Jmus, I don't think you comprehended anything I said. Please tell me at what point I said I was proud to live in Houston? Please tell me where my solution is to do nothing? I could easily pick apart your comment, but I'm not going to. How about you just keep on keepin on your way, and I'll go mine. Your inability to sit at the grownups table has resorted in name calling, assumptions being used, and a lack of facts, and that really just doesn't make for a good discussion. I'm just going to ignore any of your comments on this thread.
"I could easily pick apart your comment, but I'm not going to." Why not? Isn't that what honest debate is, picking apart the other sides argument? Oh, that's right, its not worth my time or concern because, statistically speaking, what we're debating and discussing, is insignificant. Why bother?
The logic that more guns equal less crime is actually a wash. I've found multiple reports that swing either way on the matter. Some will say that according to their studies more guns equal more violence, others will state the opposite. Without digging to deep on it and spending a bunch of time going through the different conflicting reports, I just take it as a wash for right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll get bored and start looking into it further.
Disingenuous at its worst. "The logic"? Who's logic? And then to follow up with, "when I get around to it, I'll let you know." Lazy. Make a claim such as, "others will state the opposite." Post a link, cite the source. You've seen links for the opposite side of your argument. But maybe, when you can get around to it, you'll post links to yours. Yea, we know, the carnage is statistically insignificant to YOU. Wouldn't want to spend too much time on it, you have other things to do, I guess we should stop wasting your time with our concerns? Your post above is exactly what ails this country. Too lazy to care, doesn't affect me and the problem on its face is so insurmountable, there is no logical, fact based way to lessen, resolve, limit, the carnage. I'm so glad you've given up on (the) US. Nice. And "actually?" Really, have any sources you'd you like to site that back that claim up? More guns don't equate to more gun deaths? Hmmm, looking forward to seeing those sources so we can at least have an honest debate here. Go ahead, tell me to fire up the Google machine.
Peace.
Cosmos stated that punching holes in the NRA's logic that more guns equal less crime...
There's some links for you. I personally like to take the time to understand how conclusions are made, and not just take the headlines for what they read. Hence why I simply stated that there are conflicting articles on the subject. Fire up your google machine, and let's keep emotion out of it.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
Grandfather current gun owners in, no questions asked. Pass legislation that takes effect in 2 or 3 years. Yes, pass a questionnaire regarding your "state of mind." Any psych majors on here? What "solutions" do you disagree with? Or is it all of them, just say no? State your opposition. A bill was written and proposed after Newtown. What do you disagree with in that bill? Did states raise their drinking age to 21 overnight to stem drunk driving deaths? Did automobiles get safer overnight? How about air travel or any other travel for that matter? Maybe, just maybe, my great grand kids won't have to duck and cover and shelter in place or worry about getting a cap in the movie theater, shopping mall, grocery store or just walking down the street. But maybe its just so insignificant of a problem, statistically speaking, that I'm overly emotional? Or maybe I need to move? Or ask my community what the problem is? Yea ha, Texas! Land of the free, home of the Alamo and Rick Perry and GWB!
Peace.
Way to emotional dude. And what is with this Texas thing? Ahh, I guess since I live in Texas I'm just a gun toting no regulation needed, Wild West kind of gunslinger that rides a horse to work? I'm pretty sure I've stated my opposition. Statistically limiting magazine rounds does nothing. Registration does nothing. I clearly said I was in favor of background checks for all fire arms. If you want to go the route of taking a psych test in order to purchase a gun, it raises the question of how many times after the purchase? If it's once a year, what happens if someone uses a gun to kill someone, do we make it semi annually? Let's say in that 6 month window a person kills someone, do we make it quarterly and ect ect? I stand by my comments that the proposed ideas aren't feasible , will have very limited effects, and that there isn't a simple solution. Guess us down here in Texas, the pro gun people that we are, learned reading and comprehending. Fire up that google machine.
Out of hand this is. The debate ends with the 2nd amendment. How to legislate is already seven pages deep. Productivity is at zero. Getting angry is fruitless.
