guns kill a year? Would that be ok with skywalkr?

I'm just kidding btw, because there's no way in fuck there's going to be any meaningful change in gun laws.

[Edited on January 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2013 10:42:02 AM

no, we should not do that because a guy stopped a gunman by pointing his pistol at him at a mall but the media covered it up

1/9/2013 12:42:10 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/vice-president-to-meet-with-gun-safety-groups/

Quote :

"The White House has sought to avoid prejudging what Biden's recommendations would be. But the vice president hinted Wednesday that executive action -- action by the president in which Congress would not have a say -- would indeed be involved. "

Are we able to chalk this up to Biden just being "crazy Uncle Joe" or is this something to seriously be concerned about? I can't believe that he would even mention something so drastic as this.

1/9/2013 3:46:28 PM

Something like the gun show loophole could probably be closed with an executive order. That would be a good start. Also lol @Drudge.

1/9/2013 3:52:05 PM

wish i had a % of the take at gun stores over the next couple of weeks.

1/9/2013 5:38:39 PM

You guys are terrific for the industry.

1/9/2013 5:58:20 PM

Saw an opinion article earlier today, on making guns smarter so as to avoid some of the problems plaguing America. It seems like a idea worth exploring perhaps at face value.... But after about 30 seconds of reading, it was apparent that some of the ideas bounced around would only result in people not being able to use their gun when thy needed to.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/shane-smarter-guns/index.html?hpt=op_t1

1/9/2013 6:17:41 PM

Quote :

"Are we able to chalk this up to Biden just being "crazy Uncle Joe" or is this something to seriously be concerned about? I can't believe that he would even mention something so drastic as this."

Why not? It should be fairly obvious to anyone that the amount of respect our elected officials have for the rule of law has been vanishing for decades. And the contempt our politicians hold for their constituents and the American people has become more and more obvious with each passing day. It was inevitable that they would begin slipping up.

1/9/2013 6:42:58 PM

In a way executive orders balance out lobbyist power, but both are bad for the country.

1/9/2013 7:46:38 PM

the political backlash for even threatening this type of shit is gonna be awesome

1/9/2013 8:03:21 PM

^^^^ Yeah, that dude has got to be fucking high, or insane, or both.

Quote :

"Something like the gun show loophole could probably be closed with an executive order."

No. I'm almost positive that such an action would be directly contrary to the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Executive order is a mechanism for more vigorously enforcing existing laws.

1/9/2013 8:18:55 PM

dunno if its legit but some article about gun and ammo registration protection hidden within obamacare is making its rounds on my facebook.

hard to take it seriously since my friends are focusing on the "haha maybe nancy pelosi should have read it before passing it, etc."

on the other hand the claim is harry reid added it himself to keep the NRA out of negotiations. they were afraid premiums would be unfairly raised on gun owners, or something.

*shrug*

figured it was worth your investigation. merry christmas if true.

on the other hand congress is fond of writing laws to undo recently written laws as of late.

1/9/2013 8:40:20 PM

It would be a huge stretch to make it about registration, it just makes doctors unable to ask about guns in the one and health insurance not to change rates based on it. It addresses records of guns in regards to medical records.

[Edited on January 9, 2013 at 9:14 PM. Reason : Added by NRA]

1/9/2013 9:13:52 PM

Was reading how Obama is contemplating an executive order to ban assault weapons. I really think this is something that should go through Congress, IMO.

1/10/2013 6:43:26 AM

There isn't really a question of that happening.

Any ban or mag limit, registration measures, etc, all has to go through Congress anyway.

Executive orders don't work like everyone thinks they do. He can't just suddenly tell the DOJ to start prosecuting everyone that doesn't eat macaroni and cheese.

1/10/2013 6:47:11 AM

He can't even, more reasonably, tell the ATF to start releasing the rich data on firearms fatalities that it has been gathering over the years and Congress kept saying it couldn't spend money to release: http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM. Reason : disambiguation

1/10/2013 8:03:20 AM

You mean the same data the FBI already gives us?

1/10/2013 8:24:29 AM

1/10/2013 9:21:36 AM

LOL on the Drudge post. Which is it? Hitler or Stalin? You can't have both.

1/10/2013 9:25:44 AM

Why don't you read a book instead of trying to be a cheeky cunt for all your gun-control friends?

