gun show loophole rant
Quote: rxwineLike Oscar Pistorius?
No. I surmise the facts will bear out that Mr. Pistorious is a murderer. I stand by my original comment. The model he killed was not a home invader. He may use that as a defense to avoid going to jail, but she was not a home invader.
Quote: rxwineJust saying gun ban (or drug) didn't work, means nothing.
You still don't get it. Gun laws have never worked, yet people like you keep asking for more laws. OTOH, drugs have in fact solved the problem, which is why your analogy is severely flawed.
Not only that, there are no laws on the books that mandate that pharmaceutical companies cure such-and-such disease. Why? Because such laws would not solve the problem. Just like they don't solve the problem when it comes to gun crimes.
Quote: rxwineLikewise, unlike say getting a bad baby crib off the market, there's been an active movement to disembowel all gun legislation.
I don't get this analogy either. If there's a defective crib in circulation, we take it off the market. We certainly don't ban cribs. You want to ban guns; I want to take gun criminals "off the market".
Like FACE suggested (somewhere (maybe another thread). I don't need the lights on to be successful. Maybe he'll come with night vison.
I won't do much mass murder with the two items. Unless it's one at a time.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou still don't get it. Gun laws have never worked, yet people like you keep asking for more laws. OTOH, drugs have in fact solved the problem, which is why your analogy is severely flawed..
Depends who you ask. What country you're talking about. And what amount of reduction in gun crime you're willing to accept as proof
Quote: rxwineI won't do much mass murder with the two items. Unless it's one at a time.
I won't do much mass murder, PERIOD.
...which is why the government needs to take its grubby hands off my guns.
Quote: rxwineDepends who you ask. What country you're talking about. And what amount of reduction in gun crime you're willing to accept as proof
Actually, it's what you are willing to accept as proof because we can both agree that current laws haven't stopped the violence.
Quote: Beethoven9thActually, it what you are willing to accept as proof because we can both agree that current laws haven't stopped the violence.
300 million guns hasn't stopped the violence.
Quote: rxwineQuote: Beethoven9thActually, it what you are willing to accept as proof because we can both agree that current laws haven't stopped the violence.
300 million guns hasn't stopped the violence.
There is no violence in places without guns? All rainbows and unicorns?
Quote: rxwine300 million guns hasn't stopped the violence.
Tell that to this young man.
...or this girl.
...or this young mother.
...or this mother.
...or this anti-gun state senator.
Nah, their stories don't count. Only stories that you like to cite count.
Like SOOPOO, I am somewhat shocked that you made that comment about a break in. Surely you must understand a burglar, robber, assailant, rapist, murderer does not call and make an appointment, nor declare their intent once they break your door in. We both agree that cappin’ someone over a stolen Xbox is extreme, but you have no idea of the intentions of a man who has violated your personal space. What is he going to do once he finds he’s not alone? Run? Hopefully. Engage with weapon? There’s a chance. And when my 4 year old child is sleeping nearby, that’s chance that I’ll not be unprepared for.
My girl had court just a few months ago because of the shithead that assaulted her at gun point because she shut down his advances. This was maybe 20 minutes from SOOPOO’s house, and happened within the last year. The guy skipped and is now a fugitive, running about god knows where with the same mind frame that caused him to do that to my girl. There are thousands of people just like him. If you want to take solace in the 99.9% chance it’ll never happen to you, have at it. I don’t fault you for it and you’ll probably live a long and happy life. But something like that will never happen to me and mine if I can help it, and damn sure not in my own house. Gaston gave me 17 ways to make sure it doesn’t. Armalite gave others 30. Remington gives 5. You only want 0. And every one of us should be able to pick which one suits them. You, the gov, or anyone else telling me I don’t need 17 and forcing me to 7 is no different than me, the gov, or anyone else telling you that you do need 17 and forcing you to carry a GLOCK.
Who would support that?
Quote: rxwineI believe I could stop most burglars in my home armed only with pin firing stun gun and a bat. Okay, 2 stun guns. One for backup.
Like FACE suggested (somewhere (maybe another thread). I don't need the lights on to be successful. Maybe he'll come with night vison.
I won't do much mass murder with the two items. Unless it's one at a time.
