CDC: 14,415 homicides by fire arms in 2016 alone

[Grinning Dragon]

Plus a judge in TX denied a last ditch scare-fest by some vacuous gun control groups.
Gun Control Groups Fail In Last Minute Frenzy to Stop Publication of Defense Distributed 3D Gun Files

2018 has been a very strange year. No 2016 but its definitely had its high ups and low downs.

I agree it has been strange no doubt about that. Now if we can get enough of a force to challenge Hughes amendment and get it kicked up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down like the unconstitutional illegally passed law that it already is.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Couple thousand rounds iirc

What is the typical durability for non-printed ones?

Depends on how often you fire them really. Tens of thousands at least unless you burn the gun out in one sitting.

2018 has been a very strange year. No 2016 but its definitely had its high ups and low downs.

I agree it has been strange no doubt about that. Now if we can get enough of a force to challenge Hughes amendment and get it kicked up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down like the unconstitutional illegally passed law that it already is.

Fun fact: Alito is already on record saying that Congress has no authority to regulate machine guns that stay within a single state because it quite obviously doesn't meet the whole "interstate commerce" thing.

[Grinning Dragon]

What is the typical durability for non-printed ones?

Depends on how often you fire them really. Tens of thousands at least unless you burn the gun out in one sitting.

I agree it has been strange no doubt about that. Now if we can get enough of a force to challenge Hughes amendment and get it kicked up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down like the unconstitutional illegally passed law that it already is.

Fun fact: Alito is already on record saying that Congress has no authority to regulate machine guns that stay within a single state because it quite obviously doesn't meet the whole "interstate commerce" thing.

Well if that is what it takes to start the dismantling of Hughes amendment I’m all for it. I’m also of the same thought of if and when Hughes goes, I believe it will also start the dismantling of other federal unconstitutional gun control laws, like most of the nfa

[The Two Jerseys]

Fun fact: Alito is already on record saying that Congress has no authority to regulate machine guns that stay within a single state because it quite obviously doesn't meet the whole "interstate commerce" thing.

Anyone know the legality of complete knock-down kits for automatic weapons? I imagine that manufacturers would rather outsource final assembly to third parties than set up manufacturing operations in each state.

[Big Jim P]

Fun fact: Alito is already on record saying that Congress has no authority to regulate machine guns that stay within a single state because it quite obviously doesn't meet the whole "interstate commerce" thing.

Anyone know the legality of complete knock-down kits for automatic weapons? I imagine that manufacturers would rather outsource final assembly to third parties than set up manufacturing operations in each state.

Just build a small plant to manufacture auto-seers in each state to drop into the kits.

[Ors Might]

2018 has been a very strange year. No 2016 but its definitely had its high ups and low downs.

I agree it has been strange no doubt about that. Now if we can get enough of a force to challenge Hughes amendment and get it kicked up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down like the unconstitutional illegally passed law that it already is.

A L L R E S T R I C T I O N S A R E I N F R I N G E M E N T S

[Chernoslavia]

Yes. But gun rights activists roam the gun control thread and debunk anyone's bullshit engage in an ill informed circlejerk based on fantasies. Probably why a separate thread was created.

See, I can make sweeping statements about the other side too!

You know I'm right, every gun control argument made by the grabbers have been debunked. Just like your idea of banning ''assault weapons'' or 30 rd mags. Or you defending burglars.

[Telconi]

What is the typical durability for non-printed ones?

Depends on how often you fire them really. Tens of thousands at least unless you burn the gun out in one sitting.

I agree it has been strange no doubt about that. Now if we can get enough of a force to challenge Hughes amendment and get it kicked up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down like the unconstitutional illegally passed law that it already is.

Fun fact: Alito is already on record saying that Congress has no authority to regulate machine guns that stay within a single state because it quite obviously doesn't meet the whole "interstate commerce" thing.

Alito is a quiet one, but he's a good one. It's rare you hear him really voice opinions.

[Tule]

See, I can make sweeping statements about the other side too!

You know I'm right, every gun control argument made by the grabbers have been debunked. Just like your idea of banning ''assault weapons'' or 30 rd mags. Or you defending burglars.

I've never advocated banning 30 round detachable magazines specifically. Nor have I ever advocated an assault weapons ban in the GC thread. I've made several suggestions, including:

A) Limiting semi-Automatic centrefire rifles to individuals of good character with a reasonable and demonstrable need for such weapons.
B) A more permissive limit that restricts semi-automatic centrefire long guns that use any kind of detachable magazines to such individuals.

This is not an assault weapons ban. Assault weapons bans are based on cosmetics and not function.

