Gun Control

[NebraskaHarry]

All I know is ammunition is too dang expensive.

[carlfense]

All I know is ammunition is too dang expensive.

I remember when a brick of Thunderbolt .22lr was less than $8. (I'm sure some remember it being a lot cheaper than that...)

[rawhide]

I remember when you could only buy 50rd boxes. Well, that's all they sold at the hardware store on Colby and N. Cotner, few years back 65/66 idk

[carlfense]

I remember when you could only buy 50rd boxes. Well, that's all they sold at the hardware store on Colby and N. Cotner, few years back 65/66 idk

Those bricks of Thunderbolts that I remember were 10 boxes of 50rds each.

[The Dude]

All I know is ammunition is too dang expensive.

Reload your own.

[carlfense]

All I know is ammunition is too dang expensive.

Reload your own.

Primers, bullets, and powder have gone up too . . .

[rawhide]

.22 rimfire kinda hard to reload

 

 

yeah before all the madness, I had purchased Federal 525 for $15, and super X for $18 250 rds.

 

my 10/22 ain't too particular.

[The Dude]

All I know is ammunition is too dang expensive.

Reload your own.

Primers, bullets, and powder have gone up too . . .

From a quick google search, I could find all that stuff for .44 Magnum at roughly the same price I paid 4 years ago. Maybe $10-$20 more, total (including brass). But in the long run that's still roughly $400-500 worth of savings versus buying the ammo.

 

I suppose it depends on what you're loading. You're probably not going to save much money reloading shotgun shells these days. But that was the case before all the craziness.

[carlfense]

From a quick google search, I could find all that stuff for .44 Magnum at roughly the same price I paid 4 years ago. Maybe $10-$20 more, total (including brass). But in the long run that's still roughly $400-500 worth of savings versus buying the ammo.

 

I suppose it depends on what you're loading. You're probably not going to save much money reloading shotgun shells these days. But that was the case before all the craziness.

I don't reload for my handguns. (.44 mag being the only exception.) I haven't reloaded for my shotguns since I haven't shot trap in years and a box of game loads now lasts ~2 seasons. I still reload for my rifles but I don't really get out and shoot enough to justify it.

 

Also, if you haven't purchased components lately . . . expect a lot of bare shelves. The latest full fledged panic is here.

[BigRedBuster]

Biden's comments.

 

LINK

 

My biggest issue in this entire debate has been that many people in public are acting like the laws that are being discussed are going to stop someone from committing another mass shooting like was in Newtown.

 

I have been pretty critical of the VP and some of the comments he has made while in office. But, at least this time someone is being honest.

 

Now, I'm not saying new laws aren't necessary and I'm fine debating those laws. BUT, what bothers me is when one side frames the debate implying that these laws are going to some how prevent these things from happening.

 

They aren't.

[Junior]

The NRA wants to make it illegal for doctors to ask parents if they own a gun:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/02/pediatricians_and_nra_physician_gag_rules_and_the_cdc_aca_and_states.single.html

 

Wollschlaeger is a family practitioner who makes house calls. Before he became a naturalized citizen of the United States, he served in the Israeli army and is intimately familiar with firearms. He owns guns and is a concealed-weapons permit holder. He used his personal knowledge of guns to relate to his patients who are gun owners to counsel them on gun safety. But the Florida Physician Gag Law, as the plaintiffs refer to it in their suit, changed his practice. He stopped talking about guns. Wollschlaeger used to be a member of the NRA. Now he feels the NRA has “metastasized into a lobby for the gun industry.” And the law, which was “all NRA proposed, all NRA sponsored, all NRA supported,” was a form of intimidation. Wollschlaeger doesn’t like to be intimidated. He volunteered to be a named plaintiff in the suit because “our voices and our words matter. We have to stand up for what is right.”

...

Gun violence is a public health issue. And the NRA has been disturbingly influential in public health policy. Since the 1990s, it has suppressed research in gun violence by targeting the sources of funding. In 1996, pro-gun members of Congress tried to eliminate the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. They failed in getting rid of the center, but the House of Representatives cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget—the exact amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. And they added restrictive language on any appropriation to the CDC: “none of the funds available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In 2011, Congress extended the restriction to include all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s leading medical research agency.

Astoundingly, the NRA was also responsible for a provision in the Affordable Care Act. Into this landmark health care law, NRA-backed legislators quietly inserted “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights.” This section bans doctors, health care programs, and insurers from “collection of any information relating to the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual.” This provision stifles research in gun violence, and it is so vaguely worded it could be interpreted to prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns. This provision was so alarming to the AAP and other child-advocacy groups that they wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services “vehemently” rejecting this provision in the ACA and urging the department to “craft policy” to “limit the harmful impact of this section of the Act.”

[knapplc]

Cool infographic. Do with it what you will.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2013/feb/04/us-gun-violence-deaths-years-lost-periscopic

[Conga3]

Cool infographic. Do with it what you will.

 

http://www.guardian....lost-periscopic

Someone should do that with forum posts x productive hours lost.

[zoogs]

Did you know this?

 

The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association...The current law reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

 

As it stands, the main available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected through the FBI, international data and data from groups with a direct stake in the gun debate — for instance, pro-gun stats from the NRA and pro-gun control stats from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

 

As a result of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to Reuters.

 

Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.

http://www.businessi...research-2013-1

[funhusker]

Biden's comments.

 

LINK

 

My biggest issue in this entire debate has been that many people in public are acting like the laws that are being discussed are going to stop someone from committing another mass shooting like was in Newtown.

 

I have been pretty critical of the VP and some of the comments he has made while in office. But, at least this time someone is being honest.

 

Now, I'm not saying new laws aren't necessary and I'm fine debating those laws. BUT, what bothers me is when one side frames the debate implying that these laws are going to some how prevent these things from happening.

 

They aren't.

No one believes "new laws" will STOP this from happening; if so, they should have been passed 250 years ago...but the new laws will make it "harder".

 

The problem is the side of the debate that makes the argument that the control laws will make the attacks more frequent...