If that is true it shows just how stupid our lawmakers are (as if we needed more proof). Hey let's make a law that bans scary looking things and claim we are pushing gun control, while actually doing nothing to solve the problem!
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
If that is true it shows just how stupid our lawmakers are (as if we needed more proof). Hey let's make a law that bans scary looking things and claim we are pushing gun control, while actually doing nothing to solve the problem!
Yes. You need a firearms licence to purchase ammunition up here. That's probably had the most impact on their activities. They still have guns and still shoot each other but we've been told by Toronto police that we're more likely to be robbed for ammunition than guns. The black market price for .45ACP has been rumoured to be as high as $20/round. In comparison, the most I would pay is $1/round for the fancy stuff.
@Dwazza von Moosesteiger
@barros
They've released the type of weapons used in the attack..
Sig Sauer MCX and Glock 17
G17 is dime a dozen, but I've never seen the Sig before in my life.
@barros
They've released the type of weapons used in the attack..
Sig Sauer MCX and Glock 17
G17 is dime a dozen, but I've never seen the Sig before in my life.
With regards to gun control, has anyone researched the number of people employed in the industry? I was wondering yesterday about it. You have the retailers, manufacturers and distributors that would have to number in the tens of thousands right? That's another factor that has to be managed when considering gun control. There'd be a large number of people losing their jobs. And those people would also presumably own guns. Then you'd have the exact people owning guns that you wanted to stop in the fist place
Losing job>losing life?
Nothing like that. But it is something that has to be considered. And thousands of people losing their job overnight would definitely cost people their lives through increased crime or suicide. It is one deterrent to proper gun control, because it has to be adequately accounted for
The law has been successfully changed in numerous countries around the world without major incident, and crime rates dropped (they did not increase per your most recent post, and suicides were not a problem either). People loosing their jobs is a small price to pay, and a temporary thing anyway - they'll just have to go get another job.
Also, a law change would undoubtedly come with a gun amnesty so these people wouldn't have guns, or would risk considerable prison time.
No country that has implemented the law has had anywhere near the quantity of guns. It's a different beat.
When people lose their jobs they lose their income: Poverty increases crime and suicide rates. These aren't a small price to pay, you don't take guns away claiming it's for the best while condemning people to their death. And yes, people without a job are a risk of suicide and one death is too many. It's an important factor when figuring out gun control measures.
Gun amnesties work for some people, but they don't just round up every gun and *poof* they're gone. Even in Australia there were thousands of guns that just disappeared. No one knows where they are. It's pretty clear a large number of guns would stay on the streets.
You make it sound like I'm pro guns.
I thought your post was pro-gun
mainly because an argument about people losing their jobs is the sort of re-framing of the issue I'd expect the NRA to come up with if and when the 'second amendment' gets amended and they need a new reason to justify maintaining the legal status quo.I thought your post was pro-gun
No, I'm definitely anti-gun. I was just playing devil's advocate because I assume that there a lot of people whose lively hood depends on guns (weirdly pro gun sounding sentence). I was wondering about the exact numbers and if anyone who was anti-gun had considered how to soften the impact of job loss.
job losses are pretty much secondary when you consider what a relatively gun free America would do for its people. And they wouldn't be losing their jobs over night, a law like that would take years to implement properly.
You also have the fact that the military buys its weapons from these companies, and whenever it wants a new one, it relies on the R&D of these private companies to develop a new weapon to their specifications.
The American military alone uses rifles and pistols from FN Herstal, Colt, Remington, Sig Sauer, HK, and Beretta.
While the orders from the military are massive chunks of money, without private sales, these companies would go out of business, causing the military to lose its supply chain.
I have a sig p250 and they are really nice, made from the same people who complain about the proliferation of guns in US
A lot of the weapons sold in US are made in Europe.
The Germans are the only people who complain about the proliferation of guns in America?
Boo hoo! What a feckin shame, my heart bleeds for them.
I'm sure they would be fine, there would still be enough sales from handguns and ammo and military contracts. Yeah, jobs would be lost for sure, but no way would the companies go out of business and i'm sure the boards and shareholders wouldn't be pleading poverty overnight.
The loss of money/revenue is a very sick argument when discussing the loss of lives! Especially like after Sandy Hook and people were discussing the lives of Children at school.
