How can we regulate guns ... ?

Hi all,Have any of you ever been to a gun show and tried to buy a gun of any kind?I live in the state of Florida and have gone to many gun shows.There are no assualt guns sold at gun shows.What is an assault rifle?

quote:

---

THE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON
SMALL ARMS IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
1847 Vernon Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone (202) 234-0683

​

ASSAULT RIFLE FACT SHEET #1
DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND

​

Recent discussions of so-called "assault rifles" in both the
media and legislative arenas have seen imprecise usage of the
terms used to describe such firearms. This fact sheet is designed
to improve the technical accuracy of future discussions.

​

ASSAULT RIFLE: This term was coined during World War II. It is a
translation of the German "Sturmgewehr." Two key
characteristics that identify "assault rifles" are
full automatic fire and detachable magazines with
a capacity of 20 or more cartridges. These weapons
were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of
full automatic fire. While some assault rifles
offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e.,
single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at
least fully automatic.

---

SourceThere are specific things that must take place before you can purchase a gun from a licensed gun dealer. You will find no displays at a gun show by anyone other than a licensed gun dealer.

quote:

---

No licensed gun dealer, manufacturer or importer shall sell or deliver any firearm to another person until he has obtained a completed form from the potential buyer or transferee and received approval from the Department of Law Enforcement by means of a toll-free telephone call.

​

The Department of Law Enforcement shall destroy records of approval and non-approval within 48 hours after its response.

​

Exempt from the instant check are licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, collectors, persons with a concealed carrying license, law enforcement, correctional and correctional probation officers.

---

SourceYou can find a copy of the ATF form 4473 that must be filled out before a licensed dealer can transfer a gun to your posession.If you read the form you will notice that you have to have a picture id and a background check preformed before the dealer can transfer a gun to your posession.You can find the form HereSo if you guys want to talk about gun control it would be best if you find out what is already required so you can speak from knowledge rather than ignorance.God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Hi No, When did the first woman run for president of the United States?In the 19th century, Victoria Claflin Woodhull was the first woman to run for president in 1872.So what is the point in relation to purchasing a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer?There are laws that must be followed to purchace and receive a gun from a licensed dealer.God Bless,

Hi RAZD, If saving lives is what you are after why don't we include some other things.In 2010 there was 358 murders with rifles. That includes rifles of all kinds.In 2010 there was 540 murders with blunt instruments, (clubs, and hammers, etc.). Over 1 1/2 times as many as rifles.In 2010 there was 745 murders with personal weapons, (hands, fists, feet, etc.). Over 2 times as many as rifles.In 2010 there was 1,704 murders with knives and cutting instruments.
Over 4 3/4 times as many as rifles.Maybe we should ban hands and feet, look at the lives it would save.
Maybe we should ban knives and all cutting instruments, look at how many lives it would save.
Maybe we should ban all bats of any kind and hammers of all kinds, look at how many lives it would save.Any of these would save a lot more lives than banning semi-automatic rifles.Rifles are not the problem.People who have no one to answer to but themselves is the problem.God Bless,BTW if you want to research the facts for yourself look up the following information and you will find the first assault rifle ban did not work and will not work again. Rifles are not the problem. Depraved humans are the problem. If they choose to kill they will, and there is no law that will stop them. They are the final authority and answer to no one but themself.Banning hand guns would save a lot of lives. In 2010 there was 6,009 murders with hand guns.1994 to 1998, Table 2-10 (pdf): http://www.fbi.gov/...s/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1998/98sec2.pdf1999 to 2003, Table 2-9 (pdf): http://www.fbi.gov/...s/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003/03sec2.pdf2004 to 2008, Table 8: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 20082006 to 2010, Table 8: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Hi Tangle, Total murders in 2009 with all weapons was 13,752.
Total murders in 2009 with guns was 10,129.
Total deaths in 2009 in motor vehicle accidents was 33,808.Why don't we ban automobiles? That would save a lot more lives.I live in a community where you can do anything you need to do either by walking or using a golf cart. So why not take all cars off the road and only allow trucks to move goods on the highways?Just look at the lives we could save.BTW the constitution does not say your right to travel up and down the road as you please shall not be infringed.It does say my right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that is what you are suggesting we do.God Bless,

