Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 The general public hasn't had access to automatic weapons since 1934. Revolvers are used in a large number of crimes too, better ban those. Small pistols with magazines between 5-7 rounds are used in most murders, ban them too. 10 rounds can still cause a lot of homicides as seen by the ACA and Virginia Tech massacres, better change that to 5 -- better yet 1. Murders by blunt objects have jumped dramatically between 2006 and 2007, better start issuing permits for hammer purchases. There you go with your idiotic comparisons again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Firearms have accounted between 60-68% of murders since 1970, and the number of murders has dropped dramatically since 1994. If guns are such an issue I would think that the percentage of guns used in murders would be rising, and the number of total murders would also be rising, but that is not the case. Source - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html Guns are still responsible for 68-70% of all homicides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Guns are still responsible for 68-70% of all homicides. And have been through 40 years of stricter and stricter gun control. More legislation and more gun control won't stop someone from killing someone if they're hellbent on doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 And have been through 40 years of stricter and stricter gun control. More legislation and more gun control won't stop someone from killing someone if they're hellbent on doing it. Stop, no. Help prevent - yes. States with stricter gun controls have fewer firearm homicides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I don't think stricter gun laws, or smaller clips will help anything. I just don't think we would all be safer if MORE people were carrying then they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I don't think stricter gun laws, or smaller clips will help anything. I just don't think we would all be safer if MORE people were carrying then they are now. If states with stricter gun controls have fewer firearm homicides, what do you think the opposite of that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Stop, no. Help prevent - yes. States with stricter gun controls have fewer firearm homicides. No, not really. Maryland has tougher gun laws than most states and it is number three in murder rates. Illinois has some of the toughest laws, especially in Chicago, and it is number 12. California has the toughest and it is 19th. However, states with some of the most lenient gun laws also have the lowest rates - Idaho, Utah, Iowa, and New Hampshire are 47-50. Source - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord Here's an ABC News report backing up my claim - http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MOUTInstructor Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why do the states in this country with gun laws that are less restrictive have higher incidents of firearm homicides? Really? Would you please name one? Conversely, the states with the most strict laws on handguns have (by FAR) higher rates of violent crime than those states with "looser" restrictions on handguns. Let's look at the top few on each side of the table, shall we? Washington DC had a rate of 1508 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2006. At that time, there was a handgun ban in place. Vermont, on the other hand, has quite relaxed handgun regulations in place. Their violent crime rate for the same period? 137. Why? A criminal, working in an area with very restrictive firearms laws knows they have a much lower chance of getting killed or shot doing their crime. With loose firearm laws, the probability that the criminal will encounter someone who is a) Armed, trained, c) willing to use deadly force against them, is much higher, creating a substantially greater risk to the criminal. Where do these statistics come from? US Census Bureau report on Violent Crime Rates, 2006. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html Let's now examine some slightly different data, collected by the FBI. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html This report shows the number of actual number of murders, listed by weapon type. And, let's correlate that information with the Brady Campaign's State Report Card on "Sensible" gun laws, shall we? Per Brady Campaign, California has the "best" gun laws. What did that get the people of California? 1,972 homicides. Of those, 1360 were with firearms. Who's second, according to Brady? New Jersey. Home of Camden, the SECOND MOST VIOLENT CITY IN THE US. Who's number 1? Saginaw, MI. Michigan's rank per Brady? #11. New Jersey? #2. SO, to answer your question, which really isn't a valid question (but I'll answer it anyway), it's because the criminals are getting shot themselves in the commission of a felony, by law abiding gun owners. To attempt to justify that guns kill people, you'd also have to somehow explain to us all how: 1) Automobiles cause drunk driving 2) Pencils cause misspelled words 3) Spoons made Oprah fat Sorry there sunshine, your theory doesn't hold any more water than the Brady allegations that 80% of guns confiscated from the Mexican Cartels came from the US (The actual percentage was 17% per the FBI. I looked it up. You can too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest99 Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Yes, people should continue to have the right to have guns for hunting, sport, protection, whatever. No, they don’t need and should not have guns capable of mass murder such as guns with 30 shot clips. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument to the contrary of either of the above statements and they are not mutually exclusive. According to your argument, using the same logic, cars should be banned from the premise that it's possible to kill multiple people with one. What's the purpose of high capacity magazines (Please don't say "clip" anymore...it really makes you sound uneducated) for sport, hunting, protection, whatever? High capacity magazines provide me with greater opportunity to practice my shooting fundamentals between reloading, and I can concentrate more on what I'm doing than wondering how many more shots are in the mag. It lets my students learn how fun it is to shoot, instead of getting bored spending time loading magazines. It lets people spend more time practicing defensive tactics, getting rounds on target, than standing at the bench reloading. Yes, they do have valid uses other than solely as tools of "mass murder" as you attempt to portray. By the same token, so do cars. I'm very sad that so many people were harmed and killed in Tucson. My heart goes out to them all, as do my prayers. But, put the burden upon the place it belongs - the shooter, not the tool - and hold the RESPONSIBLE PARTY liable for their actions. I have yet to see ANY firearm fire off a round all by itself, without outside action imparted to it. It simply cannot be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 No, they don’t need and should not have guns capable of mass murder such as guns with 30 shot clips. I have a right to have a thirty shot clip and I don't have to justify it to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 That is just stupid. It is too intrusive and expensive. Or should only people who can afford it have the ability to carry concealed? You son't think poor people should enjoy their Constitutional rights? They shouldn't have the best means available to protect themselves from predators? Don't people in poor neighborhoods need this protection more than most? If you need a psych exam to own a hand gun then you need one to own a car, have a baby, fly an airplane. How about surgeons??? After all, they are legally allowed to slice you open. He better be sane, don't you think? How is it too expensive to own a hand gun? You purchase a hunting license every year, and people still pay it. We do it with our other dangerous weapons you claim, like our car insurance, or driver's license, if you have a pilot's license for your flying bomb you might consider a plane. My point was that you should have some sort of accountability for the things that are dangerous, and a lot of times there are fees. I mentioned nothing about costs. Have you ever priced a gun? They're expensive! A psych exam is like a doctor's visit and roughly the same cost. Heck, your medicaid would probably pay for it! Guns aren't anti-poor, but there's got to be some way to make them go through a screening process first. If not, that'd be like trying to renew your license and go down to the DMV then refuse to take the eye exam... what, blind people who can't see or read the signs should be allowed to drive too? I wouldn't suggest something like a CAT scan or MRI to scan your brain, which would be a massive expense, but a simple 1-hour psych exam would seem reasonable. And yes, annually, just like many other types of licenses. Why does it have to be about poor people?? They're not victims here. There's nothing unreasonable about asking for an annual fee and proof that you're stable enough to carry. We're not talking about a home permit, we're talking about people in public with firearms concealed. If you're going to carry something dangerous in public, then hell yes, I want you to make the investment to prove you're not a danger to society. You have another point. I would like to know that someone was sane if they're going to drive, fly, slice or reproduce. If someone is so irresponsible to endanger others in public, there should be someone that says "hey, you're not right in the head, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a dependent infant around you while driving, slicing or flying." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Really? Would you please name one? Conversely, the states with the most strict laws on handguns have (by FAR) higher rates of violent crime than those states with "looser" restrictions on handguns. Let's look at the top few on each side of the table, shall we? Washington DC had a rate of 1508 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2006. At that time, there was a handgun ban in place. Vermont, on the other hand, has quite relaxed handgun regulations in place. Their violent crime rate for the same period? 137. Why? A criminal, working in an area with very restrictive firearms laws knows they have a much lower chance of getting killed or shot doing their crime. With loose firearm laws, the probability that the criminal will encounter someone who is a) Armed, trained, c) willing to use deadly force against them, is much higher, creating a substantially greater risk to the criminal. Where do these statistics come from? US Census Bureau report on Violent Crime Rates, 2006. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html Let's now examine some slightly different data, collected by the FBI. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html This report shows the number of actual number of murders, listed by weapon type. And, let's correlate that information with the Brady Campaign's State Report Card on "Sensible" gun laws, shall we? Per Brady Campaign, California has the "best" gun laws. What did that get the people of California? 