From 2006 thru 2010 firearms related deaths have fallen by almost 17% , so again these statistics point to a reduction of firearm related violence AFTER the assault weapons ban of '92 expired.
Knowing this, why is there such an urgent push to pass fireams laws that have proven not to work.
With violent crime and murder going down by 50% in the last 20 years I am curious which part of the firearms bans have been successful in actually reducing these crimes ?
The violent crimes and murders started declining 2 years before the failed assault weapons ban of '94 and continued to decline 7 years after the sun set on that ignorant idea, so again with the population increasing the violence and murders dropped.
In 1992 violent crimes accounted for 757 per 100000 and murders were at 9.3 per 100000
in 2011 Violent crimes accounted for 386 per 100000 and murders were at 4.7 per 100000
By the way, Great Brittan and Wales have a violent crime rate 3.5 times greater than the United States which is at 1361 per 100000.
Though they have a lower murder rate which is at 1.3 which is about 3.5 times lower than ours we have a population almost 6 times larger than theirs.
So again how do the gun grabbing ideas actually work according to the numbers ?
Bunch of pathetic losers bent on some twisted agenda based on moronic ideals that do not work
EMPIRE_GEORGE_----------- replies: are you just a poor-uneducated speller, or was the correct spelled word, Imposter George already taken ? ____________________________________________ Imp, the next time you see an incorrectly spelled word, take out your red permanent marker and draw a circle around it. God it?
Seriously? Well, think like a beaurocrat and their passion for money and control. They will devise a life cycle and can throw a wrench into sales at any time.
> Request to sell to Feds, request for background check (with fee), report of findings in background (with fee), second checks through local, country, and state police (at their leisure), notification and approval of family and neighbors (with plenty of time to reply and file disapprovals) which can lead to a hearing and further fees and delays, re-registration through an FLF (with fee), and whenever the owner moves, re-notification of new neighbors.
OK, unlikely? Overstated? Maybe, but just you consider government agencies you've had to deal with before. How about: Building permits, changes to houses or landscaping in a homeowner's association or house preservation area, privte used car sales when there's a hiccup with the vehicle's emission system, etc, etc.
You forgot jacked up sales tax, special transfer fees, home inspection fees, excise-like tax, yearly registration fees and annual ownership taxes. Also, you may only buy ammunition for the firearm you have registered. Further, if under Obamacare you report certain illnesses, are prescribed Meds for depression or other illnesses, OR are Diagnosed with certain illnesses, your firearms will be siezed.
Still thinking like a beaurocrat, annual recurring requirements (with fees): home safety re-certification, firearm handling re-certification. Further, "home safety recertification" can be carried out at will by any law enforcement agency AND if you get any tickets or neighbor "suspicious" complaints, your firearms are seized.
Old? Crazy? Outlanish? Perhaps, but like he/she said, just think about gov agencies you've seen evolve avid have dealt with.
To 1PHEASANT1 - true. I advocate property, family, and self-protection with "sensible" firearms, not anything else. Sensible is, of course, defined individually.
I still can't figure out why responsible gun owner would not want the guns to be heavily regulated. That would divide the legal vs, the illegal owners. It would slow the pipeline of legal to illegal guns because legal gun owner would have to report thefts and could not just sell of give them away to unqualified people who have not been trained, checked and whose families have not been notified. Eventually guns will wear out and the illegals would run out of new weapons.
Slow do you know police are trained to shoot to kill and they ever shoot to wound their jobs can be in jeapordy?
-----------
Actually, SMOKEY, you're incorrect. Police officers are not "trained to shoot to kill."
They are trained just like any other well-trained person with guns is trained. They are trained to shoot the "center of mass." That is their official training. They target shoot to hit the most 'centered' part of a target- the center of its mass. Wounding or killing is not in the training lexicon.
Whether it is a trained sharpshooter, or a patrolmen who draws his gun on the street in a moment's haste, their training each dictates to aim a gun the center of mass, which for a sharpshooter may at times be a much more limited piece of real estate than a beat cop suddenly finding himself in a gunfight with a street subject.
