<p>
</p>
<p>Are you referring to the the magazines being taped together, “jungle taped”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part do you want to restrict? The round size, the velocity, the magazine capacity, etc?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We need to ban tape. It’s too easy to get ahold of.</p>
<p>[DefDist</a> Printed AR Mag - Part II - YouTube](<a href=“DefDist Printed AR Mag - Part II - YouTube”>DefDist Printed AR Mag - Part II - YouTube)</p>
<p>Should we ban 3d printers since they can print high capacity magazines? How about it’s time to admit your argument is completely ridiculous.</p>
<p>“851” is a red herring. It is distracting us from much larger annual numbers:
~13,000 gun homicides
~17,000 gun suicides
~70,000 gun accidents (fatal + non-fatal)
~394,000 gun crimes</p>
<p>Against these numbers, you can weigh:
< 300 justifiable gun homicides
- PLUS -
(some number N of defensive uses of firearms)</p>
<p>Estimates of N go as high as the ~1 million figure quotes earlier (or, if you prefer, “989,883”). From what I’ve seen so far, I think the most reliable number may be closer to 65,000/year. This is the McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate based on NCVS/census data. Even that, I suspect, is fairly liberal in what it counts.</p>
<p>John Lott, Gary Kleck and other NRA spokespersons probably would like to jack that up to something closer to the total number of firearms legally in circulation, on the theory that every single gun owned by a law-abiding citizen is a “defensive use”. Whatever. If we accept their ~1 million figure, it appears there is still a frightfully high cost in collateral damage to hold the crime numbers down to levels far, far higher than what other countries get from near-zero defensive uses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then explain how switzerland has a gun homicide rate of only 0.5 per 100,000, which is the lowest in Europe, yet almost 50% of their citizens own assault rifles?
That’s a lower gun homicide rate than the UK which has banned guns. There’s statistics for you.</p>
<p>Yes, Switzerland is an interesting case.
It has very widespread gun ownership (though still not as high as the US rate). However, this ownership and use is very closely tied to a “well-regulated militia” concept (not personal protection or recreational use). Able-bodied Swiss men remain part of the militia as reservists until age 30 (or 34 for officers). The distribution of ammunition is limited; storage is strictly regulated and subject to regular inspection. That is, it was until 2007. In that year, the Swiss government decided to end distribution of ammo to all but MP and rapid deployment units. </p>
<p>So the Swiss model is very different from our own. But, on the spectrum of alternatives to what we have now, it may be one worth discussing. Would Americans go in for universal conscription, regular inspections of their militia-issued firearms,and a ban on personal storage of ammunition?</p>
<p>[More</a> Guns, Less Crime: The Switzerland Example - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic](<a href=“More Guns, Less Crime: The Switzerland Example - The Atlantic”>More Guns, Less Crime: The Switzerland Example - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what they said about Columbine. An anomaly. And Virginia Tech. And Northern Illinois (a similar shooting that didn’t get as much play as VA Tech). And Fort Hood. And the Aurora movie theater. And now Newtown. And the guy who killed the firemen. “Anomalies.” “Not the time to discuss gun control out of respect for the dead.” Yes, you get an “anomaly” here and there and pretty soon – why, you’re WAY ahead of the rest of the civilized world in terms of your murder rate by firearm. This is one area in which America needn’t be exceptional.</p>
<p>I don’t know what’s so unclear about the fact that our murder rates by firearms are well ahead of W Europe, Japan and other comparable societies – why that doesn’t horrify the “good” gun lovers. It’s abundantly clear they simply care about their ability to play macho and strut around Walmart like the Big Stuff they want to be - and if a few dead moviegoers / schoolchildren result from unfettered access to guns, too bad so sad.</p>
<p>Well, it seems some states are taking action. I predict that the more urban, dense east coast centers will all do something.</p>
<p>[New</a> York Senate Passes Gun-Control Laws - WSJ.com](<a href=“New York Assembly, Senate Passes Gun-Control Laws - WSJ”>New York Assembly, Senate Passes Gun-Control Laws - WSJ)</p>
<p>I am a gun owner with a concealed carry permit who also favors reasonable gun regulations and other measures designed to address the social ills that have resulted in the level of lethal violence in our society. I have refrained from commenting on this thread because of the the dirth of reasonable dialog addressing the many complex issues at play, whether legal, societal and cultural.</p>