Hi Panda, I did not say that.I said depraved mankind who has no one to answer to but themselves.There are millions of very religious people who are depraved and have no one to answer too but themselves. Many people who believe in God do not believe they have to answer to Him for their actions.I have a 30.06 rifle that I could part your hair with at 100 yards without scratching the surface of your head. It would probably blister the skin from the friction. It can handle a 10 shot magazine which can be ejected and replaced in less than 2 seconds. It has much more killing power that the so-called assault weapons. But if I was going to do something like in the school I would not choose it or an AR15 semi-automatic or an AK47 semi-automatic rifle.Either of those with a 30 round clip can only fire 30 projectiles before you have to reload. I would choose a Saiga 12 12 gauge shotgun with a 10 round magazine using 00 buckshot which has 9 pellets per shot which would produce 90 projectiles before a reload would be required.
The shotgun can fire just as fast as either of the rifles mentioned, and you would have 3 times the opportunity to cause damage.No gun can kill anyone by itself.
The first thing that is required is for someone to have the gun in their posession.
The second thing is that ammunition has to be placed in the chamber.
The third thing that has to happen is the gun must be pointed at the target.
The gun could be in this position as long as the person who was holding the gun could support the weight of the gun and it would not kill anyone.
For the gun to kill anybody the three things above must be accomplished.The fourth thing is the safety must be taken off.The fifth thing is the triger must be depressed to release the firing pin to strike the ammunition to cause it to fire the projectile.The gun can not accomplish any of these 5 things by itself.It takes intervention by a human.For a human to depress the triger on a gun he/she has to make a decision to kill whatever the gun is pointed at.To fix the problem with deaths by guns the humans need to be fixed. The gun is only a tool, and if that tool is not available another tool will be found and used if a person is intent on taking the life of someone.Evidence of that is the 1,704 deaths by knives and cutting instruments, the 540 death by blunt instruments (clubs, hammers, etc.), and 745 deaths by personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).What would cause a person to decide to take the life of another person?That is the problem that needs to be fixed.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, That is easy to fix. Cut off everyone's hands. Why is it irrelevant?No place in the constitution does it say your ability to travel up and down the roads shall not be infringed.The second amendment to the constitution says my rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

quote:

---

Amendment II

​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Please notice the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".It does not say the right of a Militia as has been presented in this thread.It says the right of the people.That means the only way you can infringe upon my right to own Arms is amend the constitution which requires 3/4 of the states to ratify.Therefore any gun laws passed is unconstitutional.God Bless,

Hi Paul, No.I am saying remove the depraved human and the problem will be solved.To remove the gun you have to change the constitution.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, You only have one real choice at the moment if the rule of law is obeyed in the US.That choice is to remove the depraved human.If you want to remove the guns you have to change the constitution.Lots of luck with that one.God Bless,

Hi No, Murders 2009 with guns, 9,484
Vehicle death 2009, 33,808. President Clinton would disagree with you.He had the DOJ do a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.If I remember correctly this was in conjunction with the previous assault weapons ban that was passed in 1994.I don't think you will find where guns was used to end more lives than they protected in 1994. Happy hunting. I am sure there are a lot of folks in Cuba that would disagree with you on whether the second amendment is a good idea. They would tell you it is a very good idea that people be allowed to be able to bear Arms. They have no recourse against those in power.What is improperly interpreted about the words:

quote:

