Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

This Harvard study has caused me to rethink my position on gun control. Any one in favor of gun control should read this study and refute it.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

here is the conclusion:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

oh i caught a bit of it b4 i left SFN coupla years ago...twerpy, low-grade trolling but a big pretense of intellect, that would never actually manifest. his hypocrisy was also pretty low grade...:rolleye2:

our Founders were so much smarter than some of us give them credit for...

I was told that I lost. I was told to read Heller for that to be demonstrated. I guess that wasn't true. Very simple. I am not reading all that btw, goblin.

How many times did you tell me to read Heller for my views to be proven wrong? 3 times? 4 times?
You should be able to state why you directed me to that decision if you had a point. Unfortunately for you and Hambo - you cannot. Too bad I called your bluff. You have nothing more than insults and name calling.
That is fine with me.

Smell the sweat of my success and learn to love my winning streak.

"Go read Heller...uhhhhhhhhhh"



That is almost as powerful as Hambo's old "Go back and read my old posts cause I already answered that"

The title mentions murder and suicide. Does that mean it ignores all other forms of gun injury and violence?

there is 4 times

wow...all those deflections and no point. you are definitely Hambo's mult :crapper: :toung2:

Read the study, it covers alot of ground, including violence and violent crime, .e.g.

"The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On
the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations."

&

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not
spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly
throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies
shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.”
37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding,
responsible people had firearms because they are not
the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent
crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As
the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39
individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns
despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. "

Now they are relating guns to violence in general?
Or am I reading that wrong?
Why not compare gun violence rates to gun ownership rates in a controlled fashion?

Fact is...I don't know anyone calling for bans on guns. Sounds like this is more for Hambo and Melton to beg the question in a furious manner.
I support sensible restrictions on concealed carry in urban areas if the localities choose that. That is not a ban on guns.
And if people don't choose to have those restrictions then that is OK too
Why are gun morons always pulling out the all-or-nothing logical fallacy? I don't know

This is a classic example (the ammo shortage) of why the Gun companies absolutely love Democrats. All they have to do is play with paranoid delusions that the government will go door to door confiscating guns SO YOU BETTER RUN AND OUT AND BUY BUY BUY!!! And sure enough they eat it all up and run out and buy absolutely everything they can.

It's why I oppose gun control. The threat merely creates a much larger demand of guns.

looking just at the table of contents tells me that is one the most elaborate straw men ever created.
Go talk to someone who thinks that guns cause crime

strictest? The tests are care strict, heightened/intermediate and reasonable basis. And, they apply to equal protection generally. And, in Heller the majority SPECIFICALLY DECLINED to apply any tradtional level of scrutiny (strict, heightened, rational basis).

Owned again, jeton, y your own ignorance.

here is a lesson for you, boy. You cannot cover up your won ignorance with a tired Buckely imitation.

Do you consider stronger over sight of gun dealers to be gun control?
I bet Hambo and Melton do.
Let's see if I am wrong.
(Oh and you can save the old "we just need to enforce the laws on the books" canard, goblin. I am talking about stronger enforcement of the existing laws along with more agents and everything. )

I dont think regulation is gun control at all, and I definitely support putting serial numbers on bullets so they can be tracked. I support the idea of gun control, especially with automatic or semi-automatic weapons, I just think the attempts, at least to this point, to legislate it have been extremely counter-productive.

I think refuting all the information provided in thijs study requires a little more than your personal opinion on the table of contents.

There are plenty of collective rights. What are ou talking about? Rights like elections, etc.

Second, Jeton does not know what the fuck he is talking about. Heller rejected quite specificall an type of traditional test for 2nd A purposes. I think I agree with breyer on the criticism of not adopting a test.

Third, our son is a great marksmen and a responsible gun owner. Good. So is mine. But even if they were both Olympic gold medalist caliber marksmen it would not make a mouse turd's worht of difference up against even the most imcompetent national guard unit. So, that argument is ridiculous.

I understand how SCOTUS got to individual right versus collective b calling "well regualted mitlita" a curious and meaningless tidbit, I just disagree with the breadth of Heller, thoug to be quite frank it still allows for regulation.

Again, distinguish between ownership, which I think will alwasy be sacred versus regulation.

They didn't. Jeton is wrong, as usual.

I have no interest in the article. It doesn't address any of my concerns that I could see. Maybe you can tell me how it does.

ORLY??



idiot. idiot idiot idiot.

oh God...u know that Heller was chosen as a test case specifically to avoid incorporation questions, riiight? and if you read Heller, you read Scalia's open invitation of cases that would explore incorporation...riiiiight? They didn't "specifically decline" to rule on Incorporation, they couldn't...the suit was filed by a DC resident.

There are several cases now working their way thru the Appellate level that explore the Heller holding as it may apply to the States, and i dare u to find any credible authority re: the SCOTUS that doubts that there r at least 5 votes on that court who will vote for Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the States...and none of those 5 r likely to retire within the next decade.

Since ur generally misspelling ass has chosen to make such hay of my adding -est to the term 'strict', fuck off for ur hypocrisy, choke on ur stupidity.

well u underline the reason for concern...it is the responsibility of Americans who value their constitutionally recognized rights which are inalienably endowed to ensure their own access to weaponry. Ur basically saying that you only support infringements on rights when people become calm and complacent enuff to let it happen.

There are not plenty of collective rights written into the First Ten Amendments. They are individual rights that protect individuals from Government tyranny. Why would the Government stick in a collective Government right into the First Ten Amendments when their main concern at the time was overbearing Government and the document being created was all about individual freedom and protection from Government, not Government rights...

Come on dude, you have to be kidding me with that argument. It makes zero sense.


And you misunderstand the important point of having arms in common use available to citizens. Its not that they will be able to become such great marksman they would be able to stage a successful revolution against US Armed forces, the importance comes from maintaining a well regulated (well trained) militia (military age men and women) who are skilled with arms in common use. An 18 year old kid that has been shooting an AR and a Beretta 92 for many years has important skills that are valuable to the military and the nation as a whole because when he or she enters the armed forces and gets handed a M16 rifle and a M9 pistol, he or she already knows what to do with them.

In fact the Government agrees with that concept to the degree they charter the Civilian Marksmanship Program which distributes surplus US rifles and ammunition to US citizens in order to promote the advancement of marksmanship. Look it up, its called the CMP.

it's a venomous airhead, Tom, i'll be surprised if u can provoke a truly substantive answer from it about anything...

In defense of guayuque on the spelling issue, his secretary usually proof reads all his letters and emails but since he's a big-boy, he posts on SFN all on his own.

At least thats what he told me.