1,972 homicides. Of those, 1360 were with firearms. Who's second, according to Brady? New Jersey. Home of Camden, the SECOND MOST VIOLENT CITY IN THE US. Who's number 1? Saginaw, MI. Michigan's rank per Brady? #11. New Jersey? #2. SO, to answer your question, which really isn't a valid question (but I'll answer it anyway), it's because the criminals are getting shot themselves in the commission of a felony, by law abiding gun owners. To attempt to justify that guns kill people, you'd also have to somehow explain to us all how: 1) Automobiles cause drunk driving 2) Pencils cause misspelled words 3) Spoons made Oprah fat Sorry there sunshine, your theory doesn't hold any more water than the Brady allegations that 80% of guns confiscated from the Mexican Cartels came from the US (The actual percentage was 17% per the FBI. I looked it up. You can too) First of all, DC is not a state. I thought you would have learned that in grade school. Second of all, your continued comparison of firearms to cars, pencils and spoons is childish at best. And finally, 7 out of the top 10 states with the most lax gun laws have the highest incidents of homocide by firearms. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Spin it how you want. These are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Guns are the issue. Get your head out of your butt. Guns aren't the issues. It is the non-law abiding citizen, or the 'wacko', that get's their hand on a gun and uses it inappropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Stop, no. Help prevent - yes. States with stricter gun controls have fewer firearm homicides. It's already been proven that states with stricter gun control have the higher crime/murder rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 It's already been proven that states with stricter gun control have the higher crime/murder rates. No it hasn't Andy - pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beowulf Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 How is it too expensive to own a hand gun? You purchase a hunting license every year, and people still pay it. We do it with our other dangerous weapons you claim, like our car insurance, or driver's license, if you have a pilot's license for your flying bomb you might consider a plane. My point was that you should have some sort of accountability for the things that are dangerous, and a lot of times there are fees. I mentioned nothing about costs. Have you ever priced a gun? They're expensive! A psych exam is like a doctor's visit and roughly the same cost. Heck, your medicaid would probably pay for it! Guns aren't anti-poor, but there's got to be some way to make them go through a screening process first. If not, that'd be like trying to renew your license and go down to the DMV then refuse to take the eye exam... what, blind people who can't see or read the signs should be allowed to drive too? I wouldn't suggest something like a CAT scan or MRI to scan your brain, which would be a massive expense, but a simple 1-hour psych exam would seem reasonable. And yes, annually, just like many other types of licenses. Why does it have to be about poor people?? They're not victims here. There's nothing unreasonable about asking for an annual fee and proof that you're stable enough to carry. We're not talking about a home permit, we're talking about people in public with firearms concealed. If you're going to carry something dangerous in public, then hell yes, I want you to make the investment to prove you're not a danger to society. You have another point. I would like to know that someone was sane if they're going to drive, fly, slice or reproduce. If someone is so irresponsible to endanger others in public, there should be someone that says "hey, you're not right in the head, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a dependent infant around you while driving, slicing or flying." I still cant figure your argument out. So you want yearly relicensing, right? You compare it to a hunting license. You want people to be able to go into wal-mart and buy a full carry permit? Then you rave on about care insurance and driver's licenses. Well, I pay my car insurance every 6 months, does that mean I would have to renew my permit every 6 months? I dont have to renew my driver's license annually. Next you talk about how expensive guns are. Apparently you dont have a clue how much guns are or you have a very LOW number figured as "expensive". So you want a Government approved Mental Health professional to review anyone who wants a carry permit? Good idea! In fact, that is such a good idea, we should also have evailuations performed for Muslims who want to enjoy their freedom of religion. We could screen out the radicals and prevent future terrorist attacks. I find it interesting that you keep bringing up the "annual fee" and your obvious dislike for poor people. Like you said, "Heck, your medicaid would probably pay for it!". Sounds like you are okay with crazies shooting people up as long as they pay the "annual fee". I also like how you want people to prove they are innocent in order to enjoy Constitutional freedoms. Hey, you're not right in the head, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a Computer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I still cant figure your argument out. So you want yearly relicensing, right? You compare it to a hunting license. You want people to be able to go into wal-mart and buy a full carry permit? Then you rave on about care insurance and driver's licenses. Well, I pay my car insurance every 6 months, does that mean I would have to renew my permit every 6 months? I dont have to renew my driver's license annually. Next you talk about how expensive guns are. Apparently you dont have a clue how much guns are or you have a very LOW number figured as "expensive". So you want a Government approved Mental Health professional to review anyone who wants a carry permit? Good idea! In fact, that is such a good idea, we should also have evailuations performed for Muslims