Well it certainly wouldn't hurt to have the option.

1/31/2011 9:22:10 PM

Quote :

"Then why do street criminals prefer semiautomatics to revolvers? "

What does that have to do with the choice between automatic rifles or handguns?

1/31/2011 9:32:23 PM

You stated that they "favor smaller, more maneuverable and concealable weapons". If that were true then they would prefer revolvers to semiautomatics, they would only prefer semiautomatics if they wanted more firepower. But I'd say you are right in that this is all irrelevant to whether or not criminals would find uses for more powerful weapons if we made them legal, which seems obvious.

1/31/2011 11:19:16 PM

its false that revolvers are any smaller or more maneuverable than semi-automatic handguns. they both come in many shapes and sizes.

1/31/2011 11:37:52 PM

ok mr pedantic, how is this "revolvers are smaller than semiautomatics on average"

1/31/2011 11:50:24 PM

I don't really think that's accurate, either.

and since you mention "more powerful", most of the more powerful handgun rounds are generally found in revolvers (not without exception, but on average).

and evil, scary "assault rifles" are generally not very powerful, relative to sporting weapons.

[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 11:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2011 11:53:01 PM

Most criminals are poor and cannot afford an assault rifle, shotgun or god forbid a solid caliber handgun (9mm, .40, .45). Restrictions on the above weapons only hurt those who want to legally possess this weapons.

The majority of illegal street guns are going to be ,.22 .25, .32.

2/1/2011 12:32:20 AM

Quote :

"and since you mention "more powerful""

I initially set the context with "firepower" to imply that power didn't simply mean muzzle energy, that coupled with rate of fire, size, number of rounds, etc.

Quote :

"Most criminals are poor and cannot afford an assault rifle, shotgun or god forbid a solid caliber handgun (9mm, .40, .45)."

Well a shotgun doesn't really cost much more than any kind of handgun, the cheapest of both can probably be had for less than $200 or so. But they're all fairly cheap compared to a car, or even a computer.

Quote :

"The majority of illegal street guns are going to be ,.22 .25, .32."

I'm pretty sure the 9mm semiauto has take the crown.... yep, I just googled it, you should try it some time.

2/1/2011 1:17:36 AM

Quote :

"ok mr pedantic, how is this "revolvers are smaller than semiautomatics on average""

that's still not true

2/1/2011 7:15:16 AM

^^you're worse than our current politicians. let's just say fuck the constitution and make up laws based on some idiot's flawed whims and make sure big government has complete control over its citizens.

2/1/2011 7:18:05 AM

You must not have read my initial post in this thread.

2/1/2011 9:41:45 AM

Quote :

"Gun access should be permitted on college campuses, at the very least."

Completely agree. If I have my CCW that should be enough. As staff though, I would willingly submit my name and serial # with campus police if that made them sleep better at night. Hell one of my coworkers was working at VT the day that Cho lit everybody up. I would hate to have to barricade myself in my office defenseless while my gun is at home that I have taken training classes and have all proper permits to own and carry concealed at most places, but not at my office.

2/1/2011 10:14:28 AM

I don't understand why it's gun right advocates who are expected to make the case for allowing carry on campus. The responsibility should be on those who want to limit the right to make the case that supports why limiting that right is reasonable. I've never seen anyone do that.

2/1/2011 10:46:38 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the 9mm semiauto has take the crown.... yep, I just googled it, you should try it some time."

Your source please?

2/1/2011 12:14:40 PM

Seems to depend on who you ask and when. I would have guess without any research on 9mm as well, but it does appear to vary:


UPA says in 1985 it was .38 revolvers, and in 1990 it was 9mm pistols

VA says .38 from 89-91

Hawaii says 9mm from 88-92

CA says 9mm in 93 with .22 coming in at a very close second

BATF says .38 in 2000

PLU says .38 in 99

BATF says 9mm in undated interview

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/236976.html

Interestingly, in relation to earlier discussion, according to the BJS, of criminals incarcerated, only 2% carried a "military-style semiautomatic gun". Unfortunately, all their links to the data appear to be broken:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any good studies since the early 80's and 90's and that will skew results given that semiautomatic handguns really started catching on around that time.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/1/2011 1:02:52 PM

if they don't recover the gun or shell casings, are police forensics actually able to distinguish between a 9mm, 357, or 38 special?

