Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[The Overlord]

There are so many factors that go into a crime rate that cross comparing countries is ridiculous. If this is the route you wish to go, then explain why the UK, Mexico, South Africa and Brazil have a higher overall violent crime rate when they have extremely strict gun laws? It's more telling to look at trends before and after the passing of legislation, which has been the focus of my argument.

Same goes with the trends I discussed. When handguns were banned from DC, they experienced a ridiculous increase in violent crime and murder rates. That has only declined since the repeal of their ban. Coincidence or not, the areas with the most strict gun control laws within the USA have not had in any way, shape, or form any reduction in crime because of it. Chicago and Washington DC are two of the most dangerous places in the country and make up a significant portion of the overall violent crime rate - until recently it was virtually impossible to own a handgun in both areas. Vermont has allowed anybody legally allowed to own a handgun to carry one without a license. Vermont consistently has a very low crime rate.

Answer this question for me, and I will continue to ask it until I get one. If less than 1% of legal gun owners commit a violent crime with their gun, and less than 0.1% is committed by CCW holders, then what good would limitations on legal gun owners do to the overall violent crime rate when a vast majority of guns used in crimes are smuggled in from other countries? (most recent study indicated that a small percentage of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal gun owners).

Why has the US experienced a significant decline in overall crime rates despite a loosening of gun laws and an increase in gun ownership?

Why should another assault weapons ban be introduced when the last one did nothing to prevent violent crime? (not one academic study claimed that it did, and plenty claimed it did nothing).

Why do countless other countries and areas that enact strict gun control experience an increase in violent crime? (UK, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Washington DC, Chicago etc.) while the passage of CCW laws in many states resulted in a serious reduction of violent crime?

Why has every mass shooting with the exception 2 resulting in the deaths of 4 people or more in the past 50 years taken place in "gun free zones?" Shouldn't these laws be doing something?

Or is it that criminals don't give a flying **** about laws and do as they please?

Right wingers don't oppose having the government act, it's on how they act. They don't want the government encroaching on aspects that they don't need to encroach on - with issues of mental health and school security, that is a different story.

And yet when states need to balance their books, how often do mental health programs get the shaft?

You haven't answer my question, if your premise is stricter gun laws lead to more crime, then why does the US have a way higher crime rate then Canada?

Comparing the US to the Mexico or Brazil is just silly, those are developing countries, not first world Western democracies. I am sure the US has less gun violence then a narco state, but who should the US be comparing itself it to, other Western democracies or narco states?

Also if we compare the stats in terms of violent crime, the US has a higher crime rate then the UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

So yeah, the UK has higher rate on some crimes, but violent crimes in terms of deaths by youths and gun violence is way higher in the US. So why is that?

 

[jmc]

Australia witnessed a near universal increase in crime following their gun bans. Note that this is not just crime in general, but there was a sharp increase in gun crime as well (a faulty argument no less - it implies that death by gun is somehow worse than death by stabbing / bludgeoning / other means).

Mate, I'm going to say this one more time, that initial spike eventually lead to a decreased in the crime rate over the next 12 years. Stop using it as an argument.

 

[dnno1]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. It is the holiday season and I was occupied with quests.

One thing that you cannot claim is that crime has increased. If the availability of guns is the reason why the violent crime right is high in the USA, then why has crime been DROPPING over the last 10 or so years, despite a sharp increase in both gun ownership and concealed carry permits?

Like I said before, there are a lot of factors going into the crime rate and the CCW law is minor. The one thing I can claim though is that in those states that have higher gun ownership and lax gun laws (i.e. laws that add little or nothing to the federal restrictions and are tolerant to open or concealed carry weapons) have higher gun deaths rates than in those states who do have stiffer restrictions. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada are examples of that.

As I discussed, the "legal" term is nothing but a fabricated term used by anti-gun politicians to push their agenda. They had no meaning prior to the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. The so called "assault" weapons are targeted simply for cosmetic reasons. There is nothing mechanically about an AR15 that makes it inherently other more dangerous than other .223 rifles - to target it alone as a super-deadly-death-ray is dishonest (or ignorant, take your pick). And just out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is?