who want to enjoy their freedom of religion. We could screen out the radicals and prevent future terrorist attacks. I find it interesting that you keep bringing up the "annual fee" and your obvious dislike for poor people. Like you said, "Heck, your medicaid would probably pay for it!". Sounds like you are okay with crazies shooting people up as long as they pay the "annual fee". I also like how you want people to prove they are innocent in order to enjoy Constitutional freedoms. Hey, you're not right in the head, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a Computer!! Whoa, whoa, calm down. You're taking what I said way to far away from the point I was trying to make. No, I don't believe anyone should be allowed to go to Walmart and buy a yearly permit. I mention nothing about the Muslim religion, and have no idea where you took that from. The whole thread has been sparked by 1 major recent event. One person went off the deep end and brought the argument about gun control back to the table. It was never my intention to bring up religion, or the poor or taking away anyone's right to own a gun. You're twisting my words into something extreme. I've stated several times that I support the right to own a gun, and I have my own carry permit. My point was that if you are allowed to operate any type of dangerous equipment - a car, a plane, a surgical knife, a GUN, there should be some way to at least do a basic background check to make sure you're capable of handling them. We took a driver's exam, and when we renew our license (albeit not annually) we take an eye exam. Pilots go through extensive training to get their license. Doctors go medical school, pass standard tests before being accepted into a job. Why is it too much to ask that someone be required to pass some sort of psych test or experience on a fire range before handing them a gun? It has nothing to do with income, and this is in no way related to religion. Maybe I wasn't descriptive enough with "annual fee", but what I had meant was that I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who wants to carry a concealed weapon in public to have some sort of evaluation before you hand it to them. Sometimes these measures may cost the gun-holder a little to invest in that priviledge. It's not about money or for a profit, or for keeping guns away from the poor. It's to possibly help keep them out of the hands of those who may not be psychologically sound enough to have a 10-clip hand gun in PUBLIC. When you interpret the "right to bear arms", do you think the founding fathers ever pictured a large portion of the population carrying hand guns in crowded public places? Maybe they would, and if you're a responsible owner of a gun, then I'm completely supportive for you to keep doing that. But not everyone is. These types of recent events remind of of that. The man obviously had a mental history, and he still had his gun! No ammount of money or an outrageous annual fee would have prevented him from owning these guns, but perhaps a simple 1-2 year psych exam would have raised a red flag and something could have been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 No it hasn't Andy - pay attention. Reread post 157. Look at cities like Washington DC and Chicago. These cities have the strictest gun control in the nation yet somehow these are two of the most dangerous cities. If gun control is the answer I would think that the good people in DC and Chicago would have nothing to worry about. Criminals will find a way to get guns, and as strange as it sounds, criminals don't follow the law! Drugs are banned, yet somehow people can easily buy any drug they want in every city of the country. Do you want the same thing with guns? Available only to the dregs of this country who don't follow the laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Something relevant -- "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Reread post 157. Look at cities like Washington DC and Chicago. These cities have the strictest gun control in the nation yet somehow these are two of the most dangerous cities. If gun control is the answer I would think that the good people in DC and Chicago would have nothing to worry about. Criminals will find a way to get guns, and as strange as it sounds, criminals don't follow the law! Drugs are banned, yet somehow people can easily buy any drug they want in every city of the country. Do you want the same thing with guns? Available only to the dregs of this country who don't follow the laws? 7 out of the top 10 states with the most lax gun laws have the highest incidents of homicide by firearms. Spin it how you want. These are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 7 out of the top 10 states with the most lax gun laws have the highest incidents of homicide by firearms. Spin it how you want. These are the facts. Go salt the fries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Go salt the fries. Clean your house, piggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 7 out of the top 10 states with the most lax gun laws have the highest incidents of homicide by firearms. Spin it how you want. These are the facts. 9 out of the bottom 10 are states with the most lax gun laws and have the least incidents of homicide by firearms. Those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 9 out of the bottom 10 are states with the most lax gun laws and have the least incidents of homicide by firearms. Those are the facts. And they just happen to be the least populated states in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 And they just happen to be the least populated states in the country. What's that have to do with it? The figures are a ratio, so total population shouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.