2/1/2011 1:45:14 PM

Quote :

"Your source please?"

I didn't post a source on purpose, to show you how rude it is to say something like: "The majority of illegal street guns are going to be ,.22 .25, .32", without doing so much as a google search. I did a google search and found a NYT and Time article to support the claim that I would make that 9mm semiautos are the most popular among street criminals.

2/1/2011 1:46:12 PM

Then post those articles; I didn't pull some statistics out of my ass by saying that, I have first hand knowledge. While it might not be a good national representation of the caliber of handgun used in violent crime, it certainly is valid.

Then again, most all statistics are skewed especially went it comes to homicide. For example, if you are shot with a weapon its either homicide or suicide; there is no in between. So if X shoots Y accidentally; its a homicide even no homicide charges are filled.

2/1/2011 1:58:13 PM

i have read something to the effect of lorcin .25s being the most common gun used in shootings. i don't remember the exact statistic, but i do remember that gun being named specifically

2/1/2011 2:09:27 PM

Quote :

"Then post those articles"

Why must I do the research for you? You made the claim with absolutely no evidence. You're going to have to go to google for this, just like I did.

Quote :

"I have first hand knowledge."

You have first hand knowledge on what the "majority of illegal street guns are"? You might have first hand knowledge on what one illegal street gun was, maybe even a few, but the majority? I don't think so.

2/1/2011 2:12:27 PM

Quote :

"if they don't recover the gun or shell casings, are police forensics actually able to distinguish between a 9mm, 357, or 38 special?"

I don't know specifics, but when bullets came through my roomate's window, the CSI on scene told us pretty much anything <= .32 is impossible to tell.

Quote :

"i have read something to the effect of lorcin .25s being the most common gun used in shootings. i don't remember the exact statistic, but i do remember that gun being named specifically"

Per the quoted BATF interview above:

Quote :

"Q: Why is the Lorcin-380 the most frequently traced gun by the ATF? Wachtel: Well, the ATF National Tracing Center traces firearms that are recovered by police throughout the country, and they keep statistics on the make/models of firearms that are recovered. And currently this gun is the gun that is most frequently submitted by law enforcement agencies for purposes of being traced. Q: So is it fair to say that that's the gun that is most frequently used in crime? Wachtel: Well, I don't know that there's a direct correlation between that. We have reason to believe that [of] the guns most frequently used in crime now, it has actually climbed to the 9mm pistols. But certainly the Lorcin-380 and other relatively inexpensive .380 caliber and 9mm pistols are very frequently used in crimes...The Lorcin's happen to be one of them. "

Quote :

"You have first hand knowledge on what the "majority of illegal street guns are"? You might have first hand knowledge on what one illegal street gun was, maybe even a few, but the majority? I don't think so."

IIRC, Restricted is a cop. At the very least, he's going to have a better working knowledge than an ex-communist turned capitalist pig programmer. Since it doesn't appear anything particularly useful has been done since the early 90's save for one above referenced BATF study in 200 that says .38 the guy with first hand experience with illegal guns holds a bit more weight than an unnamed NYT article from a pedant trying to prove a point.

2/1/2011 4:05:34 PM

Quote :

"if they don't recover the gun or shell casings, are police forensics actually able to distinguish between a 9mm, 357, or 38 special?"

Well, they certainly couldn't tell the difference between a .357 and a .38, as they fire the exact same size bullets (.357). 9mm is within a few thousands of an inch, and it's very close to .38 Special in terms of bullet energy (9x19, i.e. 9mm Luger, that is).

2/1/2011 5:24:11 PM

Quote :

"IIRC, Restricted is a cop. At the very least, he's going to have a better working knowledge than an ex-communist turned capitalist pig programmer."

I could have been a cop had I gotten a degree in a far less useful field, so I don't think that gains him any sort of expertise considering the subject we are talking about is much more aggregated than what one cop would have experience in, still a communist btw.

2/1/2011 5:41:42 PM

Kris makes himself look dumber saying that a police officer would have no experience in what weapons are commonly seen and used in crimes, at the same time trying to make it appear that whatever degree he has would add validity to any argument he may present.

2/1/2011 5:45:12 PM

Quote :

"I think I've already taken down your "I know more about guns than you" argument."

No you didn't. you used a technicality. which is what you were accused of. funny how you left that part out in what you quoted... move along...

