Paper Guns

[iw0XoG1T]

hamsterman wrote:

Many countries allow gun ownership and still manage to keep their murder rates much lower than in US.

That is very true, but my guess is that the average US citizen doesn't believe the above statement.

Our culture is very different, it was shaped by two wars ( The Revoltionary War, and The Civil War). And even though most people here today can't trace their ancestry in the US back to 1865 they still seem to be affected by these Wars.

Even if it could be done ( and it can't) banning guns would not stop the murders. The US is a violent culture. If we banned guns murder rates would go down but we still would have one highest murder rates in first world countries.

That said assualt weapons are not the real problem. In the city I live there are 1.5 million people and in most years our murders number is close to 400 or slightly above. And almost all of these murders are committed with handguns.

These handguns come from out of state. They are purchased down south and are shipped up here. They are purchased down south because their gun laws are very weak or not enforced.

All we need is a National handgun registry, and Congress to allow the ATF to do their job. Congress has deliberately underfunded and in some cases prohibited the ATF from doing their job.

Assualt weapons are not the problem--nor is gun ownership. The problem is that handguns are being purchased by a few criminals down south and distributed to criminals in the rest of the country and only Congress and the ATF can stop it.

[Script Coder]

Wait so if I have it correctly, anyone in the US above the age of eighteen may own and purchase a gun. Assuming my prior statement is true, it sound to me like there is a difference between a hand gun and assault weapons (in the legal sense). Also chwsks, are handguns not available in the northern states of the US?

[iw0XoG1T]

The're available but straw purchases are not as easy as down south because their laws are weak and often not enforced.

[devonrevenge]

I heard paper can be rolled up in paper in such a way that when the bullet is fired, the paper unrolls and provides rifling for the bullet, apparently highly trained assassins used this to shoot unmarked bullets

[greenleaf800073]

Ok, It doesn't matter whether guns are banned or not. Any type of gun. It all comes down to a person's morale. A gun is not good or bad but it is neutral. The potent of killing someone comes down to the person holding the gun.

[iw0XoG1T]

I heard paper can be rolled up in paper in such a way that when the bullet is fired, the paper unrolls and provides rifling for the bullet, apparently highly trained assassins used this to shoot unmarked bullets

You can't make a gun out of paper--even in the video that was posted the gentleman mentions that the paper is soaked in a resin. Making guns out of resins has been done for years.

Paper by itself is not strong enough nor could it be acturately machined.

highly trained assassins

is stupid statement. Killing is easy, life is fragile destroying it is not hard--morally it is hard. To destroy a human psyche to the point that it can kill that is hard; but many governments have learned how to do it.

The US government can take a 19 year old kid and teach him in a few months to be an effective killer (assassin). And just remember at one time that kid was probably four and did not want to hurt anyone.

[devonrevenge]

no i mean, a bullets can be fired accurately in paper and theres no barrel that marks a bullet

[iw0XoG1T]

no i mean, a bullets can be fired accurately in paper and theres no barrel that marks a bullet

In what real killing scenario could that possible be useful for? Wouldn't it always just be easier to destroy, hide the weapon, or leave it behind?

[devonrevenge]

no weapon left behind, no connection between a bullet and a gun, not suspicious to carry around etc

[cire]

hamsterman wrote:

you're missing the point entirely, I did not say that guns should be banned.

Did I say you did?

hamsterman wrote:

Many countries allow gun ownership and still manage to keep their murder rates much lower than in US.

You're right. I'm missing the point. Many countries allow gun ownership and don't manage to keep their murder rates lower than in the U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

or by a different metric:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/oct/10/unitednations-development-data

hamsterman wrote:

Unless you were talking about your privilege/right to glorify war you have no excuse.

Well, I guess anyone can be a sanctimonious prick.

[iw0XoG1T]

@devonrevenge
Do you think the gentleman that killed bin Laden cared if his bullet could be traced to his weapon?

When Hoffa was killed neither the weapon nor body was ever found.

Think about people who have been killed and imagine when it would have been helpful for the assassin to have used a paper barrel.

What real killing scenario could it be useful?

[devonrevenge]

thats why i said highly trained assassin;

in a crowd.

ITS A THING, I WILL DIG UP WHERE I HEARD ABOUT IT

[iw0XoG1T]

@devonrevenge
Why would a

highly trained assassin

do something useless?

And if it is not useless come up with one example of when a killing would have been helped by using this tool. Or an example of a killing where this tool was used.

[iw0XoG1T]

@cire

Did you notice how many of those countries are first world countries? And in the very beginning it says 88 out of 100 people from a survey own guns. Why would you keep reading a blog that uses such a bogus statistic?

[cire]

Did you notice how many of those countries are first world countries?

Yes, I did.

And in the very beginning it says 88 out of 100 people from a survey own guns. Why would you keep reading a blog that uses such a bogus statistic?

An average of 88 guns owned per 100 people does not mean that 88 out of 100 people own guns. Are you privy to some more accurate source? Please feel free to cite it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/

Doesn't look so impossible does it?

[devonrevenge]

well for a tiny start no one is gonna suspect that a piece of paper you are carrying is actually going to be the rifle your going to use to assassinate someone from the balcony of an opera, use your problem solving and remember what sort of thing spies used to have to do.

THIS WAY YOU ONLY HAVE TO SMUGGLE THE BULLET UP YOUR BUM

[hamsterman]

@cire,

Did I say you did?

Yes, I'm pretty sure you did. I can't come up with another reason why you'd have said

Every freedom/privilege has its price.

Note, my reply to that was a joke. What I read was along the lines "it's true that having more guns correlates with having more murder, but I consider it a necessary evil to protect our freedom", which makes no sense if you understood that I wasn't threatening that freedom. Do you have another interpretation?

[a bunch of statistics]

What are you trying to prove? All of those say what I said - US is much worse than any country of comparable wealth. Being better than central Africa is not much of an achievement. Was your point that 3 extra murders per 100000 people per year is not much as compared to benefit of owning a gun?

[iw0XoG1T]

@cire
I am not going to waste my time with another blog -- find a reliable source.

Do the math buddy. Only 80 people out of 100 are over 18. Of that 80 only 40 are male. So that is an average of two guns for every male in the US.

Your blog is either bull or they are not excluding the governement, weapon manufactors, and weapon wholesalers.

[Disch]

hamsterman wrote:

All of those say what I said - US is much worse than any country of comparable wealth.

The mistake you (and many people) are making is that the number of gun deaths is not necessarily tightly bound to the number of guns owned. Most people that own guns hardly ever use them. And very few have ever killed anyone with them.


Not counting accidental shootings (which I don't think we're talking about here), gun violence is a product (not a cause) of violent crime.


So the real question here is: Would limiting gun ownership reduce the amount of violent crime?

I don't see any evidence to suggest it would. People don't go out and commit crimes just because they have a gun. And keep in mind that you're talking about violent criminals here. If a violent criminal is willing to break the law and kill somebody... I doubt they'll have any reservations about obtaining a gun illegally.



Violent crime has far more to do with social issues than gun issues. The US has high violent crime because:

1) Our education system sucks.
2) Our wealth distribution sucks
3) Our social programs suck.


These are the problems that cause the US to have higher death rates than other countries. If you compare education/wealth distribution/etc from the US to other countries, you will also see a pattern similar to that of gun ownership.

Gun control does not solve any of these issues. It's nothing more than a superficial knee-jerk reaction. It accomplishes very little, if anything.

[devonrevenge]

You cant trust newspapers and news channels in america, theres no free press in that format, the gun lobby spends a lot of money on PR too.

I found some more artcles on statistics to help solve your argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/