|
Post by Californian on Apr 25, 2013 6:39:54 GMT -6
I would suspect that when the 2nd Amendment was written there was an implicit expectation that Americans wouldn't want guns to fall into the hands of people who would do harm to their fellow citizens and be active in preventing that happening Just the opposite. Only a minority of the colonists approved of and participated in the American Revolution. The Tories were just as dangerous to them as the British. When the revolutionary war was won, many of them bailed for Canada or the West Indies and remained British citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 25, 2013 19:27:41 GMT -6
I have no problem with you doing that either. However, how do you distinguish between a responsible gun owner and someone who owns weapons who may be at risk of using them in a dangerous manner. How was that done in 1790? How is it done in the several US states that have a firearms homicide rate of around 1.0? For example, Vermont, which has minimal gun control laws.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 29, 2013 15:18:22 GMT -6
I have no problem with you doing that either. However, how do you distinguish between a responsible gun owner and someone who owns weapons who may be at risk of using them in a dangerous manner. How was that done in 1790? How is it done in the several US states that have a firearms homicide rate of around 1.0? For example, Vermont, which has minimal gun control laws. I suppose other factors have nothing to do with it such Vermont is number 1 in health. They are 6th in the nation for having a degree or certificate above a high school diploma. They are 5th in terms of employment. The median household income is 55,000 which is high compared to a lot of states. They are 45th in the nation with people who live below the poverty line. They are 48th in terms of families on welfare, 47th with respect to individuals. Contrast that with New Mexico which contrast Vermont in those areas, and has Farley un-restrictive gun laws. We have open carry and conceled carry, Yet our crime is still higher than Vedrmont. Point is there are other factors to a correlation. New Mexico has plenty of gun toting hicks that drive the "Tough Guy" edition super dully diesel Ford F350 Pickups. Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2013 2:47:33 GMT -6
I suppose other factors have nothing to do with it such Vermont is number 1 in health. They are 6th in the nation for having a degree or certificate above a high school diploma. Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Switzerland, Finland, Norway, and Iceland all have high rates of gun ownership and low homicide rates. While gun control nuts like to point out Japan’s restrictive gun laws and its low homicide rate they always fail to prove a correlation between the two. However, those of us who have spent some time in Japan know that the Japanese are Amongst the most law-abiding people on the face of the earth. In fact, Americans of Japanese ancestry, who have access to firearms, have a lower homicide rate than do Japanese nationals living in Japan who don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 3:57:27 GMT -6
I suppose other factors have nothing to do with it such Vermont is number 1 in health. They are 6th in the nation for having a degree or certificate above a high school diploma. Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Switzerland, Finland, Norway, and Iceland all have high rates of gun ownership and low homicide rates. While gun control nuts like to point out Japan’s restrictive gun laws and its low homicide rate they always fail to prove a correlation between the two. However, those of us who have spent some time in Japan know that the Japanese are Amongst the most law-abiding people on the face of the earth. In fact, Americans of Japanese ancestry, who have access to firearms, have a lower homicide rate than do Japanese nationals living in Japan who don't. No, all those European nations have smaller populations than the USA. Those nations generally don't have large cities and this is important. However Japan does. However they don't necessarily have the individualist culture the USA does. I am sure if you considered the gun crime rate of rural USA it would be on par with Europe as it is your large cities that push up the average.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Apr 30, 2013 12:20:04 GMT -6
While we are on the subject, I am considering an addition concealed weapon. Something smaller, lighter, easier to conceal than my Public Defender (see avatar). I was thinking about the Taurus 738 TCP. It has a 38 ACP round, 2 3/4" barrel, 10.8 oz. and 6+1. The price seems right at $230.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2013 12:37:29 GMT -6
No, all those European nations have smaller populations than the USA. Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Now, pay attention so I don’t have to repeat myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 22:07:00 GMT -6
No, all those European nations have smaller populations than the USA. Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Now, pay attention so I don’t have to repeat myself. and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2013 23:15:10 GMT -6
and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk And that will accomplish exactly what?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 1, 2013 11:08:53 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant! The point being made is that easy access to firearms does not automatically equate to high homicide rates. Now, pay attention so I don’t have to repeat myself. requiring the permission of the FBI to buy a gun and CURRENTLY more than 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws is not "reasonable" enough? do you really think ONE more "reasonable" law will do the trick? because that is a truly bizzare thought process.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on May 1, 2013 13:00:44 GMT -6
Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss. Once again I find myself horrified you were (or are) purportedly a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." ~ Thomas Jefferson (And in your case, emphasis on the "manure." )
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on May 1, 2013 14:40:13 GMT -6
Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss. Once again I find myself horrified you were (or are) purportedly a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." ~ Thomas Jefferson (And in your case, emphasis on the "manure." ) John Kerry and All Gore were commissioned officers as well.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on May 1, 2013 17:42:53 GMT -6
As was Benedict Arnold.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 1, 2013 18:42:18 GMT -6
They are 48th in terms of families on welfare, 47th with respect to individuals. Contrast that with New Mexico which contrast Vermont in those areas, and has Farley un-restrictive gun laws. We have open carry and conceled carry, Yet our crime is still higher than Vedrmont. Point is there are other factors to a correlation. Thank you for proving that the availability of guns is not a factor.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 1, 2013 18:48:15 GMT -6
Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss. Cute, in a childish way. But the fact is that they are. For 30 years I actively supported more "gun control" and refused to believe that anyone was interested in coming to take people's guns. I can't say coming to take my guns because I don't yet have one. But in 1994, I realized that, indeed, there was a substantial intent to take guns away from the people. Since then, I have seen many people openly admit that, including US Senator Feinstein.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 1, 2013 18:50:07 GMT -6
John Kerry and All Gore were commissioned officers as well. John Kerry became an officer to avoid the draft and Al Gore was not a commissioned officer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 1:17:36 GMT -6
requiring the permission of the FBI to buy a gun and CURRENTLY more than 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws is not "reasonable" enough? do you really think ONE more "reasonable" law will do the trick? because that is a truly bizzare thought process. But are they uniform, and do they cover the entire nation. One would suspect a fairly lightweight permit scheme that covered everyone across the nation would do more good then some areas of the country being tough, and some areas of the nation having no scheme at all.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 2, 2013 4:11:13 GMT -6
It is legal for me to sell my Yugo SKS to a "gangsta thug hommie," (Hommie is A word for an inner city patriot to the ideals of the United States of America) in the city of Albuquerque. There is no law stopping me. I can legally do it. I can put a weapon that I modified to carry a 30 round mag of 7.62 X 39 "commie" rounds, with a red dot and an M4 carbine replica stock, into the hands of criminal who will murder someone. Granted the person they kill most likely be someone I hate and should die anyway.
But sometimes not always, sometimes a bystander gets in the way.
I was in the bar here when this happened www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/06/27/abqnewsseeker/two-accused-in-fatal-downtown-shooting-indicted.html
A guy got shot in this story when two gangsta thugs decided to exchange fire after a rap concert over some sht tlk. They both were exchanging .223 rounds. The instigator got off 7 shots. The defender later dead and sprawled on his car, managed to get his AR out of the trunk, long enough to fire one round in the direction of the attacker. It is hard to get an accurate shot off when half your skull is missing. So when he returned fire it hit the window of the bar I was in, we of course took cover behind the bar. The bullets trajectory was within inches of where a guy was previously sitting before taking cover. One bystander was hit but non fatally, he got lucky, but there have been many cases where the bystander was not. Like this girl who got killed in Seattle, coincidentally from my town and ironically killed there instead of the streets of Albuquerque, where she was from.
seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018072080_apwashotinseattle1stldwritethru.html
This is anecdotal, I get that. But what is not anecdotal, is that there is nothing to prevent me from selling a weapon designed for war, to a shthead that will use it in a reckless an criminal manner. In fact when I bought the rifle, it was at a gun show without any ID, oh wait except, when I used my credit card and had to show it. They did check to see if I was not credit delinquent, let alone I was buying a weapon!! Hmm.. since you are selling me a weapon shouldn't I have been able to be trusted that I was not a criminal? Only law abiding trusting American Patriots buy weapons don't they? If you can't trust that I am not ripping you off, then how can you trust that I am not going to use said weapon in an illicit manner? You can't, and they don't care! All that matters is showing them the money and they make a sale. That is the issue! It is the issue that there are loopholes for criminals to legally get their hands on what they shouldn't. Its not about the "Ler erberding certerzern, who is an a'Merkin patriert"
It is about arms trafficing and the violations of the International Arms Restrictions(ITAR). They laws currently allow our country to provide a conduit to aid in the trafficking of arms, in violation of a lawful international treatybratifed andvsigned in law by ou government. DHS and ICE stats show that 2000 weapons a day are getting into the hands of the cartel through people selling them, that have purchased them by legal means. That is what they are trying to prevent. "Nert ther lewer erbidaing certerzern trerung ter ger hernting, ernd berg hermself uh deer." (My attempt of a hick accent)
I do not see what is wrong with mandating private sales and and sales at gun shows. It seems to make sense to me.
