"aemeijers" wrote in news:A_ZEi.81432$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
I believe it's around a $1000 now.
Prior to 1968 (1968 GCA),guns were sold in hardware stores,could be mail- ordered,no ID needed,could be bought across state lines,and yet gun crime was low.Of course,the drug and gang cultures had yet to appear.
WHO in their right mind wants only the GOVERNMENT and criminals to have all the guns? The US was -created- by the armed overthrow of the incumbent government(Britain),by CITIZEN arms.
and it began when Britain moved to DISARM the colonists.
I think that's what got the FFL count down to about 75,000 from about
150,000. It was when there were about 150,000 FFLs when there were no restrictions other than lack of criminal record or record of disqualifying mental illness.
I wouldn't be too upset if everyone had rifles, shotguns, even elephant guns or .50 caliber military rifles for that matter. I probably won't mind too much if any old Joe can have a tank, or if the neighborhood rich kid or the neighborhood militia gets an F-15, or docks a working battleship at the nearby port and steams it around the coast or up and down the river. It appears to me that about 98% of gun crime is committed with guns small enough to hide in a pocket.
Hypothetical: I dare Al Q'aeda to try to hijack a tank from the Moose County Militia, where they always have at least a few people awake like they do in the Army, and dozens of men 2 minutes away with plenty of .30-06 and larger rifles, lots of M-16 automatic rifles, antitank missiles, grenade launchers, a few more tanks... Safer to launch an attack in Washington DC, where the firepower is mostly .44 magnum and smaller and in the hands of common criminals.
How about you exchange your handgun for something along the lines of an AK47?
Their's are still low, while ours is still high.
I do remember a study comparing Seattle and Vancouver. Rates of crimes not committed with guns were similar in both cities, while rates of crimes committed with guns were very different.
I doubt that a ban on anything most common criminals can cobble up does any good anywhere. I also doubt UK will ban screwdrivers, and I have low fears of anyone trying to rob me with a screwdriver. Angry "significant other" trying to murder me in my sleep with a screwdriver if denied a gun or pointy knife maybe, but I doubt many banks or convenience stores get robbed at point of knife or screwdriver or baseball bat even where only outlaws have guns.
I also note something a relative told me - in many places in Europe, sporting goods shops sell plenty of baseball bats, while not selling anywhere near an according number of baseballs, gloves/mitts, bases or home plates. But nobody is going to kill me from 2 yards away with a baseball bat.
Funny how damn few murders committed by druggies are committed with machine guns.
Yea I know, Canada looks a little good to me now!
So how does gun crime in Canada compare to that in "the States"?
Live in Butler County PA, it's like posting a sign on the house "guns inside". What happens to burglars in Butler County PA? I doubt there are many burglars who burglarized a home in Butler County PA.
It appears to me that Philadelphia's gun-stealing burglars find enough guns to steal in or within 10 miles of Philadelphia - mainly from ordinary homes of anyone as opposed to FFL holders.
Heck, why aren't burglars stealing bazillions of guns from gun shops?
And how much of a problem is this in, say, Toronto?
And I was mentioning current law allowing only ATF as opposed to FBI, state and local police forces, as opposed to the media.
I don't have a problem with carrying a gun if you are in a country where your neighbors and the folks across town can get guns.
I do have a problem with Philadelphia trying to restrict concealed-carry permits, for 2 reasons:
This is a municipal effort, and I see negative effect of gun control laws when on a municipal scale rather than a national scale.
Percentage of Philadelphia's gun crime committed by concealed-carry-permit holders is a lot less than the percentage of Philadelphians that have concealed-carry permits.
I also see a little problem with requiring a permit for concealed-carry
- hard to enforce, except against those stopped either for committing a crime or for a random personal search.
Philadelphia even has some "stop and frisk" by local police going on in some higher crime neighborhoods. How about arresting crooks caught with guns on basis of posessing a handgun while under 21 and not on private property, or posessing a gun while having a criminal record dating back within X years? Ideally, I would prefer just checking for guns unlawful to have on one's person when being arrested for a crime - how about "stop and frisk" stopping short of frisking if the stopped person has ID and is
18-plus and manages to have gone 10 years without a criminal record (or is not on parole or probation and has no outstanding arrest warrants and is not in a location that puts the stopped person in violation of an outstanding protection-from-abuse order)?
That should deter most people who get these things just for evading sales tax. Maybe the number of these will drop to something like 40,000 maybe 30,000 within a few years.
I won't have too much trouble with all my neighbors and the folks across town having AK47's or anything bigger.
Who said I had a handgun? I ain't that rich. Just the vintage Belgium Browning bolt-action .22 I got as a kid (which I understand may actually be worth a few bucks now), and one of those cheap plastic-stocked Mossberg 'special service' 12-gauge pumps with the short barrel and 5-shot magazine.
I wouldn't mind having a stainless mini-14, but paying off the mortgage comes first. Ammo is so damn expensive these days, and non-club legal shooting areas so hard to arrange, that I haven't done any recreational shooting in years. 12 gauge with 00 buck doesn't take much aiming. (Light loads so as to not go through more than 1 wall.)
It doesn't say that. It says you can't have more than one rep per 30K voters, it does NOT say that you can't have more than 30K voters per one rep.
Then it's not the same thing. The OP implied that one per 30K is a minimum. You say (correctly) that one per 30K is a maximum. You can't have two per
30K, but you can have one per 100,000.
With one per 100K, "The Number of Representatives" does "not exceed one for every thirty Thousand".
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:
[edit useless hypothetical]
What good is an AK for personal self-defense outside the home? Do you think that average people can defend themselves against criminals that are bigger,stronger or more numerous,carrying guns OR other items as weapons? Ya think a woman being stalked by an ex or other wacko is going to carry an AK or shotgun? Or the elderly person going to the store,a nice target for crooks? But they CAN use a handgun effectively,and with the least risk to themselves.
A primary advantage of handguns is that they CAN be concealed,and then the crook does not know you are armed,and does not plan for it. Open carry leaves you vulnerable,everybody knows you have the gun.
And despite ANY handgun ban,local or national,criminals STILL get handguns,besides saeed-off shotguns, and rifles,in EVERY country on Earth.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.