Reddi Killowatt Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 No it hasn't Andy - pay attention. http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm "A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia." "Yet, even with all of these gun laws and the high praise from gun control groups like Handgun Control, Inc., crime has continued to be a serious problem. The issue of continued high crime is especially disconcerting when comparing the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and highest gun ownership also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s, and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is high and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is much higher across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent." There's one article I've found. I highlighted parts that seem to go along with what I said. Read the whole article, it's pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Here's another article I find interesting: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/20/opinion-gun-control-emotions-vs-gun-control-facts/ In there it states: "Indeed, the evidence shows that the only people inconvenienced by the Brady Act background checks for gun purchases -- which have been in place since 1994 -- are law-abiding citizens. In fact, over 99.9 percent of those purchases initially flagged as being illegal under the law were later determined to be misidentified. Here's one for banning high capacity magazine's: "Just as futile would be re-instituting the parts of the assault weapons ban limiting magazine size. No research by criminologists or economists has found that the either the assault weapons ban or the magazine-size restrictions reduce crime. This is not surprising, as magazines are simply small metal boxes with a spring and are thus very easy to make. Besides, someone planning to harm a large number of people can easily bring two or more loaded guns." Click the link above and read that too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm "A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia." "Yet, even with all of these gun laws and the high praise from gun control groups like Handgun Control, Inc., crime has continued to be a serious problem. The issue of continued high crime is especially disconcerting when comparing the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and highest gun ownership also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s, and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is high and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is much higher across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent." There's one article I've found. I highlighted parts that seem to go along with what I said. Read the whole article, it's pretty interesting. Compare it to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state You will see it is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Compare it to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state You will see it is not the case. Using your source these are the top 10 States with fewest gun homicides per 100,000: New Hampshire (9/100) Vermont (8/100) Hawaii (42/100) Wyoming (10/100) North Dakota (4/100) Maine (11/100) Iowa (14/100) South Dakota (4/100) Utah (0/100) Idaho (2/100) That number in parentheses is the score the Brady Campaign gives states. Higher the score, tougher the gun laws. As you can see, with the exception of Hawaii, all the lowest gun homicide states also have incredibly lax gun laws. Or, by your logic, you must think this means those tough Hawaiian gun laws are definitely keeping everyone from killing each other in that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Using your source these are the top 10 States with fewest gun homicides per 100,000: New Hampshire (9/100) Vermont (8/100) Hawaii (42/100) Wyoming (10/100) North Dakota (4/100) Maine (11/100) Iowa (14/100) South Dakota (4/100) Utah (0/100) Idaho (2/100) That number in parentheses is the score the Brady Campaign gives states. Higher the score, tougher the gun laws. As you can see, with the exception of Hawaii, all the lowest gun homicide states also have incredibly lax gun laws. Or, by your logic, you must think this means those tough Hawaiian gun laws are definitely keeping everyone from killing each other in that state. And they just happen to be the least populated states in the country. Now look at the the top 10 States with highest gun homicides per 100,000. 7 out of the 10 have have incredibly lax gun laws. You see one side, I see another. The side I see has more deaths by gun violence than the side you choose to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meyer Lansky Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 DID THE TUSCON VICTIMS COME UNDER OBAMA CARE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Oh lookie - the moron with the cheese doodle stuck under his cap lock key is back. 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. Now look at the the top 10 States with highest gun homicides per 100,000. 7 out of the 10 have have incredibly lax gun laws. You see one side, I see another. The side I see has more deaths by gun violence than the side you choose to see. I look at those top ten states and see a lot of large cities with urban populations, major poverty, and illegal immigration. So why inflict nationwide sweeping gun laws on states or cities with a more rural population? The good people of NH, VT, WY, ND, ME, IO, SD, UT and ID prove that they can function and not kill each other even though they have very few gun restrictions. In your mind, we have to reform the whole country's gun laws because of gang bangers in big cities. Guess what, those thugs aren't going to follow the law anyway! DC, Buffalo, Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Baltimore and Newark prove this. They are all in the top 10 cities with highest murder rates and all have strict gun laws. Gun laws only keep good people from owning guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I look at those top ten states and see a lot of large cities with urban populations, major poverty, and illegal immigration. So why inflict nationwide sweeping gun laws on states or cities with a more rural population? The good people of NH, VT, WY, ND, ME, IO, SD, UT and ID prove that they can function and not kill each other even though they have very few gun restrictions. In your mind, we have to reform the whole country's gun laws because of gang bangers in big cities. Guess what, those thugs aren't going to follow the law anyway! DC, Buffalo, Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Baltimore and Newark prove this. They are all in the top 10 cities with highest murder rates and all have strict gun laws. Gun laws only keep good people from owning guns. The good people of NH, VT, WY, ND, ME, IO, SD, UT and ID live in sparsely populated states and that is why the incidents of gun violence are less. "Gun laws only keep good people from owning guns."? This I gotta hear - explain away...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 The good people of NH, VT, WY, ND, ME, IO, SD, UT and ID live in sparsely populated states and that is why the incidents of gun violence are less. "Gun laws only keep good people from owning guns."? This I gotta hear - explain away...... People living in cities with strict gun control like Chicago, NYC, and DC cannot legally own a handgun. Good people that follow the law cannot defend themselves or their family because of this. Meanwhile, people that do not follow the laws in those cities get their guns through nefarious methods, and know that they have a undefended populace to victimize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 People living in cities with strict gun control like Chicago, NYC, and DC cannot legally own a handgun. Good people that follow the law cannot defend themselves or their family because of this. Meanwhile, people that do not follow the laws in those cities get their guns through nefarious methods, and know that they have a undefended populace to victimize. You might want to check your sources - they are old if not totally innacurate. If you live in Chicago, NYC, or DC you can legally own a handgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 You might want to check your sources - they are old if not totally innacurate. If you live in Chicago, NYC, or DC you can legally own a handgun. Not easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Not easily. But they can - you lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beowulf Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 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. Second amendment says we have the right to own guns. The First amendment says we have the freedom of religion. If you start putting conditions on one right, what prevents the next guy from setting restrictions on other rights? You STILL just dont get it. You brought up the poor when you tried to belittle someone who objects to your opinion. I know of the "major recent event" as does everyone else. I am equally aware of what sparked the debate. Why would that change people to start thinking about how we can start having rights with conditions? Your overuse of the word extreme is making me start to think you like to use buzz words to make up for bad ideas. Now, you are going to tell the whole class that you are a full carry permit holder in NYS and you dont think there is any background checks or mandatory training?!? Okaaay, I still believe you. You said, "Sometimes these measures may cost the gun-holder a little to invest in that priviledge". Are you for freekin real? A constitutional amendment is a RIGHT not a Guvment priviledge you jackwagon!! The founding fathers were witness (and owners) to the most amazing array of firepower the world has seen to date and they wanted to ensure that the citizen had as much access to them as the soldier. They wanted it that way for a damned good reason. They were brilliant men who knew world history and knew there was a sure fire way to ensure that history did not repeat itself here in the New world. Keep an armed population. So yes, they were perfectly fine with people walking around with pistols and muskets. BTW, Ya know what the men did back then to make up for the lack of multiple shots? They carried multiple guns! I am all for responsible gun ownership. I agree that obsticles should be put in place to hinder the wrong people from getting guns but the problem is, you want to make laws for people who are going out to break the friggen law. It isnt going to keep crazies from going nuts. It wont even slow them down. If it werent a gun, it would be a knife, a sword, an ax, or a bomb. We have over half a century of laws restricting guns in this country yet the numbers keep going up. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Start arming the right people and let them carry in public. If the press started reporting of shootings with only one or two deaths and one is the nutcase who wanted to shoot multiple people then this kind of rampage would lose it's appeal. The reason things like this happen is because criminals and nutcases KNOW VERY WELL nobody is armed out there anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I love the morons on here who think they need a gun to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I love the morons on here who think they need a gun to defend themselves. I love the morons on here who think they know exactly what our founding fathers were thinking over 200 years ago. It's similar to those people who interpret the Bible thinking they know exactly what God was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 But they can - you lied. People in Chicago just relinquished the ban on handguns in July. Before then you could not own one. DC had a similar ban so there is little data from those two cities post ban. Getting a NYC pistol permit process is extremely rare, and will costs thousands of dollars in attorney fees and will take several years to get approved. Do you think the gangs in Chicago and DC didn't buy any guns on the black market because the city banned them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 People in Chicago just relinquished the ban on handguns in July. Before then you could not own one. DC had a similar ban so there is little data from those two cities post ban. Getting a NYC pistol permit process is extremely rare, and will costs thousands of dollars in attorney fees and will take several years to get approved. Do you think the gangs in Chicago and DC didn't buy any guns on the black market because the city banned them? Gee - where were those guns manufactured and why are they so readily available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Second amendment says we have the right to own guns. The First amendment says we have the freedom of religion. If you start putting conditions on one right, what prevents the next guy from setting restrictions on other rights? You STILL just dont get it. You brought up the poor when you tried to belittle someone who objects to your opinion. I know of the "major recent event" as does everyone else. I am equally aware of what sparked the debate. Why would that change people to start thinking about how we can start having rights with conditions? Your overuse of the word extreme is making me start to think you like to use buzz words to make up for bad ideas. Now, you are going to tell the whole class that you are a full carry permit holder in NYS and you dont think there is any background checks or mandatory training?!? Okaaay, I still believe you. You said, "Sometimes these measures may cost the gun-holder a little to invest in that priviledge". Are you for freekin real? A constitutional amendment is a RIGHT not a Guvment priviledge you jackwagon!! The founding fathers were witness (and owners) to the most amazing array of firepower the world has seen to date and they wanted to ensure that the citizen had as much access to them as the soldier. They wanted it that way for a damned good reason. They were brilliant men who knew world history and knew there was a sure fire way to ensure that history did not repeat itself here in the New world. Keep an armed population. So yes, they were perfectly fine with people walking around with pistols and muskets. BTW, Ya know what the men did back then to make up for the lack of multiple shots? They carried multiple guns! I am all for responsible gun ownership. I agree that obsticles should be put in place to hinder the wrong people from getting guns but the problem is, you want to make laws for people who are going out to break the friggen law. It isnt going to keep crazies from going nuts. It wont even slow them down. If it werent a gun, it would be a knife, a sword, an ax, or a bomb. We have over half a century of laws restricting guns in this country yet the numbers keep going up. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Start arming the right people and let them carry in public. If the press started reporting of shootings with only one or two deaths and one is the nutcase who wanted to shoot multiple people then this kind of rampage would lose it's appeal. The reason things like this happen is because criminals and nutcases KNOW VERY WELL nobody is armed out there anymore. I agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Gee - where were those guns manufactured and why are they so readily available? It doesn't so much matter where the guns were manufactured. Ever hear of a place getting 'broken into'? I would assume a lot of these guns weren't handed to the criminal by a law-abiding citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Oh lookie - the moron with the cheese doodle stuck under his cap lock key is back. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 NO ONE NEEDS A CLIP THAT HOLDS 31 ROUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I belong to the NRA and will support any and all new laws banning people who are NUTS from getting a gun. Not even a shot gun. I have seen quite a few crazy folk at the Broome Sportsmen Club. They think the Black Special Ops are coming to get them. Because allowing politicians to define the number of bullets you "need" in a magazine is to allow them to define the number of bullets you "need", period. It will go from 10, to 5, to 1, then none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Because allowing politicians to define the number of bullets you "need" in a magazine is to allow them to define the number of bullets you "need", period. It will go from 10, to 5, to 1, then none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Go watch cartoons junior. The adults are trying to have a conversation over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Gunman shoots 4 officers inside Detroit precinct DETROIT -- A gunman opened fire inside a Detroit police precinct on Sunday, wounding four officers including a commander before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said. The gunman walked in through the precinct's revolving door around 4:20 p.m. with a pistol grip shotgun and opened fire, Sgt. Todd Eby, who was sitting at his desk in the precinct at the time of the shooting, told the Detroit Free Press. He said officers shot back at the gunman, killing him. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/state&id=7914811 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.