I know of NO state that REQUIRES gun registration....only cities....where crime is the worst!
<< (keep in mind, legally-owned guns ARE, believe it or not, often used by their true owners to commit crimes) >>
That is so blantantly false I'll challenge you to supply just ONE source that might be even close to being credible.
How about Australia?
Australian Gun Laws Don't Work!
What a silly thing to boycott. Just go buy your bullets somewhere else. Just because KMart doesn't want to sell the little instruments of death and destruction anymore doesn't mean that gun shops are going to stop as well. I think there are a lot more deserving causes that warrant the attention y'all are giving to this nonissue.
l2c
l2c
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< I know of NO state that REQUIRES gun registration....only cities....where crime is the worst! >>
Well, "most" was a (huge) overstatement, but CA, HI, MI, NY, and DC require registration of some or all guns (i.e., they all require handgun registration and some require long gun registration).
<< (keep in mind, legally-owned guns ARE, believe it or not, often used by their true owners to commit crimes)
That is so blantantly false I'll challenge you to supply just ONE source that might be even close to being credible. >>
You are being naive if you do not believe gun owners EVER commit gun-related crimes, and I could anecdotally tell you about literally dozens of such cases that my mother (a state-court judge) has presided over, or which I have participated in prosecuting. Are you saying that gun owners NEVER commit crimes? I don't get that at all . . .
Here are some numbers that may be illuminating (from the Brady site, which I imagine you will not trust, but hey . . .):
According to the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, from April 30, 1997 through January 31, 2000, 1,041 Florida CCW license-holders had their licenses revoked for committing crimes after they received their license. Moreover, not all Florida licensees involved in altercations with the law had their licenses suspended. In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate of 66 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas.
<< luv2chill..You can close your eyes. Do not expect us to. >>
What is he closing his eyes to? Target doesn't sell cigarettes are you boycotting them for not selling a legal product? There are tons of things that K-mart doesn't sell yet you seem to think that because they choose not to sell bullets that big brother is coming for you. Open up a window, get some fresh air and realise that the footsteps outside your door is just the mailman and not some Nazi coming to get you.
i thought kmart sold guns...not that i would buy a gun from kmart...lol...plus we have cabelas here so i can get ripped off in style
K-Mart has admitted in multiple news reports that, while claiming it to be a "purely business decision", it was made after they consulted with "a prominant gun-control supporter".
I have yet to see a report that identifies this party, but I can reasonably conclude that they were probably advised to expect heavy media coverage of a multi-million dollar civil suit to be filed if a high-profile gun crime is comitted and they can be implicated as a retailer of the ammunition used.
The gun-control groups are getting desperate. They are currently engaged in a frantic effort to re-invent and re-position themselves as advocates of "Safety and Responsible Ownership" (There's a surprise! Their avowed arch-enemy, the National Rifle Association, has been advancing that message for over 130 years). As their membership stagnates, they are increasingly reliant on wealthy individuals for their funding, which belies their claims as representing the sentiments of the mainstream public.
The frivolous product liability lawsuits they have instigated against manufacturers are either getting thrown out as "meritless" or pre-empted by state legislatures. The attorneys that agreed to promote this litigation - thinking they would reap millions on the projected settlements - now want out: The manufacturers (other than Smith & Wesson) have refused to roll over for extortion.
Ashcroft has stated he will abide by the original legislation establishing the National Instant Check System, and direct all info to be destroyed immediately after an approval is issued, thus ending the illegal de-facto database problem (and BTW thus removing potential legal justification for any state to maintain records - Pennsylvania is also doing this illegaly). It has always been illegal under Federal law to maintain a database of firearms ownership. That is why the Federal Form 4473 remains in the posession of the sellor, and is not forwarded to the BATF
Nation-wide polls (that are not crafted to produce a result supporting stricter gun-control) indicate that over 70% of the respondants think that the existing laws are adequate, and that rigorous enforcement and stricter sentencing are the best ways to reduce gun crimes. The national media typically rely on limited option polling: "Given the choice of stricter gun-control laws, or no gun-control laws - Which do you prefer?". Then they turn the microphone over to the anti-gun lobby and supporters to define "sensible gun-control laws".