I'm not defending burglars, I've been saying that burglars should not be shot on sight as their presence in your home is not an automatic justification for killing them. Burglars kill about 100 Americans each year, out of nearly 1.5 million burglaries. The odds of a burglar committing a murder in the act are so astronomically low that merely shooting one for being inside your home can't be considered anything else than murder.
You are not the judge, jury and executioner and you cannot sentence someone to death for the crime of burglary.

I know all the anti-gun control arguments. I used to make them all the time back in 2010 or so. I was ill informed, and the world was different.

I used to think that semi-auto rifles weren't a big deal. But that was back when it wasn't obvious that they were more potentially lethal than handguns or shotguns. What happened after 2010 were the events at Utoya, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. I also learned some extremely troubling details about the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. It became obvious to me that the most deadly and highest casualty mass shootings all had one thing in common, and that was that they were most likely to use these kinds of semi-automatic centrefire rifles that I've been talking about.

Although the total number of deaths from these types of rifles is fairly small, they also have very limited useful purposes for anyone other than those who engage in combat. In other words: Their benefits are few and their potential for highly lethal acts of violence is substantial.

Now, onto the most common talking points:

"We need these kinds of rifles to fight tyranny!"

The second amendment has far more often been used by terrorists, tax evaders, racial supremacists and other radical elements to kill or coerce legitimate and liberal authority than by freedom loving citizens against tyrannical government.

Examples include the Whiskey Rebellion, The Confederacy, Battle of Liberty Place, The Election Riot of 1874, The Wilmington insurrection of 1898, The Glenville Shootout, and let's of course not forget Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The 2A empowers the good and the evil equally. The evil are just more likely to use that power... because they're evil. The 2A is a threat to legitimate liberal authority, not a protector of it. There is a reason why France and Italy banned citizens from using military calibers in their guns, a substantial portion o the population in those countries were communists liable to overthrow the government and would very much appreciate being able to raid government armouries for more ammo!

"The benefit of DGU's far outweighs illegal gun use!"

This is just wrong, and the most frequently cited figures are based on pretty shitty methodology.
Guns are far more often used to threaten harm than to prevent it. And most self-reported cases of defensive gun use are in reality illegal gun brandishings and assaults with a deadly weapon.

"But gun control doesn't work!"

The introduction of handgun purchase permits in Connecticut led to a 40% drop in gun homicides. No such drop occurred for non-gun murders. This effect was observed even after taking into account other variables like changes in unemployment, poverty, policing etc.

The repeal of handgun purchase permit laws in Missouri led to a 23% increase in gun murders, no such rise was observed in non-gun murders and neighbouring states saw a decrease in gun murders at the same time.

Australia's gun law change in 1996 prevented an estimated 16 mass shootings in the 22 years after the events at Port Arthur. The odds of the change being a coincidence was 1 in 200,000. Even the addition of a single mass shooting after 1996 would not have changed this and the odds of the change being a coincidence are still astronomically low.

The reduction in number of reservists in Switzerland and the resulting reduction of firearms in Swiss homes led to a permanent drop in the Swiss suicide rate, because fewer people were shooting themselves. And no, they did not all switch to a different method, only 25% did.

So yes, gun control definitely works.

"But if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns!"

A) Many law abiding gun owners are only law abiding on paper, but actually engage in gun trafficking. Some are law abiding... until they aren't. Most murder defendants in urban America have no previous felony conviction. Half have no previous conviction on their record at all.

The price of a black market handgun in Australia is 15,000 dollars.


"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!1!11"

It's a law. An amendment. It can be repealed like other mistakes that have been made to the US constitution (*cough*prohibition*cough*) Most liberal democracies do just fine without it, they're doing better if anything.


Do you want some good arguments against gun control? I'll give you one for free:

Even if gun control works, it's inherently immoral to implement it.

Try starting with that one.

[The Two Jerseys]

The second amendment has far more often been used by terrorists, tax evaders, racial supremacists and other radical elements to kill or coerce legitimate and liberal authority than by freedom loving citizens against tyrannical government.

Examples include...Ruby Ridge.

-5.56/10.

Better luck next time.

[Tule]

The second amendment has far more often been used by terrorists, tax evaders, racial supremacists and other radical elements to kill or coerce legitimate and liberal authority than by freedom loving citizens against tyrannical government.

Examples include...Ruby Ridge.

-5.56/10.

Better luck next time.

Okay, I'll give you Ruby Ridge.

What about the rest?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

-5.56/10.

Better luck next time.

Okay, I'll give you Ruby Ridge.

What about the rest?

What about them?

[The Two Jerseys]

-5.56/10.

Better luck next time.

Okay, I'll give you Ruby Ridge.

What about the rest?

What about the Battle of Athens?

[Fartsniffage]

Okay, I'll give you Ruby Ridge.

What about the rest?

What about the Battle of Athens?

The problem with stuff like that is the same people who support it are totally against things like BLM. Either the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against the government or it isn't.

[Telconi]

What about the Battle of Athens?

The problem with stuff like that is the same people who support it are totally against things like BLM. Either the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against the government or it isn't.

Awful large paintbrush you've gotten there.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What about the Battle of Athens?

The problem with stuff like that is the same people who support it are totally against things like BLM.

What's wrong with that?

Either the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against the government or it isn't.

It is tho

[Mystic Warriors]

People with mental illnesses are why we need the 2 amendment. With so many psychos out there protection is needed.

[Licana]

I've never advocated banning 30 round detachable magazines specifically. Nor have I ever advocated an assault weapons ban in the GC thread. I've made several suggestions, including:

A) Limiting semi-Automatic centrefire rifles to individuals of good character with a reasonable and demonstrable need for such weapons.
B) A more permissive limit that restricts semi-automatic centrefire long guns that use any kind of detachable magazines to such individuals.

Okay, I'll play this game. "Reasonable and demonstrable need" as defined as what and by whom?

I'm not defending burglars, I've been saying that burglars should not be shot on sight as their presence in your home is not an automatic justification for killing them.

Whom is saying that they should? How often does this actually happen? The latter question is especially prudent, since you go on to state that being murdered by burglar is an "astronomically" unlikely event. This statement reeks of strawman.

I used to think that semi-auto rifles weren't a big deal. But that was back when it wasn't obvious that they were more potentially lethal than handguns or shotguns. What happened after 2010 were the events at Utoya, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. I also learned some extremely troubling details about the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. It became obvious to me that the most deadly and highest casualty mass shootings all had one thing in common...

...that they all pale in comparison to bombings and basic arson? To be frank, the weapon choice here probably comes down more to popularity than effectiveness, magazine fed semi-automatic rifles are extremely popular and numerous in America.

Although the total number of deaths from these types of rifles is fairly small, they also have very limited useful purposes for anyone other than those who engage in combat. In other words: Their benefits are few and their potential for highly lethal acts of violence is substantial.

"useful purposes" defined as what and by whom?

"We need these kinds of rifles to fight tyranny!"

The second amendment has far more often been used by terrorists, tax evaders, racial supremacists and other radical elements to kill or coerce legitimate and liberal authority than by freedom loving citizens against tyrannical government.

That's...not actually addressing the argument, though.

Examples include the... The Confederacy

Now there's a rare take, laying the American Civil War and the existence of the confederacy at the feet of the 2A.

Battle of Liberty Place, The Election Riot of 1874

I also doubt the lack of a 2A would have stopped veterans of a defeated army and deposed government from forming the paramilitary organization behind both of these incidents.

let's of course not forget Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Incidents where the government's unjust use of force clearly outmatched the opposing elements. So of the 8 events you brought up that have occurred in the past 300 years, only 5 can be reasonably argued to be the "fault" of the 2A and one (arguably two) of those incidents ended up being a better a much argument against government-mandated gun control than for it.

"The benefit of DGU's far outweighs illegal gun use!"

This is just wrong, and the most frequently cited figures are based on pretty shitty methodology.
Guns are far more often used to threaten harm than to prevent it. And most self-reported cases of defensive gun use are in reality illegal gun brandishings and assaults with a deadly weapon.

You know, I'm inherently distrusting of a study that criticizes the methodology of other studies whilst not openly showing their own methodology and resulting data. Especially when the organization behind said study is a liberal organization openly funded by a gun control advocacy group, and the article itself seems to be overwhelming plugging the works of a single-individual (whom is himself gun control advocate). But I'll give it a go over.

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Already starting strong. Most of the sources I've seen cite multiple-million incidents of DGU pull this data from the extreme high-end of Kleck's surveys, which are controversial even among 2A advocates.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Interesting, I might actually try to log into my old college library account and see if I can't get access to this particular study and take a look at it's methodology and data. While I've read a lot of Hemenway's works before, this particular one has slipped by me.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Presumes that one cannot use a firearm's ability to frighten and intimidate people as a means to defend oneself.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Limiting two rare events to "in the home" and "against intruders." Under these conditions, I'll take the information being presented here as true on face value. However, I doubt either event happens with notable regularity and as such it's not really a great anti-2A argument.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Wow, who would have thought that it's more likely to be threatened with a firearm than defend yourself with a firearm in a state renowned for it's very restrictive gun control legislation? I also have to wonder what a non-hostile self-defense incident involving a gun would look like.