That was my conversation with FrG in "Firearms With Face" on DT. And like I said there, sure, you could do that.
Just make sure your batteries are charged.
Make sure you're less than 10 feet away from the baddie.
Make sure both probes embed.
Make sure tasers are legal in your state.
Make sure you're licensed to possess one.
And finally, make sure you're ready for a fight. You'll drop him for sure, but it's effectiveness might not last the 10-20 minutes it'll take for the calvary to arrive. I suppose that's why you have a bat, eh? ;)
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no violence in places without guns? All rainbows and unicorns?
...all that, and a bag of chips. Gluten free, low sodium, baked, no trans fat, no green slime, no red dye, mercury free, dolphin friendly, no cylomates, no leaded paint, no radon, nictotine free and boneless.
Quote: rxwine...all that, and a bag of chips. Gluten free, low sodium, baked, no trans fat, no green slime, no red dye, mercury free, dolphin friendly, no cylomates, no leaded paint, no radon, nictotine free and boneless.
Who would want to eat that?
Well, I'm going to take a bend here, because I look at the home burglary studies and am alarmed:
3.7 million burglaries / year.
1.024 million burglaries while someone was at home.
267 thousand violent acts (67% knew the offender in violent attacks).
Per year.
So in a life time of say 60 years of home ownership, you are looking about 16 million violent acts, or about a chance of about one in 7 (given there are 116 million households).
So, yeah, get a gun and defend yourself.
Quote: boymimboFace, your girl was assaulted at gun point because a criminal had a gun, probably because he obtained it illegally.
Well, I'm going to take a bend here, because I look at the home burglary studies and am alarmed:
3.7 million burglaries / year.
1.024 million burglaries while someone was at home.
267 thousand violent acts (67% knew the offender in violent attacks).
Per year.
So in a life time of say 60 years of home ownership, you are looking about 16 million violent acts, or about a chance of about one in 7 (given there are 116 million households).
So, yeah, get a gun and defend yourself.
I don't know if you are serious or not, nor if your stats are legit or made up, but I hope (assuming the stats you posted are legit) a 1 in 7 chance over the course of a lifetime is not something you would be cheerful about.
As a side note,
If someone did break in your home to steal your Xbox, and you happened to be awake and moving around that particular time of night, and said robber heard you and decided rather than run, he would attack you, would you not fight back? Assume you are alone, and are not attempting to protect loved ones.
I would hope you would fight back. And in that fight, you may not want a gun, or think you would not want a gun, but anyone who would try to take away my right to have one at that moment in time, with as many rounds in a magazine as I want, is an enemy of mine. That person is my enemy right now.
Quote: Maverick17I don't know if you are serious or not, nor if your stats are legit or made up, but I hope (assuming the stats you posted are legit) a 1 in 7 chance over the course of a lifetime is not something you would be cheerful about.
I don't think he is being "cheerful". BM is usually on the up and up, and I don't detect sarcasm here. I'm sure he'll confirm or deny in a bit...
Quote: boymimboFace, your girl was assaulted at gun point because a criminal had a gun, probably because he obtained it illegally.
Yes! Yes, boymimbo, you're absolutely right, so let's take a look deeper into this scenario.
I live in NY's Erie county, the county that contains the city of Buffalo. As such, other than the 5 Boroughs, Chicago, maybe Cali and NJ, it is one of the most difficult places in America to obtain a hand gun. Here's the process...
I had to fill out a 5 page application. In it, I had to supply criminal history (if any), drug use history (if any), mental health history (if any), and employment history. I had to supply 5 references of good moral character, who I've know for at least 10 years (maybe it was 5, I can't remember), who live in my county and my town (not easy when your town is divided neatly in half by the county line). All 5 of these references had to be interview by the County Sheriff, and I had to be interviewed as well. This process cost $105 at the time I did it. I also had to take 8 hours of firearm safety training at a cost of $75, get 4 pictures taken (included in the course fee), be fingerprinted by the NYS Police, and agree to a background check. All of this was to own a handgun. In order to carry concealed, I had to give an articulatable reason as to why I should be allowed to carry concealed, which, due to my documented cases of 5-0 being slow, as well as yearly encounters with large, four legged predators, I fulfilled. To top it all off, NYS is a may issue state, which means you are not guaranteed to receive the permit you want. Sure, we sort of have the law on our side, but if NYS can find a reason to deny you (maybe you forgot to disclose a disorderly charge from 15 years ago) they can deny you and you'll be out the time and money. After all of that, a little over $200 and a wait of 22 months, I finally received my CCW on Christmas Eve of 2010.