Drudge is a sensationalist; surprise of the century.

You don't think Stalin and Hitler were both dictators?

You don't think gun control has a long standing association with authoritarianism?

Stalin's measures were more complete in 1929 than the Nazis who only banned weapons among Jews 10 years later (surprise).

For a number of reasons he should probably just go with Stalin, but God knows a large percentage of Drudge viewers probably wouldn't recognize him. Hitler of course is basically the most famous person ever.

I'm assuming whatever point you were trying to make had something to do with them being mortal enemies or having opposing ideologies? Doesn't mean they didn't oppress their populations in similar ways.

1/10/2013 10:42:07 AM

The best part is Nazi Germany greatly expanded gun rights for Germans (who weren't Jewish of course).

1/10/2013 10:48:21 AM

But they have a lower felony rate than LEO's!

1/10/2013 10:55:23 AM

Was reading some bloggers say that Obama could sign an executive order for banning assault weapons on some basis of them being legal is an issue of national security. Not sure how much merit there is in this.

1/10/2013 3:56:01 PM

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/01/military-drawing-up-plans-for-nation-wide-gun-confiscations/

1/10/2013 6:31:31 PM

Quote :

"gun control has a long standing association with authoritarianism"

If the people voted democratically for gun control, then it wouldn't be authoritarian.

1/10/2013 6:39:19 PM

officials ignoring the will of the people and passing laws is not, though.

1/10/2013 6:42:29 PM

So why not hold it to a national vote of what the restrictions of gun use and ownership should be

1/10/2013 6:49:00 PM

We don't live in a democracy, the will of the people is not the final or only thing that matters. We did that on purpose.

1/10/2013 6:51:26 PM

Who decides what would be voted on?
This is where the need to actual conversation comes in, and is promptly shut down.
10% are "get off my lawn"
10% are guns kill kittens and babies
The rest feel there can be common ground but never get their voices heard.

1/10/2013 6:51:28 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Quote :

"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year [2009] - a rise of 89 per cent."

I have a pretty liberal friend saying that gun crimes have greatly dropped in the UK and Austrailia where they have bans. The statistics speak otherwise. Gun control laws won't always equal less gun crimes.

EDIT: when looking at 2005/2006 gun crimes did go down down a slight bit, but I think there are stats showing the same decrease or flat lining in the US.

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 7:03 PM. Reason : d]

1/10/2013 7:00:43 PM

What are the gun crime numbers through 2012

1/10/2013 7:16:19 PM

Those numbers aren't released yet, at least not accurately.
Generally there is a two year lag between generally accepted numbers and now.
Some statistics are from one year ago, and are probably close as well, ie 2011.

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2013 7:30:49 PM

London:

2006-07: 3034
2007-08: 3429
2008-09: 3022
2009-10: 3460
2010-11: 2708

Gun crimes... most the stats I find go up and down and stay at relatively the same rate since 2005-2006. People often only look at one year to the next rather than a wider picture.

1/10/2013 7:31:34 PM

Quote :

"We don't live in a democracy"

Woah woah woah. Are you fucking kidding me?

1/10/2013 7:54:54 PM

Nope, take a civics class

1/10/2013 8:19:31 PM

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. Lets dust of the old geometry proof for a moment:

If we enact stricter gun legislation, then more guns/mags will become illegal/registered domestically

If more guns/mags become illegal/registered domestically, then demand for those guns/mags, mostly by criminals, will have to be filled by the foreign black market

If criminals have to get their guns/mags on the foreign black market, then trafficking weapons them from Mexico will become highly profitable and rampant

If trafficking weapons from Mexico becomes rampant, then the US will have to lock-down and control the border to enforce gun control

Therefor: Gun Control = Border Control

And as we all know: Border Control = Racism

Then we can all agree: Gun Control = Racism... And racism is bad! Numbers don't lie!

Just stirring the pot. Pay me no mind.

1/11/2013 2:00:53 AM

Given a, b, and c where:
a = Drug Cartel and illegal drugs
b = Gun Control and gun runners
c = effectiveness of the lock-down and control the border to enforce control

IF a = b and a = c,
THEN b = c

We can see how effective the US is with keeping foreign drugs from entering the US sector across borders via cartel networks. Make the Black Market a "monopoly" for gun trafficing/sales and you can apply the same logic to guns as you can illegal drugs; people looking to score will get what they are looking for by any means necessary.