So you are saying that we should ignore what is law and go by a definition that is made up by anyone? It is pretty clear that the intent of the AWB was to define and classify those weapons that incorporated military style features that could be potentially used to cause mass casualties during use. Such features as the semi-automatic loading in concert with an extended magazine, a pistol grip, and/or a telescopic site or a bayonet mount all aid in making a weapon more than just something that could be used for self defense, but rather to assault multiple people and targets. Previous definitions did not make that clear. To sum it up an AR15 is considered an assault riffle/weapon and many states/cities have it on their list as a banned weapon in spite of what you might think.

Why should another AWB be passed when there is not one single study that can relate that the AWB prevented a single crime? If there is not a significant case supporting it, then to deprive millions of people a right is not in any way the correct or ethical course of action.

They do prevent crimes... with assault weapons... and the data does show that these laws do achieve that goal.

It's clear that you aren't entirely aware of how guns work in a self defense arena if this is a claim you are trying to make. You make the assumption that 1) in the heat of the moment you will be able to hit every shot (something that not even the highest trained can do reliably) 2) That the aggressor will be stopped in one shot 3) That there is only one attacker. Statistically, in all 3 of these categories, it usually does not ring true. Unless you are shooting point blank, you likely WILL miss. Unless you hit them in the head or somewhere else along their central nervous center, it will take 2+ rounds to stop them, some cases taking more than even 10. Handgun rounds are notoriously underpowered. A pump gun is a good choice for home defense - but AR15's offer different benefits, such as multiple targets and lighter recoil which benefits people who have a difficulty handling the relatively harsh recoil of a shotgun. Revolvers typically only hold 6 rounds, and as I said before, that is not enough in many circumstances. If what you said were true, then the police would have no need for those semi-automatic weapons.

It's clear to me that you're throwing a lot of errant facts to insult my intelligence. First of all your scenario applies to any weapon and, secondly, you disregard the fact that semi-automatic weapons tend to jam whereas that is not the case with a revolver or a pump action shotgun. Even if you had a dud round with the latter two weapons, your next bullet/shell is just a trigger pull or pump action away (that is not the case with a semi-auto).

The truth of the matter is that great accuracy is almost never required in a home defense situation. That is because these encounters occur in close quarters (think of a home invader in a room in a person's home). Even a person getting raped or mugged is within grappling distance of their assailant. These encounters need to be ended quickly and decisively and one can not afford to have their weapon jam on them. You also don't want to endanger your neighbors with a stray bullet penetrating your wall (something that could happen with the power that a riffle can deliver). That is why the revolver and the (pump action) shotgun are the most popular weapons for home defense.

Here's one story relating to that 2% figure that I gave you: http://times247.com/articles/crs-under-2-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons

It entirely matters. The first AWB was a colossal failure for the reason that it created an arbitrary class of weapons to ban and restrict. An assault weapon is no more deadly than any other class of weapon. If reduction in violent crime is the goal here, then it's prudent to eliminate the political BS and talk about what really works. In terms of the article you cited, I'd recommend you read it again. The only time a fully automatic rifle is referenced is when some witness said "the shots sounded like a full automatic rifle." And with all of that said, nowhere did it say it was a *legally* owned automatic weapon - the ones that require a $200 tax stamp, invasive background check and $20,000 to purchase. The kinds that people who go and shoot up a bar typically don't bother to buy.

You cited a misleading statistic. 2% of prisoners either used carried, possessed or owned a semi-automatic assault weapon (see Gun Control Legislation, page 42). That doesn't account for how many times they used it in a crime. It really has nothing to do with the number of crimes committed with an assault weapon. Like I said before, the number was over 4% back in the 1990's.

 

[Hotwire]

I think it speaks volumes of how f***ed up some people think this country is when they feel that the only way to keep themselves safe is to carry a gun with them.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What if you feel that way no matter where you are?

You can't expect me to live on a planet with 7 billion humans unarmed.

Oh and peace on Earth.

 

[Phallic]

I think it speaks volumes of how f***ed up some people think this country is when they feel that the only way to keep themselves safe is to carry a gun with them.

Perception of safety =/= safety. I'm sure the kids in Connecticut felt plenty safe before that scumbag opened fire on them.

If you don't wish to have that additional insurance, that's your choice. Don't disparage those who wish to hedge their bets a bit. There will be violent crime no matter where you go. I have no delusions that I'm likely to need to defend myself, similar to how I have no delusions that I'll certainly be in a car crash on my way to the theater tonight to see Django Unchained. Still going to wear my seatbelt though.

 

[Hotwire]

Perception of safety =/= safety. I'm sure the kids in Connecticut felt plenty safe before that scumbag opened fire on them.

