Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What is your gun-control and Ban beliefs?
You are for gun control but against bans on guns 19 14.50%
you are not for gun control but in favor for bans on guns 0 0%
you are for gun control and bans on certain guns 26 19.85%
you are against gun control and gun bans 60 45.80%
You are against "Assault weapons" in private ownership 28 21.37%
you are in favor of "Assault weapons" in private ownership 43 32.82%
You are against conceal carry 18 13.74%
you are with conceal carry 65 49.62%
you are against open carry 15 11.45%
you are with open carry 52 39.69%
You are against private ownership of handguns 6 4.58%
you are in favor of private ownership of handguns 74 56.49%
you are against private ownership of .50 caliber Barrett rifles 16 12.21%
you are in favor of private ownership of .50 caliber Barrett rifles 49 37.40%
you are in favor of the NFA act of 34 7 5.34%
you are against the NFA act of 34 19 14.50%
You are in favor for some type of gun registration 38 29.01%
you are against any type of gun registration 43 32.82%
You want all guns out of private ownership and only Leo and Military can have them 2 1.53%
you want all guns to be available to private ownership 53 40.46%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2007, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,404,380 times
Reputation: 6541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvana-Guy View Post
To me, Gun Control = hitting your target.

The US Constitution states that: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

This means that people (who make up the militias to defend the USA in times of need) has a RIGHT (not a priviledge) to keep and bear arms.

Don't forget that America was freed by armed citizens. The British were doing the gun ban thing and that is why the Founding Fathers made sure the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
We took it a step further in 1994, for the sake of clarity, in Alaska, by amending our state constitution, adding the following phrase to Article I, Section 19:

Quote:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.
You can own and/or carry any weapon you want in Alaska, even concealed weapons without the need for a permit. The amendment passed with 77% of the popular vote in favor.

Quote:
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. –George Washington
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2007, 01:14 PM
 
86 posts, read 146,541 times
Reputation: 52
"Gun control means hitting your target." Amen.

Cities with strict gun control laws (IE New York City, where even off duty cops can't carry guns), have the highest violent crime, rape, robbery, and murders (in numbers, the percentages are less because of the population of the city).

If you are going to rob someone, and you know there is a good chance they have a gun, because our country allows them to, aren't you going to stop and think "Hey, this guy might have a gun, and might shoot me when I get into his house." THAT stops crime, not taking the guns from law biding citizens. Those of you who want to take guns from law biding citizens, good luck. Bring an army of unarmed liberals, I'll be happy to shoot all of you to protect my right to bear arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 02:58 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,612,796 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
tnbound, look at the gun stats that I posted. Without access to guns, crime becomes less depersonalized, less violent, less period.

Let's try banning the guns and see how it affects crime first. I think that's the way I'd pursue your post. Nothing is 100% effective so that's a strawman argument. Try looking at the % that crime decreases. That's realistic.

Not sure where you got your stats, but for everytime you find a stat that supports gun control effectiveness, I can find one for showing crime rates go up when gun control is instituted.

As for me, I prefer not to become a statistic in a study as having a crime committed against me because of gun control. I do not use my firearms irresponsibly, and detest giving them up until I am assured there are no threats left to my or my family's safety. So that wasn't a "straw man" argument, it was a point. Get rid of crime where I can be positive I would never need a gun to defend myself, and then I MIGHT (but probably wouldn't) consider the idea of gun control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,239,057 times
Reputation: 11416
I live in Asia at the moment, and I've lived in Europe and the US as well. The US has a higher firearms mortality rate than the rest of the world. That's easily researched on google.

It is also a statistic that most houses that have guns end up with someone they know or a family member being harmed than any "intruder"... Are you living in an area where there are a lot of intruder crimes?

I'm on my way to work and, if I remember, will look up some of the data later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 03:48 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
tnbound, look at the gun stats that I posted. Without access to guns, crime becomes less depersonalized, less violent, less period.

Let's try banning the guns and see how it affects crime first. I think that's the way I'd pursue your post. Nothing is 100% effective so that's a strawman argument. Try looking at the % that crime decreases. That's realistic.
Personally, I like to go to the actual source of the data.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Weapons used (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm - broken link)

If you want to ride the "ban all the weapons", then I suggest you do the math yourself on the numbers. You might just be surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 03:58 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Not sure where you got your stats, but for everytime you find a stat that supports gun control effectiveness, I can find one for showing crime rates go up when gun control is instituted.

