But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[protege]

We also seem to run into the problem that when ever an atrocity happens our culture as a whole has a knee jerk reaction to remove the item that was used and not the person. Not to sound trite, but it was the guy who snapped and pulled the trigger not the gun. Maybe if the people in the schools that have had this happen to them actually had a weapon to use back on these asses we wouldn’t keep seeing death tolls going into double digits.

I agree with you. Look at what happened after 9/11. I can understand that people were freaking out. I mean, we just had 4 planed hijacked and several *thousand* of our citizens murdered. I flew to/from Albany the week after, and I was not happy about it. Long lines for "security" at the airports, being searched multiple times, the infamous "did someone put anything in your luggage without your knowledge" question, to name a few things. Plus, I couldn't even get a *plastic* knife in the airport cafe to cut my sandwich. Seriously?

All that security for a domestic flight. Yet, before and after 9/11 (and the current TSA stupidity), I can go into any train station in the country...and easily get onto the platforms or in the train itself without any such checks. There aren't any metal detectors at the doors, nor is luggage scanned.

Anyway, cars kill and injure far more people each year than guns do. Yet, we don't see more strict laws for them. A gun, like a car, is just a tool. By itself, it doesn't do anything. It does, whatever the operator tells it to do.

[fireheart17]

I agree with you. Look at what happened after 9/11. I can understand that people were freaking out. I mean, we just had 4 planed hijacked and several *thousand* of our citizens murdered. I flew to/from Albany the week after, and I was not happy about it. Long lines for "security" at the airports, being searched multiple times, the infamous "did someone put anything in your luggage without your knowledge" question, to name a few things. Plus, I couldn't even get a *plastic* knife in the airport cafe to cut my sandwich. Seriously?
.

We had a similar knee jerk reaction when schapelle Corby was found with marijuana in her boogie board bag. More of the putting items in your bag without knowledge question though.

[bara]

BUT how did this guy obtain this weapon???? HMMMM he was a convicted felon, so in theory he should have NOT been in possession of this weapon.

WELL his girlfirend was arrested a couple of days later for making a STRAW purchase and GIVING him the weapon so he could rampage to his little hearts content.

She should be charged with the murders too.

[Andara Bledin]

It's highly likely that she'll be charged as an accessory. Possibly higher, but I doubt that she can be hit with murder directly.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Accessory to Murder still carries a pretty stiff penalty.

[wolfie]

the infamous "did someone put anything in your luggage without your knowledge" question,

Infamous and stupid. What would happen to someone who gave the only logical answer to that question, namely "If they had, from the definition of without my knowledge I wouldn't know that it had happened, and therefore wouldn't be able to tell you about it"?

[Racket_Man]

AND in my post above I mentioned the GF purchased the weapon LEGALLY.

But then again we all know that criminals get most of their firepower on the black market and could care less about 3 day waiting periods, background checks, limited purchasing of ammo, small capacity ammo clips and the like.

Heck some of the gangs are just as well equipped as the armed forces. HELL the armed forces actually TRAINED some of them. NOt exactly RPGs (yet) 100mm Howizers (again yet) APCs (not yet) etc.

Given enough cash resources you can by ANYTHING on the black market these days.

[crashhelmet]

crashhelmet


Any weapon manufactured is made for combat of some kind. Wither it be to shoot a deer, or defend your home or in the military kill an enemy. All a military grade weapon designates is that its used by the military. While there are plenty of weapons that only military personal can have, these weapons are already have laws about them. I have no problem with that. The military should have the newest most advanced weaponry available to them. Some of this weaponry becomes demilitarized and then made available to the public.

Shooting a deer is called "hunting" not "combat." Last I checked, deer, elk, quail, or ducks weren't packing heat and firing back.

You're more than well prepared defending your home with a revolver, but as I've said time and time again, a responsible home owner wouldn't have the time to retrieve their firearm to defend their home.

crashhelmet

In more recent years more and more officers are being issued M-16s or M-15s. Depending on how there used it could be a good thing or bad thing. Rifles are far more accurate than a shotgun and have as a general rule a smaller recoil/kickback.

