Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, as are NYC, Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, and even L.A. However, DC's strict gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. These cities have seen drastic improvement in rates of crime, especially murders committed with guns. However, I am not a person who believes in banning guns. Just in controlling who is allowed to own one (felons for example, those who have assaulted another person), the type of gun that is available for purchase, etc. I don't own one and don't want to.
That is a personal choice, and I wouldn't try to force that view on someone who is a law abiding and nonviolent person.
........
Fcorrales, we already have thousands of laws on the books that are supposed to prevent criminals from buying guns from legitimate sources, like gun stores, the problem is, and has been for a long time is not legitimate dealers, but the black market. Just like illegal drugs, you cannot buy them in stores because they are illegal, yet that doesn't stop drug dealers from selling different kinds of drugs, and making meth, from operating their illegal trade. It's the same way with firearms. There are black market dealers out there and I'm sure law enforcement agencies are addressing this issue.
I'm sure the national instant background check system has stopped a few from purchasing firearms, but definitely not enough to make a significant difference in crime rates. The only way to do that is to enforce the laws that are on the books, and put those who violate them behind bars for a long time, plain and simple. Don't create any more laws that only complicate the system, and put more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.
And yes Fcorrales, owning a firearm is certainly your personal choice, and I respect that. I'm not going to force you to own a gun, and by the same token, the anti-gun folks should not force their agenda on us law-abiding gun owners.
Fcorrales, we already have thousands of laws on the books that are supposed to prevent criminals from buying guns from legitimate sources, like gun stores, the problem is, and has been for a long time is not legitimate dealers, but the black market. Just like illegal drugs, you cannot buy them in stores because they are illegal, yet that doesn't stop drug dealers from selling different kinds of drugs, and making meth, from operating their illegal trade. It's the same way with firearms. There are black market dealers out there and I'm sure law enforcement agencies are addressing this issue.
I'm sure the national instant background check system has stopped a few from purchasing firearms, but definitely not enough to make a significant difference in crime rates. The only way to do that is to enforce the laws that are on the books, and put those who violate them behind bars for a long time, plain and simple. Don't create any more laws that only complicate the system, and put more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.
And yes Fcorrales, owning a firearm is certainly your personal choice, and I respect that. I'm not going to force you to own a gun, and by the same token, the anti-gun folks should not force their agenda on us law-abiding gun owners.
I'm not sure why you are going through the trouble of writing all this since I already said I don't believe in banning guns, however, there are loopholes and laws that are not strict enough, allowing for guns to flow to the black market. I don't think that punishing law abiding gun owners is appropraite, however, once that law adibing gun owner breaks a law, then I believe the gun should be removed from his/her possession. While the black market is a place where certain criminal elements purchase guns, you might be surprised to know that most crimes involving guns are traced back to "law-abiding" citizens who didn't store their gun properly or whose own gun was used against them, their friends, or family.
I worked in DC for many years and just got the hell out of there in March. The crime there is usually confined to bad neighborhoods, but it's still incredibly high for the city's size and strict gun control laws (which have never worked anywhere in this country). The Heller decision has not yet been implemented in DC. So it's had no effect on crime yet. The DC city council is trying to head off a move in the U.S. House by writing new regs that comply with the Heller decision, but still make handgun ownership pretty restrictive. The House is getting pretty close to taking over for DC and just writing a pre-emption law. It's amazing how that crime doesn't cross the 14th St. Bridge into VA, where the gun laws are very similar to those in AZ. Also, DC almost never prosecutes otherwise law-abiding citizens who have guns in the city, if they're used for self-defense. I kept a sidearm or two when I lived in DC and I bought a lot more when I moved to VA. Sometimes I took the gun out of my car when I drove into DC, but not always.
I worked in DC for many years and just got the hell out of there in March. The crime there is usually confined to bad neighborhoods, but it's still incredibly high for the city's size and strict gun control laws (which have never worked anywhere in this country). The Heller decision has not yet been implemented in DC. So it's had no effect on crime yet. The DC city council is trying to head off a move in the U.S. House by writing new regs that comply with the Heller decision, but still make handgun ownership pretty restrictive. The House is getting pretty close to taking over for DC and just writing a pre-emption law. It's amazing how that crime doesn't cross the 14th St. Bridge into VA, where the gun laws are very similar to those in AZ. Also, DC almost never prosecutes otherwise law-abiding citizens who have guns in the city, if they're used for self-defense. I kept a sidearm or two when I lived in DC and I bought a lot more when I moved to VA. Sometimes I took the gun out of my car when I drove into DC, but not always.
Being a Wash DC native; I know/knew a bit about the 'lie of the land' there--------------the 'cultural' demarcation lines there were quite stark.
Phx is very much that same way; in it and SoCal one can go two blocks and an area can go from ghetto to clean----------and, vice versa.
I think this is mostly an American point of view. For instance, crime is lowest and has dropped most significantly in places with the most stringent gun laws. Not only in the U.S., but in Europe, South America, and Asia. Personally, I don't think guns have a direct correlation to crime; I believe other factors matter more. Including the education of the general public, the relationship and status of that relationship with residents and police, willingness to report crime, and poverty. Southern states have the most lenient gun laws and the highest crime rates in the nation. However, is it really because of guns, or because of all the other factors?
With all due respect…what you think and believe is not is supported by actual reporting data.
Australia banned guns several years ago…which resulted in an increase in crime…so much that it now has a higher per capital crime rate than the US. “The English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America’s. . . . The English assault rate was more than double America’s.” Great Britain also has a higher per capital crime rate…both Australia and England have more stringent gun laws than the US.
Washington DC...which had the strictest gun laws in the Nation…has the highest per capital crime and murder rate…and has lead the nation for many years. Chicago, New York, LA…very strict guns especially when compared to Phoenix have higher crime/murder rates per capital
With all due respect…what you think and believe is not is supported by actual reporting data.
Australia banned guns several years ago…which resulted in an increase in crime…so much that it now has a higher per capital crime rate than the US. “The English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America’s. . . . The English assault rate was more than double America’s.” Great Britain also has a higher per capital crime rate…both Australia and England have more stringent gun laws than the US.
Washington DC...which had the strictest gun laws in the Nation…has the highest per capital crime and murder rate…and has lead the nation for many years. Chicago, New York, LA…very strict guns especially when compared to Phoenix have higher crime/murder rates per capital
IMHO…. there is data to suggest a relationship between allowing citizens to own/carry firearms and lower crime rates
Data can be manipulated either way. Besides that study being extremely old , there are studies on the other side that show that more gun control laws and laws banning guns reduce crime; Massachussets, Connecticut, Washington (state), Oregon, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, etc.
However, I was not arguing for banning guns or making it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, I was simply stating that more education and lower poverty rates contribute to less crime. I don't think you can argue that poor and poorly educated neighborhoods are safer than higher income, higher education attainment areas...think Maryvale, which has one of Phoenix's lowest income rates, and low educational attainment as well. Slowly changing, but Maryvale still is defined by this.
Data can be manipulated either way. Besides that study being extremely old , there are studies on the other side that show that more gun control laws and laws banning guns reduce crime; Massachussets, Connecticut, Washington (state), Oregon, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, etc.
Can you provide a link to your data?
Vermont & New Hampshire have very few regulations concerning guns...along with Alaska they are considered "the free states" with low crime rates.
Oregon and Washington State allow concealed carry and have low crime rates...as Vermont & New Hampsire. Crime rates in Mass and New York are above national averages and are heavily regulated states...not sure what your point is!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcorrales80
However, I was not arguing for banning guns or making it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, I was simply stating that more education and lower poverty rates contribute to less crime. I don't think you can argue that poor and poorly educated neighborhoods are safer than higher income, higher education attainment areas...think Maryvale, which has one of Phoenix's lowest income rates, and low educational attainment as well. Slowly changing, but Maryvale still is defined by this.
From my experience...in Metro Phoenix "higher education attainment areas" have higher than average crime rates...as they are targeted for their wealth by the criminal element.
Maryvale has the highest crime rate...and is considered by many to be the most dangerous area in Phoenix.
The average criminal (Metro Phoenix) has a lower than average education and income level while the average victim has an above average education and income level.
Vermont & New Hampshire have very few regulations concerning guns...along with Alaska they are considered "the free states" with low crime rates.
Oregon and Washington State allow concealed carry and have low crime rates...as Vermont & New Hampsire. Crime rates in Mass and New York are above national averages and are heavily regulated states...not sure what your point is!?
From my experience...in Metro Phoenix "higher education attainment areas" have higher than average crime rates...as they are targeted for their wealth by the criminal element.
Maryvale has the highest crime rate...and is considered by many to be the most dangerous area in Phoenix.
The average criminal (Metro Phoenix) has a lower than average education and income level while the average victim has an above average education and income level.
No I don't have a link, as it was printed in Morgan Quinto's research conducted last year. Can you provide a link to your information? As it seems completely wrong. The average victim has above average education and income? I don't think so, the average "victim" is usually a victim while comitting a crime. Maryvale being the most dangerous is testament that the average victim is not from above average education and income. Maryvale makes up the bulk of burglaries and murder, don't know many rich or college graduates living and working in Maryvale or for that matter, Flint, MI, Compton, Camden, etc.
Last edited by fcorrales80; 09-18-2008 at 11:57 PM..
No I don't have a link, as it was printed in Morgan Quinto's research conducted last year. Can you provide a link to your information? As it seems completely wrong. The average victim has above average education and income? I don't think so, the average "victim" is usually a victim while comitting a crime. Maryvale being the most dangerous is testament that the average victim is not from above average education and income. Maryvale makes up the bulk of burglaries and murder, don't know many rich or college graduates living and working in Maryvale or for that matter, Flint, MI, Compton, Camden, etc.
Maryvale worse than South Phoenix (north of South Mountain)? Although Ahwatukee may be skewing down the latter community's crime numbers downward----------geographically speaking, Ahwatukee is the true South Phoenix.
You know how the criminals said they got their guns on Opra? They would look for a buyer at a gun show and then rob him, or see a guy with a gun and jump him and take his gun, sometimes shooting him with it first.
(I know I will be getting Opra jokes now)
The largest group of people who die from legal, law abiding gun owners is children. Their kids, neighbors kids, kids that use them against other kids. So, they are killing someone, but not a lot of criminals.
You know if you shoot a criminal you will spend a lot of time in jail before your case. It totally sucks since you're the one assaulted but if they started allowing people to defend themselves there would be a lot of people saying they were attacked by their husbands. ha ha Right now those woman are in jail for shooting or killing their husbands. They would be at Walmart if it were legal. haha
All joking aside, I'm sure I would have been shot by now if people could shoot who ever they thought was attacking them. This would give real criminals a free ride. "Oh, I was defending myself"! yeah, right.
It would make it hard for police officers, thats for sure.
On the other hand I don't know a police officers wife that isn't packing, so maybe we should all arm ourselves. Can you imagine that? Everyone packing a gun. I wonder how supermarket spats would work out then. ha ha
Clean up on isle 2! Ewwww
Or those lines of parents at the school drop off in the morning. ha ha Their would be a lot of homeless kids. lol
I don't own a gun but my brothers do and both have been accidentally shot in hunting trips. lol So, on that note, I think you should be tested for intelligence first. lol
I'm sure the vice president can sympathize. lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