If you don't wish to have that additional insurance, that's your choice. Don't disparage those who wish to hedge their bets a bit. There will be violent crime no matter where you go. I have no delusions that I'm likely to need to defend myself, similar to how I have no delusions that I'll certainly be in a car crash on my way to the theater tonight to see Django Unchained. Still going to wear my seatbelt though.

It was more an observation about our society. That things have reached a point where people feel, as you analogize, just as likely to be a victim of violent crime as a victim of a car crash. And on top of that, that a gun is their only option. It's not against the gun owner, really, it's about society as a whole. What went wrong that we reached this point?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Hate to break it to you but society has always been that way.

Life is a constant state of fear. Then you die.

 

[Phallic]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. It is the holiday season and I was occupied with quests.



Like I said before, there are a lot of factors going into the crime rate and the CCW law is minor. The one thing I can claim though is that in those states that have higher gun ownership and lax gun laws (i.e. laws that add little or nothing to the federal restrictions and are tolerant to open or concealed carry weapons) have higher gun deaths rates than in those states who do have stiffer restrictions. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada are examples of that.



So you are saying that we should ignore what is law and go by a definition that is made up by anyone? It is pretty clear that the intent of the AWB was to define and classify those weapons that incorporated military style features that could be potentially used to cause mass casualties during use. Such features as the semi-automatic loading in concert with an extended magazine, a pistol grip, and/or a telescopic site or a bayonet mount all aid in making a weapon more than just something that could be used for self defense, but rather to assault multiple people and targets. Previous definitions did not make that clear. To sum it up an AR15 is considered an assault riffle/weapon and many states/cities have it on their list as a banned weapon in spite of what you might think.




They do prevent crimes... with assault weapons... and the data does show that these laws do achieve that goal.



It's clear to me that you're throwing a lot of errant facts to insult my intelligence. First of all your scenario applies to any weapon and, secondly, you disregard the fact that semi-automatic weapons tend to jam whereas that is not the case with a revolver or a pump action shotgun. Even if you had a dud round with the latter two weapons, your next bullet/shell is just a trigger pull or pump action away (that is not the case with a semi-auto).

The truth of the matter is that great accuracy is almost never required in a home defense situation. That is because these encounters occur in close quarters (think of a home invader in a room in a person's home). Even a person getting raped or mugged is within grappling distance of their assailant. These encounters need to be ended quickly and decisively and one can not afford to have their weapon jam on them. You also don't want to endanger your neighbors with a stray bullet penetrating your wall (something that could happen with the power that a riffle can deliver). That is why the revolver and the (pump action) shotgun are the most popular weapons for home defense.




You cited a misleading statistic. 2% of prisoners either used carried, possessed or owned a semi-automatic assault weapon (see Gun Control Legislation, page 42). That doesn't account for how many times they used it in a crime. It really has nothing to do with the number of crimes committed with an assault weapon. Like I said before, the number was over 4% back in the 1990's.

A higher gun death rate is misleading. Murder by gun and murder via other methods is still murder - a look at the total murder rates tells a different story.

Explain how a telescopic stock (designed for ergonomics), a pistol grip, bayonet lug, barrel shroud etc. make a gun more deadly? With a large number of rifles being semi-automatic, magazine fed weapons, that fact alone is hardly unique to the AR15 or AK47 variants. The AR15 wasn't designed to be a killing machine. I'm aware that many cities have them on their banned list, including Connecticut which still had the AWB from 1994 in effect. A lot of good that did. When a tiny fraction of crimes are committed with "assault weapons," most of those being illegally obtained, why are we focused on them again?

And the term "assault weapon" is no different than the "PATRIOT act," it was simply a term to garner emotional support. Assault rifles are select-fire fully automatic rifles, plain and simple. AR15s do not fit that description, despite what the Brady Campaign, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer etc. try to claim (all 3 of whom, btw, have a license to carry a concealed handgun. A right they think only they should have). You claim that the 1994 AWB reduced crime via assault weapons - I would love to see the source. The FBI themselves stated bluntly that the AWB did little to nothing to reduce violent crime.