As for me, I prefer not to become a statistic in a study as having a crime committed against me because of gun control. I do not use my firearms irresponsibly, and detest giving them up until I am assured there are no threats left to my or my family's safety. So that wasn't a "straw man" argument, it was a point. Get rid of crime where I can be positive I would never need a gun to defend myself, and then I MIGHT (but probably wouldn't) consider the idea of gun control.
Thats the problem. Remember Mr. Moore and all his claims? He used correct statistics, but improper comparisons to achieve his conclusions. Things such as comparing "all deaths by firearms" (including those used in self defense, accident, Law enforcement, suicide, etc...) and then compared them with the statistics of other countries where he only used "homicides committed with a firearm". He did tricks like this with all of his "studies" and it was nothing more than propaganda. He even liked fudge with per-capita to get the results he wanted.

In these arguments, the best way to avoid "lying" from the sources is to go straight to the actual sources of each area and then do the math yourself to compare. The "omg ban guns" crowd either has a very poor math education or is prone to lying to get their point across.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 04:06 PM
 
646 posts, read 1,786,135 times
Reputation: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
"Gun control means hitting your target." Amen.

Cities with strict gun control laws (IE New York City, where even off duty cops can't carry guns), have the highest violent crime, rape, robbery, and murders (in numbers, the percentages are less because of the population of the city).

If you are going to rob someone, and you know there is a good chance they have a gun, because our country allows them to, aren't you going to stop and think "Hey, this guy might have a gun, and might shoot me when I get into his house." THAT stops crime, not taking the guns from law biding citizens. Those of you who want to take guns from law biding citizens, good luck. Bring an army of unarmed liberals, I'll be happy to shoot all of you to protect my right to bear arms.
NYC is one of the SAFEST big cities in the US. They rank quite low on murders for example - and of course you need to use a per capita number, it makes no sense otherwise.

The problem is that if someone think that the person in the house may have a gun, it just means that they will bring more powerful weapon and be sure to shoot first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,287,410 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
NYC is one of the SAFEST big cities in the US. They rank quite low on murders for example - and of course you need to use a per capita number, it makes no sense otherwise.

The problem is that if someone think that the person in the house may have a gun, it just means that they will bring more powerful weapon and be sure to shoot first.
The power of the weapon is immaterial. People killed by a .22 are just as dead as those hit by a nuclear bomb.

As far as shooting fist is concerned, the difference between a robbery conviction and a murder rap is clear, even to the illiterate humanoids who constitute the criminal class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 05:00 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,612,796 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Are you living in an area where there are a lot of intruder crimes?
Not particularly. But there is no better deterrent to a would be criminal trying to break in at night than a very loud click/click of a shotgun loading a shell into the firing chamber. My brother was able to get rid of a would be thief/assaulter simply by making that very distinct noise when someone was trying to get in late at night. His truck was in the shop, so I'm guessing they thought nobody was home.

Anyway, I prefer to take my own responsibility for myself. Gun control cutting crime is as big of a myth as the war on drugs cutting drug use. Its one big sick joke that does nothing but assault freedoms and libertys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2007, 05:30 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Not particularly. But there is no better deterrent to a would be criminal trying to break in at night than a very loud click/click of a shotgun loading a shell into the firing chamber. My brother was able to get rid of a would be thief/assaulter simply by making that very distinct noise when someone was trying to get in late at night. His truck was in the shop, so I'm guessing they thought nobody was home.

Anyway, I prefer to take my own responsibility for myself. Gun control cutting crime is as big of a myth as the war on drugs cutting drug use. Its one big sick joke that does nothing but assault freedoms and libertys.
Aye, I am responsible with my weapons. My wife and I both have certificates in training for competency (including the strict "Use of Force" cert from California when we lived there). We are legal and we take comfort in the freedom and ability to put our own protection in our own hands.

Having been around law enforcement, anyone who "relies" on them as a reactive protection mechanism is either stupid or already dead. They clean up and they warn people not to commit crimes, they rarely are there at the time of the crime to prevent something in progress.

I care for my weapons and keep them in safe working conditions. I am a responsible gun owner and a law abiding citizen. I will however NOT allow them to take my guns away. If they decide to do so, they force my hand and will have to murder my wife and I in order to take those rights away.

My question to those who wish so badly to take away my rights is: "Do you believe so strongly in your claim that you are willing to kill me to take away that right?" You had better be, because I am willing to do so to protect mine. Then again, most people would merely hide behind others to do their dirty work for them. They sure like to push the oppressive laws, but they want no part in enforcing their beliefs. /boggle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top