PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control Laws


NJarhead
04-11-2008, 09:48 PM
Any arguments for?
Any arguments against?

I am against the restriction of firearms myself. The thought being, restrictions only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals. These restrictions serve to disarm we citizens whereas a criminal will continue to obtain, carry and use firearms of all types..., and obviously for no good purpose.

In case your curious; I'm preparing a speech on this issue for a class I am taking. I have my main points pretty much together but, they are all my thoughts and I'm sure many of you may be able to add things (for or against) that perhaps I hadn't thought of. Any input is appreciated.

millwalldavey
04-11-2008, 09:50 PM
Personally, against any restrictions.

If people are not hurting anyone else with their actions, then why should they be held accountable for the actions of a few? One thing about guns is they make a good scapegoat for the ills of society.

NJarhead
04-11-2008, 09:53 PM
Personally, against any restrictions.

If people are not hurting anyone else with their actions, then why should they be held accountable for the actions of a few? One thing about guns is they make a good scapegoat for the ills of society.

EXACTLY! Restrictions give a false sense of security for those who don't understand that "guns" are indifferent.

millwalldavey
04-11-2008, 09:59 PM
Indeed. These school shootings in the last 10 years (which seem to have subsided for the most part) were REALLY good for this. Parents and adults had no time for the kids and their problems. When the kids went off the wall we did not blame the human indifference, but it was much easier to blame the inanimate object.

We are all perfect human beings, especially when we have something to blame!

Preacher
04-11-2008, 10:16 PM
Hmmm...

Ok.. though I am completely against gun control... let me give a couple arguments from that side to bolster your work.

1. Compounding the problem. While many will argue that gun-control will take the guns out of the hands of the ordinary law-abiding citizen, the question becomes, what happens to the gun when the citizen is finished with it? The gun becomes another tool to barter and trade, and it often ends up in the hands of those who are not as careful. Thus, while it begins life in the hands of the lawful citizen, it does not end up there.

2. Gun control creates a larger matrix for police to act. When there are various laws on the books banning guns, the police therefore have more legal weapons to remove guns from the streets. Thus, if a city has banned all handguns, the police have the authority to apprehend and arrest ANYONE that is carrying a gun. Thus, more crimes will be stopped. If guns were not banned, then they would be be able to stop a person, as there is no constitutional right to random apprehension by the police.

________________________

Now ask me if I actually believe any of that . . .

But hey, at least it is two arguments that you can use.

MACH1
04-11-2008, 11:05 PM
Hmmm...

Ok.. though I am completely against gun control... let me give a couple arguments from that side to bolster your work.

1. Compounding the problem. While many will argue that gun-control will take the guns out of the hands of the ordinary law-abiding citizen, the question becomes, what happens to the gun when the citizen is finished with it? The gun becomes another tool to barter and trade, and it often ends up in the hands of those who are not as careful. Thus, while it begins life in the hands of the lawful citizen, it does not end up there.

2. Gun control creates a larger matrix for police to act. When there are various laws on the books banning guns, the police therefore have more legal weapons to remove guns from the streets. Thus, if a city has banned all handguns, the police have the authority to apprehend and arrest ANYONE that is carrying a gun. Thus, more crimes will be stopped. If guns were not banned, then they would be be able to stop a person, as there is no constitutional right to random apprehension by the police.

________________________

Now ask me if I actually believe any of that . . .

But hey, at least it is two arguments that you can use.

I can't speak for anyone else but in my family guns are passed down, inherited. And yes some of us have nice 'expensive' gun collections.

But in my opinion the only people gun control affects are the law abiding people not the criminals who would shoot you anyway.

Card carrying member of the NRA here.

Ask yourself this should we make cars illegal because some chose to drive drunk or get in a high speed chase and kill others?? Is it the cars fault or the person behind the wheel or who pulled the trigger?

NJarhead
04-11-2008, 11:09 PM
Hmmm...

Ok.. though I am completely against gun control... let me give a couple arguments from that side to bolster your work.

1. Compounding the problem. While many will argue that gun-control will take the guns out of the hands of the ordinary law-abiding citizen, the question becomes, what happens to the gun when the citizen is finished with it? The gun becomes another tool to barter and trade, and it often ends up in the hands of those who are not as careful. Thus, while it begins life in the hands of the lawful citizen, it does not end up there.

This is a very good point. I would not be against any laws defining the "proper means" for transferring ownership ofa firearm. They do already have an amnesty policy in most towns allowing ffolks to turn in weapons of all kinds with no questions asked. Personally, I would want the value of mine but, would likely go to a dealer.


2. Gun control creates a larger matrix for police to act. When there are various laws on the books banning guns, the police therefore have more legal weapons to remove guns from the streets. Thus, if a city has banned all handguns, the police have the authority to apprehend and arrest ANYONE that is carrying a gun. Thus, more crimes will be stopped. If guns were not banned, then they would be be able to stop a person, as there is no constitutional right to random apprehension by the police.



________________________

Now ask me if I actually believe any of that . . .

But hey, at least it is two arguments that you can use.

Fair point. I have formulated two arguments here. The first (and I am greatly going to summarize) is to compare it to pot. Pot is widely illegal, yet.....(you know where I'm going with this).

Second, My buddy Jack is a cop and absolutely against gun control. He sited that Florida began allowing thier citizens to arm themselves (carry) and almost immediately the rate of car jackings for example dropped significantly. The thought being that the car jacker had to seriously consider whether or not the person in that vehicle was carrying a gun. "Risk vs. reward" for them. Answer? Effective deterrant.


I very much appreciate your imput Preacher. I will give some more thought to your points whether it be to add to the presentation or prepare for possible questions/arguments after. Precisely what I was looking for.

NJarhead
04-11-2008, 11:11 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but in my family guns are passed down, inherited. And yes some of us have nice 'expensive' gun collections.

But in my opinion the only people gun control affects are the law abiding people not the criminals who would shoot you anyway.

Card carrying member of the NRA here.

Ask yourself this should we make cars illegal because some chose to drive drunk or get in a high speed chase and kill others?? Is it the cars fault or the person behind the wheel or who pulled the trigger?

Yet another point I brought up. We have to take drivers ed in HS. Take a test and get licensed to drive. I'm also not against similar policies concerning firearm ownership. As long as it isn't outlawing the firearm its self.

MACH1
04-11-2008, 11:15 PM
Yet another point I brought up. We have to take drivers ed in HS. Take a test and get licensed to drive. I'm also not against similar policies concerning firearm ownership. As long as it isn't outlawing the firearm its self.

That would be nice. Here in Idaho, if you hunt you are required to take and pass a hunter education class before you can be licensed to hunt or carry a firearm.

BettisFan
04-11-2008, 11:25 PM
Guns are fine just making sure they are kept in the right hands is the key

MACH1
04-12-2008, 01:54 AM
Guns are fine just making sure they are kept in the right hands is the key

Yeah tell that to the criminals the next time they pop a cap in your a$$.

Gun control only takes guns out of the law abiding citizen. Look at how well gun control works in the UK. The bobbies went from carrying clubs to carrying assault weapons.

TroysBadDawg
04-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Like Tom Selleck told Rosie "the butt head" O'Donnel, I will give up my guns only when the criminals give up theirs.

They will have to pry my cold dead fingers from them. And I was taught one shot one kill, old school. Head shots are better than body mass if your good enough to do them consistently. I was trained to.

beSteelmyheart
04-19-2008, 08:15 PM
I purchased my .357 legally many years ago when I was a single girl living alone for security reasons. Circumstances have changed a bit since then, including my right to protect myself according to Florida law, a law that I was grateful to have seen passed. I'm no longer single & living alone but my gun is still by our bedside for the same reason. I would never consider pointing it at anyone out of anger or as a threat & hope to never have to use it but am glad that it's there.
Personally I practice gun control by being a responsible gun owner & believe that most Americans feel as I do. It's the criminal element that has no control. And if they invade my home, God forbid, I'll shoot them. Plain & simple.

HometownGal
04-19-2008, 09:15 PM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I'm all for more strict background checks on those applying for permits. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms but I don't believe it's intent was to place a gun in the hands of criminal elements.

I own several guns and know how to properly use them if necessary. Like besteelmyheart, I hope I never have to use them.

Preacher
04-19-2008, 09:57 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but in my family guns are passed down, inherited. And yes some of us have nice 'expensive' gun collections.

But in my opinion the only people gun control affects are the law abiding people not the criminals who would shoot you anyway.

Card carrying member of the NRA here.

Ask yourself this should we make cars illegal because some chose to drive drunk or get in a high speed chase and kill others?? Is it the cars fault or the person behind the wheel or who pulled the trigger?

That would be misnomer as a car is not made to kill, but to carry someone from one place to another. Guns however, are made to project a piece of copper (or other type of metal) at over the speed of sound to a living object with the intent of stopping/killing the object.

Personally, I think we should pass a national gun law... make it ILLEGAL for any man (or woman) NOT carry a gun except in cases of emergency room visits or ministers (I would still carry one).

Wanna see the crime rate go down? Pass that law.

TroysBadDawg
04-20-2008, 06:43 PM
It is funny, stores that have signs in there doors do not enter if you are carrying a gun. These are now prominent in Ohio. These are now the stores of choice of robbers now but the media will not tell the people that. I personally ignore the signs, if I am carrying concealed they should not know it anyway. Would I use the weapon, only if my life or another's were in direct danger. because I am now breaking the law, and the law is quit clear, do not enter if you have a concealed carry permit, but the bad guys are allowed to. The ones who passed this law are allowed to vote, and we voted them in office.

Jeremy
04-20-2008, 07:11 PM
As long as you are trained and licensed to carry a weapon, there shouldn't be a problem.

Just be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Polamalu Princess
04-20-2008, 07:56 PM
As long as you are trained and licensed to carry a weapon, there shouldn't be a problem.

Just be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions.

I agree. I have carried a gun since I was 21 and I know how to use it. I as well as my husband and my 8 year old daughter KNOW what can happen. You have to be trained. I am up in the air about the license, because that was not a condition of the USC, yet the "evils that be" would have even more power.

Jeremy
04-20-2008, 08:11 PM
I agree. I have carried a gun since I was 21 and I know how to use it. I as well as my husband and my 8 year old daughter KNOW what can happen. You have to be trained. I am up in the air about the license, because that was not a condition of the USC, yet the "evils that be" would have even more power.

Simply put, there are people who are unfit to carry weapons. Some form of protection must exist to bar emotionally/mentally unstable folks from carrying a deadly weapon.

Then again, some of the most dangerous people are the ones who advocate the least controls.

Polamalu Princess
04-20-2008, 08:31 PM
Simply put, there are people who are unfit to carry weapons. Some form of protection must exist to bar emotionally/mentally unstable folks from carrying a deadly weapon.

Then again, some of the most dangerous people are the ones who advocate the least controls.

I understand, but I am 100% against the government having more control over our lives. If we were able to defend ourselves and our property without worrying about "Big Brother" and "his" laws, the ones that are dangerous and not of sound mind would be more afraid to commit the crimes. Therefore, there would be fewer crimes.

Jeremy
04-20-2008, 08:39 PM
I understand, but I am 100% against the government having more control over our lives. If we were able to defend ourselves and our property without worrying about "Big Brother" and "his" laws, the ones that are dangerous and not of sound mind would be more afraid to commit the crimes. Therefore, there would be fewer crimes.

Or the dangerous would band together and be even more dangerous as they have done throughout history. I doubt anyone wants a return to the American Old West, or for downtown Pittsburgh to resemble downtown Baghdad.

It's a difficult debate because there's not one answer. Citizens need to be able to protect themselves, but there have to be limits on that otherwise you have anarchy. I'm 29 and I've still to find a decent answer to the question that makes sense.

PisnNapalm
04-20-2008, 08:40 PM
Gun laws only apply to those who will obey them. Criminals don't care about them. Citizens should be able to defend themselves, their families or others.

PisnNapalm
04-20-2008, 08:42 PM
I forgot a link. www.pafoa.org <==Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Lots of great people and info there.

Polamalu Princess
04-20-2008, 08:43 PM
Gun laws only apply to those who will obey them. Criminals don't care about them. Citizens should be able to defend themselves, their families or others.

All I can say is AMEN!!!!

Jeremy
04-20-2008, 08:58 PM
Bottom line is that education and training are key. If you're not willing to properly educate and train yourself about the weapon you intend to carry and use, you have no right to carry or use that weapon.

Protect youself, protect your property, and protect your family. But please don't think that carrying a weapon means that everyone needs you to protect them as well.

Preacher
04-20-2008, 09:44 PM
Bottom line is that education and training are key. If you're not willing to properly educate and train yourself about the weapon you intend to carry and use, you have no right to carry or use that weapon.

Protect youself, protect your property, and protect your family. But please don't think that carrying a weapon means that everyone needs you to protect them as well.


That is a very smart post....

And only pull out the gun if

1. You are in a scenario where there are no other options
2. You are ABSOLUTELY willing to pull the trigger and end life.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 08:36 AM
Let's just say my view point is the exact opposite of this. I hope you all get out and vote for Hillary this week.

I won't be voting for either one of them.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-21-2008, 08:40 AM
Or the dangerous would band together .

Good....makes it harder to miss.

Dino 6 Rings
04-21-2008, 09:05 AM
I currently live in the state with the most Lax Gun laws on the books. In fact, the only law on the books in Arkansas about guns, is that no law shall be passed banning guns. Now any gun that is banned by the federal law, say a 50cal (yes people down here have gotten their hands on a 50 cal) is still illegal, but rifles, pistols and basically anything you want is very easy to get. There aren't wild shootouts in the area I live. North West Arkansas, and the shootings that do happen (minus that fiasco at the school in North East Akransas Jonesboro) are between criminals and their victims or criminals and other criminals. There aren't too many Husband shoots wife, or Man goes crazy in store with semi-automatic weapon, situations.

I believe the reason is two fold. People down here are taught about guns at a young age, and taught to respect them. And The wife would be as good a shot as her husband and would probably take him out first, and the guy walking into a store with a semi-automatic rifle opening fire, would get shot himself by a legal gun owner that happens to have a pistol in her purse or in his shoulder holster.

There is something to be said about criminals being cowards and not wanting to attack people they know are armed as well. Its really easy to attack folks in a "gun free" zone, cause they won't shoot back. There aren't many home invasions down here by strangers, cause a stranger breaking into a house in Arkansas, won't know how well armed the owners of the house actually are. And "round here" people don't take kindly to strangers breaking into their houses.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-21-2008, 09:20 AM
I currently live in the state with the most Lax Gun laws on the books. In fact, the only law on the books in Arkansas about guns, is that no law shall be passed banning guns. Now any gun that is banned by the federal law, say a 50cal (yes people down here have gotten their hands on a 50 cal) is still illegal, but rifles, pistols and basically anything you want is very easy to get. There aren't wild shootouts in the area I live. North West Arkansas, and the shootings that do happen (minus that fiasco at the school in North East Akransas Jonesboro) are between criminals and their victims or criminals and other criminals. There aren't too many Husband shoots wife, or Man goes crazy in store with semi-automatic weapon, situations.

I believe the reason is two fold. People down here are taught about guns at a young age, and taught to respect them. And The wife would be as good a shot as her husband and would probably take him out first, and the guy walking into a store with a semi-automatic rifle opening fire, would get shot himself by a legal gun owner that happens to have a pistol in her purse or in his shoulder holster.

There is something to be said about criminals being cowards and not wanting to attack people they know are armed as well. Its really easy to attack folks in a "gun free" zone, cause they won't shoot back. There aren't many home invasions down here by strangers, cause a stranger breaking into a house in Arkansas, won't know how well armed the owners of the house actually are. And "round here" people don't take kindly to strangers breaking into their houses.

That simple logic seems to elude those afraid to defend themselves.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 09:44 AM
That simple logic seems to elude those afraid to defend themselves.

:hug:

Looks like someone needs a hug this morning.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-21-2008, 10:12 AM
:hug:

Looks like someone needs a hug this morning.

I....I feel...all warm and fuzzy.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 10:18 AM
I....I feel...all warm and fuzzy.

Then my work here is done! :hatsoff:

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 10:28 AM
Gun Free Zones = unarmed victims

Think about it... Virgina Tech forced it's rule following people to disarm. When confronted with a madman they got mowed down.

At that church in Colorado, armed resistance took out the rifle wielding psycho.


What people fail to realize is this... There are many many crimes that are deterred simply because the "victim" pulled a gun and the bad guy ran away. I read that it's estimated 2 million crimes a year are prevented because the "victim" was armed.

I choose to be responsible for my own safety and that of my family.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-21-2008, 10:29 AM
Then my work here is done! :hatsoff:

Why dont I believe that?

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 10:54 AM
Why dont I believe that?

Believe what you want. I made my point, so I don't see any need to keep beating a dead horse.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 11:15 AM
Or the dangerous would band together and be even more dangerous as they have done throughout history. I doubt anyone wants a return to the American Old West, or for downtown Pittsburgh to resemble downtown Baghdad.

It's a difficult debate because there's not one answer. Citizens need to be able to protect themselves, but there have to be limits on that otherwise you have anarchy. I'm 29 and I've still to find a decent answer to the question that makes sense.

What color is the sky in your world?

Armed law abiding citizens prevent that from happening. And oh ya theres still wild injuns out west here.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 11:24 AM
What color is the sky in your world?

Armed law abiding citizens prevent that from happening. And oh ya theres still wild injuns out west here.

That's worked out well in Russia.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 11:36 AM
Seems its been working for 200+ years in the US.

Dino 6 Rings
04-21-2008, 11:37 AM
See criminals aren't stupid. They are smart and know to attack the weak, and the defenseless. Besides in hollywood movies, how often to armed bandits attack, police stations, or military posts, or NRA meetings or VFWs or Motorcycle Rallies or any place that the population of the event might actually be more well armed. They don't, because criminals are smart enough to know, if you were to say try to rob the local Pawn shop down here, well...you'd be dead before you said the last word in the phrase "give me all your mone..." BLAM.

Now I'm all for background checks, to prevent those with a violent criminal past from getting guns legally. Also, I'm all for a database for people with serious mental issues being included in the exclusion of firears purchasing. Yes, Crazy people don't need guns. But people have the Right to protect themselves from the criminals that won't go through legal channels to purchase a firearm. I'm all for huge penalties and sentances for anyone that engages in the black market sales of firearms as well. Keep guns out of the hands of the gangsters, drug dealers, drug users, and crazy folks and let the hunters, collectors, and regular folk be armed.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-21-2008, 12:01 PM
That's worked out well in Russia.

Brief summary: Russian laws for civilians

No handguns, no full-auto. Very rare exception -- retired high-rank officers are given guns in reward, usually such guns carry rich engraving and golden plates with officer name, congratulations, etc; it's the only exception.

In fact, any tool able to obtain projectile energy of more than 7,5 joules and the caliber is more than 4,5 mm counts as a firearm. Law on Weapons says anything with muzzle energy more than 25 joules counts as firearm.

Shotguns and rifles available, but you need a license to buy and keep them. License can be obtained (if you don't have any criminal records) without problems, except price. This hobby eats hoards of money. But all weapons must be kept in the safe with gun and cartriges apart, and you can transport them only in the disassembled condition, so they are useless as tools of self-defense. Transporting hunting weapons when season is closed is difficult and can put you in trouble. Self-defense is not an excuse when it comes to firearms outside your home!

Tasers and anything powered with electricity are prohibited, unless made in Russia. Our stun guns are lousy. Really. They are limited to max 60,000V and 1,5 joules

Any bludgeoning weapon is a big no-no for civilian. There is a special entry in the Law on Weapons prohibiting any bludgeoning weapon;

Airguns outside of sport building or range are prohibited if their muzzle energy is more than 7,5 joules and caliber > 4.5mm, otherwise they doesn't require license.

Hunting with airguns prohibited completely.
http://www.gunlab.com.ru/summary.html

Dino 6 Rings
04-21-2008, 12:16 PM
First thing the Nazis did, was take guns away from civilians. Then rounding them up became a lot easier.

"Spartans, lay down your weapons"

"Persians, Come Take them"

That is my way. You want it, come take it, and when you try it, it won't be my hand that's cold and dead.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 02:19 PM
Seems its been working for 200+ years in the US.

:doh:

I'd be really interested in seeing the stats you're basing your argument off of.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 03:02 PM
:doh:

I'd be really interested in seeing the stats you're basing your argument off of.

Its called the Constitution.
Its my right to own firearms and people like you who come along and get a position of power in the government and try to take that right away.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 03:46 PM
One fact that will never change.... Criminals use guns.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Listen to this and remember....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A

Dino 6 Rings
04-21-2008, 03:55 PM
Gee, I was wondering where someone with the screen name PisnNapalm stood on the right to own a gun. LOL!!!

The 1st Rule of Gun Ownership.
Its better to have a gun, and never need one, than to need a gun, and not have one.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Its called the Constitution.
Its my right to own firearms and people like you who come along and get a position of power in the government and try to take that right away.

OK....now go ahead and find the post in this thread where I said I was going to take your gun away.

Or I could save you the time because I never wrote a single word about taking guns away. You're simply making things up now.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 05:09 PM
Its called the Constitution.
Its my right to own firearms and people like you who come along and get a position of power in the government and try to take that right away.

Did I say you specifically.......:doh:

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 05:11 PM
Did I say you specifically.......:doh:

So I catch you in a made up argument and now you're backing off your remarks.

You'd make a great politican someday.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 05:33 PM
So I catch you in a made up argument and now you're backing off your remarks.

You'd make a great politician someday.

And what remarks would that be that I'm backing down from? You think that taking the guns away from the law abiding citizen is a cure all for crime and I disagree with that. If you think that were all going to end up like the "wild west" or iraq if something isn't done about gun control then your in for a rude awakening.

Now if you would excuse me I have some injuns to go shoot.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 05:36 PM
And what remarks would that be that I'm backing down from? You think that taking the guns away from the law abiding citizen is a cure all for crime and I disagree with that. If you think that were all going to end up like the "wild west" or iraq if something isn't done about gun control then your in for a rude awakening.

Now if you would excuse me I have some injuns to go shoot.

Again, go find the post where I wrote that.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Again, go find the post where I wrote that.

You didn't, but its not hard to read between the lines.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 05:54 PM
You didn't, but its not hard to read between the lines.

I rest my case.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 06:52 PM
:doh:

I'd be really interested in seeing the stats you're basing your argument off of.

If you're serious about wanting stats and other info then read this. Each and every bit of information is substantiated by research.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

Did you listen to that 911 call I posted earlier?

Here is another website with great info. It's geared more toward women, but still is a good read for anyone who thinks guns are just too scary.

http://www.corneredcat.com/

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 07:44 PM
If you're serious about wanting stats and other info then read this. Each and every bit of information is substantiated by research.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

Did you listen to that 911 call I posted earlier?

Here is another website with great info. It's geared more toward women, but still is a good read for anyone who thinks guns are just too scary.

http://www.corneredcat.com/

No. But I'm not having this debate with you. I want the person who can't keep their argument straight to use the brain God gave them and come up with something close to intelligent to back up his slanderous claims.

MACH1
04-21-2008, 08:41 PM
No. But I'm not having this debate with you. I want the person who can't keep their argument straight to use the brain God gave them and come up with something close to intelligent to back up his slanderous claims.

In Washington, D.C., where guns are banned, there were 147 victims of homicide by firearm in 1998. In the same year in Texas, there were 947. The interesting data comes when you look at the gun homicides per 100,000 people. In D.C., there were 33.45 per 100,000 and in Texas, 5.15. That's 5.15 gun homicides per 100,000 people from the gun-loving, violent, law-resistant people of Texas. This data is all courtesy of the CDC. The CDC's statistics include gun deaths from suicides, which is approximately half of all gun deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/


Spin the above how ever you want.

Slanderous or speaking the truth?:noidea:

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 09:07 PM
See how well gun control laws work in Chicago.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/04/37-shot-7-killed-in-weekend-ch-000464.php

37 people shot, 7 killed this past weekend in a city where guns are illegal.

Also don't get overly hyped about the 1.1 percent drop in homicides during the first 3 months of this year. That's a statistical blip. My guess is that these shootings will make up for that.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 09:13 PM
See how well gun control laws work in Chicago.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/04/37-shot-7-killed-in-weekend-ch-000464.php

37 people shot, 7 killed this past weekend in a city where guns are illegal.

Also don't get overly hyped about the 1.1 percent drop in homicides during the first 3 months of this year. That's a statistical blip. My guess is that these shootings will make up for that.

And how many of those gun deaths in Chicago, or any other major city, are drug and gang related?

From the very article you linked:

The superintendent of the Chicago Police Department blamed the shootings on the proliferation of guns and gangs. "There are just too many weapons here," Superintendent Jody Weis told reporters at a news conference, according to the Associated Press. "Too many guns, too many gangs."

You can carry the biggest gun you want, you can't stop a drive by shooting.

GBMelBlount
04-21-2008, 09:15 PM
Simply put, there are people who are unfit to carry weapons. Some form of protection must exist to bar emotionally/mentally unstable folks from carrying a deadly weapon.

Then again, some of the most dangerous people are the ones who advocate the least controls.

So are you for gun control beyond requiring proper gun use training & testing for mental/emotional stability? For instance a general ban?

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 09:21 PM
So are you for gun control beyond requiring proper gun use training & testing for mental/emotional stability? For instance a general ban?

Only of military style assault weapons. I think the Reagan Administration got it right with the Brady Bill.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 09:25 PM
That's the point... Gun laws do not stop gun violence. How will more laws help?

You've got to attack the root of the drug/gang problem and not disarm citizens who want to protect themselves.

The root of the problem begins in the home. Too many city kids are growing up with one or no parent around. They see the culture all around them and they want the bling. They want the girls, money, cars, etc... It's glorified to them in rap music and on the streets.

Guns are not the problem... People are the problem.

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 09:29 PM
That's the point... Gun laws do not stop gun violence. How will more laws help?

You've got to attack the root of the drug/gang problem and not disarm citizens who want to protect themselves.

The root of the problem begins in the home. Too many city kids are growing up with one or no parent around. They see the culture all around them and they want the bling. They want the girls, money, cars, etc... It's glorified to them in rap music and on the streets.

Guns are not the problem... People are the problem.

Well yeah. I'm not asking for more laws, I'm asking that the laws on the books be enforced (background checks and what not) and that people be responsible enough to educate and train themselves about guns. I think that's a pretty simple request.

As far as keeping the parents in the home, that's a whole different debate.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 09:36 PM
Only of military style assault weapons. I think the Reagan Administration got it right with the Brady Bill.

Let me show you something....

This is the rifle I bought. It's a Ruger 10/22. It's a small caliber semi-automatic rifle that I use for punching holes in paper at 50 yards.

This is what it looked like when I bought it.

http://www.pisnnapalm.com/pics/ruger/DSC00374.JPG


I wasn't too keen on the looks so I did some searching and I found a new stock for it. I prefer a pistol grip that is closer in feel to my precision target rifle. So my cheap plinker rifle ended up looking like this after a few additional cool parts ( scope, bipod, 25 round magazine and muzzlebrake for looks).

http://www.pisnnapalm.com/pics/ruger/DSC00385.JPG

It is the same rifle essentially. One trigger pull fires one round. It just looks different now.

Why is one more dangerous than the other? Because it looks like a military rifle?:doh:

Also... it wasn't Reagan.... it was during Clinton's term that got the "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Jeremy
04-21-2008, 09:38 PM
Let me show you something....

This is the rifle I bought. It's a Ruger 10/22. It's a small caliber semi-automatic rifle that I use for punching holes in paper at 50 yards.

This is what it looked like when I bought it.




I wasn't too keen on the looks so I did some searching and I found a new stock for it. I prefer a pistol grip that is closer in feel to my precision target rifle. So my cheap plinker rifle ended up looking like this after a few additional cool parts ( scope, bipod, 25 round magazine and muzzlebrake for looks).



It is the same rifle essentially. One trigger pull fires one round. It just looks different now.

Why is one more dangerous than the other? Because it looks like a military rifle?:doh:

Also... it wasn't Reagan.... it was during Clinton's term that got the "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

When I say military style weapons, I mean automatic weapons. Just because you tricked out your rifle to look like something it's not doesn't make it a military style weapon.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Well yeah. I'm not asking for more laws, I'm asking that the laws on the books be enforced (background checks and what not) and that people be responsible enough to educate and train themselves about guns. I think that's a pretty simple request.

As far as keeping the parents in the home, that's a whole different debate.

Philly's problems with guns would take a huge hit if the DA's office would prosecute them and not let the bad guys plea bargain to lesser offenses.

Cripes there was a housing authority officer shot twice by a 17 year old in a robbery attempt. The DA dropped the guns charges because the kid didn't mean to shoot the officer he just wanted to rob him.

After public and police outcry the charges were reinstated.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080414_Ruling__on_teen_who_shot_Phila__housing_o fficer.html



I would be thrilled if the current laws were actually enforced before trying to add new ones.

PisnNapalm
04-21-2008, 09:45 PM
When I say military style weapons, I mean automatic weapons. Just because you tricked out your rifle to look like something it's not doesn't make it a military style weapon.

But that's what the AWB was. They outlawed semi-automatic AK-47's and AR-15's, etc... just because they looked like military rifles. You could still buy a Ruger mini14 which is a semi-automatic rifle because it looked like a hunting rifle.

Full auto actual "assault rifles" were difficult to get even before the AWB ban. Well... difficult to get legally.


Oh well... I'm dead tired and going to bed. See yinz later.

Dino 6 Rings
04-22-2008, 08:29 AM
AK 47

When absolutely positively have to kill every mother effer in the room, accept no substitute.