Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[SirRobin]

Inconvenient for whom, exactly? As far as I can tell, you're the only one talking about semi-automatic firearms as a whole. This thread is about the proposed renewal of an assault weapons ban, not a semi-automatic weapons ban. The only time I bring up semi-automatic weapons is to point out the hypocrisy of banning so-called "assault weapons" while not banning the similarly effective but untouched semi-automatic rifles.

The thread started out being about the assault weapons ban but moved on to gun control and the mass shootings. If you noticed, the mods stopped by the firefighter thread once or twice saying they already had a thread about gun control, and didn't need two. I've brought up that its more than just semiautomatic rifles being the issue. Semiautomatic pistols are a problem as well. Something relevant within a gun control thread.

I don't know of any politician who is seriously contemplating a semi-automatic rifle ban, let alone a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Probably because there's no chance in hell of such a ban passing. The only thing the politicians seem interested in going after are what they've decided to call "assault weapons", simply because they can use the fact that they look scary to drum up the support they need. The data, however, does not support the idea that these assault weapons are inherently more dangerous than other types of firearms.

Just as prior to Sandy Hook there was little chance of an "assault weapon" ban being renewed. Legal gun owners' own behavior is changing that. Either through turning their weapons on the rest of us, or through letting others take their legal weapons and turning them on the rest of us. Due to semiautomatics being able to put more bullets in the air faster, they are inherently more dangerous in mass shooting scenarios. Mass shootings again being the reason why gun control is brought again to the political foreground which also makes them relevant to a gun control thread.

And for the record, there have been more mass killings from non-semi-automatic firearms than from assault weapons. So... yeah.

Really? Hmm... Might want to double check that since the reason gun control has come up again is because of mass shootings. Something semiautomatics are quite popular in unfortunately.

Police yourselves? So now every gun-owner is to blame for the 1 in 100,000 that manages to get or steal a firearm and then go do something tragic? How about you just blame the crazy gunman?

Unfortunately the "crazy gunman" is either a legal gun owner or they let the crazy gunman have their legal semiautomatic. See the distinction yet? This is before we get into the dramatic difference between mass shootings and other gun crimes. Mass shootings may be much rarer but they are also much, much, costlier when they occur.

[Imbashiethz]

Assault rifles will never be banned in the US as things look atm, because then people wouldnt be able to buy them and the rich wouldnt get as rich anymore.

[SirRobin]

I don't disagree with your observation that Penn and Teller paused with dramatic effect between the clauses to further their argument. I don't agree with their decision to do so, I might add.

I love Penn & Teller, but it seemed like they were trying a little to hard to stir the pot there, so to speak. Of course from what I know of Penn & Teller? It was probably on purpose.

But, in the next portion of your contention, acknowledging the truthfulness of the fact that "the militia" is comprised of the people, and in the reverse, I don't feel that is an argument against a personal right to bear arms. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your argument, but if anything I think this contention indeed furthers an enumerated personal right to arms.

I'm not saying there is an argument against our right as citizens to keep and bear arms. In fact, I actually think a hell of a lot more should. Though that is another area and I do need to get to bed soon. I'm saying that the "well regulated" applies to the "people" part as well. Especially when you read the earlier iterations of the 2nd Amendment, it seems clear that the federal government cannot interfere with our right to keep and bear arms. But they can make sure it is, well, "well regulated."

Continuing to your next contention (or is it simply a statement?), referring to the Luby's Massacre. If someone legally obtained a weapon, that doesn't stop them from using it illegally. Personally, I don't see this as a valid argument, what, that legal gun owners can be criminals too? Murder is illegal, independent of the legality of other activities the person in question may have been up to. Unless I'm missing the point completely of what you said, I see no causation here.

Yes but the strong implication, with the inclusion of the gang member and various other comments, was that "criminals" are the threat. In fact, they even go into detail with the woman who lost her parents in a mass shooting. What they pointedly failed to mention was that her parents were not killed by a gang member or some other sort of hardened criminal. He was, in fact, a legal gun owner and his weapons were legally owned. She didn't need her firearm to protect her parents from hardened criminals. She needed it to protect them from a fellow legal gun owner.

