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.
You know what, I personally would be delighted if you would explain in further detail how what adelphi suggested "destroys the spirit" of the second amendment. Please. Because as a lawyer, that sounds to me like complete bull. But please, prove me wrong.
I've already explained that part, please read the entire post that I wrong.
the process to get guns in VA is extremely easy. So how are these restrictions going to prevent people from getting guns, much less prevent violence?
Enact a federal ban on the sale of those types of guns in the country. There are a whole list of things you can't buy in the US. Simple. If the dealers can't get the guns from the manufacturer, then how can they be sold?
No one said that gun laws would prevent violence. But they can impact the number of gun deaths as seen in other countries. (Gunpolicy.org)
Some laws become outdated and impractical. Just because a law made sense 200 years ago, doesn't mean it makes sense now. The people who wrote the second amendment didn't have a standing state-of-the-art military, FBI, CIA, local and state police and the National Guard either. Second, they didn't have high-powered machine guns that could kill multiple people in seconds. They didn't have to deal with armor-piercing bullets or lax gun laws that put these late technology guns in the hands of the mentally unstable. Sure, to stay true to a piece of legislation written 200 years ago, let's continue this insane love affair with the right to kill as many as possible as fast as possible.
Some people get swept up in the fight to keep arcane laws because of very cunning and persistent lobbyists who's main focus is to keep the profits high and the laws low. Financial crash ring a bell? Look, it's not lost on everyone that when threats to public health and safety threaten profits for certain companies and their shareholders. Their media machine is strong. We saw how the cigarette companies fought tooth and nail against tobacco laws. I know the gun manufacturers stand to loose billions if my example of laws were to ever become a reality. But hey, people put profits above the needs of society. It has been that way in the past and it will continue.
2nd amendment or not, I see no reason not to disarm the public and have federal and local authorities wield that power. Children are dying in mass murders by guns including the 33 kids at my alma mater. And judging from the discussion on the mental stability of children raised in single family homes, it will get worse. So, do you legislate values, which is a lot tougher and a bigger breach of individual freedom than owning a gun that shoots 16 bullets in under 10 seconds. Or, do you remove the access to a tool that is becoming more and more the default choice for everything from criminal activity, to settlements to arguments, to wonton unhealthy releases of frustration and anger. Not to mention the annual accidental deaths of kids with unlocked loaded guns in the home.
But I would be interested in understanding how fewer guns would be more dangerous for the public. I have never heard that statement in regards to gun laws. Do tell.
In regards to PG violence the vast majority of gun related crimes utilize basic handguns not the so called assualt weapons that are being discussed.
So I'm not seeing the connection between mass murders and assault weapons in relation to PG county.
In regards to PG violence the vast majority of gun related crimes utilize basic handguns not the so called assualt weapons that are being discussed.
So I'm not seeing the connection between mass murders and assault weapons in relation to PG county.
There is no connection. The point was to express how lax the gun laws are and that removing certain guns from public use is not all that damaging to American freedoms. Of course most urban crimes are committed with handguns. With new technology, even those deaths can be decreased.
I equate gun owners who feel they need closets full of military style weapons to those who feel they need underground nuclear bomb shelters.
There is no connection. The point was to express how lax the gun laws are and that removing certain guns from public use is not all that damaging to American freedoms. Of course most urban crimes are committed with handguns. With new technology, even those deaths can be decreased.
I equate gun owners who feel they need closets full of military style weapons to those who feel they need underground nuclear bomb shelters.
So how is your point solving the issue that EdwardA raises. If people are still committing crimes with guns that aren't or wouldn't be banned, then what's the point?
There is no connection. The point about Chicago is there is no correlation between gun laws affecting violence.Other places maybe safe, but then places like Chicago are not, but they both have gun laws, so the logic that gun laws affect violence is not there. Just like you stated that people can go to other states and get guns, couldn't they simply do the same here? Hello, did you know Virginia is one of the biggest pro-gun states in the nation and has the headquarters of the NRA? You act as though it would be difficult for one to go across the river and get these guns. Talking to my friends who have lived in VA their entire lives and are gun owners, the process to get guns in VA is extremely easy. So how are these restrictions going to prevent people from getting guns, much less prevent violence? And creating a national law is not going to work because now you're infringing on the state's rights to govern themselves, but that seems to be okay with some people no matter what is written in law already.
Again we aren't dealing with the real issue. The same reason why we have gun violence is the same reason why we have people who have children out of wedlock and abandon them. We have a society that is corrupt and also a lot of people who are mentally ill. It takes a certain mentality to go out and not only want to kill someone, but to actually do it, no matter if it's by a gun or other means. How many times have you heard the media talk about the mental health of these individuals? Did you know the shooter from Newtown, had stopped taking his medication and his mother feared that the medication that he was taking wasn't strong enough???????? Oh no, we won't talk about that, we won't talk about his irrational behavior, instead we are going to talk about gun laws because of course gun laws are going to address the fact that he stole a gun from a registered gun owner? Or what about the fact that before he picked up that gun, we don't even talk about the fact that he had a thought in his mind of what he was going to do with that gun, so even when there is no gun, he already has the mindset to want to kill someone, but let's not deal with, let's deal with gun laws even though he just proved that people will still get them illegally. And you're a lawyer?
As usual, you are a lot more impressed with your arguments than anyone else is. The entire part that I bolded actually makes no sense whatsoever, as a piece of writing, period. You don't address my points, then you bring up new points and act like I'm ignoring your fabulous argument. Can you address why countries that have stricter gun laws have less gun crime? Because that's a really basic issue. And sorry, but the proportion of mentally ill people who are violent is less than the proportion of non-mentally ill people who are violent. People like Lanza are an anomaly. And the reason that urban areas have more crime is the same reason that urban areas have more of everything else: more people, more money, more businesses, more criminals. Where my parents live in Hillbillyville, WV, there's plenty of poverty and unwed mothers and people on welfare. Why isn't there more crime? Because there's very little to steal, and fewer people to steal from. When you drill down to the crux of the issue, it's the guns.
Furthermore, you show so little knowledge about the legal issues, the second amendment, anything. Your concerns read like something out of redstate or some other right wing blog. Think for yourself please. And yes, I am a lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
I've already explained that part, please read the entire post that I wrong.
"I wrong" is your only statement that I agree with on this whole thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e30is
Before this turns into another gun control debate...
Criminals will never follow the law regardless, even if you ban them in PG county. Someone will get their hands on them whether you like it or not.
Yes, everyone, please let me close out the conversation with some authoritative nonsense! Since we're at it, why regulate anything or make anything illegal? Let's free up drugs, and guns, and bombs, and methamphetamine ingredients, and nuclear weapons, because criminals are going to get them anyway, amirite?
As usual, you are a lot more impressed with your arguments than anyone else is. The entire part that I bolded actually makes no sense whatsoever, as a piece of writing, period. You don't address my points, then you bring up new points and act like I'm ignoring your fabulous argument. Can you address why countries that have stricter gun laws have less gun crime? Because that's a really basic issue. And sorry, but the proportion of mentally ill people who are violent is less than the proportion of non-mentally ill people who are violent. People like Lanza are an anomaly. And the reason that urban areas have more crime is the same reason that urban areas have more of everything else: more people, more money, more businesses, more criminals. Where my parents live in Hillbillyville, WV, there's plenty of poverty and unwed mothers and people on welfare. Why isn't there more crime? Because there's very little to steal, and fewer people to steal from. When you drill down to the crux of the issue, it's the guns.
Furthermore, you show so little knowledge about the legal issues, the second amendment, anything. Your concerns read like something out of redstate or some other right wing blog. Think for yourself please. And yes, I am a lawyer.
"I wrong" is your only statement that I agree with on this whole thread.
Yes, everyone, please let me close out the conversation with some authoritative nonsense! Since we're at it, why regulate anything or make anything illegal? Let's free up drugs, and guns, and bombs, and methamphetamine ingredients, and nuclear weapons, because criminals are going to get them anyway, amirite?
Nonsense. SMH.
Has Prohibition prevented these goods (nuclear weapons excepted) from being obtained by people that want them?
As usual, you are a lot more impressed with your arguments than anyone else is. The entire part that I bolded actually makes no sense whatsoever, as a piece of writing, period. You don't address my points, then you bring up new points and act like I'm ignoring your fabulous argument. Can you address why countries that have stricter gun laws have less gun crime? Because that's a really basic issue. And sorry, but the proportion of mentally ill people who are violent is less than the proportion of non-mentally ill people who are violent. People like Lanza are an anomaly. And the reason that urban areas have more crime is the same reason that urban areas have more of everything else: more people, more money, more businesses, more criminals. Where my parents live in Hillbillyville, WV, there's plenty of poverty and unwed mothers and people on welfare. Why isn't there more crime? Because there's very little to steal, and fewer people to steal from. When you drill down to the crux of the issue, it's the guns.
Because we don't live in another country, we live in the United States. Guess what? Chicago is in the United States. Why do it matter what another country does? We have a different culture and different lifestyle, so how can you equate the habits of another country with us. Can we both agree that our country is heavily influenced by the media? Well if you agree with that, then you can understand how culturally we can be much different than other country that aren't as influenced by media and other forms of entertainment. Don't you think that has a major influence of what violence is acceptable?
I absolutely address your question and just to prove so, let's break your point down further:
Quote:
I think it's so ignorant to pretend that gun laws have nothing to do with gun violence when we have greater gun violence than every other Western nation and more lax gun laws.
And again I explained to you that a place like Chicago is a model of the impact that gun laws have on our society, which is minimal. What do you not understand about gun laws impact on Chicago? Does that not matter to you? Let's take it a step further. Look at our region. VA, as I stated before, has some very laxed gun laws, but yet if you look at the crime rate in our area, NoVA doesn't have the level of violent crime that the MD side has and this is considering that NoVa is MORE DENSE than PG and about on par with Montgomery County. So is it the laws because people in VA have easier access to guns and if they really wanted to, they can carry heat in many places that people in MD cannot which would seemingly increase the likelihood of violence. So please tell me, since you seem to suggest that I am ignorant of this conversation and you are the expert, how a place with more lenient gun laws can have noticeably less crime?
Is Lanza really an anomaly? If he is than this whole conversation is pointless and what Obama is trying to accomplish is pointless. The fact that you and other feel that RIGHT NOW, we need more gun laws, shows that Lanza has struct some type of fear of the 'what ifs' that you and others are scrambling for stricter laws. I'm not sure what your point is. If Lanza is an anomaly then we have nothing to fear right? So why are we talking about gun laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
Furthermore, you show so little knowledge about the legal issues, the second amendment, anything. Your concerns read like something out of redstate or some other right wing blog. Think for yourself please. And yes, I am a lawyer.
Why you felt the need to point out that you are a lawyer is beyond me. Like your opinion holds more weight. Please.
And this has nothing to do with a right wing blog or anyone thinking for me, to be honest you don't even know me to know what I think. This is common sense. You failed to explain to me, how these laws affect these young people getting into gangs. In one of the murders there were 5 suspects. Obvious gang activity. When there aren't guns, there are other things that these kids will be negatively influenced by, should we be trying to address that? Are you going to actually address this point or ignore it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimar
"I wrong" is your only statement that I agree with on this whole thread.
An obvious typo but you are going to analyze everything I wrote so it is what it is.
Last edited by justtitans; 02-21-2013 at 05:50 PM..
Because we don't live in another country, we live in the United States. Guess what? Chicago is in the United States. Why do it matter what another country does? We have a different culture and different lifestyle, so how can you equate the habits of another country with us. Can we both agree that our country is heavily influenced by the media? Well if you agree with that, then you can understand how culturally we can be much different than other country that aren't as influenced by media and other forms of entertainment. Don't you think that has a major influence of what violence is acceptable?
What? Does this count as a response? "Our culture is different so that doesn't matter!" That's not a response, that's a dismissal. Other countries have many similar conditions to the US, in terms of urban areas, in terms of poverty, etc. A comparison is significant and important. You don't want to have an actual conversation about this, and that's fine. I could ignore your silliness, but this time, I'm not going to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
I absolutely address your question and just to prove so, let's break your point down further:
And again I explained to you that a place like Chicago is a model of the impact that gun laws have on our society, which is minimal. What do you not understand about gun laws impact on Chicago? Does that not matter to you? Let's take it a step further. Look at our region. VA, as I stated before, has some very laxed gun laws, but yet if you look at the crime rate in our area, NoVA doesn't have the level of violent crime that the MD side has and this is considering that NoVa is MORE DENSE than PG and about on par with Montgomery County. So is it the laws because people in VA have easier access to guns and if they really wanted to, they can carry heat in many places that people in MD cannot which would seemingly increase the likelihood of violence. So please tell me, since you seem to suggest that I am ignorant of this conversation and you are the expert, how a place with more lenient gun laws can have noticeably less crime?
Wow. As if your first paragraph wasn't bad enough. See, we have this invention, it's called a car. You can get into this car and drive from one place to another. So someone in PG can actually DRIVE to NOVA and buy guns! Did you know about this? Did you know that there isn't a wall between VA and the rest of the country, and that criminals have access to these car inventions? I'm glad you got to learn something today. There are many, many reasons that PG county has more crime than Northern Virginia, proximity to DC is one of them. There is, however, a distinction between all crimes, and gun crimes. If there aren't as many guns, that doesn't mean that crime is going to just disappear, it means that gun crimes will decrease. And because guns are particularly lethal, there's a reason to look at closer regulation of them, for the same reasons we would want to regulate things like missiles or chemical explosives. Because you can kill a lot more people with a bomb or a semi-automatic gun than a kitchen knife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
Is Lanza really an anomaly? If he is than this whole conversation is pointless and what Obama is trying to accomplish is pointless. The fact that you and other feel that RIGHT NOW, we need more gun laws, shows that Lanza has struct some type of fear of the 'what ifs' that you and others are scrambling for stricter laws. I'm not sure what your point is. If Lanza is an anomaly then we have nothing to fear right? So why are we talking about gun laws?
Uhh, yes, the majority of mentally ill people are not violent. That doesn't mean that they should have easy access to guns. Is that really a difficult distinction to understand? I don't know if you are being purposefully dense or what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
Why you felt the need to point out that you are a lawyer is beyond me. Like your opinion holds more weight. Please.
I pointed out that I'm a lawyer because your earlier response had this smug "And you're a lawyer?" comment after your lousy argument. Also, you wrote about the "spirit of the second amendment" as if that actually means something, when it's pretty clear that you don't know very much about the jurisprudence surrounding this issue. That's right, I'm going to call out that kind of meaningless bs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
And this has nothing to do with a right wing blog or anyone thinking for me, to be honest you don't even know me to know what I think. This is common sense. You failed to explain to me, how these laws affect these young people getting into gangs. In one of the murders there were 5 suspects. Obvious gang activity. When there aren't guns, there are other things that these kids will be negatively influenced by, should we be trying to address that? Are you going to actually address this point or ignore it?
I didn't actually say that we don't have to do anything other than have stricter gun laws. I actually said that gun laws are only part of the solution. But like I said earlier, you don't want to have a conversation, you want to beat down the opposition with your overly long, badly written arguments. I actually hope that your posts are taken from what you've read on right-wing blogs because a lot of what you say is nonsense and I hope it's not something you came up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
An obvious typo but you are going to analyze everything I wrote so it is what it is.
Yes, it's called reading what you write and responding to it.
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.