Pretty strict, wouldn't you say? Maybe you think we're on the right track, maybe you think other states should follow our example? Well this p.o.s. fuckbag that put a gun in my girl's face lives in the exact same county. As I was privy to the charges, I can tell you that you're completely correct, he was not permitted to carry that weapon and was doing so illegally. It was an illegal gun. So, since the law didn't work, we should definitely... make more laws?
It's because of stuff like this that I sort of lose it when even more laws are prescribed "as the answer". It's because of my somewhat large and ever increasing knowledge on gun law that I want to bang my head off the wall (and sometimes through it). Did you know we spent $44,000,000 on "forensic fingerprinting" of hand gun bullet casings? You know, "just in case"? Not one charge has ever been levied as a result of these "fingerprints", it's a complete waste of money. Over and over and over again I see the same shit being pushed, not with the hope of it working, but with proof that it absolutely does not. I just can't wrap my head around how people can't see this fact and start searching for real answers.
That doesn't mean, as rxwine sarcastically put it, that we "just give up". On the contrary, it's time we start actually working. Quit throwing out bullshit "fix-alls" that don't have a snowballs chance in hell of working, and start looking for and working on the source of the problem.
I wish I had an answer for that, but I don't. And I don't think anyone else does either. But the longer we throw these worthless capacity-and-action-restriction bandaids over the problem, the longer this cancer of our society is going to fester.
Quote: boymimboFace, your girl was assaulted at gun point because a criminal had a gun, probably because he obtained it illegally.
Wait a minute, are you saying that the people who bought guns legally did not commit the crime? And are you saying that despite all the gun laws a gun crime happened anyways?
Quote: boymimboFace, your girl was assaulted at gun point because a criminal had a gun, probably because he obtained it illegally.
Yeah, and that's why more laws won't work; criminals by definition don't follow them.
I've come to the conclusion that all studies on gun control are inconclusive and are contradictory. We don't know which gun laws work and which don't. There is contracdictory evidence that shows that states with conceal laws have lower gun crime rates while some have more. We have the experience in cities where gun crime went higher after a gun control ban while in other places, crime went down. The end effect is that is truly unknown what gun laws are effective.
Therefore, that leaves it open to opinion.
Face is right. Look for the source of the problem. Gun laws and restrictions are a band-aid until then. I'm glad that Face has gone through all he has to get the guns he wants, and I understand that he's pissed by the restrictions on the number of bullets in a magazine.
That doesn't mean that I don't support laws and restrictions. You can draw corollories to other laws. Driving laws keep accident rates down. In some places, you can't use your cellphone in your car, and there are plenty of places where you can't bring or use your cellphone. I support EFFECTIVE gun control laws that lower the rates of murders yet allow freedoms for gun-owning law abiding folks.
The problem to me is that guns will find themselves in the hands of criminals, and lowering gun ownership overall lowers that gun ownership by criminals and also gun crimes. It may also lower the rate of suicide, and limitations on gun ammo magazines, stronger background checks, and locking laws in the home may have prevented some pretty shocking mass murders from occurring because the availability and means weren't there. And I get the knee-jerk reaction in Washington and in many states. Mass murders like Aurora and Sandy Hook are political capital. Without political capital, nothing gets done in Washington.
Libertarians will scream "freedom". Fine, you have your opinion. My opinion is that there are segments of society that need to be protected and that your freedoms can be curtailed by the needs of society as a whole, and that is a liberal, socialistic opinion. So be it. Make the laws reasonable to limit the freedoms that are curtailed while maximizing the protection to society.
Quote: boymimboThe problem to me is that guns will find themselves in the hands of criminals, and lowering gun ownership overall lowers that gun ownership by criminals and also gun crimes.
I guess the main beef that many of us in this thread have can be summed up in the above statement. For me, I simply don't believe in lowering gun ownership by law-abiding citizens since it takes away their 2nd Amendment right.
Enjoyed your thoughtful message though. I think it's great that we've all had a 42-page discussion on a highly divisive topic without it turning into a virtual shouting match. Kudos to all of us. *thumbs up*
America has always been known for its draconian drug enforcement laws which are finally starting to relax. If they had the same kind of sentences for illegal possession of a gun (many years in prison) perhaps that would have some deterrence. I also think that keeping guns locked up when you're not at home makes sense too. You could look at it this way - I am coming home and there might be an intruder in my house and that intruder now has my gun. if you can quell the flow of guns to the criminals I think that would go a long way. Perhaps getting rid of private sales as well or having a gun licence system might help.
Quote: boymimboYeah, and I think a thoughtful law would be things that would still enable you to own guns while keeping it out of the hands of criminals.
America has always been known for its draconian drug enforcement laws which are finally starting to relax. If they had the same kind of sentences for illegal possession of a gun (many years in prison) perhaps that would have some deterrence. I also think that keeping guns locked up when you're not at home makes sense too. You could look at it this way - I am coming home and there might be an intruder in my house and that intruder now has my gun. if you can quell the flow of guns to the criminals I think that would go a long way. Perhaps getting rid of private sales as well or having a gun licence system might help.
The USA already puts stiff penalties for having an illegal gun and using a gun in a crime. Even if you do t brandish it you can get the penalty
I still don't see the fascination with requiring guns be kept locked up and thus useless in my own home.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USA already puts stiff penalties for having an illegal gun and using a gun in a crime. Even if you do t brandish it you can get the penalty
I still don't see the fascination with requiring guns be kept locked up and thus useless in my own home.
Especially since if someone comes into your home at night, you will probably have to walk past an armed intruder to get the key so you can access your weapon.
The USA's laws for illegal possession of a firearm are set by state. For example, in Washington State, because you don't need a permit to purchase or license a firearm, it would be difficult to get convicted of illegal possession. Even convicted criminals can apply to have their rights to own a gun restored.
Quote: boymimboKeep it locked up when you're not at home. Keep the ammo separate from the firearm. Here in Canada, your firearm must be attached to an unremovable object. You can't have a rifle or gun at your bedside pursuant to our firearms act. And the ammo must be separated from the gun and the firearm must be unloaded and rendered inoperable.
In other words, useless for self defense.
I will say it again, locking my front door should constitute "keeping it locked up."
Loaded in the nightstand mine will stay, thank you very much. Will put it better away if my nieces and nephews come over.
a gunfight at high noon is the only way the boyminbo-AZDuffman debate can be resolved.Quote: AZDuffmanIn other words, useless for self defense.
I will say it again, locking my front door should constitute "keeping it locked up."
Loaded in the nightstand mine will stay, thank you very much. Will put it better away if my nieces and nephews come over.
Quote: boymimboFace is right. Look for the source of the problem. Gun laws and restrictions are a band-aid until then. I'm glad that Face has gone through all he has to get the guns he wants, and I understand that he's pissed by the restrictions on the number of bullets in a magazine.
Oh my god. My common sense finally reaches someone, I finally have a bona fide conversion, and he’s a blasted Canadian whose vote can’t help the cause! Oh, the humanity!
LOL! J/K, boymimbo. I’m still very glad for your comments, regardless that you live but 30 miles too far north.
And I empathize with the maddening task it is to make sense of gun stats. If you look at the number of gun murders, you’ll see the list topped by Florida, NY, Texas, Cali, and Pennsylvania, obvious because they’re the largest states by population. But even that makes no sense. The People’s Republics of Cali and NY are terrible with gun rights, whereas Texas and Penn are quite good. Even NY vs Penn, they’re the same region, quite similar demographics. For all I went through to get my NYS CCW, I could go across the border and get one in Penn, which would cover me for an additional 30 other states, and it would take about $20 and 15 minutes. So why, with such disparity in “rules”, is the outcome so similar?
I can’t peg it. I’ve tried population density, culture, race, history, level of personal freedoms, gun laws themselves, rates of drug use, rates of poverty vs financial success, “presence of God”,… I’ve not had one “A-Ha!” moment. Vermont has the single lowest murder per 100k in the nation. They are also the inspiration and namesake of the “Vermont Class” weapons permit, which allows you to go to Walmart right now, buy a gun, and concealed carry without a permit. Hawaii, which is ranked the 49th worst state as far as gun rights go, is 3rd in the lowest murders per 100k. Completely opposite law, exact same outcome. Why? D.C., where just about every gun is illegal, has the single highest murders per 100k, more than double the second place state. Yet right behind it with out of control gun violence are a number of southern states who traditionally have lax gun laws. WHY?! What is keeping some states so safe while others are mired in violence? The only thing I’m convinced of is that it has nothing to do with laws.
I’ve said it all along, practically been screaming it from the rooftops – this constant news link / stat battle is beyond useless. No matter what stance you pick, how extreme your viewpoint is, I could give you every stat to support it and an equal amount to refute it. It’s the nature of the beast. I am beyond glad you’ve come to that realization, and I’d like everyone to notice you did so without abandoning your beliefs. You still think there needs to be control, still think there’s problem that needs solving, but you’ve abandoned the bullshit, so to speak. Makes me wish you were an American =)
Quote: Beethoven9thEnjoyed your thoughtful message though. I think it's great that we've all had a 42-page discussion on a highly divisive topic without it turning into a virtual shouting match. Kudos to all of us. *thumbs up*
Agreed. We had some close calls, but in true WoV fashion, we've stayed the course. Bravo!
Face, it might have to do with culture. Hawaii's murder rate may be lower because they're more relaxed. Which gets me to my next point.
Stress.
It's become clear to me that perhaps it's other factors beside the gun that cause people to kill each other. Certainly, gun deaths are predicated by the availability of the weapon. Like I've claimed, it's alot easier to shoot yourself in the head with a gun in the house than it is to drive to the drug store or to run your car in a closed garage or jump off a bridge and so on. I think gun availability is why suicide rates in the US are so high.
But it's more than that. The border with Niagara Falls, NY is 3 miles from my house. I'm within walking distance to the USA. We have similar cultures. We watch the same TV shows, same movies. What's different? Our gun ownership is much lower and our gun laws are much stronger. Does that result in a lower murder rate? Or is it something else?
Quote: boymimboFace, it might have to do with culture. Hawaii's murder rate may be lower because they're more relaxed. Which gets me to my next point.
It might, but check this out...
Invisible line and patch of water aside, we’re about as close of neighbors as me and SOOPOO are. I often joke that I’m “from southern Canada”. Before the border closed, I hung out in Southern Ontario often; Clifton Hill, Hamilton, Guelph, had Canadian friends, had friends with Canadian girlfriends. Other than the money and units of measurement, we’re very much from the same area.
I just did some quick Googling, dropping the “gun” and just searching “violence”. Niagara Falls NY’s crime rate is almost 4 times the national average, just out of control for nearly every type of crime. Niagara Falls, Ont’s, on the other hand, is well below the provincial average, and seems to be getting better by the year.
It’s the same bleeding town! They’re both cities of similar size, both have an industrial presence, both have casinos, both have tourism, the demographic is the same, the culture is the same. If not for the license plates and the pictures on the money, you’d not be able to tell what side of the river you’re on.
This isn't a gun question, it's a violence question (which I think this whole debate should be discussed under). Why is your side doing so much better than mine when it's damn near exactly the same place?
Quote: FaceNiagara Falls NY’s crime rate is almost 4 times the national average, just out of control for nearly every type of crime. Niagara Falls, Ont’s, on the other hand, is well below the provincial average,
Check the demographics of who lives on the US
and on the CA side. You will find the answer there.
Quote: FaceIt’s the same bleeding town! They’re both cities of similar size, both have an industrial presence, both have casinos, both have tourism, the demographic is the same, the culture is the same. If not for the license plates and the pictures on the money, you’d not be able to tell what side of the river you’re on.
Anyone who has ever lived near a border state line might be familiar with this scenario as a teenager. If the drinking age in your state was 21 and 5 miles across town in the next state it's 18, where do you go get your booze?