In that case, a lack of sufficient and appropriate gun control, actually made it easier for the Luby's Massacre to happen. Not harder.

With your last statement, I literally cannot agree more, and have little else to say. Also, I thank you for and value your civility

And thank you for yours.

As I've mentioned, it is a topic of some interest to me.

Okay, bed time for me and work tomorrow, night all.

[Rendia]

The thing that bothers me most is that people are calling for bans on "Assault Rifles". MOST shooting related deaths are with pistols. They are small, easily concealable, and with the right ammunition, very deadly.

I say we stop worrying about banning and worry about extensive background checks for not only the person buying the gun, but anyone in residence with the buyer. Also, should someone move in to that house, they must submit to a background check as well. Enforce a gun safe law that requires one to be on site. Annual checks to ensure the safe is being use correctly. Annual gun safety lessons and a requirement for all people over the age of 8 in the residence to participate.

Fully autos are useless outside of a war zone, so they should still be illegal.

Firearms are a right in the US. However they come with a lot of responsibility, and should be enforced as such.

[grape-skittles]

I think simply banning things is going down a slippery slope. I won't miss assault rifles but some people want them and I am scared that this is a dangerous precedent. Assault rifles are not used for self defense or many practical purposes however should we ban everything else thats not deemed to be necessary. Do we ban fast food and candy since it provides little to no health benefit. In excess obesity from bad foods actually kills many more in the US than guns ever will. Do we ban motorcycles and sports cars? Why do we need vehicles that can go double what the speed limits are? Theres a lot of deaths every year from people in these unnecessary speed machines. Do we simply ban anything that MIGHT be a threat and is not deemed a necessity to everyday life? There are so many other things that kill people and nobody cares about banning them. Also banning assault rifles does not eliminate the majority of guns so what is it accomplishing? This bill is simply the opiate for the brain dead liberals to allow them to feel safer. If it does pass and they "feel" safer that won't actually translate to people being any safer. If they put all their eggs in this basket and think its a cure all to our society's deeper issues, I weep for these poor sheep getting behind this bill.

[Deleted]

even if said ban would be enforced, wouldn't that create more self made mods from gun owners?
can't be that hard to make your own extended mags or mod a semi auto hunting rifle to full auto?
also i'd be more afraid of someone with a pistol and some hollow points/razor talon shots to a standard AR being used for hunting or maintaining someone's castle law.

the shootings are a major issue yes that cannot be denied, however thinking a simple ban on AR's will fix it is just very naive.
also where would this place smg's and shotguns? (those can also cause quite some havoc)

[PhaelixWW]

Semiautomatic pistols are a problem as well. Something relevant within a gun control thread.

FusedMass posted again (erroneously) that assault weapons were used in the majority of mass killings. I responded by pointing out (for the fourth time) that handguns were far more commonly used in mass killings than assault weapons. You chimed in with the fact that those handguns were mostly semi-automatic, too, and ain't that "inconvenient".

My problem is that you took the argument of the relative danger of handgun vs. assault weapon, and tried to turn it into a semi-automatic vs. non-semi-automatic debate, while also trying to claim that this fact was "inconvenient" to someone, like they were arguing against you on that subject. There was no inconvenience, because nobody was arguing against you. The fact that semi-automatics are more dangerous than non-semi-automatics is a given, just as automatics are more dangerous than semi-automatics.

But just because semi-automatics are relatively more dangerous than non-semi-automatics is not a reason in-and-of-itself to ban semi-automatics, which is what you seem to be going after. Hell, polling indicates that public interest in a potential handgun ban was at an all-time low, so going after semi-automatic handguns as well as assault weapons seems like a stretch that very few politicians would try to make.

Just as prior to Sandy Hook there was little chance of an "assault weapon" ban being renewed.

Polling puts it at 26% for a handgun ban and 43% for an assault weapon ban as of late last year. Recent events and media and political focus could potentially account for a 7% jump in the polling for assault weapons, but there's no way in hell you'll get me to believe that it's likely to account for a doubling of the poll numbers in favor of a handgun ban, even if it's "just" semi-automatic handguns. Especially when you consider, just in the microcosm of this thread, the tendency to scoff off the danger represented by the handguns possessed by the recent killers in favor of the more flashy assault weapons.

