America's Most Wanted Guns

[RoeBear]

A new ATF study reveals the country's Top 10 crime guns
http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,320383,00.html

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

(where are the AW's?)

[demsrule4life]

1. In the minds of paranoid anti gun people

It all comes down to divide and conquer, why any and all gun bans need to be fought. I have no respect for groups like the "Sportsman for Clark" They think if they get military looking semiauto rifles banned then their hunting rifles would be safe. They need to come down here sometimes and read posts from our esteemed anti that on one day heaps praise on hunters for disliking assault rifles and the next day call all hunters scum.

[Superfly]

2. Notable exceptions to that list...where are they?

1) .50 caliber anti-airliner sniper rifles
2) Bullet hoses
3) The "it flies forever" .223 Rem
4) "Assault Weapons"

Come to think of it...where in the hell are the assault weapons? You think with all the hype surrounding those guns, they could at least have the decency to make the top 10 list, ya know?

Oh, I know. Maybe, just maybe, the AW hype is just overblown and used by windbags like Brady and her ilk to push their twisted agendas.

[grayrace]

3. AW's tend to be more expensive and require more training or practice to us

And assault weapons MAY be used in less crimes, they do tend to be MUCH more deadly for the victims of attacks though.

[Superfly]

4. How can something be MORE deadly?

It's either deadly or it's not. There are no degrees of "dead"

Any one of those things on the list will kill you just as dead as any AW, but the AW's are, for some reason, the object of misguided scorn.

[grayrace]

6. it could kill MORE people

there are degrees of death. 1 person, 2 person, 20 people, 100s of people, thousands of people. As in living in America is MORE deadly then leaving in ANY other industrialized country. You know because of all those guns. Keep replying apparently I need to get so many posts to post my own topics and I got some doozy's.

[Superfly]

11. It may be more dangerous

but it's not more deadly. Like I said, there is only 1 degree of death. You are either dead or your not. Does not matter if there are 1 or 500, they are either dead or they are not.

[the_acid_one]

17. "Could" is not much of an argument...

...against semi atuomatic rifles and handguns.

If if they "could" kill more people, when they're used in less then 1 or 2% of crimes (pre and post ban) they do not present much of a danger.

There are citizens out there who legally own 40 mm grenade launchers like the military uses. They "could" dish out severe damage. But they dont.

I would seriously like to see that a ban on anything is going to have an effect that could be picked up statistically before I go along with it.

You know "freedom" and all that jazz...what can I say....I like it ;)

[1a2b3c]

41. Why is that a tombstone i see?

[alwynsw]

30. You've obviously never shot a true AW

It takes a fair amount of skill, training, and muscle to keep even the puniest full auto froNote the usual pattern of anyone shooting freehand with a full auto ANYTHING - it always climbs up and right. Usually you're several feet above the target area withing 3 or 4 shots. It's a universal truth for those untrained in their use.

The semi-autos, revolvers, etc. tend to allow far more kills per round because of their manageability.

Just to reinforce the thought so well stated by that lunatic asswipe, Superfly; dead is dead.

[MrSandman]

40. And where would you stop?

A clear policy recommendation follows from what should be the
first principle of weapons regulations: Never place restrictions on
a subcategory of weapons without also placing restrictions at least
as stringent on more deadly, easily substituted alternative
weapons.
http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/point-blank-summary

[sventvkg]

5. That's why I'll be using my assualt rifle for defense...

I would hate to see some poor piece of scum come up against me with a 9mm, .38 or pump shotgun, and I'm forced to cut him in half with my assault rife..I believe in being better armed then potential attackers..I know i'm better trained as well but I like Superior firepower..I like Automatic Weapons as well..:) For defense only of course..:)

[grayrace]

7. short-sighted, wasteful, and prone to accidents

thats your stated philosphy in a nutshell. Reminds me of Mutually Assured Death, I told my dad that was bullshit first time he told me about it.

[demsrule4life]

8. Guess it worked though

since us and Russia never blewup the world.

[grayrace]

9. and how many billions did we waste on those systems?

how many people died because of starvation/disease because the US/Russia didn't have the extra money for it. And what were(and still ARE) the chances of a catistrophic accident? And how many times did it come TOO close?

[demsrule4life]

10. Was it a waste?

You are still alive aren't you?

[grayrace]

15. it was a waste

sorry to say that whole generation was whacked out on something.

[demsrule4life]

18. Two countries

One that had proven itself crazy enough to use nukes, the other crazy enough to kill 60,000,000 of their own people. Nothing happened because both knew that all would die if someone started something. Sorry, and it is only my opinion I know, but I think MAD worked.

[grayrace]

20. MAD killed more people through neglect then would have been lost in a

nuclear exchange.

[the_acid_one]

24. I dont know if I believe that....

...I wasnt around then.

But a "nuclear exchange" sounds more like a game of "Swap Licks".
(that game where two people punch eachother in the arm)
What would have been on our hands was a nuclear war.

IE, several nuclear exchanges, plausibly followed by air and ground campaigns, provided either country had enough juice to muster something like that.

Another likely scenario is that both countrys will focus on "decapitating" eachother with an all out nuclear barrage to completely elliminate their foe and insure that no counter attack happens.

Either You'd have millions and millions of people killed with the initial exchanges, resulting in the destruction of one or both country's infrastructure so even more people would die of starvations, not to mention the effects of radiation. would still be killing people today.

A nuclear war is a scarey thing indeed, and I hope there is never occasion to have one.

[grayrace]

26. first strike would have been against command center/capitals

but I've heard that psychologically speaking on boh sides there was enough resistance to make them not continue exchanging fire so most initial damage would have been on the eastern seaboard and west of the Urals. Asia mostly would survive. "Survive" being relative. It would be hell.

[the_acid_one]

28. Probably so.

But I've heard that psychologically speaking on boh sides there was enough resistance to make them not continue exchanging fire

I'm not sure if I can believe that. Remember how pissed off everyone was after pearl harbor? 9/11? Imagine that times 100. I know that theoretically the government should be "above" retaliating in anger. But we all know that's not true. I cannot imagine how....outraged...I would be if someone suddenly nuked North American soil (This includes Canada....not that anyone is likely to attack them, they're seem to get along pretty well).

I think if the USSR had initially launched one nuke on DC to try and scare us into surrender the US response would be total annihilation of the USSR. or vice versa. Something about a nuclear bomb just has a psychological effect, not only do you have the tremendous devestation, it's also a slap in the face.

Now adays, if say...if China nuked the US off the face of the Earth some of the nuclear submarines we have deployed at sea would probably return the favor. (An Airforce OSI guy one time told me that a seawolf submarine deployed with it's arsenal full is the third best armed "nuclear power" in the world. (USA, CHina, Seawolf).

True or not, I dont know, but I dont think he'd make it up.

One thing you've got right, it would certainly be hell. I wish that nuclear weapons (and indeed, some conventional weapons) could be "uninvented". Permanatly, for every country. No-one should wield that much power..not even dear old Uncle Sam.

Albeit, since those weapons are not going away and some country is always going to have them now, I'd rather it was us or our allys.

[grayrace]

31. starts with arms control top down

and international law. no way to uninvent them. But they are an almost completely known quantitity and anything that is near a completely known quantity CAN be controlled. But not with the violent clusterfuck that is us foreign policy.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the_acid_one]

13. LOL!

Good thing to Iverglas....I hear those cats will suck the breath out of your lungs if they find you sleeping. Would you mind sending me that spell? My cat has been looking at me funny lately...

[demsrule4life]

14. I have a few dogs

that can do a preemptive attack on the cats and make sure it don't happen.

[grayrace]

16. definitiely some kind of sight hounds

what are they?

[demsrule4life]

19. Borzoi (Russian Wolfhounds) (nfm)

[grayrace]

21. neat I'm getting a rescued Greyhound

n/t

[demsrule4life]

22. Good for you

I also have alot of experience with Greyhounds, you won't be disappointed.

[grayrace]

23. since they've been worked for racing it seems like breeding is better

not the constant health problems of some dogs, and they're used to being caged for periods of time so they wont mind it when I'm at work. They got enough energy to hit all the trails here.

[iverglas]

25. the spell is secret

But I can send you a few replacement cats if you like. We're considering trading some of ours in ... the c.v. (not raised with cats) couldn't figure out why my sister's house, where we went for xmas, doesn't smell like pee when ours does. Girl cats vs. boy cats is the answer. Three of our four were self-selected: appeared on the porch, came in through the bathroom window ... and were big boys.

But we have lots of spares anyhow. Living in the garage at present are Raúl, the big hairy grey who's been around for years, and his new family: Miss Kitty and Baby, whom this beady-eyed big feral tom, obviously Baby's daddy (Miss Kitty being the mum), actually parents. And Raúl's new nemesis, also a big grey; and Tux, and Boots, and Not-Boots, and the black one. We have our very own recognized feral colony on this block.

But nothing like the one on Canada's Parliament Hill:

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/text/explorecatsanctuary_e.html

Cat Sanctuary

Tucked away in the trees that border the rear of Parliament Hill is a small community of stray cats. This area, which has now come to be called the "Cat Sanctuary," has been home to strays since the late 1970s. A volunteer ensures that the shelters used by the cats are maintained and that the animals are fed every day.



The contrast between these modest shelters and the formality and tradition of the Parliament Buildings is a symbol of compassion, one of the important elements of Canadian society.

Somehow, I have a hard time picturing a bunch of cat shelters attached to the Capitol in DC. ;)

This is a great webcam shot of Parliament Hill right now, for anyone interested -- there's freezing rain going on I think, and the pic is appropriately grey and gloomy. This has been quite the winter on this side of the border (at least in the effete Central Canada part) -- virtually no snow, and temps seldom below freezing. Bring on that global warming.

http://www.tdc.ca/parliamentwebcam.htm

[grayrace]

27. wow, how many points does that give Canada?

I wonder what God gives them in Heaven when Bush destroys the world.

[iverglas]

32. glad you liked it

Others apparently don't like jokes.

For those who missed it:

"Guess it <mutualy assured destruction> worked though since us and Russia never blewup the world."

I guess that spell I cast on my cat last night worked, because she didn't kill me while I slept.


... with the horribly offensive rhetorical question I asked the poster excised, so as not to offend anyone who might take a fancy to being offended.

At some point I'm going to point out that judging humour by personal standards, no matter how widely shared they may be in some parts of the world -- and especially judging humour as offensive by those very narrow and prudish standards -- is an ethnocentric practice that doesn't look good on liberals. No, wait ... I'm pretty sure I've aleady done that ... and I'll bet I've just broken some other rule now.

.

[demsrule4life]

33. Fill in the missing blank

"Guess it <mutualy assured destruction> worked though since us and Russia never blewup the world."
(__________missing blank here______________________)


"I guess that spell I cast on my cat last night worked, because she didn't kill me while I slept"

[iverglas]

34. yes indeedy

The "missing blank" (which must have been purchased from the department of redundancy department) was in fact that horribly offensive rhetorical question to which I did refer.

And anyone who missed it can try imagining what s/he might ask someone who said I guess that spell I cast on my cat last night worked, because she didn't kill me while I slept (what *I* said, facetiously) ... and can probably bet that the question I asked the person who said Guess it <mutually assured destruction> worked though since us and Russia never blewup the world was much the same. And was similar to the sort of question I'd ask someone who said "I guess that the raindance worked, because it rained", or "I guess that the faeries answered my wish, because I won the lottery", "I guess that god exists, because the sun hasn't fallen out of the sky" ... .

Don't step on the crack, or you'll break your mother's back.

As I said, it's called "magical thinking". And it just isn't quite the same as proof, or even circumstantial evidence.

And while an obviously sarcastic question obviously intended as humourous comment on the practice of such thinking may not be crack 'em up in Peoria, it very often amuses in the rest of the world. And I actually doubt that most folks even in Peoria would claim, publicly, to be insulted by it. Fortunately, hereabouts, nobody has to actually stand up publicly and say "that's not funny" and risk any hoots of derision that might spontaneously erupt.

Fortunately, there are some who share my opinion ...

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000051.html
(underlining added -- quoted only for nice, succinct expression of this particular opinion)

Magical thinking is everywhere today, and it is growing. It threatens the foundations of reason, individualism, science and objectivity that have delivered this success so well and for so long. It is dangerous. If we are to continue to thrive and progress, then we need to sharpen some sticks and drive a stake through the heart of this monster, and right quick.

I’ll use the term Magical Thinking as a pretty big umbrella to cover a whole host of creeping intellectual chicanery: superstition, wishful thinking, pseudoscience, unsubstantiated claims, assertion, mysticism and anti-science.

Unsubstantiated claims. Assertions. "That is not the case." "Is so." "No it is not, and we know it is not because of this, and this, and this, and that." "Is so". "How can you say that, when you know that, and that, and that, and this? How do you account for x and y and z? How can you say that ABC is, when obviously it is DEF that is?" "Is not."

Rational, democratic discourse about public policy, in which each party marshals facts and arguments to support his/her position and responds to the facts and arguments presented by the other party ... or childish bickering?

Now, if there was a point in the post I'm responding to now, that I somehow missed, somebody do enlighten me. Or somebody find something in this one to complain about. I'll soon be beyond caring.

.

[1a2b3c]

42. An alaska DUer

Hows the fishing?

[the_acid_one]

29. Oh by the way.....

...welcome to the Gun Dungeon, I havent really seen you before. But even if you are on the "anti" side, it's nice to have a new Gungeoneer :)

[slackmaster]

36. I haven't read many of the other replies but I have to ask anyway

assault weapons... ...tend to be MUCH more deadly for the victims of attacks though.

Cite, please.

Oh, and could you please define for us in your own words what is meant by the term "assault weapon". I'm curious to see whether you really understand the term. Most people do not.

Welcome to the Dungeon, and thanks in advance for your reply.

[slackmaster]

35. I only own two of the top 10

An S&W .38 revolver and a Mossberg 12-gauge.

[solinvictus]

37. Guns

#'s 3,4, and 8-10 suck anyway. Lorcin, Bryco, Jennings, Davis, and Raven are unlikely to cycle an entire magazine without failing. I wonder if they're used as drop guns after a murder?

[demsrule4life]

38. The most dangerous assault rifle ever made

:)

[alwynsw]

39. Wow!

I had an earlier version when I was merely a lunatic asswipe child.

Pardon my reverie.