<p>I can’t restrain myself, however, when someone cites “gun toting” countries like Switzerland (and Israel) in support of the position that government regulation is inappropriate and unnecessary. Take the time to actually read the laws of those countries pertaining to gun ownership, use, storage and transport. The controls and limitations in place, covering everything from registration, licensing, background checks including physical and mental checks, demonstrable need, limitations on numbers of guns, limitations on ammunition, mandated miltary service, mandated private ownership training, periodic relicensing, etc would make some of the “gun advocates” on this forum choke. The unfounded statements being made in comparing our country to those others would be laughable if we were not dealing with issues of such serious consequence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are areas that already have high amounts of gun-control, and yet it proves it doesn’t help their situation seeing as how they have the highest homicide rates.</p>
<p>Great post, MichealnKat. But that just goes to show how ignorant the pro-gun / no regulation crowd is. They seriously don’t get that Israel and Switzerland can have the high gun ownership / relatively low firearms deaths they have BECAUSE there is tremendous regulation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought your stance was that people are more likely to shoot themselves than a criminal threat, so your new statement there isn’t very consistent with that. Nothing I’m not used to seeing, but you have to watch out for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>851 is not a red herring, any more than all of those numbers are red herrings. It is a fact (if correct) and a very useful one for gun owners and would-be gun owners.</p>
<p>The problem with all of those numbers is they don’t tell us enough information, so some people may jump to erroneous conclusions. We’ve already discussed that in the UK, you have a greater chance of becoming a crime victim than you are in the US, despite extremely divergent gun laws. Regarding gun homicide numbers, we’ve already discussed that this doesn’t tell us anything about whether and how our homicide numbers would change with any given added regulation or gun ban. In fact, some have shown that they won’t change at all with assault weapons bans.</p>
<p>Non-fatal gun accident numbers are also helpful for gun owners and would-be owners, but again, looking at a raw number doesn’t tell us much. It is like looking at raw car accident numbers. Accidents happen in every single activity of life, and we don’t prevent people from engaging in them just because a relatively small number of people get hurt doing it. </p>
<p>If I am a law-abiding citizen who wants to buy a shotgun for upland bird hunting and I take a hunters education course and abide by every gun regulation currently in place, what are the chances I or someone else will be killed with my gun? Based on the numbers I’ve seen so far, next to zero. Injured with my gun? Next to zero. If there are more relevant numbers that would put the fear into me, I would be very interested in seeing them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weren’t you just relishing up thread that you dont know anything about guns?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, this is what she said earlier:</p>
<p>“Full automatic versus semi automatic? Dead is dead, so I don’t need to know the difference.”</p>
<p>Outrageous isn’t it? It just shows that hypocrisy doesn’t get in the way of anything if you’re serious about your agenda.</p>
<p>Thank you MichaelNKat - you’ve hit the nail on the head. It is possible to have high gun ownership and segnificant regulation at the same time. The NRA, and its membership seem to think that any regulation will interfere with gun ownership, and that it will get in the way of them owning their guns. They are afraid of the opposite fringe - those who would ban every gun out of existence. What we need is something in between.</p>
<p>Maybe that something in between might include a ban on certain types of guns, or maybe it would severely limit who can own them. Maybe rather than limiting ownership, it will limit where they can be stored, and how they can be used (limit their use to properly trained people in specific secure facilities, and they have to be kept in such facilities with a certain level of around-the-clock security). </p>
<p>Responsible gun owners need to understand that regulation isn’t about them, but about the irresponsible gun owners, who don’t secure their weapons, and don’t take reasonable steps to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. This is no different than the way we regulate the use of motor vehicles. When my daughter gets her licence, for the first several months her license will be restricted much the same as it is with a learner’s permit - she can’t drive her siblings to school, or carpool. These restrictions are in place because some teenage drivers are irresponsible - not all.</p>
<p>“If I am a law-abiding citizen who wants to buy a shotgun for upland bird hunting and I take a hunters education course and abide by every gun regulation currently in place, what are the chances I or someone else will be killed with my gun.”</p>
<p>Why did you take a hunters education course?</p>
<p>^I didn’t.</p>
<p>Sorry, I misread your post.</p>
<p>Why would you take a hunters education course?</p>
<p>I live in CA, which has the strictest gun laws in the US (but not the lowest gun crime rate). I cannot get a hunting license in CA without completing a hunters education course.</p>