Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LoSboccacc]

It may have something to do with the fact that cityes ad a hundred or so of souls making csi transilvania boring: just hung/spike the last foreigner passing bay

[Phmcw]

Meh, You've been watching too many movies : there wasn't so many guns in the west.
Especially not those lovely six shot : they were awfully expensive (for the common man). The sheriff had one, the big outlaw had one, and pretty much everyone else had to rely on rustic guns and knife.

Beside I'm not sure of what you call low criminality, or why exactly the crime rate of America 200 years ago is relevant.
You may not have noticed, but a few things have changed meanwhile.

[Sergius]

Meh, You've been watching too many movies : there wasn't so many guns in the west.
Especially not those lovely six shot : they were awfully expensive (for the common man). The sheriff had one, the big outlaw had one, and pretty much everyone else had to rely on rustic guns and knife.

Beside I'm not sure of what you call low criminality, or why exactly the crime rate of America 200 years ago is relevant.
You may not have noticed, but a few things have changed meanwhile.

I actually saw a documentary, that the reason many "cowboys" (cattle ranchers?) ended up as outlaws was that they were so used to carrying their guns everywhere they went (they were used to, because of their jobs) they waltzed into every town packing heat, which was a big no-no back then. Then when called on it, they got pissy and started making trouble, and ended up getting shot by the sheriff, or vice-versa.

[Lord Shonus]

Meh, You've been watching too many movies : there wasn't so many guns in the west.
Especially not those lovely six shot : they were awfully expensive (for the common man). The sheriff had one, the big outlaw had one, and pretty much everyone else had to rely on rustic guns and knife.

Yes, a handful of rich miners and town sheriffs made Sam Colt an extremely wealthy man, and his Single Action Army sold over ten times as fast on the civilian market than the military one (there were several times when the weapon was on a six-month waiting list due to demand) because nobody could afford it.

[Phmcw]

"In 1896, at serial number 164,100, a springloaded base pin latch replaced the cylinder pin retaining screw and by 1900, at serial number 192,000,"
So 1900 end and about 200 000 colt peacemaker are sold. There is about 76 millions Americans by that time.

Edit for clarity : that mean 0.25% of the population got it.

[Eugenitor]

If 1 out of 380 people in the entire country buys what you sell, and you're selling something as expensive as a gun (any gun), you are making bank.

The price of a Colt Peacemaker was only about five hundred bucks, adjusted for inflation.

[Urist is dead tome]

And now Colt is circling the drain. Giants shrink.

[Nikov]

M-16's patent expired. Colt doesn't really have anything in the pipe now so far as money makers are concerned. Meanwhile I think H&K is going to get a nice fat bid for IARs to the Marines, which are basically just M-16's with heavy barrels and a reworked mechanism. That is a damn sexy automatic rifle, by the way. Have you seen those yet, Urist? M-27?

[malimbar04]

If we're going to look at the affects of gun control, we should look only at comparable countries, one that instituted gun control and one that doesn't. In absence of that, we at least look at a countries relevant crime rate before and after gun control is implemented. It is not fair to look at gun crime in countries that are not comparable. India is going to have a different gun crime than alaska no matter what gun control laws are passed. The culture, population density, history, and so forth are drastically different. Look at the graphs on this page:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Apparently gun control either has (a) little effect on gun-related crime, or (b) actually causes the gun-related crime to increase. It doesn't seem that restricting guns prevents gun-related crime at all.

Also, still relavent:

Food for thought.

gun control doesn't prevent gun ownership of convicts very much.

[Leafsnail]

That justfacts page is laughably biased.

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

 

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

Because the first 2 don't apply to every other statistic on the age.  And the third doesn't explain exactly why the data needs analysis.

[Nikov]

That the Tucson shooter had something of a police record on file yet was able to purchase a gun legally concerns me, personally. The federal background check came up clean because the local cops likely never reported anything up. I could stand it being more difficult to purchase a firearm if you've, oh, been expelled from community college for making people terrified you'd go on a rampage or have had multiple drug related charges against you.

[Lord Shonus]

This is one of the few gun control measures I can wholeheartedly support. Drug convictions SHOULD have barred him from purchasing a weapon, and SHOULD have shown up on a background check.

[G-Flex]

Also, still relavent:

Food for thought.

gun control doesn't prevent gun ownership of convicts very much.

That graph doesn't actually prove much, as it doesn't make it clear where, for instance, any of those guns originate. How many steps away from "legitimately purchased" are the guns in the "Family and friend" section, for instance, or "black market"? I'm sure plenty of car stereos owned by inmates are stolen too; that doesn't mean they didn't originate somewhere legitimate. It also doesn't mean the price of black-market items wouldn't skyrocket if they were made illegal (and thus harder to find and lower in number).

[ed boy]

That the Tucson shooter had something of a police record on file yet was able to purchase a gun legally concerns me, personally. The federal background check came up clean because the local cops likely never reported anything up. I could stand it being more difficult to purchase a firearm if you've, oh, been expelled from community college for making people terrified you'd go on a rampage or have had multiple drug related charges against you.

Saying that someone has a police record could mean that they've been taking part in assault, or it could mean that they've been jaywalking.

[Virex]

Wouldn't that be something that would come up in the mandatory background check? I'd expect people would actually look up the charges because it makes little sense to bar a gun from someone who's been convicted of infringing a patent (unless you're barring guns from everyone of course).