Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:56 am

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:50 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:19 am
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:14 am
And which one would that be?
One would suspect the top one. But I would like to compare specifications first.
The top rifle is a DSA SA-58 the bottom a Remington 7400. Both are quite similar as far as functionality. Both have a pistol grip, shoot the same round and deliver the same rate of semi-automatic fire.

Here are the biggest differences.

The Remington 7400 costs about 500.00 with the SA-58 coming in at around 2,000.00
The Remington 7400 is more accurate at long distances than the SA-58 when shooting multiple rounds.
The 7400 has a 4 round and a 10 round clip. The SA-58 a 20 round clip. Keep in mind, some of the newer hunting rifles by Remington have a 15 round clip available.

So, you see, just as putting a spoiler and fancy rims on a Toyota Corolla doesn't make it go any faster or preform any better, just because a gun has military stylings doesn't make it more "dangerous." When people throw around the word "assault rifle" most haven't a clue as to what they are talking about. Laws banning "assault rifles" may just take away my Remington 7400 that I've owned since 1985.

Before you bring up the clip difference, I can drop and replace the clip in my 7400 in under 1.5 seconds.
So a bmw and a bmw in a PT Cruiser shell? I suppose if we wanted to mow folks down most effectively in a crowd it would come down to comfort and looks. The two are very similar.

I can’t see a logical reason to have either. Are you going to pop 30 bullets into an animal to kill it?



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:11 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:56 am
I can’t see a logical reason to have either. Are you going to pop 30 bullets into an animal to kill it?
The logical reason to have either is because until you or any government entity can absolutely, 100% guarantee me that a bad guy with evil intentions will not have one, I should have the choice to have one too in order to protect my home and family.

A wise man, who fought many battles both at home and abroad once told me, "You can't have too much money or ammunition."

Might want to read the story of Sgt. Timothy Gramins.

https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoo ... m-gramins/


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:29 pm

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:11 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:56 am
I can’t see a logical reason to have either. Are you going to pop 30 bullets into an animal to kill it?
The logical reason to have either is because until you or any government entity can absolutely, 100% guarantee me that a bad guy with evil intentions will not have one, I should have the choice to have one too in order to protect my home and family.

A wise man, who fought many battles both at home and abroad once told me, "You can't have too much money or ammunition."

Might want to read the story of Sgt. Timothy Gramins.

https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoo ... m-gramins/
So it’s based on a fear that has little chance of actually coming true. Similar to dying from COVID. In fact the percentage odds are probably the same. Both events are extremely unlikely.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10106
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by TC Talks » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:38 pm

Take a look at cars, over the years they have gotten increasingly safer and safer yet they go fast as hell.

It seems to me the gun lobby could very easily revolutionize the economy by coming out with safety features. I'm surprised the manufacturers haven't seen the opportunity in upgrading Arsenal's.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:41 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:29 pm
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:11 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:56 am
I can’t see a logical reason to have either. Are you going to pop 30 bullets into an animal to kill it?
The logical reason to have either is because until you or any government entity can absolutely, 100% guarantee me that a bad guy with evil intentions will not have one, I should have the choice to have one too in order to protect my home and family.

A wise man, who fought many battles both at home and abroad once told me, "You can't have too much money or ammunition."

Might want to read the story of Sgt. Timothy Gramins.

https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoo ... m-gramins/
So it’s based on a fear that has little chance of actually coming true. Similar to dying from COVID. In fact the percentage odds are probably the same. Both events are extremely unlikely.
Yet you supported lockdowns?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:44 pm

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:41 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:29 pm
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:11 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:56 am
I can’t see a logical reason to have either. Are you going to pop 30 bullets into an animal to kill it?
The logical reason to have either is because until you or any government entity can absolutely, 100% guarantee me that a bad guy with evil intentions will not have one, I should have the choice to have one too in order to protect my home and family.

A wise man, who fought many battles both at home and abroad once told me, "You can't have too much money or ammunition."

Might want to read the story of Sgt. Timothy Gramins.

https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoo ... m-gramins/
So it’s based on a fear that has little chance of actually coming true. Similar to dying from COVID. In fact the percentage odds are probably the same. Both events are extremely unlikely.
Yet you supported lockdowns?
Originally I did more than I do now... my patience is wearing thin on it at this point. But the point of the lockdowns was to slow the spread enough to not overwhelm the healthcare system. It was never about deaths. A little save lives rhetoric gets people to do that more effectively when they otherwise wouldn’t.

Gun manufacturers have simply taken a primal fear of dying and turned it into a profit making opportunity. Crime is way down from where it was in the 1970’s and 1980’s (it peaked in 1991) and people feel less safe and more like they need a gun than ever despite crime sitting at early 1960’s levels. Propaganda has some interesting effects.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:45 pm

TC Talks wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:38 pm
Take a look at cars, over the years they have gotten increasingly safer and safer yet they go fast as hell.

It seems to me the gun lobby could very easily revolutionize the economy by coming out with safety features. I'm surprised the manufacturers haven't seen the opportunity in upgrading Arsenal's.
What features do you propose?

Most safety features are there to prevent negligent discharge. Few if any features can prevent on purpose discharge.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10106
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by TC Talks » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:48 pm

That's like asking me to envision airbags when I don't own a car. Volvo and Mercedes did a wonderful job.

I'm not the person to ask but I certainly look to my leadership to start requiring the industry to figure this out.
Last edited by TC Talks on Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:48 pm

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:45 pm
TC Talks wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:38 pm
Take a look at cars, over the years they have gotten increasingly safer and safer yet they go fast as hell.

It seems to me the gun lobby could very easily revolutionize the economy by coming out with safety features. I'm surprised the manufacturers haven't seen the opportunity in upgrading Arsenal's.
What features do you propose?

Most safety features are there to prevent negligent discharge. Few if any features can prevent on purpose discharge.
Fingerprint identification before it’ll let you fire? If you could get it to do so instantly then that would be a valuable weapon indeed. Somebody grabbing it from you would be in a fistfight in a hurry.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10106
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by TC Talks » Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:50 pm

Or retina recognition in the scope...

How about serial numbers directly registered like a license plate. If you have a weapon that is not registered to you, it allows police to prevent criminals from using your weapons.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:17 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:44 pm
Crime is way down from where it was in the 1970’s and 1980’s (it peaked in 1991) and people feel less safe and more like they need a gun than ever despite crime sitting at early 1960’s levels.
Crime in general is down, but homicide rates are WAY up.

Numerous major U.S. cities begin 2021 with elevated homicide rates

Numerous cities nationwide reported elevated murder rates through the year, with cities like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia posting double-digit increases.
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:44 pm
Fingerprint identification before it’ll let you fire? If you could get it to do so instantly then that would be a valuable weapon indeed. Somebody grabbing it from you would be in a fistfight in a hurry.
The number of deaths and injury caused by someone having their firearm taken from them during a fight is well below a statistical percentage. Even if this technology was mandated, the ability for the criminal class to either use firearms made prior to that technology and/or to come up with a "workaround" would do nothing but drive the cost of a firearm to the point some of the people that need them the most wouldn't be able to afford them.

Sort of like the mandated trigger locks that manufacturers were mandated to include with every new handgun sold that was enacted in 1999. They do nothing to prevent purposeful firearm discharge. I have never used one, have no need for one, as my loaded pistols and revolvers are either in instant open safes with fingerprint recognition or holstered on my belt or shoulder rig. Yet, it still drove the cost up.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:20 pm

TC Talks wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:50 pm
Or retina recognition in the scope...

How about serial numbers directly registered like a license plate. If you have a weapon that is not registered to you, it allows police to prevent criminals from using your weapons.
Umm, how does that help with a firearm that doesn't have a scope?

Legally owned pistols and revolvers are already registered to an individual owner. In Michigan, unless you have a CPL, you cannot legally possess or use a handgun that is not registered to you.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:38 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:29 pm
So it’s based on a fear that has little chance of actually coming true. Similar to dying from COVID. In fact the percentage odds are probably the same. Both events are extremely unlikely.
The chance at becoming a victim of a violent crime if you live in, say, Wayne, MI. is 1 in 139, Detroit a 1 in 50 and beautiful and scenic Muskegon Heights is a 1 in 46.

