The Math Of Mass Shootings

That is what the people who want to ban guns here are saying to a large extent. It's not at all clear that it is indeed the case. Now if you include bulk sales to various military and police organizations that could be correct. However if a US manufacturer sells a bunch of assault rifles to the Mexican military and they then end up in the hands of the drug gangs it's a bit different than a gun being bought in El Paso and turning up across the border isn't it.

 

In 1934, not the ban Takao is talking about. That "very expensive" permit (actually a tax stamp) is only $200. I have those same stamps for my suppressors.

Actually, it's clear that the case is just the opposite. The "studies" on that are based on the few guns with American markings that the Mexican police, using US connections, can trace back to US sales. US manufacturers and importers stamp them with a serial number and/or import data that can be traced to a US sale or a foreign sale. Of those American guns, more are US sales than foreign sales which is what the data is based on. HOWEVER, the great majority of cartel guns picked up by the Mexican authorities aren't US guns and they are aren't included in the data because US authorities aren't involved with those. It's bullshit data based on a small subset of the weapons tied to the drug cartels.

Basically, since the Mexican authorities are finding 15 or 20% of the weapons are tied to the US through the markings, and from that number 80% are US sales, then they are claiming 80% of the guns used by the cartels came from US sales rather than foreign sales. It's a lie because they leave out the fact that the great majority of the guns have no US ties and aren't included in the US investigation.

The Cartels are exporting drugs and importing weapons from all over the world. Most of those AK's are the full auto type coming from Eastern Europe and Russia. Many of the other weapons are coming directly from the Mexican (and other latin American countries) police and military. Google around and you'll find very authoritative refutations of that stupid Justice Department study.

 

Yep, and it gets to the root of the problem today. In the US when liberals and conservatives argue "gun control" they tend to have a very imperfect understanding of what the other side means and what the actual legalities are.

Many tend to believe the 1934 NFA is a "ban of automatic weapons", when it is really a set of controls of carefully defined very destructive "military-type" weapons. It truly is "gun control" and by default (see below) is not considered an infringment of the "right to bear arms" under the 2nd Amednment. Nor was the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban truly a ban, it was an extension of the controls expressed in the 1994 NFA, for a closely defined set of weapons and weapons characteristics (and yes, some of them were "cosmetic" only) with a set time limit. SCOTUS also ruled in 2008 the 2nd Amendment holds for all legal use, the only for a "well-regulated militia" argument simply doesn't fly.

The problem I see in all that is the huge mistake G. W. Bush made in letting the 1994 statute lapse at the end of its ten-year life. It probably would have been better if he had extended it, which likely would have finally resulted in a direct Constitutional challenge, which SCOTUS would have been forced to hear and rule on. You see, many do not realize the Constitutional challenge to the 1934 NFA was never really resolved, it was remanded to the Circuit Court for further action and then died (well, the complainants involved died). SCOTUS is actually pretty adept at avoiding political hot potatoes until time makes the challenge moot, but in this case time isn't doing its usual job of healing all wounds, which eventually is going to require the Court to act, as happened WRT the 13th Amendment and Brown versus Board of Education. We might then get an actual exact legal resolution as to what constitutes legal arms and legal use under the 2nd Amendment. In other words, actual "gun control".

Mind you, the other problem is what most people want to identify as a "gun control" problem is actually a "gun death" problem, but thats another matter...

 

I thought I had heard it was much higher. Perhaps there's a state one as well but that doesn't sound right. I have heard that the guns are getting very pricy as they have outlawed the acquisition by guns manufactured after a certain date. Or am I off on this as well.

 

That is true, but that comes from the Reagan era - the FOPA act. Really though, only the very collectible guns are hugely expensive. There are plenty of full auto guns that are affordable enough for the average guy. If you want a full auto WWII Thompson, you'd better have a big wallet. But, when you compare some of the pricier (semi-auto) AR15s against full auto "controlled" AR/M16 rifles, they aren't that much more. The only controlled part is the receiver and auto sear, so you can buy a burned out full auto rifle and rebarrel it, add new furniture - make it new.

Personally, I don't think full auto weapons are more dangerous than semi-auto unless they're in the hands of a very well-trained soldier or marine. Even the military thinks so - they've gone to a 3 round burst mechanism because most people under stress just empty the mag, most of which goes everywhere except the target.

 

Reports I read from SWA suggested that the US was using single shots most of the time over there. Even the LMG's were often only firing a round at a time.

 

Yeah, exactly, and these people are using FMJ ammo so you get more wounded than dead. God forbid anyone ever uses a hunting rifle in one of these shootings! Can you imagine the death toll if one of these nuts ever walked in with an old Winchester .30/30 and hunting rounds?

 

The only thing that keeps the "gun laws" on the books are the law-abiding citizens. Those law-abiding citizens that follow state and federal laws controlling them, are giving up their 2nd Amendment Right. All the gun laws are an infringement. It must have been in the 1960's when the government changed it's view on Civil Defense and took that responsibility from us.

 

Well, gun ban may be a bit harsh. But the registry was all about finding who had guns.
Of course, the criminals never registered.
So the good folk during the High River flooding were penalised -for what.
Does the US want to be like us
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/canadian-high-river-gun-grab-cover-up-continues/

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/flood-used-as-cover-for-firearm-confiscation/

 

Maybe this should be on the 'Mysterious Thread' Why do Americans and Canadians refer to Math as a shortened version of Mathematics (plural) instead of Maths?

 

Cause thats the way we like, we like, we like it. Uh huh, Uh huh.
Just kidding, I don't have a clue. We just do.

 

We American's are doers, we ain't got no time for extra letters!

 

It sounds dumb that is why.

You don't study musics, you don't study histories, your don't study chemistries, etc.

 

To be serious for a moment........giving you all a moment to compose yourselves about that.

North American English is in a constant state of flux, new words added, old ones modified or shortened or even changing meaning altogether. Two examples being 'dope' which used to mean first a person of low intelligence, then slang for drugs now seems to be a adjective meaning good as in the use that car is 'dope'. Another is 'shade' which was a good thing on a hot sunny day, now seems to mean to insult somebody, often indirectly.

 

The nouns music, history and chemistry are singular - mathematics is plural. When referring to Statistics as a subject, do you use Stat or Stats?

 

All languages change over time. In my youth, 'gay' meant happy or bright.
I was very shocked the first time I heard an American referring to their 'fanny'. In British usage it is a female's genitals. I am sure there must be words that we use that seem rude to you.

 

Ya'll use the term fag for cigarette. It is a pejorative term for male homosexual here. First time I heard someone say they smoked a fag, I thought they either performed oral copulation on a male homosexual or killed them, because "smoked" is commonly used in the military when to denote killing someone. I.E. "Dude I smoked that hadji, hit him right between the running lights."

 

faggots have a number of meanings...

 

Always so serious?

I don't refer to it as a subject. Although, when I was in college it was, IIRC, MATH 160

 

Sorry Takao. I can get a bit carried away when discussing things. My mother said that I could start a fight in an empty room.

Happy Christmas!