Quote :

"I didn't post a source on purpose, to show you how rude it is to say something like:"

so, what you really meant is that you just talked out your ass and hoped nobody would call you on it got it.

Quote :

"Why must I do the research for you?"

because YOU MADE THE FUCKING CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY. so support it.

2/1/2011 6:02:19 PM

Quote :

"The most frequently traced gun was a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver in 1990, the Raven Arms P25, a .25 caliber pistol from 1991 through 1993 , and the Lorcin P25 in 1994."

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm

guess it might be a bit outdated now

2/1/2011 6:54:26 PM

Quote :

"you just talked out your ass and hoped nobody would call you on it"

No, I googled before I made that claim.

2/1/2011 9:23:37 PM

doesn't get much cheaper than a hi-point 9mm

2/2/2011 6:26:47 PM

haha this thread has given me some good laughs... I'm just curious who in here is actually on the side of Kris, btw- not to argue any points here, it just seems like no one is backing him up or siding with him, yet he keeps pushing his side/agenda here.

2/3/2011 10:55:29 PM

I don't really need validation to have an opinion, it doesn't bother me if others do not share it. In general, people who oppose gun control have much more interest than those who support it. As I said in my OP, I don't care enough to spend any political capital on the subject, and if I were able to do anything, I would only outlaw handguns. Of course all of that goes for the real world, this is the internet, so ITT we have a good number of crazy libertarians who think people should be able to own their own tanks or nuclear weapons and gun nerds who want to own a bunch of assault rifles so they can jack off imagining they are rambo or some such nonsense, they are no different than the fat neckbearded mouthbreathers who collect swords and ninja stars. Fact is I don't really care that much about enlarging current gun control, it's not that bad the way it is, but people who pretend that gun control itself has a negative or zero effect are just plain wrong.

2/3/2011 11:10:31 PM

I know a lot of people posting in this thread, and I don't believe a single person here matches that description you just gave. Nice stereotyping generalization though....




[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2011 1:34:43 AM

^^sounds just like normal, liberal, anti-gun rhetoric. no real position, no real reasons, just "guns are bad", and a personal insult or 2.

2/4/2011 7:28:18 AM

Quote :

"I don't believe a single person here matches that description you just gave"

I'm sure your precieved image of yourself does not fit that description, but I'm pretty sure it's spot on.

Quote :

"no real position, no real reasons"

I gave a very specific position:
"I don't care enough to spend any political capital on the subject, and if I were able to do anything, I would only outlaw handguns."
and I've given reasons throughout the thread

2/4/2011 9:09:27 AM

You stated that anyone with a pro-gun ownership stance either:

1) Wants everyone to be riding a tank/and or packing a tactical nuke.
2) Wants fully automatic rifles because they imagine themselves as Rambo.

Nope. Definitely no irrational and completely unfounded sweeping generalizations there.

2/4/2011 11:35:30 AM

I truly and sincerely cannot honestly believe that there is anyone who, whether or not they have the motivation to do so, believe that making handguns illegal would make anything better.

Besides the fact that you would no longer be able to conceal carry (which, by the way, is done by nearly unanimously law-abiding citizens), as someone posted earlier, you're only hurting the people who aren't criminals.

Jesus, how am I even getting sucked in to this against someone who said that gun laws must work, because laws against grenades work?

2/4/2011 12:10:33 PM

Quote :

"how am I even getting sucked in to this against someone who said that gun laws must work, because laws against grenades work?"

You are mistating my argument. Someone else made the claim that arm control laws don't limit criminals from obtaining those arms. I used the grenade argument to show that explosive control laws have prevented many criminals from obtaining those controlled explosives.

2/4/2011 1:04:03 PM

In NC we may be adding to the list of justifiable uses of force:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/HTML/S34v1.html

Quote :

"The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: § 14-51.2. Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. (a) The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (3) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer. (4) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply: (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling or residence, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling or residence. (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

2/20/2011 6:56:11 AM

That's not changing anything about what is justifiable use of force. That's a fairly common element of law called "castle doctrine", which we have been trying to get in NC for years. All it does is provide immunity from lawsuit in the case of a justified SD shooting. That is, in the current system, you can still be sued by the "victim" or their family if you shoot them in the act of a home invasion.