K-Mart, as a retailer, can adopt any policy or business plan it wishes. But petitions can, and do, influence decisions, including my own.
K-Mart chose to retire ads featuring Ms. O'Donnell and advise her that her contract would not be renewed as a result of negative public sentiment - expressed to them through correspondence and petitions - for her outrageous treatment of Tom Selleck on her show; her public remarks disparaging, and advocating violence, towards law-abiding firearms owners and NRA officials; her high profile affiliation with the Minimal Mom farce; and her obviously (and typically) elitist sentiment that, while her family is entitled to armed protection - others are not.
I have yet to see a report that identifies this party, but I can reasonably conclude that they were probably advised to expect heavy media coverage of a multi-million dollar civil suit to be filed if a high-profile gun crime is comitted and they can be implicated as a retailer of the ammunition used.
The gun-control groups are getting desperate. They are currently engaged in a frantic effort to re-invent and re-position themselves as advocates of "Safety and Responsible Ownership" (There's a surprise! Their avowed arch-enemy, the National Rifle Association, has been advancing that message for over 130 years). As their membership stagnates, they are increasingly reliant on wealthy individuals for their funding, which belies their claims as representing the sentiments of the mainstream public.
The frivolous product liability lawsuits they have instigated against manufacturers are either getting thrown out as "meritless" or pre-empted by state legislatures. The attorneys that agreed to promote this litigation - thinking they would reap millions on the projected settlements - now want out: The manufacturers (other than Smith & Wesson) have refused to roll over for extortion.
Ashcroft has stated he will abide by the original legislation establishing the National Instant Check System, and direct all info to be destroyed immediately after an approval is issued, thus ending the illegal de-facto database problem (and BTW thus removing potential legal justification for any state to maintain records - Pennsylvania is also doing this illegaly). It has always been illegal under Federal law to maintain a database of firearms ownership. That is why the Federal Form 4473 remains in the posession of the sellor, and is not forwarded to the BATF
Nation-wide polls (that are not crafted to produce a result supporting stricter gun-control) indicate that over 70% of the respondants think that the existing laws are adequate, and that rigorous enforcement and stricter sentencing are the best ways to reduce gun crimes. The national media typically rely on limited option polling: "Given the choice of stricter gun-control laws, or no gun-control laws - Which do you prefer?". Then they turn the microphone over to the anti-gun lobby and supporters to define "sensible gun-control laws".
K-Mart, as a retailer, can adopt any policy or business plan it wishes. But petitions can, and do, influence decisions, including my own.
K-Mart chose to retire ads featuring Ms. O'Donnell and advise her that her contract would not be renewed as a result of negative public sentiment - expressed to them through correspondence and petitions - for her outrageous treatment of Tom Selleck on her show; her public remarks disparaging, and advocating violence, towards law-abiding firearms owners and NRA officials; her high profile affiliation with the Minimal Mom farce; and her obviously (and typically) elitist sentiment that, while her family is entitled to armed protection - others are not.
Don_Vito:
Article (with references) specifically refuting VPC's statistical juggling and myopia on the Texas info . . .
Fla: (10/1/87-12/31/00) 736,355 issued, 130 (0.02%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees.
Florida State Government Website
Article (with references) specifically refuting VPC's statistical juggling and myopia on the Texas info . . .
Fla: (10/1/87-12/31/00) 736,355 issued, 130 (0.02%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees.
Florida State Government Website
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< Don_Vito:
Article (with references) specifically refuting VPC's statistical juggling and myopia . . . >>
As I alluded to above, the Brady site may well carry some bias, as may the VPC, but your link is to the NRA, who are hardly unbiased either. My point was just to show that yes, gun owners do commit crimes with guns (and no, I am not saying they commit more than other folks). Tominator seemed to find it incredible that such a thing was even possible, and I would submit it is clearly the case that this happens with some regularity.