Most of those issued have been by crackpot sheriffs, like Arpaio and the guy in Arkansas forming his militia. LAPD is making them more accessible after the incident where some bank robbers caused a mid day standoff in full body armor and military grade weaponry. it is not "standard" though.

crashhelmet

I think your overstating it a bit about Americans always settling disputes with guns. I do agree with you that there are problems with our society in regards to guns. I don’t think regulating what is currently available in terms of assault weapons or semi automatics would work. It was tried for 10 years and all it did was cause prices to the pre-banned guns to go up or for manufactures to find loopholes for the production of new guns.

That's because that ban was nothing more than "look what we did" act of legislation. It kept the gun lobby at bay and made the uninformed think we were doing something special.

But no, I'm not overstating it. Guns make people braver, cockier, and stupider. They make people think rashly instead of rationally.

Guns turn people into The Punisher. I'm not going to wait for the cops. I'm going to grab my gun and be the hero!

They turn angry people into killers and/or suicide victims. People get fired, go home, grab their guns, and "Go Postal." Person gets dumped, thinks "I can't live without him/her," and shoots themselves. Sometimes they shoot their ex first.

To the American people, guns are a "solution" to life's problems.

crashhelmet

We don’t let just anyone go in a buy a firearm. There are background checks. There are wait periods. All of this is already legislated. We already have laws on all of this. I’ll give you I don’t think that every person who owns a gun should have them. Some of them aren’t mature, but our legal system also goes based on age what you've done. If you’re an adult you can make dumb ass decisions that will land your backside in jail. Some of them also aren’t stable, and I’m for fixing the state to state definition of mentally instable so that its reported to the NICS. I’m also for education more people on firearms and weaponry in general. I think too few people in my generation understand the complexities to using a gun. Most thankfully dont, but they should still have to learn the basics. From learning to shoot, types of ammo to use depending on where you are, to understanding that it is now a moral responsibility as to when or if you even decide when to use it.

Those background checks are fairly recent and the cool downs don't exist everywhere.

Here in Las Vegas, if you want to buy a gun you'll have to wait for 3-5 days while they do a background check and you "cool down." If you go a few miles down the street to the city of Henderson, one of Las Vegas's suburbs, you can buy a gun and walk out with it the same day. Only an Instant background check is done. So unless you have current warrants or felony convictions, you can go in, buy a gun, go home, and shoot your cheating spouse or rob a liquor store to make up for the money you just gambled away.

Your other option is to drive about an hour into Arizona and buy one from a gun show with no background checks or cool down periods at all.

Please understand I’m not saying that there aren’t problems, but removal of various types of guns simply isn’t possible in this country or the problem. Our crime rate has actully been going down the past 20 years. As it is there are simply to many and it is too ingrained in the culture.

Too ingrained in the culture? I thought I was overstating it? I'm for gun control, not complete gun bans. I'm only against military grade weaponry and high capacity magazines/clips. After that, I think we need to control who gets them and who doesn't. I'm all for background checks and cool down periods. I'm all for mental screenings. I'm also for ensuring that people are properly trained in everything specific to that weapon. Trigger safety, how to clean it and maintain it, how to secure it, and i'd even prefer they know the weight difference between loaded and unloaded.

We also seem to run into the problem that when ever an atrocity happens our culture as a whole has a knee jerk reaction to remove the item that was used and not the person. Not to sound trite, but it was the guy who snapped and pulled the trigger not the gun. Maybe if the people in the schools that have had this happen to them actually had a weapon to use back on these asses we wouldn’t keep seeing death tolls going into double digits.

The knee jerk is like getting woken up with a bucket of ice water dumped on your face. It's shock. An atrocity happens, we demand change, and then go about our business until it happens again. it isn't like 9/11 and the TSA being a constant daily reminder of what we have to go through and what we need to fix.

Yes, I know. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Guns are the enabler. Guns are the lit match for the shooter's gasoline. How many people would be dead in Tucson, Aurora, Columbine, or Newtown if they had used a bat, a knife, or any other weapon that isn't a gun?

I do apologize that it takes me this long to respond back. I’m usually watching my kids so internet time for me is pretty curtailed.

It's OK. I'm here while I'm at work and rarely ever get on my computer at home, on my days off.

[Andara Bledin]

Guns are the enabler. Guns are the lit match for the shooter's gasoline. How many people would be dead in Tucson, Aurora, Columbine, or Newtown if they had used a bat, a knife, or any other weapon that isn't a gun?

Tucson: A car would have been more dangerous in a crowd in a shopping center parking lot. Plus, he wouldn't have lost control as easily, nor would he have been as easily subdued.

Aurora: The attacker also had explosives. Had any of them detonated or been used in the theater attack, many, many more people would have died, potentially hundreds - as it was, many of the injured were due to panic, not gunfire. Even the guns could have been more deadly had he not simply stopped attacking. It's likely the guns were only used for the shock value since the shooter believes himself to suffer from mental ailments and had apparently had his concerns dismissed.

Columbine: The attackers attempted to use explosives - nearly 100 devices were created and deployed prior to the start of the attack. The first (which only partially detonated) to lure emergency crews away, and the rest to create as much death and destruction as possible. Had they worked, the guns would have been the least of the carnage.

Sandy Hook (Newton): Unknown. Another weapon may have prevented him from gaining access to the site or he may still have gained access and possibly had much longer to murder children as there would have been no gunfire to alert the faculty.

As these apply to the title: Aside from the obvious, the first two followed the laws and while the latter two exemplify the fact that as they were determined to commit heinous crimes, the commission of lesser crimes was trivial. In none of those cases would addition regulations short of an outright ban have any impact.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Laws do little to prevent people from committing crimes and are about punishing people who commit crime.

They're supposed to be a deterrent.

The reason that this issue comes up in the gun debates is because we already have laws on the books that makes most of the people committing the crimes not legally allowed to have the guns in the first place, making new laws both redundant and a waste of resources.

If we're going to pass new laws (which costs thousands to millions of dollars to do), then we should at least make the effort to ensure those laws will actually have a measurable effect. Otherwise it's just the lawmakers jacking off to the tune of more "feel-good" legislature.

^-.-^

Pretty much this. Feel-good laws that sooth angered people in the wake of Sandy Hook, but don't actually fix anything... other than adding on more restrictions to law-abiding citizens.

But no, I'm not overstating it. Guns make people braver, cockier, and stupider. They make people think rashly instead of rationally.

Really? I should be a irrational bitch then cos I have a loaded gun in the apartment right now. Ok I am a bit bitchy sometimes, but why ... don't I reach for the gun first? Because that's not who I am.

That's a very biased statement in my opinion. If anything I've taken to heart that when I start to carry I'm going to have to be very responsible for my gun. I have to keep aware of my surroundings and know that sometimes "GTFO" is the best course of action and that drawing down is the LAST thing I do.

Then again that's how I was trained back when I carried on duty.

Those background checks are fairly recent and the cool downs don't exist everywhere.

I agree about cool-downs. My state has none. And for that I'm rather glad. I bought my gun at a gun show and would have HATED having to drive all the way back just to pick up my firearm. My decision to purchase was based on careful consideration of what I wanted in a handgun, and the final choice made because they had what I wanted (SP101, double action only) with a reasonable price.

Originally Posted by crashhelmet
Guns are the enabler. Guns are the lit match for the shooter's gasoline. How many people would be dead in Tucson, Aurora, Columbine, or Newtown if they had used a bat, a knife, or any other weapon that isn't a gun?

Timothy McVeigh - 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns.
9/11 - nearly 3000 killed. No guns.

Your other option is to drive about an hour into Arizona and buy one from a gun show with no background checks or cool down periods at all.

Ack. Again the "GUN SHOW" argument. Have you actually been to a gun show?

Do you realize that MOST sellers at gun shows are FFLs? Meaning they have a "Federal Firearms License" to sell... and that they CANNOT sell a gun/firearm without a background check? Even at a gun show.

The ONLY people who can sell at gun shows without background NICS check are other attendees who happen to have a small amount of guns to sell.

ACK. This is one of the things that gets my goat - when people say "gunshow!" and think that everyone is running around buying guns without background checks.

I bought a gun at a gun show. Guess what? I had a background check. There is NO "loophole" when it comes to buying guns from gun stores, even if it's at a gun show. FFL = FFL no matter where they're selling.



Military grade - and this means what, really? Actually not much. Military grade handguns for example are easily available to the public. they're not "better" than other handguns (well ok, except the sig... it's better than a glock in my opinion but that's another story).

to me it's another "nickname" being used to bias people.

Edit: forgot to include this ... often the real difference between "military grade" and "regular" firearms is really just how it's made. Usually "forged" vs "milled" - meaning only that the "military version" can take more beating. doesn't actually make it more accurate, more deadly more anything... except more apt to take abuse. ... which is also why the military doesn't take glocks.

really the issue here is that people think they "look scary". and that's again about cosmetics, not functionality.

You're more than well prepared defending your home with a revolver, but as I've said time and time again, a responsible home owner wouldn't have the time to retrieve their firearm to defend their home.

Why wouldn't a responsible gun owner have time?

"responsible gun owner" does not automatically mean "guns locked up to high heaven". A responsible gun owner can have a gun in a nanovault (like I do) or can even carry. there's a wide range of options out there besides just burying the gun to the point that no one (not even the owner) can get to it.

Anyway, cars kill and injure far more people each year than guns do. Yet, we don't see more strict laws for them. A gun, like a car, is just a tool. By itself, it doesn't do anything. It does, whatever the operator tells it to do.

i've also heard that doctors kill more people a year through mistakes... than guns do.

And for those who hate that we bring this up ... the reason we bring it up is because to us it's proof that ... people don't really care that so many are dead, but that "x amount of people" died from something they're personally against, and that this bias is being used to exaggerate a problem into something worse than what it really is.


sorry for the random format - quoted things as they popped out at me.


oh and the part about guns = more apt to kill oneself. again bias. the gun doesn't make someone want to kill themselves. it's easier but the data on it from the CDC shows that guns only account for a percentage of suicide
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Number of suicides: 38,364 - involving firearms: 19,392
the next on the list is suffocation. so pillows and water and ropes make people kill themselves?
or poison. poison MAKES people kill themselves?

No one would ever say that poison makes people do things... but it's no different than a gun. it's PEOPLE who attribute emotional states to inanimate objects. or knives. knives don't MAKE cutters slice themselves.

if anything the real reason why guns are used most often... is because the stats are only looking at successful suicides. If you can call it "success" I mean. It's not taking into account all the "gestures" and "cries for help". If you include those you may have quite different stats. according to this link there's 11 non-fatal attempts for every death.

so again it's VERY biased - and rather inaccurate - to suggest that "guns make" people do anything. Not when you account ALL the attempts, not just the ones that end in death. By that reasoning you would HAVE to blame all the other tools used in every attempt. And again, no one goes around blaming knives for cutters, or ropes for self-hangings, or trains for people throwing themselves under them. (popular method in Japan from what I've been told).

[Canarr]

Well, apparently there ARE studies showing a higher likelihood to die of a homicide or suicide if you're an American in a household with a gun, than in one without guns. But, to be fair, the results don't seem that clear-cut.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Timothy McVeigh - 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns.
9/11 - nearly 3000 killed. No guns.

McVeigh used a bomb, the 9/11 killers hijacked planes; that's a bit out of reach of most crazed mass murderers, I'd say. Not to mention, more strictly controlled nowadays than they were at the time of the quoted killings.

It's probably true that the Anti-Gun-Lobby jumps a bit too enthusiastically on occasions such as this to further their own agenda; but it's equally true that the Pro-Gun-Lobby is a bit too eager to downplay the destructive potential of guns in the hands of a mass murderer.

To me - someone raised and living outside of the American gun culture - both sides have valid points, but those points are often hard to see amidst the army of strawmen both sides like to raise in these discussions. This topic is like the death penalty, or abortion, or table top vs. RPG: there'll never be a consensus, because both sides are glued to their own position.

Still, it's a fun read from time to time

[crashhelmet]

Pretty much this. Feel-good laws that sooth angered people in the wake of Sandy Hook, but don't actually fix anything... other than adding on more restrictions to law-abiding citizens.

Which is the entire point of this thread. Why have laws at all if criminals aren't going to abide by them?

Really? I should be a irrational bitch then cos I have a loaded gun in the apartment right now. Ok I am a bit bitchy sometimes, but why ... don't I reach for the gun first? Because that's not who I am.

That's a very biased statement in my opinion. If anything I've taken to heart that when I start to carry I'm going to have to be very responsible for my gun. I have to keep aware of my surroundings and know that sometimes "GTFO" is the best course of action and that drawing down is the LAST thing I do.

Then again that's how I was trained back when I carried on duty.

You were trained? How many civilian gun owners have your training? how many have any training? How many want a gun because it's "Cool" to own one? How many are wannabe gangsta thugs? How many people want a gun just because of the status of owning one?

I agree about cool-downs. My state has none. And for that I'm rather glad. I bought my gun at a gun show and would have HATED having to drive all the way back just to pick up my firearm. My decision to purchase was based on careful consideration of what I wanted in a handgun, and the final choice made because they had what I wanted (SP101, double action only) with a reasonable price.

Drew Carey once said, "If you're the type of person that can't wait 5 days for a gun, you're EXACTLY the type of person that needs to wait 5 days for a gun."

Or maybe it was Ric Ducomon. I don't remember right now.

But I get it. You want your shiny new toy right now! You bought it! It's yours! you NEED IT!!!!

Timothy McVeigh - 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns.
9/11 - nearly 3000 killed. No guns.

Strawiest of all the Strawman arguments OF ALL TIME!!!!!! But I'll play along.

Fat Man (military weaponry) killed approximately 39,000 people and wounded another 25,000 in Nagasaki
Little Boy (military weaponry) killed anywhere from 90,000 to 166,000 people in Hiroshima

But if you want to talk about guns, between 46,000 and 51,000 Americans died from gun fire in 3 days alone during the Battle of Gettysburg.

You still want to compare apples to orangutans?

Ack. Again the "GUN SHOW" argument. Have you actually been to a gun show?

Yes. Yes, I have. I live in Las Vegas where we have at least one gun show every month.

Do you realize that MOST sellers at gun shows are FFLs? Meaning they have a "Federal Firearms License" to sell... and that they CANNOT sell a gun/firearm without a background check? Even at a gun show.

The ONLY people who can sell at gun shows without background NICS check are other attendees who happen to have a small amount of guns to sell.

Do you realize that you are proving my point and somewhat contradicting your own? You say that people have to be FFL certified and then you say they don't.

I am saying that I can go to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check.

ACK. This is one of the things that gets my goat - when people say "gunshow!" and think that everyone is running around buying guns without background checks.

I bought a gun at a gun show. Guess what? I had a background check. There is NO "loophole" when it comes to buying guns from gun stores, even if it's at a gun show. FFL = FFL no matter where they're selling.

Again... FFL ONLY applies to businesses, not personal dealers.

Military grade - and this means what, really? Actually not much. Military grade handguns for example are easily available to the public. they're not "better" than other handguns (well ok, except the sig... it's better than a glock in my opinion but that's another story).

I'm a Sig fan and owner myself. I have a P226 and a P250

to me it's another "nickname" being used to bias people.

Edit: forgot to include this ... often the real difference between "military grade" and "regular" firearms is really just how it's made. Usually "forged" vs "milled" - meaning only that the "military version" can take more beating. doesn't actually make it more accurate, more deadly more anything... except more apt to take abuse. ... which is also why the military doesn't take glocks.

really the issue here is that people think they "look scary". and that's again about cosmetics, not functionality.

Military grade gets into magazine/clip capacity, calibre, and even barrel length. Hell, it even gets into bullet type. FMJ=Civ, JHP & Armor piercing, explosive, and incendiary rounds=Military, for example.

Why wouldn't a responsible gun owner have time?

"responsible gun owner" does not automatically mean "guns locked up to high heaven". A responsible gun owner can have a gun in a nanovault (like I do) or can even carry. there's a wide range of options out there besides just burying the gun to the point that no one (not even the owner) can get to it.

Do you keep your nanovault with you at all times? Do you keep the key to it with you as well? if someone performs a home invasion, they'll get you before you get to it or the key. If they break in while you're sleeping, unless you have a big house, they will once again get to you before you get to it. Chances are they may even be in and out before you even wake up. Have an alarm or a dog to wake you up? They won't wait around for you to grab anything.

i've also heard that doctors kill more people a year through mistakes... than guns do.

Seriously? I might've been wrong before. THIS may be the strawiest of all the strawmans. Sheesh!

And for those who hate that we bring this up ... the reason we bring it up is because to us it's proof that ... people don't really care that so many are dead, but that "x amount of people" died from something they're personally against, and that this bias is being used to exaggerate a problem into something worse than what it really is.

There is bias on both sides. Some people are personally against guns and they fight against guns. Some people are personally against control and they fight it.

I'm in the middle of that. I am a gun owner. I hold a CCW. I work a few weekends a year as private armed security. But I recognize the problem within our society. The problem with our gun culture and the problems with guns themselves. There is a psychological aspect to the debate, more than just the mental health of an individual, that people don't take into account.

sorry for the random format - quoted things as they popped out at me.


oh and the part about guns = more apt to kill oneself. again bias. the gun doesn't make someone want to kill themselves. it's easier but the data on it from the CDC shows that guns only account for a percentage of suicide
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Number of suicides: 38,364 - involving firearms: 19,392
the next on the list is suffocation. so pillows and water and ropes make people kill themselves?
or poison. poison MAKES people kill themselves?

No one would ever say that poison makes people do things... but it's no different than a gun. it's PEOPLE who attribute emotional states to inanimate objects. or knives. knives don't MAKE cutters slice themselves.

if anything the real reason why guns are used most often... is because the stats are only looking at successful suicides. If you can call it "success" I mean. It's not taking into account all the "gestures" and "cries for help". If you include those you may have quite different stats. according to this link there's 11 non-fatal attempts for every death.

so again it's VERY biased - and rather inaccurate - to suggest that "guns make" people do anything. Not when you account ALL the attempts, not just the ones that end in death. By that reasoning you would HAVE to blame all the other tools used in every attempt. And again, no one goes around blaming knives for cutters, or ropes for self-hangings, or trains for people throwing themselves under them. (popular method in Japan from what I've been told).

When someone is suicidal, the urges come in waves. They start at the highest point and if they don't at least attempt to kill themselves, they drop off and either go away or build back up again. Guns become an instant solution to rash/irrational thinking. There are a lot of failures with other methods because people get second thoughts and puke up the pills or maybe they don't cut deep enough, or anchor their rope well enough to hold them up. With guns, it's pretty much one and done.

They want to die, they grab their gun, and they die.

A friend of mine got into a fist fight at a party I was at one night. After we broke it up, he and his gf started arguing over it all. He walked outside to his truck, grabbed his revolver out of his glove compartment, and shot himself in the head.

Prior to marrying my nephew, his wife was engaged to another guy. Within minutes after she broke up with him, he went into their bedroom, put his gun in his mouth, and pulled the trigger.

There are countless other stories of people losing their jobs, finding out their spouses cheated, or getting dumped, going home, grabbing their guns, and kill themselves. Sometimes they decide to kill other people first.

[wolfie]

Drew Carey once said, "If you're the type of person that can't wait 5 days for a gun, you're EXACTLY the type of person that needs to wait 5 days for a gun."

Or maybe it was Ric Ducomon. I don't remember right now.

In other words, the person who has JUST received a death threat from a stalker is exactly the type of person who needs to wait 5 days to obtain the means to defend themselves?

Military grade gets into magazine/clip capacity, calibre, and even barrel length. Hell, it even gets into bullet type. FMJ=Civ, JHP & Armor piercing, explosive, and incendiary rounds=Military, for example.

Military grade also gets into forged (more expensive, but more durable) vs. milled components. As for bullet type, your information is incorrect. JHP is strictly a civilian round - its use by the military is a violation of the Geneva Convention (as is the use of explosive rounds for anti-personnel purposes - using them against equipment is OK). FMJ is military (also legal for civilian use, but rarely used due to expanding rounds being more effective).

Since true (as opposed to the glycerin or mercury "assisted expansion" described in "The Day of the Jackal") explosive rounds are generally found only in 20mm and larger calibers, and civilians are restricted to .50 and under, plus the fact that the explosives themselves, whether or not contained in a projectile, are illegal for civilians to possess, that's a moot point.

[crashhelmet]

In other words, the person who has JUST received a death threat from a stalker is exactly the type of person who needs to wait 5 days to obtain the means to defend themselves?

They can still buy a gun if it makes them feel safer. But they should also call the police, get support from friends/family/coworkers, go to a shelter if needed.

There's a lot you can do during that time.

Military grade also gets into forged (more expensive, but more durable) vs. milled components. As for bullet type, your information is incorrect. JHP is strictly a civilian round - its use by the military is a violation of the Geneva Convention (as is the use of explosive rounds for anti-personnel purposes - using them against equipment is OK). FMJ is military (also legal for civilian use, but rarely used due to expanding rounds being more effective).

Since true (as opposed to the glycerin or mercury "assisted expansion" described in "The Day of the Jackal") explosive rounds are generally found only in 20mm and larger calibers, and civilians are restricted to .50 and under, plus the fact that the explosives themselves, whether or not contained in a projectile, are illegal for civilians to possess, that's a moot point.

I wasn't saying that JHP was only for military use, I was giving an example of how the classification would break down. Basically, your standard FMJ for civilians. Anything designed to do more damage, like the JHP is, would be classified for military use. But, if rounds are banned by the Geneva Convention for military use, shouldn't they be banned for civilian use as well?

Civilians can purchase explosive rounds. A few sites you can buy them at are HERE and HERE

[protege]

They can still buy a gun if it makes them feel safer. But they should also call the police, get support from friends/family/coworkers, go to a shelter if needed.

Maybe, maybe not.

Some of you know that my then-girlfriend took out a PFA/restraining order against someone she once dated. This prick (and I'm being nice) was basically stalking her. He'd show up at school, the grocery store, etc. knowing full well that he was violating the orders. He'd call her at night from a pay phone. All of that was difficult to prove though--by the time the cops showed up, he'd be long gone. It turned into a huge "he said, she said" situation--her word against his. Remember, this was in a town that didn't (and still doesn't) have security cameras everywhere. Nor did other people want to get involved--such incidents have a serious potential to turn nasty. The guy only backed off, when at a party, I let it slip that if he hurt her (or I'd found out he was hurting her), I'd kill him...and stuck the kitchen knife I was cleaning into the counter.

We were *very* lucky that the situation didn't turn nasty. The guy already had a reputation for violence, and eventually got busted for statutory rape of a 13-year-old. He could have easily forced his way into her building--residents never pulled the doors shut if they were out on the patio--and into her apartment. Security in that place was a joke.

Unfortunately, not all domestic violence victims are so lucky. They should be allowed to protect themselves, and I think that increasing the waiting period or background check...only makes the problem worse.