I'm sorry that pointing out another factor that ties in to someone else's post is so troubling for you, but when people ask "Why won't Congress do x, y, or z" it is helpful to have pertinent information.
1- Belgium
2- German
3- Beretta
Then we have the Glock which is from Austria I think, the impact would be not only in US but in Europe as well, but I don't think that many people work on this industry anyway.
I think he's referring to Europeans in general.
FN Herstal - Belgium
Glock - Austria
HK - Germany
Sig Sauer - Germany
Beretta - Italy
Benelli - Italy
Walther - Germany
Steyr - Austria
CZ - Czech Republic
They've got no qualms about exporting to the American civilian firearms market.
Why would they? If there's money to be made people will make it.
That doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean that Europeans have no grounds to hold anti-gun views which is what barros seemed to be bizarrely implying.
Is there anything that Europeans could do to help the situation in America then?
EDIT: The EU restricted export of sodium thiopental because it was used in lethal injections. No such restrictions on these European arms manufacturers though.
Last edited:
I wasn't knocking you personally mate. Far from it, I think we got on similar pages a while ago. Just pointing out the argument is disgusting.
Congress wont do anything because of money, it's sick and exceedingly disturbing that the Dems had to carry out a 15 hour filibuster just to be able to propose that even people on a no-fly list and terrorist watch-list cannot purchase guns. It's beyond sick and disgusting.
Imagine your kid was at school at Sandy Hook. Just imagine your child didn't come home from school that day. Or imagine your brother was in the nightclub in Orlando with his husband and didn't come home? That's all I ask anyone to consider. If they can consider that and then still tell me that the sale of assault rifles is ok and that their right to own one of those killing machines trumps the rights of those shot dead, well then as far as i'm concerned THEY are the problem and THAT ATTITUDE is the problem. I think until they experience a mindless and needless loss from a mass shooting, they will never change their minds, but 70% of the country who is against the sale of assault rifles should be able to and that is a bigger problem.
Why they stopped selling that lethal drug used for death penalty? Not that much money?
I think that there is a solution to the sale of AR15's etc. that is staring Congress in the face, but has been ignored.
To purchase a fully automatic weapon, you have to have a Class III permit from the FBI. This is how they grandfathered in fully automatic weapons legally owned in America in 1986 when the ban was put in place. To date, and to my knowledge, there has never been a criminal act committed with a Class III permitted weapon. The law is already on the books if Congress wanted to simply add the Class III tag to semiautomatic AR15s and the like.
Indeed.. Sodium thiopental.
The European Union restricted sales of it to the United States because it was used in lethal injections, never mind the fact that it was also used as an effective anesthetic.
Well there's a pretty obvious difference between gun sales and capital punishment, but I certainly wouldn't have any issue with the EU doing something to help with the gun problem.
The Sig looks new. Not much different from an AR-15, though. The gas system is probably the main difference.
That bank heist in LA maybe, aka the North Hollywood shootout?
Nope. Those were semi-autos that were illegally converted to automatic by filing down the sear.
Yeah, I figured as much. Still that must be one of the only times people have gone full auto when committing a crime in the US, no?
I'm not sure. I know it's the only time I can remember. Could be some modified or imported full autos floating around in Gangland or Cartelville though.
Depends on the quality, really. Anywhere from about $600 to as much as about $3000.So, how much are AR 15s going for?
So, how much are AR 15s going for?
You can probably get a basic one by DPMS for about $500, maybe less.
I'm sure there are but they don't really have a lot of practical use. Plus they draw a lot of police attention.
but then they wouldn't be able to sell guns to third world despots. As such, it will never happen. Not pointing fingers at the EU, mind. The US, Canada, England, & EU are all at it.
Yes, ATF is nothing to play with.
Also, would like to add to my reference to "Class III", what I was meaning was the National Firearms Act that Class III is part of. The NFA highly regulates the transfer and purchase of things like full autos, suppressors, etc.
The framework is already there for them to heavily regulate AR's, AK's and the like.
Am I only the one who finds the fawning over guns by our resident gun-owners bit disturbing?
WTF is a 'nice' gun?! Kills the intended targeted more smoothly with less blood spattered?
WTF is a 'nice' gun?! Kills the intended targeted more smoothly with less blood spattered?
SBRs, too, right?
That is correct.