Firstly, a pump-action shotgun CAN jam. I've had it happen to me (likely due to faulty ammo, but still). Secondly, unless you abuse your stuff and don't maintain your weapon, a well designed firearm should not jam. I've put thousands of rounds through all my handguns and haven't had a single jam that wasn't ammunition related (and even those are exceedingly rare, could probably count those on one hand). And in the event my Glock did jam (which is highly unlikely), clearing a majority of malfunctions takes little more than 1-2 seconds. In addition, revolvers are harder to shoot than semi-autos due to the greater amount of recoil, and the lower capacity (typically 5-6 rounds) means that missed shots make a huge difference. I've never heard anybody who survived such an encounter say "I wish I had less ammo." It's almost always the opposite. When you have a man charging you with a weapon and an intent to kill, it's much harder to hit with precise accuracy than it is when shooting at the range. I believe the average accuracy in shooting situations is something like 20% - with a wheel gun that means you'd better put them down in 1-2 shots. With a .38 spl, that's by no means a guarentee. With a .357, the accuracy will probably be lower due to the more difficult to manage recoil.

And let's humor you and say that the number is 4%. Assuming that those are all with legally owned weapons (which is statistically unlikely given less than 1% of legal gun owners are convicted of a violent crime). That's another 96% of violent crime that is unaccounted for.

We need better enforcement of our gun laws, an overhaul on our mental health system, a better education system and a better justice system so repeat offenders don't get to continue to terrorize the public. An effort should definitely be made to stop violent and dangerous people from having guns. Background checks is a good way to go and I support that 100%. The laws we have on the books today are generally good. Taking guns away from people who make up less than 1% of all violent crime will do absolutely nothing.

 

[mrvlknight21]

2 high capacity magazines and 700 rounds delivered by UPS this afternoon. I love the 2nd amendment.

I have ordered a bunch of 30 round Pmags over the last week or so.
Wife gave me some ammo for Christmas, luckily she bought it all before the panic buying and rising prices.

Background checks are not required at gunshows. Background checks are not required between individual private owners. That's why 65% of the users on Armslist and other websites can't pass legal background checks--they go where they can get guns illegally.

I have said this several times here before and I will repeat it once again.
Please dont spread misinformation.

Background checks ARE required at gun shows as long as it is not a private party (example: me to you as private citizens) sale.

Jusy FYI, those types of sales take place EVERYDAY, all over the country. People sell guns to their cousins, co-workers, friends, friends of their friends, etc ALL THE TIME without any background checks and that is a private party sale. The same type of sale CAN be found at a gun show, true, but, in my experience (probably a dozen gun shows in the last 2 years) over 90% of the guns for sale at gun shows are being sold by vendors with FFL licenses and they are REQUIRED to run background checks. Not one of those guys wants to lose their livelihood because they didnt follow the rules on running a background check.


I have also said that when I sell one of my guns like this, I check the person's ID, get all their infomation and have them sign a bill of sale with all pertinent info (buyer's info, serial number of gun, etc etc).

 

[Destructus86]

What i've been seeing in the news and even on here is that people are treating gun control/new gun laws the same way they treated the "War on Drugs" Make it illegal to buy guns and suddenly everything will magically be better...we'll just ignore the much deeper underlying problems of our society.

The War on Drugs was a massive failure. People that wanted drugs, GOT drugs despite making it "harder" to get them.

It's the same with guns...we can make them illegal to own...but people that want them for evil purposes will get guns.

I do agree that we need stricter gun control. But none of this will solve the deeper problems with our society.

 

[Kable24]

I have ordered a bunch of 30 round Pmags over the last week or so.
Wife gave me some ammo for Christmas, luckily she bought it all before the panic buying and rising prices.

I've been tempted to pick up some 30 round mags for my AR's, but I have 5 now and 19 20 round mags, so I'm good. I got some ammo for Christmas from my dad. I'm well stocked for when they really start price gouging the ammo.

 

[Paradoxium]

David Gregory what a tool

 

[Webfoot Hero]

David Gregory what a tool

He kind of is. Never really cared for him.

 

[Victarion]

What if the anti-gun outcry is an organized attempt to trick gunowners into buying ammo at gouged prices in order to stimulate the economy? I'm not joking.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Interesting thought, but the same kind of increase in gun sales occurred when Obama was first elected (after running on a campaign that promised stricter gun laws). Obviously, it didn't help the economy as a whole.

 

[Paradoxium]

Obama is probably the greatest gun salesman ever. Gun companies must love him. Ironically, Romney is probably more anti-gun than Obama. Based on his record.