---

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

That says I have the right to bear Arms.It does not limit the type of Arms I am allowed to have. Therefore since it was placed in the constitution to give the people a means to overthrow the people in power with force if necessary if they discarded the constitution I am allowed to have any Arms the national military has, and that right shall not be infringed by those in power.In other words our founders was making sure there would not be a David and Goliath battle in America.God Bless,

Hi Paul, But the second amendment exists.If you want to do away with the second amendment then go about it the way it can be done away with.The constitution has to be amended to change the second amendment.That requires 2/3 rds of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution. I think I messed up in another post and said 3/4ths.God Bless,

Hi RAZD,

quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Where does that state the Militia has the right to keep and bear Arms?Where does it say "in order that a well regulated militia can be formed"?I am an expert marksman with a honorable discharge from the Army of the United States of America.What is wrong with me owning any type of weapon I desire to own?There are millions just like me that would take up our Arms when the constitution of these United States is trashed, and defend said constitution. That is what the second amendment was put in our constitution for. Not just so I could have a gun to hunt with. It says you nor anyone else can infringe what Arms I can have.If I have grenades, a rocket launcher, a .50 calaber machine gun and any other weapon I desire along with all the ammunition I think I might need, the provision is complied with.The second amendment says I have that right and it can not be infringed.Now if I choose not to obtain those weapons that is my choice. No one is infringing on my right to bear Arms. What part of the second amendment limits my Arms to being bolt action guns?I have had semi-automatic weapons since 1955. They will and would fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. They have always had interchangable 10 bullet clips, which takes about 2 seconds to change.I have qualified with fully automatic weapons including .30 cal. machine guns, and .50 cal. machine guns. They will spit out bullets until you run out of bullets or the barrel melts. If I lived in Cuba and wanted to go against the corrupt power that be I would prefer to have the .50 cal. machine gun than a shotgun. The same would apply if our government decided to put everyone in their place and do away with our constitution.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, Any restriction that is applied is infringing upon my rights to bear Arms.As a society we have allowed certain regulations to be put into place but everyone of them is unconstitutional. Even the ban on fully automatic weapons.They had cannons when the constitution was written and they did not exclude the people from having them. That right was preserved in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".The government was forbidden from infringing upon that right.This was to insure that the States would remain free from domination by the Federal government. Which is the point we are fast approaching.God Bless,

Hi Paul,

quote:

---

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling
weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

---

The woman reported 52 not 521. And the information you provided was not used to come to the conclusion of 1.5 million uses of guns in self defense. That was 3.1 million.In the next paragraph they reduced to account for those problems and came up with 1.5 million.The people that are reviewing the study in 1997 makes an amazing statement:

quote:

---

For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable
reference. Such information is
vital to the evaluation of the ongoing
debate over government regulation of
gun transactions, possession, and use.

---

For the number of defensive uses they are not reliable but for everything else they are reliable.If you can't trust them for one set of figures why would you trust them for another set of figures? Here is a peer review of the report in question.

quote:

---

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

​

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

---

God Bless,

Hi No, So the people of Lybia is committing treason.
The people of Egypt was committing treason.
The people at the Bay of Pigs was committing treason.
If it is treason when a government gets so rotten the people have to take up Arms against it why did the US help the people in Egypt, Cuba and many other places around the world to try to overthrow their government?So Florida needs a well regulated Militia so that it can remain a free State.I go along with that.Many say the national guard is that Militia but that is a lie. The NATIONAL Guard is a NATIONAL ORGINAZION. It is not a state organization.So for the State of Florida to remain a free State (and any other State) the people of the State must be able to defend itself against any intruder including the Federal government, although that is the main responsibility of the Federal government.Where in the second amendment does it tell me who is the commander in chief of a State Militia?God Bless,

Hi Paul, Then quit trying to delute what it says and defend it.Those beautiful pictures is why the second amendment was put in the constitution stating I was allowed to bear ARMS, without any restrictions on what my ARMS was allowed to be.Are you advocating exactly what the Lybian government is doing to their citizens?God Bless,