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

Most instances of DGU do not involve the discharge of a firearm. Also, still harping on that "millions of incidents" figure.

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

There are as many studies indicating that they are effective as not using the NCVS as their primary source of data.

"But gun control doesn't work!"

The introduction of handgun purchase permits in Connecticut led to a 40% drop in gun homicides. No such drop occurred for non-gun murders. This effect was observed even after taking into account other variables like changes in unemployment, poverty, policing etc.

The repeal of handgun purchase permit laws in Missouri led to a 23% increase in gun murders, no such rise was observed in non-gun murders and neighbouring states saw a decrease in gun murders at the same time.

Two state-wide studies that show ultimately minute changes in the murder rate are not nearly good enough to infringe on everyone's right to own a firearm.

Australia's gun law change in 1996 prevented an estimated 16 mass shootings in the 22 years after the events at Port Arthur. The odds of the change being a coincidence was 1 in 200,000. Even the addition of a single mass shooting after 1996 would not have changed this and the odds of the change being a coincidence are still astronomically low.

>mass shootings
Something you've already acknowledged as being an extremely rare event even in America, to the point where your argument against the civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles is based more in their "potential" to cause mass harm rather than their actual effect on the national gun homicide rate (which is near-nonexistent).

The reduction in number of reservists in Switzerland and the resulting reduction of firearms in Swiss homes led to a permanent drop in the Swiss suicide rate, because fewer people were shooting themselves. And no, they did not all switch to a different method, only 25% did.

Frankly, if someone wants to check out of life, that's their right.

"But if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns!"

A) Many law abiding gun owners are only law abiding on paper, but actually engage in gun trafficking. Some are law abiding... until they aren't. Most murder defendants in urban America have no previous felony conviction. Half have no previous conviction on their record at all.

Yeah, restricting everyone's right to own firearms because someone might do something illegal with one isn't exactly what I would call ethically valid.

The price of a black market handgun in Australia is 15,000 dollars.

Probably more expediant and less expensive than acquiring a """legal""" handgun in Australia.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!1!11"

It's a law. An amendment. It can be repealed like other mistakes that have been made to the US constitution (*cough*prohibition*cough*) Most liberal democracies do just fine without it, they're doing better if anything.

lol then do it. I'm sure if an amendment that went against the nominal spirit of the constitution by restricting the people and empowering the government got repealed, then it's totally viable to do the same to a bill of rights amendment that greatly empowers the people against the government.

Even if gun control works, it's inherently immoral to implement it.

Try starting with that one.

Okay. I'll put that one at the very top next time.

[Petrasylvania]

People with mental illnesses are why we need the 2 amendment. With so many psychos out there protection is needed.

Gotta shoot people before their OCD kicks in. *nod*

[Ors Might]

People with mental illnesses are why we need the 2 amendment. With so many psychos out there protection is needed.

Gotta shoot people before their OCD kicks in. *nod*

Better that than letting them kill our kids with fully semi-automatic heat seeking bullet loaded ghost guns. After all, they’re just too damn dangerous to be let around any sort of weapon.

[Grinning Dragon]

Gotta shoot people before their OCD kicks in. *nod*

Better that than letting them kill our kids with fully semi-automatic heat seeking bullet loaded ghost guns. After all, they’re just too damn dangerous to be let around any sort of weapon.

Just a friendly note: You left out 30caliber clip-a-zine that holds 30 clips.

[Ors Might]

Better that than letting them kill our kids with fully semi-automatic heat seeking bullet loaded ghost guns. After all, they’re just too damn dangerous to be let around any sort of weapon.

Just a friendly note: You left out 30caliber clip-a-zine that holds 30 clips.

If I tried packing in every error from extreme gun control advocates, we’d be here so long that technology would evolve past the use of firearms to holographic meme warfare

[Grinning Dragon]

Just a friendly note: You left out 30caliber clip-a-zine that holds 30 clips.

If I tried packing in every error from extreme gun control advocates, we’d be here so long that technology would evolve past the use of firearms to holographic meme warfare

You are absolutely right, which is why I just condense all of the gun controller talking heads and their talking points to just one simple phrase. "They are all fucking liars"

[The South Falls]

I can believe that us gun controllers are lying morons. Yea. Totally. I can absolutely believe that. /e

[Washington Resistance Army]

I can believe that us gun controllers are lying morons. Yea. Totally. I can absolutely believe that. /e

More than a few are. Ffs your side is still trying to ban barrel shrouds without even knowing what they are.