So yeah, big picture, those looking to break the law to get what they want are still going to get what they want and the last thing we want is criminals with guns. So why would we encourage the criminal market by providing them with a business opportunity/market?

Good analogy Pred73.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 3:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2013 3:54:27 AM

Quote :

"So why would we encourage the criminal market by providing them with a business opportunity/market?"

The gun is going to always be cheaper when legally obtainable. It's why you see mass murders in the US with rifles and not rocket launchers.

In fact, you're actually creating a barrier for entry for most of these school shootings, because it's far more likely for a kid to have a parent with an "assault rifle" than have the criminal connections to access the black market high capacity round club.

1/11/2013 4:45:02 AM

^you mean standard capacity round club. As opposed to the low capacity round club that some states have.

1/11/2013 9:42:54 AM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

Mildly humorous.

1/11/2013 12:16:34 PM

Argue against the 10-round mag restriction.

I like guns and have no qualms with hi-capacity mags, but there is no valid argument FOR them (imo) other than a SHTF situation (rising against the govt and whatnot).

Points about "oh a trained person can load multiple mags just as fast as a high-cap mag" is BS. Add the stress levels in a real situation and it's complete BS.

Imagine giving a soldier a bunch of 10-rd mags and sending him into battle (let's say weight is no issue), HA. He NEEDS the high cap mags to do his job: kill people with the least interruptions possible/chance of being compromised. Or go the other way. If the soldier could have a magic normal-sized magazine that holds 200 rounds, you bet your ass he'd take it.

All I see is "look they're not bad because blah blah blah." How about some reasons why they're good?

1/11/2013 8:14:44 PM

Low round mags are only a disadvantage to people using guns legally and not those in mass shooting situations,

1/11/2013 8:23:27 PM

They're not a disadvantage in a mass shooting situation? How so? They have to carry more mags, hide mags, fumble for the mags, and reload with their heart in their throat. Again, I'd liken it to a battlefield (i.e. mass shooting situation); are there no disadvantages to having low-cap mags there? There sure are.

How does it put a law-abiding citizen at a disadvantage? More reloading at the range? Mag doesn't look as cool? I want specifics.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2013 8:55:06 PM

Cho had a backpack full of magazines at VT, when you are shooting unarmed people reloading a few more times doesn't matter.

It hurts a law abiding person because if they need to defend themselves against an intruder, they want to be able to fire as many times as needed until the intruder stops.

The 10rd cutoff is arbitrary

1/11/2013 9:31:26 PM

be that as it may, a backpack full of mags equals fumbling around, and the toll would have been even worse if he had a bunch of 33-round mags for his Glock, wouldn't you agree?

As far as the defending yourself part, I see a lot of this mentality when I was researching home defense shotguns:
"If I can't solve the problem with 5 rounds of buckshot I'm probably way outmatched"
"My Mav 88 is a 5+1. If that isn't enough, call the National Guard"
What are the 20-round shotgun drums for? And for a more apples-to-apples comparison, revolvers with their piddly 6 rounds are regarded as the next best thing to shotguns for HD.

1/11/2013 10:17:33 PM

each round of buckshot in the shotgun holds 8 or 9 pellets of .33" caliber each

Quote :

"revolvers with their piddly 6 rounds are regarded as the next best thing to shotguns for HD."

the only time a revolver makes sense over a semi-auto pistol with 15+ rounds would be if you're not gonna practice much. if you don't practice, you're more likely to limp-wrist the semi-auto under pressure and then it'll jam.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 PM. Reason : adfs]

1/11/2013 10:52:58 PM

Yeah, it's why small frame hammerless revolvers are usually recommended as purse guns for small women

1/11/2013 11:28:03 PM

I find that to be a poor recommendation as a small revolver like that is far from enjoyable to shoot and far from easy to be accurate with. A heavier revolver is a better option IMO.

1/11/2013 11:46:12 PM

AR's and 10/22's aren't self defense guns. Why do they need 20,25,30-round mags? Seems like it just comes down to cool factor or "it's fun to shoot a bunch of ammo quickly."

1/12/2013 1:18:04 AM