Well lots of Iraqi's die every day because AK-47s are everywhere. I dont suspect that is a good thing. There are a lot of AK-47s in New Orleans and its has murder rate comparable to cities in south america.

Plus its a cultural thing, the AK-47 means a lot to those former european colonies around the world. More so than the rule of law. I think Mozambique even has an AK-47 on the country flag.

I don't know if "lots of Iraqi's" are still dying every day, certainly a lot less than a few months ago, but, if so, is the reason "because AK-47s are everywhere"? And if the AK-47s are the reason, how come the number of deaths has dramatically gone down?

From wikipedia:

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the United States supplied arms and technical knowledge to numerous client-state countries and rebel forces. While the United States used the relatively expensive M-14 battle rifle and M16 assault rifle during this time, it generally supplied older surplus weapons to its allies. The low production and materials costs of the AK-47 meant that the USSR could produce and supply client states with this rifle instead of sending surplus munitions. As a result, the Cold War saw the mass export, sometimes free of charge, of AK-47s by the Soviet Union and Communist China to pro-communist countries and groups such as the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Vietcong. The AK design was spread to over 55 national armies and dozens of paramilitary groups.

The proliferation of this weapon is reflected by more than just numbers. The AK is included in the flag of Mozambique and its coat of arms, an acknowledgement that the country's rulers gained power in large part through the effective use of their AK-47s.[31] It is also found in the coat of arms of Zimbabwe and East Timor, the revolution era coat of arms of Burkina Faso, the flag of Hezbollah, and the logo of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. "Kalash", a shortened form of "Kalashnikov", is used as a name for boys in some African countries.[citation needed]

Western cultures, especially the United States, have seen the AK-47 most often in the hands of nations and groups the United States condemns; first the Soviet Army, then its Communist allies during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union became the principal arms dealer to countries embargoed by the United States, including many Middle Eastern nations such as Syria, Libya and Iran, who were willing to ally with the USSR against U.S. interests. After the fall of the Soviet Union, AK-47s were sold both openly and on the black market to any group with cash, including drug cartels and dictatorial states, and most recently they have been seen in the hands of terrorist factions such as the Taliban and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan and Iraq. The AK-47 has thus garnered a reputation in Western nations as a symbol of anti-Americanism, and has gained a stereotypical role as the weapon of the enemy. In the United States, movie makers often arm criminals, gang members and terrorist characters with AKs.

In 2006, Colombian musician and peace activist César López devised the escopetarra, an AK converted into a guitar. One sold for US$17,000 in a fundraiser held to benefit the victims of anti-personnel mines, while another was exhibited at the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament.[32]

Firearms are without question a contributing factor to the murder rates wherever there is ease of accessibility; Iraq or Miami. Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss. But again, like most social phenomena, there are lots of variables to control for. Is there a distinct cause and effect relationship that can be be isolated with regard to AK-47s specifically...now that I don't know. But with regards to firearms generally, I think we both know the answer to that question. Anybody can pull a trigger....now stabbing someone to death, now were playing with an entirely different set of balls.

The drop in the civilian death toll is without question a remarkable thing. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but much has transpired in Iraq over the past few years including substantial uprooting and ethnic cleansing. Maybe there are just less people to kill or maybe US troops are better at protecting the civilian populace. Its a combination of all these things and more. Why does it have to be black and white?

How the hell do you know this?

Then why is it that states with fewer restrictive gun laws are safer.

The most dangerous cities have the most restrictive laws.

It would be easy for any of us to take a life. We choose not too.

...And now for the personal anecdote.

My step-brother was a good kid even if he was a little brat. He played basketball for Charlestown high and at 6'2 to 220lbs he was formiddable small forward. I don't know many high schools in this state that has sent more players to NCAA division 1 basketball teams than charlestown high. Anyway, For reasons unknown some guy's rage exploded into a hail of gunfire from his automatic pistol as my step brother sat on the front steps with a few of his boys one summer. My step brother was hit in the shin, which was instantaneously shattered. He was also hit in the thigh and he said before blacking out, he thought his leg was on fire. His friend, was hit in the pelvis. He has been s******* in a bag for 6 years now. Needless to say, neither of them will play much basketball in the future.

With that being said, you can keep your grandfathers muskets for quite frankly their lawful discharge is irrelevant to the experience that I know.

You can call me biased, but the city of Boston can ban handguns and I wouldn't give a rats ass. For one thing, my stepmothers neighborhood would be a lot safer.

Maybe because I was born there

My mother saved me by moving to Cambridge where I had a real shot at creating a meaningful life for myself.

Which cities are you referring to. Houston, TX, Little Rock, AR, or Birmingham, AL

And you counted AK-47's?

Sorry to hear that. About both places. I AM JUST KIDDING

How about.. D.C., Chicago, and Boston. I think these cities have restrictive laws because of knee jerk reactions to gun violence.

I don't think you can be for gun control and against long manditory sentences for crimes commited with guns. I say, you commit a crime with a gun you get locked up and they throw away the key. Once the cowardly thugs are locked up, watch the crime rate drop.

No offense taken playboy.... The cambridge jokes are amusing.

But seriously, I think Gary, Indiana has the highest murder rate in the country (Which just so happens to be right outside of Obama's hometown of Chicago). Indiana has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. You can buy a handgun and shottie without a permit and they do not have to be registered.

You see were I'm going with this.

i'm checking the facts now...

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.

As far as "firearms are WITHOUT QUESTION a contributing factor to the murder rates . . ." there are unique contributing factors to every single case. To which order of importance firearms should be attributed, I don't know. I believe the prime factor in all but the most random or insane cases is MOTIVATION. If you're motivatedto kill, you may find it easier to use an AK, though that would be more expensive and noisier than a club. And, as far as MASSIVE killing, such as occured in Iraq, that phenomenon is almost exclusive to governments, revolutions, and religioius wars.

Damn, my boys down in Shreveport, LA are killing folks like they are in North Philly.

Well lets take suicide for example. That takes a lot of motivation does it not. Why do you think more people shoot themselves or overdose on pills than say cut their wrist or hang themselves. Because pulling a trigger is easier. Its that simple. Your not going to club your cranium till you die right, when you can shoot yourself. I see no reason to believe homicide is any different.

[QUOTE=detbuch;668127]It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.
QUOTE]

And spare be the semantics.... the AK's are the tool that make killing easier.

The fact of the matter is. I own guns and I am no more a risk to anyone then you are. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. It is the total lack of respect and values and for life itself. I see people step in front of moving trains but you don't ban trains. I would be willing to bet the loser that shot your step brother was a thug with a record a mile long and losers for parents. So I should have my rights restricted because of him?

On a side note; very few killings in the U.S. are committed with"AK-47's. It's a scare tactic and catch phrase to scare people into banning guns.

If the highest rate of homicide is 57.7 per 100,000, it is evident that an automatic weapon was either not used, or not needed to achieve that number. As far as comparing rates, it is significant if there are consistently large differences between types. It seems that half the cities you cite have restrictive gun laws, so there is no consistent difference. I don't know what the rate per 100,000 is in each city, but if it isn't consistently more than 5 points, or more, than the RANKING is not so notable. If the Ranking between N and XN is within a small point difference--big deal!

Absolutet Not. You should not have your rights taken away. But if a city were to decide to band handguns, and provide reasonable justification for doing so, why not? I dont think you, as a law abiding citizen, are within the intended scope of anti-handgun legislation and any laws should be tailored to make sure your rights are not infringed upon.

I agree that sentences should be longer for unlawful possession and discharge.

This is not an easy question..balancing our rights under the 2nd amendment and the right of the public to be free from gun violence and IMO it's an area where compromise can truly address everyones concerns. Lack of compromise is the reason that as a gun owner I support neither the NRA or the far left of Ms. Pelosi and others of the "more gun control" group. In the above posts there have been several mis-truths stated from both sides of this issue. 1st..nobody possesses an "automatic" weapon without some very serious ATF review and restrictions. You will not be buying an AK 47 at your local gun shop; you may be able to purchase a semi auto which is in fact no different than your standard Rem. 1100 shotgun in that it is an auto loader not an auto firing weapon. Blame the media (can't believe I said that!) for that mis-truth. 2nd- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. If someone tells you this they're lying..and they have some other felony issue in their past. That being said, my best hunting buddy no longer can own a gun in MA because of a pot bust @ 17...he's 57! Guns are aquired illegally every day and the number of guns on the street contributes to this as do many uncontrolled sales of firearms but before we start talking about new laws that restrict "legal" ownership how about some serious enforcement 1st.

Your statement contradicts itself

I'm just trying to find compromise, between you the lawful gun owner and the thugs in the street. Its not trying to make this a black & white thing. I think you agree that more can be done to curb gun violence in the inner city without you feeling the pinch.

Ya, lock them up

well I hope you noted Boston's compared to say Birmingham, ALABAMA.

Depends on the Chief of police.

The key is CONSISTENT. You can find invidious comparisons of given cities either way.

Well Birmingham a city of only 250,000 has had a CONSISTENTLY higher homicide rate per 100,000 people than both Boston and New York City for the last decade, the latter being in states with stricter gun laws. Explain that for me pimp.

You are right. It takes a lot of motivation to commit suicide. If a gun is not handy, the deed will be done. The fact that a gun makes it easier doesn't mean that banning guns will significantly reduce suicides. And if there is no reason to believe that homicide is any different, then why should we believe that banning guns will make us significantly freer from homicide?

If it is about reducing numbers, about statistics, then the more draconian the government bans, the safer from homicide we are. Is it more important in a free society to reduce homicide rates by X?%? If so, at what number do we decide that it is "just right?"