doublegunshop.com - home Forums FORUM DECORUM

Firearms that come under the mis-identified description of assault weapons (AR-15's and any other semi auto rifle or carbine) are used in the minority of firearms related crimes. They are the least likely to be used in any violent crime.

brian: I tend to agree, but don't know for sure.

do you have any stats that indicate which types of firearms are most likely to be misused? semi auto hand guns should be high on the list, certainly, just because there are so many of them in the hands of the general public.

From rifles (all types) for one year 323 vs 6220 for handguns.

From the Wall Street Journal, as quoted form FBI Crime Report

Assault� rifles are not involved in many U.S. murders: A look at the data
The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323.
The irony is, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic and long-term decline in murder since 1980, even as mass shootings seem to have increased. Social scientists aren�t entirely sure why.

As for rifles, they are used even less than body parts, blunt instruments or sharp objects to commit murder.
In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolrepo...ok-at-the-data/





January 16, 2013, 3:23 PM ETThe number involving handguns? A whopping 6,220. Or 49% of the 12,664 homicides committed in the U.S. in 2011, according to FBI data. And that�s a longstanding pattern. See murder statistics by weapon.

The huge gap suggests President Obama�s call for new firearm restrictions would do little to reduce the number people murdered each year � even if a reluctant Congress were to pass all his requests. His proposals don�t really addresss handguns.

brian: new federally mandated firearms restrictions are not a good idea...mostly, because different areas of the country have different needs. as was pointed out here, what is needed in the big cities aint necessarily what is needed in more rural areas. even state level firearms restrictions may not be appropriate. seems like firearms restriction should be left to the lowest level of regulatory authority...however, unless there is severe and swift punishment for criminal misuse of firearms, it will be all for naught.

I would disagree. It would be a very bad idea to allow any municipality, county, or state to decide on our constitutional rights . Read that plural. Not just about guns. Towns, cities etc. deciding what is appropriate to read or say? I think not. Constitutional rights are rights we enjoy regardless of state boundaries.
Instead of looking at restricting the rights of the law abiding, why not focus on the criminal element, the mentally ill and the sheep that don�t want to protect themselves.
Remember, heroin is illegal and all over the US there is an explosion of heroin sales, use and trafficking. How could that be? They outlawed heroin decades ago. Those laws should have magically made it go away never to return. Remember, opiates were over the counter dugs used by law abiding citizens at one time. Now, being illegal, there is a huge trade in them and criminals don�t seem to worry about getting it , selling it or using it, and society pays the price.

Bullshit....lets round up the libtards affraid of guns..and those who want to take away anyone elses guns and put them on a desert Island....I bet they still find ways to kill each other.

WHere restrictions should be is with the police, and DHS...and every other non-police government agency....none of them need automatic weapons...armored cars...rocket launchers or anything else they didn't have 40 years ago.

If THEY are allowed to have those....WE should be allowed to have them as well.

BHD,
spot on. the militarization of law enforcement in this country is appalling. And, the Obama Administration is pushing heavily for further militarization.

It was BHO who said the following on July 2nd, 2008
Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a �Civilian National Security Force.� He further promised it would be �just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.�he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: �We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we�ve set.

"CNSF" O'Bammy's updated version of Hitler's SS!

Agree that the militarization of police forces is disturbing; however,I would suggest reading Factcheck regarding the quote about the Civilian National Security Force.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

ed, you still have not answered my reply to your post about the poor folk who fear our guns as cause to discuss making concessions to the anti-gunners.

Now you add an equally ridiculous argument about people who fear getting shot by stray bullets. It's much more likely for a child or pedestrian to be injured or killed by a car or truck they don't see or hear coming.

But have you taken a lead in addressing these fears and gotten rid of your guns ed? You can't just put some lipstick on them and sell them. The buyer might fire stray shots that kill someone. Or they might get stolen by gangbangers who use them to kill someone. You need to lead by example and destroy them.

Why do you feel we should get rid of some or all of our guns when you refuse to even discuss getting rid of yours. Come on ed, stop being a petty selfish hypocrite.