Back in June someone calculated that Michigan residents had a 1:2,321 chance of dying from Covid-19. I like my odds against Covid even though I have taken measures to prevent it. Why do you think it unreasonable for me to take measures to prevent myself or family becoming the victim of a violent crime?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:05 pm

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:17 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:44 pm
Crime is way down from where it was in the 1970’s and 1980’s (it peaked in 1991) and people feel less safe and more like they need a gun than ever despite crime sitting at early 1960’s levels.
Crime in general is down, but homicide rates are WAY up.

Numerous major U.S. cities begin 2021 with elevated homicide rates

Numerous cities nationwide reported elevated murder rates through the year, with cities like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia posting double-digit increases.
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:44 pm
Fingerprint identification before it’ll let you fire? If you could get it to do so instantly then that would be a valuable weapon indeed. Somebody grabbing it from you would be in a fistfight in a hurry.
The number of deaths and injury caused by someone having their firearm taken from them during a fight is well below a statistical percentage. Even if this technology was mandated, the ability for the criminal class to either use firearms made prior to that technology and/or to come up with a "workaround" would do nothing but drive the cost of a firearm to the point some of the people that need them the most wouldn't be able to afford them.

Sort of like the mandated trigger locks that manufacturers were mandated to include with every new handgun sold that was enacted in 1999. They do nothing to prevent purposeful firearm discharge. I have never used one, have no need for one, as my loaded pistols and revolvers are either in instant open safes with fingerprint recognition or holstered on my belt or shoulder rig. Yet, it still drove the cost up.
Homicide rates are at levels seen in the mid 60’s. They were at their peak in 1991 as were every other measure. The rape category changed after 2016, that’s why it jumped. While crime rose a little from its mid-teens lows it’s still half what it was in 1991. That’s according to the uniform crime statistics which go back as far as 1960.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I’ll get the specifics year lows and break it down in a minute.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:51 pm

From the link...

Again these numbers are since 1960 and I am using the per 100,000 people stats as the totals increase with population as one would imagine but the per 100,000 smooths that out nicely, 2019 is the most recent year available... 2020 will be due out later this year.

Total Crime
Low: 1887.2 (1960)
High: 5950.0 (1980)
2019: 2489.3 (Lowest since peak; Lowest since 1965 when it was 2449.0)

Violent
Low: 158.1 (1961)
High: 758.1 (1991)
2019: 379.4 (Lowest since 1970 when it was 363.5; Most recent bottom since peak was 2014 at 372.0)

Property
Low: 1726.3 (1960)
High: 5353.3 (1980)
2019: 2109.9 (Lowest since 1963 when it was 2012.1; Lowest since peak)

Murder
Low: 4.4 (2014)
High: 10.2 (1980)
2019: 5.0 (same as 2018 and lower than the rate in 1960 and 1965 which was 5.1)

Forcible Rape I am going to skip... the data and societal norms surrounding who what where why when and how that is reported is not comparable over time.

Robbery
Low: 58.3 (1961)
High: 272.7 (1991)
2019: 81.6 **Lowest since 1966 when it was 80.8**

Aggravated Assault
Low: 85.7 (1961)
High: 441.8 (1992)
2019: 250.2 (Lowest since the peak was in 2014 at 229.2; The 2019 level is historically closest to 1964's 247.4)

Burglary
Low: 340.5 (2019)
High: 1684.1 (1980)
2019: 340.5 (Lowest on record; Was 508.6 in 1960 and went up from there to the peak)

Larceny-Theft
Low: 1034.7 (1960)
High: 3228.8 (1991)
2019: 1549.5 (Lowest since 1966; Lowest since peak)

Vehicle Theft
Low: 183.0 (1960)
High: 658.9 (1991)
2019: 219.9 (Lowest since 2014 when it was 215.5; The 2019 level is historically closest to 1963's 216.6)

The two that stand out to me are violent crime and aggravated assault... we like to beat the hell out of each other I guess. Both are still well off their highs.

Unless I'm mistaken the early to mid 60's are part of the "good old days" are they not? I wish we had data for the 50's but 60 years worth of data isn't bad. It's amazing what you find to have been the reality when you strip away all the nostalgia. Things aren't so bad now. Sure beats the hell out of the 70's, 80's and 90's (the decade of my childhood and the one I am nostalgic for... but reading these stats I'll not be renting a time machine to go there.
Last edited by Rate This on Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic