It is most certainly illegal to use hollow points in any instance in a case of self defense, even if the self defense is warranted.
And what happens if you are driving from the range and experience a flat tire, have to use the restroom, an emergency where you need to go somewhere else. Bad laws.
I get the arguments for and against them, but I generally favor leaving those decisions up to the people involved.
There ya go. Easy to find.
What the hell else am I supposed to do with hollow points but shoot someone? Target practice? That's a waste of good ammo and money. I lean left enough to feel that our gun laws are way too lax, but this particular law as described is just pointless posturing. It reminds me of "cop killer bullets". Umm, you mean rifle rounds, that can penetrate an armored vest? No, you mean a Teflon coating?[0] Well, turns out...
That makes no sense and if that's the case, it's definitely unconstitutional.
But even so, your opinion is clearly colored by propaganda. Gun control isn't a popular topic on the left. The second amendment remains inviolable and has greatly expanded in the last twenty years. "They're coming to take our guns" is a cry of right wing media because they know it will scare people into voting irrationally.
> But even so, your opinion is clearly colored by propaganda.
> "They're coming to take our guns" is a cry of right wing media because they know it will scare people into voting irrationally.
Generally speaking, this is a poor way to convince someone. Comments like this are likely to embolden the parent's views. I say this as someone who holds neutral views on the matter.
Consider for a moment you have actually proved his point.
Weirdest thing I've ever seen. Those wacky Americans and their crazy belief in liberty, or like, not wanting to be a victim of democide.
Say what you want about Hitler and his whole disarming-the-Jews thing, but healthcare for everyone else was pretty top-notch.
And if you ever feel sad for all the people murdered by Stalin after being disarmed, just remember how good the USSR mathematics program was.
If I have a daughter who's returning home late at night from University, I would want her to be armed for her own protection. Things like "taxation" are not the most important thing to her.
btw, i live in new mexico now, and my daughters are both grown women who live in chicago and philadelphia, and still do not carry guns.
Berlin sounds real nice. You never need to think about protecting yourself when things are going great. It may feel baked in at a deeper level, but don't forget, Berlin has at one time relatively recently been a very terrible place to live, especially for those that didn't have guns.
The entire idea of having a gun is to make a dangerous situation more dangerous, it creates symmetry, an aggressor is now equal to his or her victim.
New mexico is pretty nice too. Did you know that anyone who wants to can openly carry any gun they want in new mexico?
I have had five personal relationships with people who have died due to firearms. They are as follows:
1. My cousin, who killed himself while hunting ducks
2. My childhood friend, who killed himself while cleaning a rifle
3. My childhood friend, who was killed by cops after falling asleep at a railroad crossing and dropped his phone in the car when the police approached
4. My uncle, who committed suicide
5. Another childhood friend, who was drunk and disorderly and shot to death by cops while unarmed in the front yard of his house
On the flip side, I don't personally know a single human being whose life was either saved or made better by possessing or being around someone who possessed a firearm.
Of those 5 though, two were killed by cops. Can I draw from the fact that you included those that you don't want police to have firearms either?
When you say "killed himself" for 1 and 2, do you mean deliberately?
Again though, you're an extreme outlier. And even more so that you don't know personally a single individual who even once was saved by proximity to a firearm, such as for example saved from domestic violence by the arrival of armed police. I live around guns and people with guns, there are literally hundreds of guns around me within a quarter mile radius right now, I only have three gun deaths of anyone I have ever known, one was a suicide, one was an old lady who defended her orphanage from an armed intruder, and another was a man shot by his ex girlfriend while he attempted to assault her. The last two of course are examples of lives saved or made better by possessing a firearm.
Then there are the other reasons to have them besides personal protection. Particularly there's the ethereal "deterrent to tyranny" you hear cited, but practically speaking there's also the ability to procure meat without a massive supply chain and the ability to defend against wildlife in areas where that is a tangible threat.
However, many areas include Delhi - the rate of violence against women is just unbelievable!
If such a city had gun laws like Texas, you might see the crime rate come down drastically.
In India, the rich can afford guns. That is the sad truth.
At least in the US, you can afford one fairly easily as long as your background check passes.
Tim Pool, popular YouTuber went from anti-2A to SUPER-PRO 2A last year and he's from New Jersey and went through this process. Here's forums of people complaining about this. You can find several similar examples:
https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/97756-pis...
https://bearingarms.com/staff-ba/2021/03/26/new-jersey-gun-p...
It would be interesting if candidates had to declare their intents in a formal way, just like a phone app has to formally request access to mic and cam, and if they are elected, they'd have to stay within the bounds they'd requested. So a guy who wanted to reform healthcare wouldn't be able to change his mind later and start reforming education.
When 25.8% of the shootings are coming from Chicago which has just 0.8% population, maybe it's time to focus on gangs instead of making life miserable for legal gun owners.
That's a meaningless stat. The point of my Chicago stat is that vast majority of the shootings are coming from gang members. A gang member shooting another gang member isn't a relevant stat. And shootings in self defence is one of the purposes of owning a gun (though not what the 2A is only for).
That's like saying my daughter would be safer to live in my home country India where she may not get shot but she may get raped late at night. Or like saying Afghanistan is safer somehow?
Estimated 800,000 to 2.45 million defensive uses of firearms per year in 1993 national survey.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0798.htm
Another 2008 study by National Academy of Sciences showed 500,000 to more than 3 million "Defensive Use of Guns". Simply having the gun on your or brandishing it prevented crimes from happening. This was in 2008. That numbers is even higher now.
Source:
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
Page 15 of the study talks about the defensive use part. You can download the PDF by using the "guest" option and entering any random email (doesn't have to be real). Another related source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-...
> "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
> "In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results."
> "One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique."