Legal gun owners' own behavior is changing that. Either through turning their weapons on the rest of us, or through letting others take their legal weapons and turning them on the rest of us.

See, now you're just getting ridiculous again. Trying to blame each and every gun owner for the bat-shit crazy minority. Heck, you can't even really just call it a minority; you'd have to call it a statistical aberration. If you look at the behavior of legal gun owners as a whole, then it paints a different picture, since 99.99% of them aren't going around killing people or letting their guns be taken to kill people.

But you'd rather point a finger at the crazies and tell people that their behavior is the norm.

It's like trying to blame every Caucasian for the KKK. Or like trying to blame every African-American or Latino for inner-city gang violence. Or like trying to blame all Catholics for the priests that molest little boys.

And then telling them that they'd better police themselves... or the rest of us will do it for them.

Really? Hmm... Might want to double check that since the reason gun control has come up again is because of mass shootings. Something semiautomatics are quite popular in unfortunately.

Actually, I should say it's more likely even between assault weapons and non-semi-automatics. I was counting all shotgun mass shootings as non-semi-automatic when a few of them were probably semi-automatic. The information comes from the same page that was linked earlier (and one that you should know, since you keep referring to the data in the graph right above the one I'm talking about):

Unfortunately the "crazy gunman" is either a legal gun owner or they let the crazy gunman have their legal semiautomatic? See the distinction yet?

You're talking about the legality of the firearm's obtaining like it's some sort of holy grail (no pun intended). Someone is innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, someone is a law-abiding citizen until they're not. In the case of crazy people, the background check can't magically detect their mental state, it requires that someone in the past have submitted them for psychiatric help.

How are gun owners supposed to police this when the police can't even arrest someone for not breaking the law... yet? The sad truth is that occasionally (less than 0.01% of the time), things slip through the cracks with disastrous consequences.

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 11:46 PM ----------

I say we stop worrying about banning and worry about extensive background checks for not only the person buying the gun, but anyone in residence with the buyer. Also, should someone move in to that house, they must submit to a background check as well.

For a nation with ~270 million firearms, the logistics problem seems somewhat insurmountable.

Enforce a gun safe law that requires one to be on site. Annual checks to ensure the safe is being use correctly.

I'm all for laws requiring locks or safes, but... annual checks? You'd have to hire Santa Claus to have any chance at achieving that.

[gnomergon]

Allow me to be pedantic for a second:

Fact 1. There's no such thing as an assault weapon. It is an arbitrary designation with no actual meaning. While the popular media often calls weapons such as AR-15s and AK series rifles "assault weapons" the only commonality these weapons share is a centerfire rifle cartridge chambering, pistol grips, and a detachable magazine. The 1994 assault weapon ban would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Fact 2. Historically, when weapons bans go into effect, existing weapons are grandfathered in. This means even if the intent of this legislation is to ban rifles with centerfire rifle cartridge chambering, pistol grips, and a detachable magazine they would only regulate the sale and assembly of new firearms. Millions of perfectly legal "assault weapons" would still be floating around.

Fact 3. In 2011, you were more than twice as likely to be beat go death by somebody's bare hands than killed with a rifle in the United States. That's right in 2011, 323 murders were committed with rifles while 728 were committed by unarmed individuals. The rifle murder rate in the US is .1 per 100,000. .1! Pistols, on the other hand, were used in 6220 murders, 19 times the number.

My point is that banning AR15s and AK series rifles is a political move that doesn't address the core issue: our ability to detect and care for the mentally ill is woefully in adequate. If we want to put an end to this stuff, we need to look at how we can extend services to at risk individuals before they become dangerous.

Full disclosure: I own no guns, live in California, and have never voted anything but Democrat, so don't come at me with any of that rightwing redneck Republican name calling nonsense.

true voice of reason. it is too bad no one is going to listen to you.

[ugotownd]

I hate to break this to you. If you look up the armys defined meaning of AR-15. It falls under assault rifle. You are both denying the text book meaning of this word and what The President has said. I thank you for your personal input but I would rather go off the defined meaning of the word through the book and take the Presidents word for it then what Pro Gun people say.

Look on this website.

AR 15 Assault Rifles For Sale

http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp

Even a PRO GUN website is calling them assult rifles. its right in the the website url. Not good enough?

he AR-15 is a common assualt rifle. Very similar in looks to an M-16, but not exactly.

AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt.

With a simple barrel and receiver switch, this rifle can fire 14 different calibers and sizes of ammunition, ranging from .22LR to .50BMG.

Completely customizable, this rifle can also be a personal defense firearm at less than 36 inches long, to a sniper rifle over 50 inches.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=AR-15

I understand your upset people are using this term but denying that term. Doesn't make yours any more accurate.

Thanks for the lesson but its all fluff and selling tactics. Trust me i know more about the AR than you ever will. I only own 2 build ones and 3 lowers that i bought to sell for a ton of money.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 08:31 AM ----------

At the movies the man used an AR-15

A few weeks ago this weapon was used to kill 20 children.

No one has been able to clearly explain WHY they would need this weapon. If you need to defend yourself a hand gun is a better choice then a bulky rifle clung to your back. You cant really take it out in public because how big it is.

Gun Owners and I will not agree on defined meaning. I trust in the Presidents word and the defined meaning.

I can clearly explain it. Because i wanted one so I bought it. My personal preference why the fuck did you buy the car you drive. Its the same thing. I don't use them for home def. Have a 40cal and a 12 gauge for that and yes the AR's are locked in a safe unless there being used in competition or at the range.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fact 1. There's no such thing as an assault weapon. It is an arbitrary designation with no actual meaning. While the popular media often calls weapons such as AR-15s and AK series rifles "assault weapons" the only commonality these weapons share is a centerfire rifle cartridge chambering, pistol grips, and a detachable magazine. The 1994 assault weapon ban would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.

I think part of the point is defining assault weapons legally is that it creates that disambiguation of the term. You can sit there all day and say that there's "no such thing" but many terms had ambiguous meanings until they were defined.

My point is that banning AR15s and AK series rifles is a political move that doesn't address the core issue: our ability to detect and care for the mentally ill is woefully in adequate. If we want to put an end to this stuff, we need to look at how we can extend services to at risk individuals before they become dangerous.

As has been pointed out numerous times, if the core issue were so easy to address, it would have been done so long ago. The profile of the Sandy Hook shooter was that of a lonely reclusive guy who sat on his computer all the time. That description would fit half the people posting on this forum. I don't know if they ever found out why he went on his murderous rampage, perhaps it was a bad online breakup or maybe he just got pissed off that some 12 year old called him a fag on call of duty. If it were easy to identify a potential homicidal maniac we would have done so long ago. We can our mental health system but that can only stop so much.

What we can do is prevent arms from getting into the hands of these people in the first place, and limit their destructive capabilities of the arms available to common civilians who may take them on murderous rampages.

[PizzaSHARK]

I think part of the point is defining assault weapons legally is that it creates that disambiguation of the term. You can sit there all day and say that there's "no such thing" but many terms had ambiguous meanings until they were defined.



As has been pointed out numerous times, if the core issue were so easy to address, it would have been done so long ago. The profile of the Sandy Hook shooter was that of a lonely reclusive guy who sat on his computer all the time. That description would fit half the people posting on this forum. I don't know if they ever found out why he went on his murderous rampage, perhaps it was a bad online breakup or maybe he just got pissed off that some 12 year old called him a fag on call of duty. If it were easy to identify a potential homicidal maniac we would have done so long ago. We can our mental health system but that can only stop so much.

What we can do is prevent arms from getting into the hands of these people in the first place, and limit their destructive capabilities of the arms available to common civilians who may take them on murderous rampages.

And going in circles again, there are far more destructive means available to people if all you want to do is kill some people. Fucking anyone can go to a gas station and get a can of gas, make some molotov cocktails with it, and burn people to death. Being covered in second and third degree burns ain't a fucking joke.

[Seranthor]

I think part of the point is defining assault weapons legally is that it creates that disambiguation of the term. You can sit there all day and say that there's "no such thing" but many terms had ambiguous meanings until they were defined.



As has been pointed out numerous times, if the core issue were so easy to address, it would have been done so long ago. The profile of the Sandy Hook shooter was that of a lonely reclusive guy who sat on his computer all the time. That description would fit half the people posting on this forum. I don't know if they ever found out why he went on his murderous rampage, perhaps it was a bad online breakup or maybe he just got pissed off that some 12 year old called him a fag on call of duty. If it were easy to identify a potential homicidal maniac we would have done so long ago. We can our mental health system but that can only stop so much.

What we can do is prevent arms from getting into the hands of these people in the first place, and limit their destructive capabilities of the arms available to common civilians who may take them on murderous rampages.

Again, you demonstrate your misinformation. the shooter was about to be institutionalized by his mother, however, she was having a difficult time as the CT laws dont allow for involuntary commitment. The fact that he WAS a KNOWN danger was out there. Sorry if you missed it. The 'core issue' you allude to IS easy, when the legislators find the will to address it instead of grandstanding.

[PizzaSHARK]

Again, you demonstrate your misinformation. the shooter was about to be institutionalized by his mother, however, she was having a difficult time as the CT laws dont allow for involuntary commitment. The fact that he WAS a KNOWN danger was out there. Sorry if you missed it. The 'core issue' you allude to IS easy, when the legislators find the will to address it instead of grandstanding.

Allowing people to be forced into a psychiatric hospital isn't really a good solution, either.

[Puck]

How many lives per year would an assault rifle ban save?

I mean that's the goal right, to save lives?

So if you support an assault rifle ban, and the enormous amount of resources and time involved in carrying one out, then you must answer that simple question. How many lives per year will be saved?

If it only saves one person, then it was worth it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 02:55 AM ----------

One last thing I wanted to add tonight.

An officer was killed today. This is on top of the two fireman killed earlier today. Three people total were killed in one day related to guns. A few weeks ago. 20 Childern died related to guns and months back at a dozen people died at the movies related to guns.

If having a gun equals protection. Then why is the crime rate so high in the United States as against Canada for example where you know murder rate in Canda related to guns? it's like maybe one or two a year.

A YEAR

We in the United States have an average of ten thousand deaths a year related to guns.

It blew my mind because Canada pretty much has the same number of guns as we do in the United States. I come across this while watching Michael Moores bowling for Columbine. If you forget it was when three or four kids brought guns to school and started shooting up their gun that left dozens of people dead. The death toll in the US related to Guns is mind blowing considering country's with nearly almost same laws have almost none.

Why does Canada have almost virtually no violent shoot outs and here in the states we do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2360488.html

I feel like I should quote this, just so you pro gun guys can have a good hard think about it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Again, you demonstrate your misinformation. the shooter was about to be institutionalized by his mother, however, she was having a difficult time as the CT laws dont allow for involuntary commitment. The fact that he WAS a KNOWN danger was out there. Sorry if you missed it. The 'core issue' you allude to IS easy, when the legislators find the will to address it instead of grandstanding.

The irony of you calling me uninformed is palpable.

[Seranthor]

If it only saves one person, then it was worth it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 02:55 AM ----------



I feel like I should quote this, just so you pro gun guys can have a good hard think about it.

Unfortunately, you are relying on her inaccurate facts... Canada does NOT have even remotely close to the same number of guns as the US, in fact... the number is approximately 10.5 million guns in Canada, which, last I checked, wasn't anywhere remotely close to 272 million.

Short version. 10.5 million does NOT equal 272 million. I dont know if Fused is intentionally being misleading or if they are just uninformed. I sincerely hope its they are just misinformed.

if infringing millions saves one life and that is your criteria I can think of thousands of ways to save lives, however, YOU wouldn't like them, nor would you approve of them. So, be careful of what you are asking for.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 05:29 AM ----------

The irony of you calling me uninformed is palpable.

What? you mean you KNEW that the Sandy Hook shooter was about to be committed prior to the shooting and you sat on the information and still posted what you did? Or, is it you object to being painted with the same brush you paint others with?