 

[cherokeesam]

It was more an observation about our society. That things have reached a point where people feel, as you analogize, just as likely to be a victim of violent crime as a victim of a car crash. And on top of that, that a gun is their only option. It's not against the gun owner, really, it's about society as a whole. What went wrong that we reached this point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_history

Guns, and violence, have ALWAYS been part of the framework of American society, for better or worse. We were a nation that was founded primarily by criminals and outlaws; we were tyrannized by an unfair government that ruled from afar, leading us to take up arms against that government to win the freedoms we all hold so dear; we've always idolized criminals and outlaws and rebels; our capitalist rags-to-riches idealism often encourages people to try to take "shortcuts" to the top, Tony Montana style, "little friend" in tow; and the immigrant society that continues to come to America is composed primarily of criminals, outlaws, and rebels ---- just like our founding fathers.

Not a justification for crime and gun violence, obviously; but I'm just pointing out that we didn't "just reach this point" somehow. It's always been part of our blood-splattered history from the very beginning.

 

[dnno1]

A higher gun death rate is misleading. Murder by gun and murder via other methods is still murder - a look at the total murder rates tells a different story.

You are convoluting and disguising the issue by looking at a macro-verse of murders. What is at issue here is the fact that assault weapons are getting into the hands of the wrong people leading to mass killings. We need to address that specifically.

Explain how a telescopic stock (designed for ergonomics), a pistol grip, bayonet lug, barrel shroud etc. make a gun more deadly?

The telescopic or folding stock although claimed to be ergonomic also makes the weapon easier to be concealed.

Discrete Carry Kit
(for an AR-15 style weapon)

An assault riffle like an AR-15 with a telescopic site can now be concealed within a briefcase. That can be dangerous since a shooter can now move into position without ordinary people knowing his intentions. The pistol grip on the assault riffle allows the stock to line up with the riffle bore meaning less kick when the arm is fired.

Gunman Shooting from the Hip

This also allows a shooter to fire from the hip while fanning out and spraying multiple targets continuously. The bayonet lug allows for mounting a knife (bayonet) for close quarters fighting (although this is almost never needed in these instances). The hard point can also be used to mount a bi-pod which allows the shooter to fire while prone and become less visible in gun battle. The barrel shroud reduces heat from the barrel allowing the shooter to fire more rounds without burning his hands. All of these features allow a gunman to fire more rounds and/or kill more people. More rounds = more deadly

With a large number of rifles being semi-automatic, magazine fed weapons, that fact alone is hardly unique to the AR15 or AK47 variants. The AR15 wasn't designed to be a killing machine. I'm aware that many cities have them on their banned list, including Connecticut which still had the AWB from 1994 in effect. A lot of good that did. When a tiny fraction of crimes are committed with "assault weapons," most of those being illegally obtained, why are we focused on them again?

Because they are disproportionately used in crimes. Out of 310 million (and yes there are 310 million in the civilian population as of 2009 according to a Congressional Research Service report -- see the last paragraph on page 13) there were somewhere in the order of 1.5 million assault weapons. That's less than .5%, but according to your numbers these guns are used in more than 2% of the gun crimes (more than 4 times more than there are these weapons). They seem to be the weapon of choice for criminals and are a threat to law enforcement and the general public.

And the term "assault weapon" is no different than the "PATRIOT act," it was simply a term to garner emotional support. Assault rifles are select-fire fully automatic rifles, plain and simple. AR15s do not fit that description, despite what the Brady Campaign, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer etc. try to claim (all 3 of whom, btw, have a license to carry a concealed handgun. A right they think only they should have). You claim that the 1994 AWB reduced crime via assault weapons - I would love to see the source. The FBI themselves stated bluntly that the AWB did little to nothing to reduce violent crime.

Gun Digest's Book of Assault Weapons
(first edition, circa 1986)

The term "assault weapon" was used by gun industry experts as early as the 1980's. In fact, Gun Digest magazine used the term in their "Book of Assault Weapons" back in 1986 and many gun dealers embraced the term as a selling point even then. That book has the following quote from the author:

“[T]here will always be a place for what are collectively termed assault weapons.
. . . Most of them are effective for the type of warfare for which they have been designed: close range assault work. That’s where firepower is a necessity either to make the enemy keep his head down so you can maneuver or, more permanently, to remove him from the action. . . . There is also an element of the civilian population that is showing an increasing interest in this type of weaponry. The vast majority of these shooters and gunowners purchase assault-type
weapons limited to semiautomatic fire.”