How do you propose these people - wives/daughters/elderly/handicapped/living close to cartels/over 800K-3 million defensive uses should defend themselves?
Also, U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households, something which is well known for kids to grow up into criminals:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/12/u-s-childre...
Biased because I live in Chicago, but it's legitimately impossible to stop gangs as long as it's possible to get a gun. As soon as someone is arrested there are 5 kids ready to take their place. The only solutions to gun violence here are end poverty or stop guns from out of state from entering the city.
or vans here in Canada.
According to the FBI homicide stats for US, 297 people were murdered by a rifle in 2018 in the US.
1,515 on the other hand murdered with knives, 443 from blunt hammers, 672 with hands, feet:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
EDIT: I specifically stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything.
In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns.
Holy misleading data excerpts batman...
there were 10k homicides by gun, but you choose 1 type of gun and not the most common.
2014 - 2018 knives 1545 -> 1515 Blunt objects 431->443 Hands, feet 668->672 Guns 7803->10265
In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns.
It's not banned. The government isn't going to fund it, but you've jumped the shark if you think that means it is banned.
And part of the reason it's not being funded is that this is political in nature. How do you look at the hundreds of thousands of assaults that were thwarted with guns used in self-defense? Guns are primarily used for self-defense. How do you measure the lives saved? And when an attacker is shot and killed, is that a life saved or a life lost? This is a political debate not a scientific debate. Once you accept that the rapist shot to death and the person who commits suicide as being the same as some random person shot to death, then you've already politicized the work.
It's also far outside the purview of the CDC, which is what this "banned" canard is about - the left wanted the CDC to treat "gun violence" as a thing -- like "fist violence" -- or "knife violence" -- why do they always want to classify disagreement as a "disease"? Everything is a "safety" or "health" issue with them, amenable to handing our public policies over to some bureaucrat. Fortunately there was sufficient pushback to block funding of that. That is what your outrage is about.
But don't worry, there is a push to classify racism as a disease and have the CDC lab coats study it, so you will get some politicized "public health" research to tide you over.
In the meantime, you are welcome to donate to one of the many think-tanks that do these studies on guns, violence, and criminality - of all political persuasions. There are lots of studies even without bringing the public health bureaucracies into the mix.
What? no it isn't. CDC report on a wide range of harm. It's baffling to think the CDC can be funded to research on road traffic deaths but not gun deaths. Or, to use your examples, that they could be funded to research knife deaths but not gun deaths.
That's plain false.
The reason they stopped studying because it didn't fit the narrative.
In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns:
Total firearms: 10,265In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns.
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
Couldn't agree more, which is why eliminating poverty was the first solution I said. We're doing that. Unfortunately it takes decades to work because of the shit family dynamics that exist. Should we just let gun violence run rampant until then?
Stop letting them use gun control to ignore the underlying issues in the community.
ME: Chicago has strict gun control but high gun violence.
Gun Control: They get guns from states with loose gun control.
ME: But those states don't have the same gun violence
Gun Control: Places in Chicago are poor & neglected so there's more violence.
ME: BINGO, it's a socioeconomic issue not a gun issue!
Last I checked on July 13, Chicago has 25.8% of shootings despite having 0.8% of the population.
Mexico has extremely restrictive laws regarding gun possession. There is only one gun store in the entire country, and it takes months of paperwork to have a chance at purchasing one legally.
Similar in India. Making guns illegal doesn't stop any of that. In India, underground criminals make the guns out of everyday stuff. And now a days, 3D printing had made this process even easier.
I'm glad we agree that poverty is the root cause of gun violence, but realizing that does nothing to stop gun violence. Poverty isn't something that can be solved with the snap of a finger, although I certainly think we are on the right track. What do you think we should do to stop gun violence in the mean time? Nothing is a valid answer, but I don't think it's acceptable to a majority of people in this country.
Chicago has been fully one party ruled since 1931. Baltimore since 1963, Detroit since 1962 etc and so on. Why has none of the lives improved in these cities and they keep having gang problems?
If Chicago hasn't been able to fix anything for almost a century, maybe it's time to either vote for another party or start a new party and vote for them.
Related, 13 Baltimore City High Schools, Zero Students Proficient in Math. Baltimore is 2nd in per pupil spending. This is not because the schools dont get enough money. In fact its just about as far away from that as you can get. If despite getting the 2nd more funded, the students still can't do high school math, someone needs to look at what's going on in these schools.
https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/7bvreb/13_baltimore_c...
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-05-21/news/bs-md-ci-ce...
Because the people are still poor?
> lack of school choice.
Most of the poor kids here are in charter schools.
> Fatherlessness
Agreed this is a major problem, it's mostly caused by poverty.
> corruption
Absolutely agree this is a huge problem. We tried to solve it by electing an outsider mayor, everyone hates her because she can't get anything done due to obstruction from corrupt politicians. Even if we ended corruption tomorrow, that would only move the end of poverty from many decades away to a few less decades away, not really a solution to gun violence.
> gangs
We arrested all the gang leaders. Now the gangs are just 10 dudes who went to elementary school together. Without leadership there is no one to stop them from shooting each other, it has made things quite a bit worse imo. As I said it isn't possible to just end gangs, there are always new people to fill the power vacuum.
Poverty isn't the cause. Sorry you've been wasting your time.
I thought you meant changing the whole system, which is well beyond the powers of one legislator.
https://reason.com/2014/08/11/single-mom-who-admitted-to-bri...
So the state with one of the most strict gun laws burns someone, and now he's probably going to win. I wonder if he's going to start turning screws to get their permit issue laws changed. Did you know in NJ you can not posses hollow point bullets? You can go to jail. 18 months in prison. You need to be extremely careful when driving through that state so you don't forget if you have some in the car.