[Cthulhu 2020]

What? you mean you KNEW that the Sandy Hook shooter was about to be committed prior to the shooting and you sat on the information and still posted what you did? Or, is it you object to being painted with the same brush you paint others with?

I was more referring to how I've had to educate you on several matters in this thread, many of which were things that you yourself linked (DC vs Heller) but obviously never bothered to read. When the story of the Sandy Hook shooter first came out they had no clue what was going on with the kid and didn't for several days, and all they knew he was a reclusive shut away. I even admitted that I wasn't sure if there had been any new developments because I hadn't really kept up with the story.

[Deleted]

It's to keep guns in the hands of the populace to ensure the government works for and fears the common people, rather than the opposite. (as it is today)

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe

Except it absolutely fails to do that. The best check we have against tyranny is teaching everybody about the virtues of democracy and helping others. So far it's working.

I don't know about you, but giving any old schmuck the power to overthrow the government that is tasked to protect the interests of 300M people and more does not sound like a good idea. Do I have to give you a list of the successful dictatorships that came in through democratic means ? There ain't a lot. There are some. They weren't overthrown by the people, because that's who put them in power in the first place.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 01:20 PM ----------

she was having a difficult time as the CT laws dont allow for involuntary commitment.

For the same reasons you defend the 2nd amendment : Presumption of innocence.

[Seranthor]

I was more referring to how I've had to educate you on several matters in this thread, many of which were things that you yourself linked (DC vs Heller) but obviously never bothered to read. When the story of the Sandy Hook shooter first came out they had no clue what was going on with the kid and didn't for several days, and all they knew he was a reclusive shut away. I even admitted that I wasn't sure if there had been any new developments because I hadn't really kept up with the story.

1. then you should say thank you for providing you information you didn't have.
2. I have never in my life linked DC v Heller, nor in fact have I EVER referred to it, perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else. If you think I'm error, please provide where I've done it.

[Deleted]

You got me scratching my head on this one. They had socialism in the XVIIIth century ?

In France and Russia, sure. In Great Britain though, not so much. Don't know enough about Greater Austria and Prussia in that time period, though I believe the particularly violent religious conflicts had re-emphasized the power of the people, moreso in the Habsburger Empire than in the other one. The Ottoman Empire was already under the control of the janissaries, same deal for Egypt with the mamluks.

Except they were only the first to do so, Europeans had been talking about it for decades and would have probably done it all the same. There's a reason you learned about the French Revolution in school even though it happened on a continent that is thousands of kilometers away. The ideas it promoted had been lingering through the whole century and the conditions in 1789 France just lit the fuse. Nobody really cared about that British colony that had broken off and established the first modern democracy.

People were generally more or less slaves. Slaves to taxes. Slaves to religion. Uneducated. Limiting the power that their self-appointed leaders had on them meant that they had to make it on their own instead of being herded like cattle to the slaughter. People had to lead themselves.

You are using specific terms to refute a general argument. People were separated into two groups: the rulers and the ruled.

We are taught the French revolution in schools because people like to blame the rich for their problems, and they are easy to blame because they are easy targets. It's easier to blame someone else than look at ourselves in the mirror. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Justice without force is powerless. Washington FORCED change. Oligarchs, and kings and queens all profit from standing still because they don't want to waste their wealth, especially not on others. They'd keep the world standing still forever if they could by preying on the weak. Only wars forced them to compete more.

People fled to North America to escape persecution in Europe, namely religious persecution. In the colonies people were free to experiment more away from the rigid dogma of the church who liked to exterminate any brand of Christianity that threatened its authority (like the gnostic Cathars).

We can discuss history forever if you want but you refuse to recognize that the U.S. allowed for competing ideas to truly emerge without interference. The world was slow to change because it wasn't profitable. The church was too powerful to be kept out of politics in Europe. The Ottoman Empire banned the printing press for crying out loud which is one of the main reasons why it never evolved when it wasn't that far behind the British and the French.


Mexico has a gun ban for civilians and yet is the most violent country in the world with rampant gun crime.

Justice without force is powerless.