Even justifiably shooting someone ends up costing a small fortune in legal fees either with the state, the criminal or their family, or both. If this amendment is added, you are immune so long as it was a determinably justifiable use of deadly force.

2/20/2011 8:39:59 AM

That is actually one of the most reasonable castle doctrines out there. The obnoxious ones are the ones that allow you to use deadly force even without a threat of violence against you/someone in your home. That, and the ones where you don't have a duty to retreat first.

2/20/2011 3:07:38 PM

You don't have a duty to retreat in that law, what states do you have a duty to retreat inside your home?

2/20/2011 5:17:08 PM

You're right about NC. It's actually in the section right before the one the one Supplanter posted.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-51.1.html

Also in reading that, I realized that NC actually does the provision which allows you to kill even when there isn't a threat of deadly force. All you need is the reasonable belief that the person is going to commit a felony.

2/20/2011 5:32:37 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/9143402/

2/20/2011 6:25:48 PM

^ from that story:

Quote :

"Colorado gives colleges the option and several have allowed handguns."

And note that we haven't had any crazy rampages from those stupidly deranged CCW holders... wow!

2/20/2011 8:17:06 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/19/1001335/nc-police-uncle-shot-niece-after.html

Quote :

"WHITTIER, N.C. -- Police in western North Carolina are investigating a fatal shooting they believe took place when a man shot his niece after thinking an intruder was breaking into his home. Jackson County sheriffs said that Hannah Kathryn Frey entered her uncle's home before the 24-year-old was shot. Police said 49-year-old James Dennis Eller called 911 after the shooting. Authorities said in a statement that Eller believed someone was breaking into his home in Whittier early Friday morning."

wdprice3:

Quote :

"criminal background check mental health background check done"

Could encouraging more training and situational awareness help out in a situation like this? Not necessarily requiring it, but maybe the checklist there should be expanded?

2/21/2011 4:45:24 AM

Any ideas?

(that's a legitimate question...not trying to be a smartass)

2/21/2011 7:39:13 AM

The current system does require a remedial training course for CCW's, but unfortunately I don't know if anything besides not being a trigger-happy dumbass could have prevented the scenario above. That's in his own home, so there's no guarantee that he ever had any formal training.

What happened there is gross negligence, and he should be prosecuted accordingly. One of the first things they teach you is to never shoot until you have identified your target and everything around them. I find it somewhat hard to believe that he would just open up on someone without even looking at them, but you never know. People do dumber stuff every day.

2/21/2011 10:01:38 AM

I think safety and maintenace training courses would be a good idea. Grant a once per year tax credit to citizens who take an accredited course.

It would be optional, but you'd make the credit slightly higher than the raw costs of the course in order to create training businesses.

Trainer applies for federal accredidation at own expense. They're willing to fork over the cash up front because they know once they have that accredidation they can get those sweet sweet consumer tax credit dollarbucks.

All of it is optional so theres no violation of rights, but at the same time theres a pretty strong incentive to get people trained. And (correct me if Im wrong) I imagine many gun stores/ranges offer basic training classes already so its not like its gonna be some huge burden coming from outta nowhere.

As far as restrictions go, im not sure I agree with banning ex-cons from ownership. They served their time. If they aren't rehabilitated then thats a problem with the prison system.

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 10:10 AM. Reason : a]

2/21/2011 10:09:59 AM

i mean if we're gonna start banning things because retards occasionally do dumb things, then I'd put sugar, cheese, and tobacco on the chopping block well before guns.

2/21/2011 10:12:19 AM

Quote :

"Any ideas?"

It's fruitless to try to stop all accidents, and I think any more than we're doing now to prevent them wouldn't be worth it. People are expected to know the dangers of owning a weapon, just like when people drive or shoot off fireworks. I think that the rarity of incidents such as the one posted show that we are doing our due effort to prevent them, you can only do so much.

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2011 7:02:57 PM

^From an article about the same incident:

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110219/NEWS/302190032/1009/NEWS01/Sheriff-s-Office-Whittier-man-mistakenly-kills-niece

Quote :

"In his eight years as district attorney, Bonfoey recalled two cases in which someone was shot after being mistaken for an intruder."

This is too anecdotal to draw any inclusions. But your point how often accidents happen is a good one. I tried to google up some statistics on gun accidents but didn't immediately come across anything.

2/21/2011 9:15:47 PM