I am NOT a rabid gun-control zealot by any means, but I find the tenor of many 2d-Amendment advocates really silly and paranoid, and, to get back to the point of this thread, I see no reason K-Mart has any moral or constitutional obligation to sell any particular product.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< i wanna say that 89% of gun related crimes in illinois are done with legal guns... an atf agent told me that.. something like that anyways.. its been a while.. can anyone find this statistic for real? >>
I would be very surprised if this were true, as it is widely known that many gangs and other street criminals in Chicago (presumably where most of these crimes occur) obtain guns through straw transfers from the adjoining counties (since handgun sales are illegal in the city itself). I would not consider them "legal owners" for this purpose (since the guns are obtained through illegal means), even though the guns they use are not stolen.
Obviously, you read "NRA" in the link, but you didn't read the article.
Even a "Justifiable Homocide" in self-defense will frequently result in an arrest. But that is irrelevent to the argument if the DA or a Grand Jury determines there are no grounds for prosecution.
I may be an NRA Life Member - But I don't blindly accept anything I can't verify, from them, or any other source. And when it comes to the figures gun-control supporters cite to justify their position, I frequently find at their source statistical misrepresentation (of the type refuted in the link provided), absurdly small "samples" and/or purely anecdotal "proof", 14 to 19 year-olds referred to as children, refuted or publicly discredited "research", and flat out lies.
Pete Shields, founding Chairman of Handgun Control, Inc. (which recently changed their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), and Josh Sugerman, Executive Directer of the Violence Policy Center, have both publicly stated that their common goal is ultimately a complete ban on, and criminal penalties for, the civilian ownership of firearms in this country; And that the only practical way for them to achieve that goal will be an incremental approach of increasingly stringant restrictions, along with universal licensing and registration of firearms and their owners.
You call it paranoia - I call it vigilance . . .
Even a "Justifiable Homocide" in self-defense will frequently result in an arrest. But that is irrelevent to the argument if the DA or a Grand Jury determines there are no grounds for prosecution.
I may be an NRA Life Member - But I don't blindly accept anything I can't verify, from them, or any other source. And when it comes to the figures gun-control supporters cite to justify their position, I frequently find at their source statistical misrepresentation (of the type refuted in the link provided), absurdly small "samples" and/or purely anecdotal "proof", 14 to 19 year-olds referred to as children, refuted or publicly discredited "research", and flat out lies.
Pete Shields, founding Chairman of Handgun Control, Inc. (which recently changed their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), and Josh Sugerman, Executive Directer of the Violence Policy Center, have both publicly stated that their common goal is ultimately a complete ban on, and criminal penalties for, the civilian ownership of firearms in this country; And that the only practical way for them to achieve that goal will be an incremental approach of increasingly stringant restrictions, along with universal licensing and registration of firearms and their owners.
You call it paranoia - I call it vigilance . . .
Are people flaming in this thread already? Sorry too lazy to read, but i refuse to shop at Kmart for their policy of only hiring brain dead rejects to work there.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< Obviously, you read "NRA" in the link, but you didn't read the article. >>
Actually I did read it. It relies heavily on statistics and interpretation provided by "an unpublished report [written by] engineering statistician William Sturdevant," and provides no citations for the overwhelming majority of its results. It is called " Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers Are Law-Abiding Public Benefactors," and was originally published in The American Rifleman.
Again, I am not saying it is right or wrong, but to me it is even less reliable than the article I cited (which at least had thorough citations, and included a large number of anecdotal evidence to support its argument). Also, again, I never cited that article to support the proposition that CCW folks were more likely to commit crimes, but just as an illustration that gun owners do commit at least some crimes (which was just relevant as a possible rationale for registration - I never said they were more likely to commit crimes than anyone else). Are you also disagreeing with that? Hell, I personally know one person who was murdered with a gun by its legal owner, and this happens every day in this country.
And yes, I call it paranoia! I actually will probably buy a handgun this year, and have zero discomfort with having it registered. I also have no problem with the government's refusal to allow me to buy a silencer, a fully-automatic weapon, or mercury or teflon bullets, all things the NRA has lobbied for extensively in the past.