If you want I have the pictures of the dead thug on his dubbed up green Lincoln LS, that I can post so we can at least celibate the death of the POS that was killed. He was prison bound anyway! I was pseudo-happy with the outcome. The unfortunate thing is New Mexico does not have a death penalty, so we will be feeding and housing Mr. John Willie Jones for the rest of his worthless life.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 2, 2013 9:50:05 GMT -6
But are they uniform, and do they cover the entire nation. did you notice where I said FBI and federal laws? yes, those would be uniform and nation wide. state and local laws would be just that, state and local. BUT, maybe your country is different in this regard, but we hold state soveriegnty(?)quite highly over here. I think our amendment 10 covers that pretty straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 2, 2013 10:02:59 GMT -6
It is legal for me to sell my Yugo SKS to a "gangsta thug hommie," it's also legal for you to sell a car to an alcoholic. should it be? maybe one that may kill an innocent someone while DUI(to the tune of about 15,000 per year. shouldn't alcohol purchases be registered and tracked and car sells regulated by the feds based on such alcohol use? seems like a minor inconvenience to me. oh, wait, I don't drink. I must be falling into the liberal mindset of "it doesn't affect me, so to hell with everyone else, ban it!!!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 20:02:04 GMT -6
did you notice where I said FBI and federal laws? yes, those would be uniform and nation wide. state and local laws would be just that, state and local. BUT, maybe your country is different in this regard, but we hold state soveriegnty(?)quite highly over here. I think our amendment 10 covers that pretty straightforward. In Australia only the states have the power to make laws relating to firearm ownership. The Federal government can make laws relating to the import and export etc etc, but as far as firearm licensing and criminal offences relating to firearm possession and use that is generally the states responsibility. If you read our Federal Constitution you would be amazed at how little power our Federal Government has in contrast to yours.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 3, 2013 4:14:34 GMT -6
It is legal for me to sell my Yugo SKS to a "gangsta thug hommie," it's also legal for you to sell a car to an alcoholic. should it be? maybe one that may kill an innocent someone while DUI(to the tune of about 15,000 per year. Good point, no maybe this should be restricted also. At least in the US a DUI offender has to register the car to drive it. Some states you loose your licence for a year for a first time conviction. I don't disagree with you on that thougher laws need to be in place for drunk divers having access to drive cars. I would say if they get caught they should face the same penalty as a felon with a gun. On the subject of DUI offenders, I think they should be required to surrender their weapons as well, if they are not responsible with the simple task of driving, should they be trusted with a firearm? shouldn't alcohol purchases be registered and tracked and car sells regulated by the feds based on such alcohol use? seems like a minor inconvenience to me. Or maybe the more pragmatic solution is to invest in a better public transit system, where the drunk can to and from home from the bar without needing to drive. I know that's a socialis commie idea, I know the conservative mindset is, "to hell with everyone else I got mine, I worked for it, go get yours. Oh wait those roads are a social infrastructure aren't they. But short shortsightedness does not take into account if less cars are on the road than it will be cheaper to maintain those roads, and can go into other infrastructure. oh, wait, I don't drink. I must be falling into the liberal mindset of "it doesn't affect me, so to hell with everyone else, ban it!!!" I do not see why making it a law to ensure a felon or other delinquent gets one, is banning your right to own one, unless you are a prior felon.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 3, 2013 7:39:50 GMT -6
They are 48th in terms of families on welfare, 47th with respect to individuals. Contrast that with New Mexico which contrast Vermont in those areas, and has Farley un-restrictive gun laws. We have open carry and conceled carry, Yet our crime is still higher than Vedrmont. Point is there are other factors to a correlation. Thank you for proving that the availability of guns is not a factor. No not it at all, I was stating that the issue is more complicated. This is what I hate, is when people over-simplify a complicated issue. Both sides are guilty of it. @cyclone tried to point it out and no one listened. The issue is complicated. Guns by themselves are not a factor when responsible people have them. That's the issue. When irresponsible people or straight up criminals get their hands on them, well they are the issue. In statistics we call it an interaction term. If you have the right factors interacting together then multiple factors together show causal relationships. You said Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws. What does that mean? New Mexico has more gun owners per capita than Vermont. New Mexico has higher gun fatalities than Vermont. So maybe it is quite possible that Guns in the hands of the wrong people and if there are more of those bad people with guns, then gun crimes go up. " Well Criminals don't care about the laws they break anyway." True, but it is all about the path to least resistance. If there are loopholes to make it easier for one them to get their hands on one, then they will. If we tie up the loose ends like gun shows and private sales, then we make it a bit harder for them to get one without having to work at it. "But if someone is going to sell to criminal they wont care one way or another." Yeah, but when they get caught the penalty ought to be harsh, maybe even death for culpability. " But if every one is armed, a criminal is less likely to pull a gun out to do a crime" I don't think so. Plenty of cops who are armed and trained to be vigilant get killed, last I checked. Plenty of death sentences mentioned on this website attest to that. We tried that once in our history, it was the wild west. Now does that mean that people who are legally allowed to have one shouldn't? No of course not, I do believe in home protection and allowing responsible people the means to a defense. But to assume all crime stops just by simply arming the populace won't work. You have to solve other problems as well. That is what I am trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 3, 2013 22:00:36 GMT -6
I do not believe anyone assumes all crime stops just by simply arming the populace. Where did you pull that from? ( your comment in the ending of your post reply)
While this whole debate is going on, gun sales have sky rocketed, ammo is selling so fast even the police are facing a shortage of ammo.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 3, 2013 22:04:11 GMT -6
Good point, no maybe this should be restricted also. At least in the US a DUI offender has to register the car to drive it. Some states you loose your licence for a year for a first time conviction. I don't disagree with you on that thougher laws need to be in place for drunk divers having access to drive cars. I would say if they get caught they should face the same penalty as a felon with a gun. On the subject of DUI offenders, I think they should be required to surrender their weapons as well, if they are not responsible with the simple task of driving, should they be trusted with a firearm? Or maybe the more pragmatic solution is to invest in a better public transit system, where the drunk can to and from home from the bar without needing to drive. I know that's a socialis commie idea, I know the conservative mindset is, "to hell with everyone else I got mine, I worked for it, go get yours. Oh wait those roads are a social infrastructure aren't they. But short shortsightedness does not take into account if less cars are on the road than it will be cheaper to maintain those roads, and can go into other infrastructure. I do not see why making it a law to ensure a felon or other delinquent gets one, is banning your right to own one, unless you are a prior felon.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 3, 2013 22:09:59 GMT -6
You do not see why making a law to ensure a felon or other gets one?? Give them an inch & they will take a mile is why !!!
Guns like the DP have one common denominator, no DP next agenda no LWOP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 23:12:41 GMT -6
I do not believe anyone assumes all crime stops just by simply arming the populace. Where did you pull that from? ( your comment in the ending of your post reply) While this whole debate is going on, gun sales have sky rocketed, ammo is selling so fast even the police are facing a shortage of ammo. I don't think you personally said it, but some people on this board has said it. It is also the propaganda we here in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 3, 2013 23:42:28 GMT -6
Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits BY Glen Tschirgi 9 months, 2 weeks ago (H/T Instapundit) Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings: Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics. The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10? list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2013 0:05:25 GMT -6
Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits BY Glen Tschirgi 9 months, 2 weeks ago (H/T Instapundit) Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings: Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics. The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10? list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/ Most of these statistics are misrepresentation of the situation here. 1. Americans are under the impression that we are banned from owning firearms. This is untrue. While many classes of weapons are banned here that are freely available in Australia we still can own a gun if we comply with the laws. 2. Americans are under the impression that gun ownership is as popular here as it is in the states. It isn't. It has never been and it has never will. Gun ownership is concentrated in rural Australia and the outlying suburbs of large cities. 3. Australia's firearm crime rate is so low that using the %increase as a comparator is invalid. A 16% increase is only about 8-10 incidences. Hardly being overwhelmed with crime.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 4, 2013 1:32:02 GMT -6
While this whole debate is going on, gun sales have sky rocketed, ammo is selling so fast even the police are facing a shortage of ammo. You would like to believe that it is only responsible and law abiding citizens buying them. When there reasonable evidence to suggest a lot of it is going south of the border. Although, I know that there are some unfortunate irrational people who think they stock up their doomsday shelters for the end times.
|
|