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.
how about we start to control the real root cause of gun violence? the crazy people and their irresponsible behavior? and no, this is not society's fault. its the fault of those crazy people. its the same pople who would kill others with guns, knives, axes, baseball bats, and with bare hands if they have to.
blaming guns for mass killings is like blaming spoons for fat people.
When is the last time you heard of someone killing 10, 20 people with a knife, their bare hands, or a baseball bat? Guns *facilitate* mass killings, of this there is no question. That said, it is, I think, reasonable that we restrict their use, that we have severe penalties for their misuse.
Mine isn't an unreasonable position. Most persons would, I think, agree that some guns, machine guns for example, should be banned.
I was born and raised in Philly and had the typical liberal view on guns, the fewer the better.
However, having lived here in Alaska for over 9 years, I must admit the liberal view is well meaning but totally wrong. Almost everyone here (including many unabashed liberals) own firearms (rifles, shotguns, and handguns), yet there are very few shootings because the truth is the problem is not the firearm, but whether the person with the firearm is an irresponsible dumb*ss.
Most of us liberals or progressives fail to realize and/or accept the cold, hard fact that no matter how many gun laws are passed, the criminal element is going to give law-abiding society the middle finger and do whatever they want to do. Most gun laws only succeed in preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means to defend themselves, if they so choose. If you don't want to own a firearm, then you should not compelled to do so, however, if choose to exercise my second amendment right, as recognized and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, to acquire a firearm/s to protect my family and me, then I should also be free to make that choice without anyone infringing on that right.
I was born and raised in Philly and had the typical liberal view on guns, the fewer the better.
However, having lived here in Alaska for over 9 years, I must admit the liberal view is well meaning but totally wrong. Almost everyone here (including many unabashed liberals) own firearms (rifles, shotguns, and handguns), yet there are very few shootings because the truth is the problem is not the firearm, but whether the person with the firearm is an irresponsible dumb*ss.
Most of us liberals or progressives fail to realize and/or accept the cold, hard fact that no matter how many gun laws are passed, the criminal element is going to give law-abiding society the middle finger and do whatever they want to do. Most gun laws only succeed in preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means to defend themselves, if they so choose. If you don't want to own a firearm, then you should not compelled to do so, however, if choose to exercise my second amendment right, as recognized and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, to acquire a firearm/s to protect my family and me, then I should also be free to make that choice without anyone infringing on that right.
What guns laws, as you say, are succeeding in preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means to defend themselves?
Feel free to start working on that constitutional amendment....
No, the citizens of Mexico may not have access to guns....but there is plenty of gun violence all over Mexico.
Yeah, I'm not going to prevent existing law from getting in the way of my independant thought. There have been 27 ammendments made to the US constitution already so yes, it can be done.
You might want to look at the facts as gun violence taking place in Mexico is extremely concentrated in the northern part of the country in the border towns. The area of Mexico I'm familiar with is actually quite a bit safer than the Twin Cities from a violent crime standpoint. Once again, the guns that people in Mexico are getting ahold of are all coming from the US....get rid of the guns and legalize drugs and the violence will go away. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.
Yeah, I'm not going to prevent existing law from getting in the way of my independant thought. There have been 27 ammendments made to the US constitution already so yes, it can be done.
You might want to look at the facts as gun violence taking place in Mexico is extremely concentrated in the northern part of the country in the border towns. The area of Mexico I'm familiar with is actually quite a bit safer than the Twin Cities from a violent crime standpoint. Once again, the guns that people in Mexico are getting ahold of are all coming from the US....get rid of the guns and legalize drugs and the violence will go away. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.
then you should be a #1 proponent of better control over US - Mexico border (tougher enforcement, bigger fences, more beefed up security, etc). something tells me you are going to be opposed to that because this is a republican stance.
in addition, what you are worried about is already illegal - international drug and gun trafficing. just by issuing yet another piece of paper that says something, you won't change a thing. hell, killing people is already illegal. what you are advocating for is merely screwing it up for the rest of us. for example, I am not even a gun owner (my wife is absolutely opposed to me storing a gun in our household -- for now at least), but I will be extremely upset if my freedom to go buy a gun at any moment is limited. I am law-abiding, sane, a tax payer, and a productive memeber of soceity, so I'll be damned if I can't exercise my legitimate constitutional right to go buy a firearm!
that said, I do agree that the only thing that may truly turn things around is legalization of drugs (similar to prohibition era gangsters experience) . not in our lifetimes, I am afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip_shakespeare
When is the last time you heard of someone killing 10, 20 people with a knife, their bare hands, or a baseball bat? Guns *facilitate* mass killings, of this there is no question. That said, it is, I think, reasonable that we restrict their use, that we have severe penalties for their misuse.
Mine isn't an unreasonable position. Most persons would, I think, agree that some guns, machine guns for example, should be banned.
OK lets turn your argument around. so you have a couple of thugs on the street (high out of their minds) running towards you and your family with giant machetes. what are you going to do if the **** hits the fan? dial 911? scream "but this is illegal!!!111"? use your elite karate skills to disarm a guy? pepper sprays are extremely ineffective, tasers are a one-shot weapon at best and wont work properly half the time, so what are you going to do? there is simply no way around it - for self defense and home defense nothing beats a good old pistol with JHP rounds. I realise what I said is a highly unlikely scenario, and this is true - majority of gun owners would never have to kill anyone in their life time. just the possibility alone that somebody may be armed is good enough deterrant for most criminals.
machineguns are already illegal in vast majority of states, and so are fully automatic assault rifles. it doesnt mean that a criminal cannot easily obtain one in the back alley though and go kill some people at his leisure. what you are advocating for is limiting other people's ability to protect themselves. the criminals and the psychos will find a way to obtain a gun either way. for every reported mass killing we have tons of unreported or under-reported cases of how gun owners prevented crimes and saved lives. it goes both ways.
Last edited by pzrOrange; 07-06-2012 at 07:40 AM..
What guns laws, as you say, are succeeding in preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means to defend themselves?
Here are just a few examples from the State of Maryland:
The Constitution of Maryland contains no provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Only handguns on the official handgun roster may be sold in the state.
Private sales of "regulated firearms," which includes handguns, are prohibited.
A person must obtain a safety training certificate prior to purchasing "regulated firearms" and present that certificate prior to each purchase.
With some limited exceptions, only one "regulated firearm" may be purchased in any 30-day period.
The Maryland State Police may issue a permit to carry a handgun at their discretion and based on an investigation.
Carrying a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is prohibited unless one has a permit to carry a handgun or is on their own property or their own place of business.
And from the State of New York:
New York is one of the strictest states in the nation with regards to the purchase, possession and carrying of handguns.
New York is a "may issue" state, in that the individual licensing official has wide latitude and discretion in the issuance of pistol licenses, and additionally, has the option of placing a variety of restrictions on the manner and purpose for which the handgun can be carried.
New York City, which is effectively a "no issue" jurisdiction for carry pistol licenses, has even stricter laws, including those regulating handguns exclusively kept at home.
The purchase of a handgunin New York State islimited to only those individuals who hold a valid pistol license issued by a county or major city within New York State and present to the seller a purchase document, issued by the licensing authority, with the specific make, model, caliber and serial number of the handgun indicated on the document.
The possession of a handgun in New York State is limited only to those individuals who hold a valid pistol license and are in possession of a registered handgun (one that appears on the license, indicating the specific make, model, caliber and serial number of the handgun).
The carry of a handgun in New York State is limited only to those individuals who hold a valid pistol license, possess a registered handgun, and are carrying said handgun in compliance with the restrictions as they appear on the license.
A pistol license is required to physically examine a handgun for purchase at a gun store or gun show.
After initial approval on the county level, the pistol license application is then passed on to the New York State Police for further approval. As part of the application process, the applicant will be required to ask friends or associates to act as personal references. These individuals may be required to fill out forms, varying in length by county, attesting to the applicant's 'good character.' Pistol licenses can take from less than four months to more than six months for approval, even though N.Y. law allows the licensing authorities no more than six months to process a license.
Restricted target or premises-only licenses are the licenses issued to average citizens who cannot show a need for self defense greater than any another average citizen. They are clearly marked: RESTRICTED - NOT FOR CARRY and require the licensee to obtain special permission from the NYPD License Bureau to leave the city with the handgun. Most licenses issued in New York City are for on-premises possession only, for self-defense within the home or business. Transporting the handgun (via a locked-box) to and from a target range must be done according to a strictly limited schedule pre-approved by the NYPD Licensing Bureau.
This is just a small sampling of gun laws that place an undue burden on law-abiding citizens from acquiring firearms in just two states.
ah yes, Baltimore and NYC... how are they doing from murders standpoint?
230+ a year in Baltimore, 530+ a year in New York, so what exactly do these additional restrictions do, if they are clearly failing to prevent deaths?
anyway...
Quote:
Thus far, handgun bans have failed to have any significant impact on murder rates because of the large number of handguns in circulation prior to the bans. Attempts to outlaw the manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because they stimulate the genesis of a black market for guns similar to the black market for drugs. Laws seeking to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, juveniles, and mental defectives have failed to reduce crime because active criminals either have guns already or can steal them. Waiting periods and background checks temporarily stop some criminals and juveniles from getting guns, but many steal them or get them through the black market.
On a national level, there doesn't appear to be much of a link between gun laws and rates of murder. Which is to say, both the most murderous state in the union (Louisiana) and the least-murderous (New Hampshire) have similar gun laws overall.
Which means that the differential must come from some other factor.
On a national level, there doesn't appear to be much of a link between gun laws and rates of murder. Which is to say, both the most murderous state in the union (Louisiana) and the least-murderous (New Hampshire) have similar gun laws overall.
Which means that the differential must come from some other factor.
I'm not advocating that we eliminate guns. They are, for better or worse, a part of our culture. I don't, though, think that making people jump through a few hoops to obtain one is unreasonable. For example, I see nothing wrong with waiting periods, background checks etc. The idea that we ought not have any laws regarding guns is, I think, extreme.
Statistically, you are more likely to be shot by your own gun than to defend yourself with it. That said, I'd simply rather not own one.
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.
. not in our lifetimes, I am afraid.