Already covered the gun-control issue in an earlier thread, so I won't revisit it here, especially since that's not what the thread is about. The offer was to support a negative response campaign against a major retailer for their business decisions. The petition doesn't have to change one thing (and it probably won't) but it is a very important IDEA in our country that needs to be taken advantage of. Every special interst group uses it's members as leverage to push it's views upon the world. Christian groups constantly organize boycotts of companies for things they view as unacceptable business decisions. Pro-life groups do the same. Anti-gun groups have had many many petitions to show retailers that they are not in favor of gun sales. If pro-gun rights groups don't take the same opportunities to be heard then they will lose the big battles in the long run because they will not have an established presence in the eyes of the business world. In other words, by taking part in these petitions and groups and such there is recorded evidence of a 'pro gun' segment of the national consumer pool which will be available for consideration in future business decisions, hopefully preventing more impacting changes in policy by corporations.
Don_Vito:
My error - I assumed it to be obvious that the original source for the NRA article was adequate to expose the VPC "research" you cited as "illuminating". Anyone can "interpert" that data for themselves.
Which brings up an important point - I'm not citing this info with much hope of altering your reliance on agenda-based "studies". Nor do I argue that crimes are not comitted with legally purchased firearms - In fact, most of the gun-control laws enacted in the last 30 years were conceived in reaction to high-profile crimes that would not have been affected in the least by the legislation they prompted.
For every poster in this thread, there are many more individuals following it without comment. They deserve the benefit of an alternate source of information and viewpoint.
If you do follow through on your decision to purchase a firearm, I would hope that you seek formal, qualified training in it's use. It is almost certain that training will be provided by an NRA-certified instructor. I would also hope that you become better informed:
There are no examples throughout history where government mandated weapon or owner registration was not ultimately followed by confiscation.
Supressors ("silencers"
and fully-automatic firearms are completely legal for civilian ownership in the US. The NRA has never "lobbied for them".
So-called "Teflon bullets" have never been legal or available for civilian ownership; and a DOJ report found absolutely no evidence that a coating of any kind could improve the ability of handgun ammunition to penetrate ballistic armor.
The NRA did lobby against proposed legislation to "ban" this type of ammunition for these reasons, and because the proposed legislation was so poorly (or deliberately) worded that, if enacted, it would have effectively "banned" most existing handgun ammunition, and all existing rifle ammunition.
My error - I assumed it to be obvious that the original source for the NRA article was adequate to expose the VPC "research" you cited as "illuminating". Anyone can "interpert" that data for themselves.
Which brings up an important point - I'm not citing this info with much hope of altering your reliance on agenda-based "studies". Nor do I argue that crimes are not comitted with legally purchased firearms - In fact, most of the gun-control laws enacted in the last 30 years were conceived in reaction to high-profile crimes that would not have been affected in the least by the legislation they prompted.
For every poster in this thread, there are many more individuals following it without comment. They deserve the benefit of an alternate source of information and viewpoint.
If you do follow through on your decision to purchase a firearm, I would hope that you seek formal, qualified training in it's use. It is almost certain that training will be provided by an NRA-certified instructor. I would also hope that you become better informed:
There are no examples throughout history where government mandated weapon or owner registration was not ultimately followed by confiscation.
Supressors ("silencers"
and fully-automatic firearms are completely legal for civilian ownership in the US. The NRA has never "lobbied for them".So-called "Teflon bullets" have never been legal or available for civilian ownership; and a DOJ report found absolutely no evidence that a coating of any kind could improve the ability of handgun ammunition to penetrate ballistic armor.
The NRA did lobby against proposed legislation to "ban" this type of ammunition for these reasons, and because the proposed legislation was so poorly (or deliberately) worded that, if enacted, it would have effectively "banned" most existing handgun ammunition, and all existing rifle ammunition.
Just to piss off the liberal gun-grabbers around here, I'm going out to my local sports shop and buying a Romanian Mosin-Nagant rifle for $60 (4th of July special -- celebrating my freedom!). Then I'll grab some human silhouette targets and hit the range next week. LOL!
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< Don_Vito:
If you do follow through on your decision to purchase a firearm, I would hope that you seek formal, qualified training in it's use. It is almost certain that training will be provided by an NRA-certified instructor. >>
Thanks for your concern! Actually I have been shooting for years, and have had the benefit of a variety of training from certified civilian instructors and USAF CATM-trained military instructors (helpful in unlearning some of Dad's bad habits).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter