A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

Some of you seem to be mis-using the word ballistics. It is probably no fault of your own. I see it happening all the time on television and in the movies.Ballistics is the science of projectile (read bullet) motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with marks left on bullets from barrel lands.Ballistics would come into play if, for example, you are wondering where your new zero might be if you were to add an extra half-grain of powder to a particular load. Or maybe you might be wondering how much faster a 165 grain bullet might travel than a 180 grain bullet with the same powder charge. That is what ballistics is all about. It really doesn't have anything to do with solving crimes.And for the sake of this discussion, let's keep in mind that the Second Amendment states that our rights shall not be infriniged. That is a very important word they used back in the day and it is very far reaching. Any kind of registration is an infringement. In fact, almost any kind of restriction at all is an infringement. Basically, it means that if I have a place to keep them, I should be able to own a tank or an F-16 fighter plane if I so choose.Verzem

So are you saying that because it is widely mis-used, we should continue to mis-use the term ballistics? Why? I don't understand why anyone would want to continue doing or saying something that they have subsequently found out is wrong.I have no intention of stopping to correct everyone each time I see the word ballistics mis-used. The one time is enough. I'm not a dickhead about things.But usually, when someone points out a mistake I have been making, I change and do things the correct way henceforth. Why wouldn't I?Verzem

I thought it was already established that the national database would be totally worthless since barrel fingerprints (if you will) can be altered, barrels can be easily replaced, firing pins can be replaced and altered, etc.It would be like keeping a national database of fingerprints if they could be as easily altered as changing a pair of gloves.But it doesn't surprise me that some in government want to do it. We do need more government employees after all, don't we?And excuse me for being a hard ass about it, but I refuse to go along with the majority and start mis-using the term ballistics just because it has become conventional to do so. After all, I'm still one of the few holdouts who actually pronounces the "pre" in prerogative. That "per" thing really grates on me. I guess I'm just hard-headed. My apologies for that.Verzem

It certainly isn't damning to replace a firing pin or a barrel on a gun. At best it would be considered circumstantial. It is a fairly common thing to do. I hope that every DA would need a hell of a lot more than that to ever bring charges against anyone.Were I ever on a jury I would never consider such things damning evidence. It is no more unusual than putting a new starter on a vehicle.Verzem

crashfrog,Ah, but you see, the word "infringed" is not used in the First Amendment so your argument on that is without merit. The FF were extremely careful in choosing the words they used for the various amendments.As to the word "regulated", why does your mind automatically lock onto the concept of regualtions when you think of it. A well-regulated militia is one that is equipped properly and drills regualrly.The fact of the matter is that the militias were necessarily to be totally independent of any government regulations since the basic premise for their existence was to be able to get rid of any oppressive governments that might happen to evolve.I have yet to see any government that will throw itself out of power for oppressing its people.Verzem

You seem to be coming at this from the perspective that someone is already guilty of something.I was merely stating that I, and countless others, have had to occasionally replace barrels or firing pins over the course of a gun's life.With that in mind, it would not be damning evidence for me to ever hear that a gun's barrel had been replaced. It may have been normal maintenance.Verzem

crashfrog,I note your opinions on what constitutes a "well-regulated militia" and recognize your rights to said opinion. However, I strongly disagree with you.You said: "Clearly, that's not correct. A well-regulated militia is one that is restrained by the law and by jurisprudence, to prevent a militia from becomming a rebel army."Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! That was precisely one of the reasons for establishing militias. Many of the FF had just come over here from oppressive governments and had strong reservations about establishing a strong Federal government here. They felt they needed a failsafe so that the collective power of the people could rise up and throw out any government that became oppressive. The collective power of the people was supposed to act as an intimidating check to the people in government who might start getting the wrong ideas about abusing governmental power. In short, we are supposed to always be able to "throw the bums out", even if we have to resort to physical force.Arms then, and should now, be construed to mean the best and most sophisticated weapons of the day. I think that we should be able to own anything and everything short of NBC (nuke, bio, chem) weapons. If then, that meant a muzzle-loader, it meant a gun every bit as good as any the military might weild. My feeling is that it means the same thing now.The Switzerland crime rates are relevant. There has never been a study of how many of the guns are disassembled. If I can find it, I will post something I read that said from a small sampling, over half of the guns were stored fully intact. On this side of the pond we can look to the dramatic drop in crime in Kennesaw, GA after they passed the law requiring that every home be armed. That study is very valid.There is another study (if I can find it) I will share that demonstrated a lower break-in rate for homes that display NRA and other gun owner type decals and that brandish Marine Corps decals, etc. That only makes sense to me. Criminals are punks.To me the main thing is that the focus is on the wrong place. As has been previously mentioned, Guns are used successfully to thwart crime over 2.5 million times annually. This means there is a hell of a net gain every year. The fact is, guns save many, many more lives each year than they take. Why is this fact so ignored?!!! The public is being mis-led into thinking guns are bad.Like was stated in another thread, I guess reporting that won't sell papers.Verzem

So then you'd come out for mandatory firearms safety training for all school children? I could get behind that too.Verzem

crashfrog,Presumably all the adults would be covered after a generation. For now, I would include all adults whether they want to own a gun or not. It is important to have knowledge about them in case of accidental exposure.I would say there could be a religious exemption for any handling of guns, but the book learning part should still be mandatory for even them, shouldn't it?Verzem