You can't have inconsistent gun laws state to state and expect much different.
What does burn me up are anti-gun celebrities who then turn around and glorify guns/violence/killing in their movies.
This is a perfect example.
Quote: boymimboLike I've claimed, it's alot easier to shoot yourself in the head with a gun in the house than it is to drive to the drug store or to run your car in a closed garage or jump off a bridge and so on. I think gun availability is why suicide rates in the US are so high.
I don't buy that. Way back in high school I remember a girl did her required speaking presentation on suicide. She said the attempt rate was the same for both genders, but that guys had a higher success rate because they chose more violent methods like a gun. Girls were more prone to take pills, where you might be found before you die.
My grandfather ended his life with a gun, had he not had the gun I am certain he would have found another method. When you decide to end it you decide to end it.
Quote:But it's more than that. The border with Niagara Falls, NY is 3 miles from my house. I'm within walking distance to the USA. We have similar cultures. We watch the same TV shows, same movies. What's different? Our gun ownership is much lower and our gun laws are much stronger. Does that result in a lower murder rate? Or is it something else?
I say it is something else. The USA has a more violent culture. The USA is a war-making nation. In 240 years we have been in major war about what, 30-35 of them? (war, btw is the normal state of international affairs and peace is the exception but that is another thread.) The American West was settled at the point of a Colt Peacemaker. We fought to throw out the Brits and Mexicans. And the people who immigrated here were generally pushed around in their home countries, so they left. Stand-up people tend to have stand-up kids.
Canadians, OTOH, more see themselves as a more peaceful place. Except for Toronto lately, Canada has far less ethnic diversity than the USA. There is the French-English split, but that is it. While Canada has helped out in many wars, there is no real war that Canada was one of the direct players (except perhaps the War of 1812.)
You can't measure it, but it is there. The availability of guns is merely coincidental.
Quote: Beethoven9thI agree that our violent culture (ie; movies, video games, etc) may have something to do with it, although studies are inconclusive about that as well.
What violent culture?
I don't know where you people are living but my life is pretty much non-violent. I have never witnessed anyone being stabbed or shot. It's been years - like grade school - since I've witnessed a fist fight.
Royal Flushes are WAY more common than violence.
Or maybe I'm just hanging out in the right casinos.
Quote: Beethoven9thour violent culture (ie; movies, video games, etc)
Quote: QuadDeucesWhat violent culture?
MOVIES, VIDEO GAMES
They have those in your area, right?
Quote: QuadDeuces
I don't know where you people are living but my life is pretty much non-violent. I have never witnessed anyone being stabbed or shot. It's been years - like grade school - since I've witnessed a fist fight.
Must have also been years since you saw a movie or a video game too, since that's what he was talking about. Maybe, since you're more interested in real life violence, it's been a while since you watched the news or read news in a paper or online.
I played Grand Theft Auto. Didn't make me carjack a Camaro from a pimp and steal his hoes. Nor did I notice any such behavior in my immediate vicinity.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyMust have also been years since you saw a movie or a video game too, since that's what he was talking about. Maybe, since you're more interested in real life violence, it's been a while since you watched the news or read news in a paper or online.
"The News" could just as easily present nothing but birthday parties with balloon animals and puppy dogs and they would be being just as truthful. Maybe even truthfuller.
Quote: QuadDeucesWhat violent culture?
I don't know where you people are living but my life is pretty much non-violent. I have never witnessed anyone being stabbed or shot. It's been years - like grade school - since I've witnessed a fist fight.
Looks like you're a little quick on the trigger here, guy. I don't know who you're referring to by "you people", but apparently you didn't read my entire message OR click on the link I posted. Here's my entire quote (which MonkeyMonkey so kindly pointed out):
Quote: Beethoven9thI agree that our violent culture (ie; movies, video games, etc) may have something to do with it, although studies are inconclusive about that as well.
What does burn me up are anti-gun celebrities who then turn around and glorify guns/violence/killing in their movies.
This is a perfect example.
I never said that you personally experienced violence, although I did specifically state that "studies are inconclusive about [violence in the media] as well." Also, you completely ignored the video which I linked to, which is an important part of my post.
Quote: Beethoven9thAlso, you completely ignored the video which I linked to, which is an important part of my post.
I apparently did as well, I watched it... compelling.
FWIW, I like Ramallah better than Blood for Blood.
I wonder how many here will even know what I'm talking about...
Quote: AZDuffmanGirls were more prone to take pills, .
I've always read the reason is, they're so vain they
don't want to mess up their faces with a gun. They
actually care how they'll look at their funeral. They're
so distraught they want to die, but not distraught
enough to forget their appearance. Man, we really
have no clue what women are really about, do we..
Quote: EvenBobCheck the demographics of who lives on the US
and on the CA side. You will find the answer there.
Bob is correct. Niagara Falls New York is mostly a slum. I live in a suburb of Buffalo called Amherst. year in and year out it is the safest city in America, yet it is 10 miles or so from amongst the most dangerous areas in the USA, a precinct in Buffalo. That precinct, a few square miles, will have more murders in a year than Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana combined. I would guess (help PacoMartin!) that there is far more legal gun ownership per capita in my town than there is in the bad precinct in Buffalo. And of course the reverse would be said for illegal gun ownership.
The 'It's in the constitution issue"
I see arguments that's it is in the constitution and on the other side that yes, but the constitution also allows the right to bear arms to be regulated.
Constitutions are made by the people and are over time changed when circumtances chance (customs and ethics also change over time).
So despite what is says in the constitution if the people believe that the current status should be changed by changing the law or the constitution through the democratice process of changing the laws or/and the constitution (which the 2nd amendment was itself a change to the constitution) then that's the important issue. The important issue is to have a debate with a democratic conclusion (majority decison) whether and how the laws should be changed and then whatever the outcome the people respect the results and follow the laws.
There should be no restrictions on the right to bear arms as it is fundamental to protect yousrself and against a tyranicall government.
In todays world every right is regulated with certain restrictions imposed for the benefit of society.
Someone says that I need a fully loaded gun at home to protect against criminals and I should be able to buy a gun the same day without any delay.
Someone else can say that for me to protect my family at home (and for the same reasons as the gun owner) I want to build a bunker and I should be able to start immediately building this bunker without getting any planning permit.
The arguments can go on and on, so can the examples.
Society through its democratic means (elected rerpesentatives etc) should decided after a debate the rules, regulations and limits of gun ownership and people should accept that and if they do not like it, in the next electoral proccess vote the people to change back the rules.
Regarding examples of dictatorships banning gun ownership to control the people, there are also many examples around the world of democratically elected governments being overthrown by dictators supported by paramilataries with guns.
I am not against guns. I never owned a gun but have used guns when doing military service and currently as military reservist, including using semi-automatics, automatics etc.
In my opinion use of semi-automatics is a very dangerous proposition and is rarely usefull for a civilian except if you are a criminal.
Quote: AceTwoI am not from the US, so I do not really understand the gun issue and why there is so much heated debate on both sides of this issue. I suppose it is a cultural issue.
.
Its not a cultural issue at all. Its a political issue. The Left
is hell bent of producing a nanny state where everybody
is nurtured and protected by the gov't, and changing
the Constitution and taking away our guns is a big part
of their agenda.
The Right wants small gov't and let the Constitution stand
as it is.
Quote: CS94Neither side wants meaningful studies, might just prove their position wrong. I read an interesting article on the lack of relevant statistics regarding gun use. I will post a link if I can find the article again.
I don't know of any anti-gun group that doesn't support doing studies, and I would be interested to hear of one.
Quote:But Wintemute also noted that the study's limitations were not entirely the fault of Fleegler and colleagues. He noted that federally funded research into the roots of gun violence has almost completely disappeared, thanks to opposition in Congress.
the above from this:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/37722
You may want to go back through the 40+ pages of this conversation since we've already discussed many of those points.
You never tire of being wrong, do you?Quote: EvenBobIts not a cultural issue at all. Its a political issue. The Left
is hell bent of producing a nanny state where everybody
is nurtured and protected by the gov't, and changing
the Constitution and taking away our guns is a big part
of their agenda.
The Right wants small gov't and let the Constitution stand
as it is.