The AR-15's fit the description of an assault riffle because it can be used in close range assault work, pure and simple. Furthermore, the AWB did have an affect on crime. Within the first year, after the ban, the number of crime gun traces on assault weapons dropped by 20% (twice the overall decline in the gun murder rate that year) and the murder rates were 6.7% lower than projected to be without the ban. This is coming from the National Institute of Justice. Now, the fact that violent gun crimes still occurred was due in part to the fact that there were so many large capacity magazines which were still available during the ban. There was a rise in crime involving these devices as the the use of assault weapons declined.

Firstly, a pump-action shotgun CAN jam. I've had it happen to me (likely due to faulty ammo, but still). Secondly, unless you abuse your stuff and don't maintain your weapon, a well designed firearm should not jam. I've put thousands of rounds through all my handguns and haven't had a single jam that wasn't ammunition related (and even those are exceedingly rare, could probably count those on one hand). And in the event my Glock did jam (which is highly unlikely), clearing a majority of malfunctions takes little more than 1-2 seconds. In addition, revolvers are harder to shoot than semi-autos due to the greater amount of recoil, and the lower capacity (typically 5-6 rounds) means that missed shots make a huge difference. I've never heard anybody who survived such an encounter say "I wish I had less ammo." It's almost always the opposite. When you have a man charging you with a weapon and an intent to kill, it's much harder to hit with precise accuracy than it is when shooting at the range. I believe the average accuracy in shooting situations is something like 20% - with a wheel gun that means you'd better put them down in 1-2 shots. With a .38 spl, that's by no means a guarentee. With a .357, the accuracy will probably be lower due to the more difficult to manage recoil.

Shotgun jam?

[YT]y5d9NmixPjE[/YT]

Problem solved!

And let's humor you and say that the number is 4%. Assuming that those are all with legally owned weapons (which is statistically unlikely given less than 1% of legal gun owners are convicted of a violent crime). That's another 96% of violent crime that is unaccounted for.

I am not following you. In 1994 4.8% of all gun crimes were with assault weapons. The other 95.2% were with other types of firearms that were not on the list of banned weapons.

We need better enforcement of our gun laws, an overhaul on our mental health system, a better education system and a better justice system so repeat offenders don't get to continue to terrorize the public. An effort should definitely be made to stop violent and dangerous people from having guns. Background checks is a good way to go and I support that 100%. The laws we have on the books today are generally good. Taking guns away from people who make up less than 1% of all violent crime will do absolutely nothing.

I will agree with you on most these points, but I will disagree on your point that taking guns away from the 1% will do absolutely nothing. What it will do is prevent another columbine, or Waco. What it will do is prevent another Stockton Schoolyard massacre or another Sandy Hook. I will tell you, I don't want to see another mass shooting hit the national news cycle again, and if it takes another AWB to do that, they let's do it.

 

[dnno1]

Fair. What system should we implement to confiscate assault weapons? Should we reimburse the owners for the weapons that we confiscate?

I'm simply playing the role of Lance Sackless' advocate. I'm not a shooter nor a gun owner; I have co-workers and colleagues who are into it though.

Buy back programs have been successful in the past.

L.A.'s gun buyback program produces long lines

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/los-angeles-gun-buyback-1.html


This is a program that they have been doing for years now in the Los Angeles area. It usually happens every Mother's Day, but since the shootings at Sandy Hook, the program got moved up by 5 months. According to the LAPD, in the four years since the program has been in place over 8,000 guns have been collected, and the city has seen a 39% reduction in gang crimes, a 33% reduction in the number of “shots fired” incidents, and 241 fewer shot victims.

 

[Kable24]

So a $50 gift card for a rifle I paid $1300 for which as of now is probably worth $3000? Where do I sign up?

 

[dnno1]

So a $50 gift card for a rifle I paid $1300 for which as of now is probably worth $3000? Where do I sign up?

Sorry, you have to be in the Los Angeles area. I am sure they would gladly give you $200 for that riffle if you don't want it, though

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

So a $50 gift card for a rifle I paid $1300 for which as of now is probably worth $3000? Where do I sign up?

 

[Kable24]

Sorry, you have to be in the Los Angeles area. I am sure they would gladly give you $200 for that riffle if you don't want it, though

Oh well, that makes it all worth it then.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

If you didn't think Feinstein wasn't going for an almost complete semi-automatic firearm ban, then just look at her website:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Hopefully this plan doesn't gain any type of traction in either the Senate or House.