If memory serves me correctly when I took firearms safety training it was a several day affair with the final day the only one where we fired guns at the range. It was a pretty extensive course and a requirement for any youth to obtain a hunting liscense.My father was a gun dealer and I grew up with guns all over the house. It sure made all of us feel safe. The thought never occurred to me to play with any of them. I never touched any without asking my dad for permission. There would have been severe consequences if I ever would have. He gave me my own first gun when I was six years old, a .22. Of course, I could never use it for a few years unless I was with him. I bought my own first shotgun when I was twelve with money from my paper route. I could go into any hardware store and buy all the ammo for it I needed and no one looked twice at me. They all knew I was an avid hunter in the small town I grew up in.So anyhow, I would envision the safety classes to be more involved than a short one-evening affair. Hopefully, they would be a very thorough course. But it isn't like you would forget principles like never putting your finger inside the trigger guard unless you intend to fire the gun and to treat every gun as if it is loaded until you have personally checked it for yourself.Verzem

What is an assault weapon?A believe one could say the jawbone of an ass.Guns are generally very finely machined so they last for hundreds of years unless they were neglected. So one could look aat the statistics of guns produced from the get-go and keep adding to the total pool of guns that exist and take out a small fraction for those that get lost or destroyed and divide it into the total population for a guns per citizen figure. That is obviously going up each year.Obviously, there will be a large discrepancy between rural and urban areas for actual homes of ownership. I grew up in a small town in a predominantly rural area and most of the friends homes I ever visited had guns in them. I would know because I had a high interest and oftentimes asked a friend's parent if I could inspect his guns. If memory serves me correctly, I would be highly surprised on the rare occasion when I would visit a home that had no guns in it. I would wonder how they could possibly feel safe. I also felt it was highly irresponsible of the father to not have the means at his disposal to be able to protect his family if the crap really hit the fan.Any gun is potentially an assault weapon. "Assault weapon" is just one of those catch phrases that becomes popular like "cop killer bullets" from a few years ago.Verzem

schrafinator,I am sure you quoted the staatistics posted on those Brady sites accurately. But I challenge the veracity of the stats posted on the Brady sites. They are highly manipulated and IMO, total bullshit.I invite you to visit this site:Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment SupportersYou may disagree, but I think it more than trumps your two sites so I will only post the one site for now. I can certainly give you more if you continue to buy in to the crap being spewed out by the Brady sites and a few others.As to the use of the catch phrase "Saturday Night Specials" that is but another lame attempt to use terms like cop-killer bullets as I alluded to earlier. The truth is prohibiting cheap guns puts poor people at risk of not being able to buy a gun to defend themselves. Why is it that the gun control freaks always assume the worst about guns. Why can't they admit that cheap guns might be used defensively?Verzem

The Second Amendment mentions arms and not specifically guns. What was meant at the time were the best arms of the day as might be used to outfit any army. It obviously included cannons.I think we can fast forward that to today and say that technically, it would include any of the best arms of our modern era.That being said, I personally draw the line at what I call the NBC weapons (nuke, bio, chem). I just don't think the average citizen needs to go so far as to have WMD's. I have no problem in giving up WMD's voluntarily. I think they are mostly a terrorist weapon,, or a weapon that takes far too much training for the average person to use competently.But I see no problem with anything and everything below that. If I have a place to park it and play with it, why shouldn't I be able to own a tank, for example? Or an F-16?Verzem

Rrhain,Cops aren't there to protect or defend us, they arrive after you are already a victim and try to solve the crime. In the area of home defense it is extremely rare if a cop ever arrives on the scene before a tragedy has already happened. And cops are just as likely to mis-use guns as any other demographic.I do agree with you that having a "safe room" (as we call it), or some type of bomb shelter is a great idea. It is probably the best idea if any sort of confrontation can be avoided safely. But if it can't, and it hits the fan at my place, I plan to go on the offensive. Any intruder that ever enters my home with visible weapons is going to die.Millions of gun owners save lives all the time and the incidents go unreported. It is not like we call the cops and report that we just scared off another intruder every time it happens. Oftentimes, we are scared that some insane DA will actually turn the tables and charge us with some sort of crime for defending ourselves. So no, it can't be absolutely proven how many lives are saved by responsible gun owners. But one can certainly surmise that some home intrudes are capable of raping and murdering people in homes they break into. I think it is safe to say that it is unreasonable to claim that none of the intruders that are scared off are capable of violence.So yes, many private citizens use guns responsibly to savce lives every day. And again, you can't call them cops. As I said, they arrive on the scene after the violence has occurred. Cops don't save lives.And finally, I can definitely say that the point of NONE of my guns is to shoot anyone. But it is comforting to know that I can if I have to.Verzem

holmes,You know, I pretty much agree with you on most of what you said.When I was mentioning those weapons, I was stating what weapons I think the 2nd Amenement allows us to legally acquire. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think we should own them.I think that we (Americans) have demonstrated forty-some-odd times in over two hundred years that we can have a peaceful turnover of power in our country and that the system the Framers set up really does work. The FF didn't have this luxury at the time. We now trust that we can affect changes at the ballot box. That being said, it certainly doesn't mean we should scrap our 2nd Amendment failsafe. It is comforting to know that we could still throw the bums out should some sort of tyrannical government somehow come to power in the future. The power of the people always needs to be stronger than the power of the government.Verzem