HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 03:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

Ummm, rifles are the least misused of all weapons...

"The carnage proves it."

You are aware that rifles are the least misused of all weapons in this country, yes?

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)[/font]

The trend in rifle homicide is down, even though the AR-15 platform has been the most popular civilian rifle in the United States for many years.

Rifle homicides, 2005-2013 (from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Table 20, collated):

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285

Anyone who is fighting to outlaw the most popular rifles isn't going after "gun violence", they are going after lawful ownership.

Because they *are* handguns.

Exceedingly clunky and harder to conceal than a regular handgun, and harder to hit anything with, but functionally and ballistically the same as a Glock or a Smith & Wesson 9mm, firing the same ammunition at the same rate of fire as any other double-stack civilian 9mm pistol.

FWIW, Intratec went out of business in 2001 due primarily to poor sales. The guns were interesting looking, but they had a reputation for jamming and I don't think they were ever very popular.

Because the law firm doesn't seem to understand civilian firearms or the PLCAA?

Or perhaps they have swallowed the falsehood that an AR-15 is a "weapon of war", rather than a non-automatic civilian .22 centerfire that 40+ companies make that has been the top selling sporting rifle in the United States for many years.

At some point, someone is going to stand up in court and point out that 75% of firearms on the U.S. civilian market work *exactly* like the AR-15, that .223 Remington is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers, and that rifles are the least misused of all firearms (all rifles combined account for only 2.5% of U.S. murders, per the FBI).

I believe the full text of the filing can be found here:


“I do not intend to use the surgeon general's office as a bully pulpit for gun control."


Earlier this year in a hearing on Capitol Hill, Murthy said if confirmed, he would focus on public health topics of broad agreement such as the need to fight the country’s obesity epidemic. “I do not intend to use the surgeon general's office as a bully pulpit for gun control,” he said at the time.

Just like a police revolver, which the Glock was designed to emulate.

These idiots carry Glocks, they do not have a safety or decocking mechanism what Glock refers to as a safety is a small lever that sits in the middle of the trigger and the only thing required to shoot is to pull the trigger no other safety to disengage .. if there is a round chambered it is hot to go with only a trigger pull ..

Just like a police revolver, which the Glock was designed to emulate. A DA/SA will also go off if you put your finger in the trigger guard and pull the trigger, as will every other double-action or striker-fired design intended to be carried with the safety off. The only pistols that would be commonly carried in the hand with the safety on are those with a 1911 style thumb-rest safety (because the 1911 is carried with the hammer cocked), but carrying with your finger on the trigger is *still* a stupid violation of one of the fundamental rules of gun safety, namely keep your damn finger off the damn trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.

If his finger was off the trigger instead of pulling it, the gun would not have fired, even if it were thrown off a 3-story building and landed on concrete.

You must be really entertaining on a golf course...

"Yes, look at how hard the metal appears, and slick, and the long shaft, the hammer cocked......"

You must be really entertaining on a golf course. Or fishing. Or playing baseball. Or flying an aircraft with a center stick. Or building something with a drill or a screwdriver. Or writing something with a pencil or a pen. And if you think a firearm looks phallic, you must really be impressed by that Orion/Delta IV launch this past week...

If this looks phallic to you, then you might be a gun control activist...or else you need to see a urologist stat:

The biggest problem we tend to have

with "background check" legislation is that too often, it goes waaaaaaay beyond background checks. For example, Manchin-Toomey made it a crime to lend your significant other a gun unless you were married, including simply leaving the gun at home if you were traveling out of town more than a week, as I recall. Washington's i594 is a steaming mess that makes it a felony to let a friend who has already passed a background check to so much as touch your gun outside of a commercial shooting range, and all transfers have to go through commercial dealers to be registered via BATFE Form 4473, among other things. That was a bait-and-switch.

I'm not opposed to background checks for private sales, in principle. I am deeply opposed to registration, and to intentional inconvenience such as requiring tranfers to go through gun stores, or making the background check as expensive and inconvenient as possible. A lot of those things are intended to simply discourage unregistered gun sales, background check or not. And given the fact that there is still a powerful, extremely well funded lobby trying to outlaw the most popular civilian guns in this country, de facto registration is an absolute dealbreaker.

Here in NC,

you can ask to see the buyer's carry license (if they have one, they've passed multiple checks). That's true of most states. For those without carry licenses, I suppose you could run a background check like employers do, but it's pricey.

NC does require a background check for all handgun purchases, but the check is conducted by the sheriff's department for $5, at which time the person undergoing the check gets a purchase permit that is good for a specified period of time. It evolved from a Jim Crow scheme, but at least now it is de facto shall-issue. If there are going to be checks on private sales, I think that is the most practical way to do them, rather than forcing all sales through gun stores.

Imagine, civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds. Shock, horror.

A civilian with a clean record has been able to walk into a general store and buy an over-10-round rifle since 1861 or 1862, whenever the 16-round Henry rifle became available. The 16-round Winchester hit the civilian market in 1866, as I recall.

Then don't own one.

It's a personal choice. You choose not to own guns, and that's fine with me. I choose to, and will retain that choice.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »