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.
Finn_Jarber what a dishonest response. What i'm arguing is a fact violent crime in America is not a problem despite what some politician or TV told you.
Yes, that is what you are arguing, and you do back it up by diluting numbers for bad states/areas with stats from non-violent areas. You are the one being dishonest here. It is a huge problem in some areas. Obviously you don't know too many victims of violent crime. Street gangs are a huge problem in many cities, and there are a lot of big cities in CA.
Yes, keep telling me how unlikely it is for you to be victimized by a street gang if you live in central Kansas.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-14-2009 at 10:45 AM..
I still believe public safety and crime reduction is their top priority, after all a reduction in crime would make them look mighty good (see Giuliani and NYC), but there was something in the bill I would never support in my home state, so I won't support it in other states either.
They don't have to prove results, just show that their heart is in the right place and many will just give them a passing grade.
Next election watch them say "we stopped ammo from getting into criminals hands, we are tough on crime". All they will do is say that not provide any evidence and alot of people will just believe.
First off, and IMO, this legislation is another "feel good" or a "warm and fuzzy" law. It gives politicians cover to say they "did something" to protect the citizens.
In reality though, this law will not stop those who seek to hurt others from getting the ammo they want. It won't. Pure and simple.
What this law will do, and does do (does do???) is penalize the law abiding citizen by making their lawful rights of gun ownership more difficult.
I still believe public safety and crime reduction is their top priority, after all a reduction in crime would make them look mighty good (see Giuliani and NYC), but there was something in the bill I would never support in my home state, so I won't support it in other states either.
Dude seriously this is basic math concepts
Top Line is called the numerator
the number below your dividing by is the denominator
numerator = Murders
denominator = total violent crimes
Look easy way to show you
2005 Murders/Homicide 16,692 (numerator)
Total Violent Crimes 5,200,000 (denominator)
= 0.001065 = (Not even 1% of all violent crimes)
Law of Large numbers
Hypothetically Let's say the murder/homicide numbers were cut in half to 8,346 (numerator)
Total Violent Crimes don't change 5,200,000 (denominator)
= 0.001605 = (Not even 1% of all violent crimes)
Therefore even if the homicide rate was cut in half it would have no effect on reducing violent crimes, because it is such an insignificant amount. It cannot influence the numbers.
Is it becoming more clear to you??
Let's say you reduced gang related murders to 0
16,692-955 = 15,737 homicides
Just scroll up if reducing the overall murder rate by half didn't effect or cause a change in violent crimes how the hell would reducing hte murder rate by 1/18 (5.7%) cause a change in violent crime?
It wouldn't, so do you at least understand this?
Now on to Giuliani how can you give someone credit for something that is clearly taking place all over the nation? It would seem to me violent crime and overall crime was dropping long before he took office. We are at the lowest levels of crime in the history of this country. This is the least violent we've been in 100 years! The question you should be asking yourself is why do they keep feeding the ignorance masses tons of information that says otherwise? (POLICE STATE)
They don't have to prove results, just show that their heart is in the right place and many will just give them a passing grade.
Next election watch them say "we stopped ammo from getting into criminals hands, we are tough on crime". All they will do is say that not provide any evidence and alot of people will just believe.
They do have to prove results. Giuliani proved them and it made him very popular, but Clinton's 'assult' weapon ban didn't produce results, so there was no argument to keep it in effect.
Yea, keep diluting those numbers. LOL. Keep repeating that violent crime is not a problem, and eventually someone might believe it.
Violent crime in NYC dropped significantly more under Giuliani than in US as whole. Today you can actually walk around in areas, which were no-go before his era.
Well, looks like the PRCalifornia authorities have become frustrated with the slow pace of their violations of the 2nd amendment. Though they have succeeded in banning and even confiscating a few weapons, they seem to feel that they can disarm people more effectively by restricting sales of ammunition. After all, the 2nd amendment doesn't mention bullets, does it?
Now, anyone who wants to buy ammunition, will be treated like suspects in a criminal case. The purchase will be held up; they will be required to fill out numerous papers; have their ID and fingerprpints taken, and have them sent to police, who are now authorized to keep them indefinitely. (Even the Federal forms we are require to fill out to buy a gun, are not sent to police)
I especially liked Schwarzenegger's comment about what this law will do, and his careful qualification of his praise. "Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe ...."
Very good, Ahnold. And if it's not utilized properly...?? I don't suppose you're worried that a government that gets too disagreeably big, might want to know which Calif residents have certain size guns, are practicing with those guns, and where the government can find them "when it feels it's necessary", are you? No, I guess you just can't imagine any government getting "too disagreeably big", can you.
BTW, remember back when laws were passed saying that people buying cold medicine like Sudafed, ahd to fill out registration papers and the medicine had to be kept in areas away from the buying public? Some conservatives complained that this was (a) ridiculous; and (b) set a dangerous precedent of government expanding their control over more and more innocuous things, all because criminals might use some of it in crimes. Big-govt leftists pooh-poohed the idea, and lambasted the conservatives for being paranoid anti-govt "haters". Don't be silly, they said, there's no reason to think govt will expand such restrictions.
That was then, this is now. Have a look at the written explanation from Schwarzenegger justifying his signing this "ammo registration" bill (highlighted below). Sure enough, he says that since the old Sudafed-registration laws didn't intrude very much, that makes it OK to sign this ammo-registration law, because it won't intrude any more than that one did... just in a different field.
Trust a liberal, and what do you get? More liberalism, more laws, more government, in places you never thought you'd find it.
SACRAMENTO, CA - Before the midnight deadline, Gov. Schwarzenegger acted on 685 bills that were on his desk. He signed 456 and vetoed 229.
One of the bills that he signed was Assembly Bill 962. Schwarzenegger released a statement explaining why he signed the bill
. "....Moreover, this type of record keeping is no more intrusive for law abiding citizens than similar laws governing pawnshops or the sale of cold medicine.
(Full text of this article can be read at the above URL)
Liberals! Liberals! You do know the Gov is a REPUB, don't ya?
Casper
They do have to prove results. Giuliani proved them and it made him very popular, but Clinton's 'assult' weapon ban didn't produce results, so there was no argument to keep it in effect.
The same politicians who supported the .50BMG ban, this current ammo ban also supported the "assault weapons" ban being reintroduced even though there wasn't any evidence that it really made a difference. California has it's own "assault weapons" ban.
So no they don't always have to prove results, a large portion of loyal liberal Democrats will go along just because. A large portion of citizens will go along just because. Because they are black, gay, Mexican or white liberal and normally vote Democrat anyway so they support anything Democrat politicians do.
Obama and his crew already attempted to bring back the ban even though as you say the proof was it doesn't do much good, why did they then? They tried to tie to Mexican crime after their other logic failed but that was exposed also.
Obama and his crew already attempted to bring back the ban even though as you say the proof was it doesn't do much good, why did they then? They tried to tie to Mexican crime after their other logic failed but that was exposed also.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the assult weapon ban ever expired in CA, so Arnie has no reason to re-introduce it.
Holder talked about a bad to reduce the amount of guns going from US to Mexico, but he dropped it pretty soon after he brough it up. There was no bill to re-introducing the ban. This year has been a good year for NRA and gun activists because of so many restrictions have been removed this year.
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.
) is penalize the law abiding citizen by making their lawful rights of gun ownership more difficult.