Now if you're talking about an experienced hunter going for any number of targets within a wide range of large, somewhat irregularly-shaped game animals, well that's a little different tactic. Somewhat, anyhow.
You wouldn't gun hunt crocodile, in terms of your exact aim, the way you would a deer or turkey, is all.
So why do the "responsible gun owners" have a problem with strict regulation? Do they want non responsible gun owners around with guns? Or are they just reactionaries who believe anything a gun manufacturer front group (NRA) says?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
From 2006 thru 2010 firearms related deaths have fallen by almost 17% , so again these statistics point to a reduction of firearm related violence AFTER the assault weapons ban of '92 expired.
Knowing this, why is there such an urgent push to pass fireams laws that have proven not to work.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
With violent crime and murder going down by 50% in the last 20 years I am curious which part of the firearms bans have been successful in actually reducing these crimes ?
The violent crimes and murders started declining 2 years before the failed assault weapons ban of '94 and continued to decline 7 years after the sun set on that ignorant idea, so again with the population increasing the violence and murders dropped.
In 1992 violent crimes accounted for 757 per 100000 and murders were at 9.3 per 100000
in 2011 Violent crimes accounted for 386 per 100000 and murders were at 4.7 per 100000
By the way, Great Brittan and Wales have a violent crime rate 3.5 times greater than the United States which is at 1361 per 100000.
Though they have a lower murder rate which is at 1.3 which is about 3.5 times lower than ours we have a population almost 6 times larger than theirs.
So again how do the gun grabbing ideas actually work according to the numbers ?
Bunch of pathetic losers bent on some twisted agenda based on moronic ideals that do not work
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/june/crimes_061112/crimes_061112
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0812/hosb0812?view=Binary
are you just a poor-uneducated speller, or was the correct spelled word, Imposter George already taken ?
____________________________________________
Imp, the next time you see an incorrectly spelled word, take out your red permanent marker and draw a circle around it. God it?
> Request to sell to Feds, request for background check (with fee), report of findings in background (with fee), second checks through local, country, and state police (at their leisure), notification and approval of family and neighbors (with plenty of time to reply and file disapprovals) which can lead to a hearing and further fees and delays, re-registration through an FLF (with fee), and whenever the owner moves, re-notification of new neighbors.
OK, unlikely? Overstated? Maybe, but just you consider government agencies you've had to deal with before. How about: Building permits, changes to houses or landscaping in a homeowner's association or house preservation area, privte used car sales when there's a hiccup with the vehicle's emission system, etc, etc.
Still thinking like a beaurocrat, annual recurring requirements (with fees): home safety re-certification, firearm handling re-certification. Further, "home safety recertification" can be carried out at will by any law enforcement agency AND if you get any tickets or neighbor "suspicious" complaints, your firearms are seized.
Old? Crazy? Outlanish? Perhaps, but like he/she said, just think about gov agencies you've seen evolve avid have dealt with.
Only in AZ and TX would I feel really comfortable using a firearm for protection, otherwise you risk going to jail yourself.
Bad guys in AZ fully expect to be shot.
TX has a saying "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."
Slow do you know police are trained to shoot to kill and they ever shoot to wound their jobs can be in jeapordy?
-----------
Actually, SMOKEY, you're incorrect. Police officers are not "trained to shoot to kill."
They are trained just like any other well-trained person with guns is trained. They are trained to shoot the "center of mass." That is their official training. They target shoot to hit the most 'centered' part of a target- the center of its mass. Wounding or killing is not in the training lexicon.
Whether it is a trained sharpshooter, or a patrolmen who draws his gun on the street in a moment's haste, their training each dictates to aim a gun the center of mass, which for a sharpshooter may at times be a much more limited piece of real estate than a beat cop suddenly finding himself in a gunfight with a street subject.
You wouldn't gun hunt crocodile, in terms of your exact aim, the way you would a deer or turkey, is all.