Breitbart? Really? That’s one of your “sources?” Well, okay then. The screaming headline is entitled, “Congressional Study: Murder Rate Plummets As Gun Ownership Soars.” The article goes on to posit that the reason the murder rate has plummeted is because gun sales have soared and it links to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. However, CRS reports by their nature do not draw conclusions. They just report facts around a question asked by Congress members and their staffs. They offer a lot of background information about or surrounding a particular issue that congress may be considering, in this instance gun control legislation. And while it is true that crime rates did go down while the number of firearms sold went up, it does not prove that increased guns were the sole determining factor of why this is so. The article and the studies this article relied upon make no mention of other factors that may have lead to lower crime rates. Factors such as: an improved economy during the Clinton years, the waning of the crack epidemic, lower unemployment and an economy at almost full employment during the Clinton Administration, longer jail terms for violent offenders and minimum, longer sentences for drug and violent crimes, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, and dare I say as some right wing pundits did, higher numbers of abortion. This article relies on the single factor of higher gun sales as the sole reason for the decline in crime but doesn’t mention that while gun sales and the importation of fire arms nearly doubled, the number of households reporting possession of fire arms actually declined. Of the 118 page CRS report issued on November 14, 2012, I gleaned these nuggets:
• The increases and decreases in non-firearm murder rates from 1993 to 2011 were of a lesser magnitude than fire arm related murder rates (pages 14-15) • Gun related fatalities, for all ages, dropped from 39,500 (I rounded) in 1993 to 31,300 in 2009 (page 16) • Gun related fatalities for juveniles fell from 3,200 in 1993 to 1,300 in 2009 (page 17) • It is unclear whether the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004, if it had been in place, would have prevented the Aurora, CO movie shooter from possessing and using the 100 round barrel clip (page 45) • During the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004, there was a steady decrease in gun related deaths but then they ticked back up from 2004, when the ban expired, to 2008, (page 16) • AK, AZ, WY AND VT have CC laws that don’t require a permit. CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KN, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO,MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY have shall issue CC laws with less restrictions than states that have more restrictions on CC but issue CC permits: CA, DE, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI (page 48) • Concealed Carry Permit Holders killed 11 law enforcement officers, 375 private citizens, committed 20 mass shootings and 29 murder/suicides between May 2007 and October 25, 2011 (page 49) • The NRA claimed that states with concealed carry laws had on average had lower violent crime rate (22%) than states that did not. However, the NRA admitted that the data was for 2004 only, from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and just for that year (page 49) • The shooting in Tucson, AZ in which Gabriel Giffords was gravely injured, the shooter had two 33 round clips with 31 bullets loaded. He fired all 31 shots killing 6 and injuring 13 before being tackled while he tried to reload. High capacity magazines were previously banned during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 (page 84) • A 1997 survey of 203,300 of state and federal prisoners showed that 2%, or 4,066, had used an assault weapon in the crime for which they were imprisoned (page 98)
Your next nugget of scholarly research that you cite is from Infowars gem Paul Joseph Watson, shill for Alex Jones whose article blathers on about comparing violent crime in Great Britain, Scotland, India, Australia and Switzerland to the United States and tries to make the comparison that violent crime is high in those countries because gun ownership is banned or highly regulated. But we're not discussing all violent crime, just deaths caused by guns and whether more guns equates to less crime. Again, the article makes a lot of statements but doesn’t address other underlying issues.
Then the gem of all gems of links to back your argument, a “paper” or “scholarly research” that claims that more guns = less crime. I won’t surmise my dismissal of this fraud as the following links will provide plenty of fodder for why this fraud has been discredited and his research is bunk. There is a reason he is no longer at the University of Chicago and its not because he conducted scholarly research with valid data:
And your final link to back your argument is an article that relies heavily upon the aforementioned fraud noted above and has the following on page 12: “Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States’ approach are the most important, or whether all three elements acting in concert were necessary to reduce violent crimes.” It also appears to discuss “banning” firearms. Again, not the topic of this thread nor the debate thus far. I don’t recall anyone advocating for a ban of firearms in the 7 pages of this thread. And I certainly don’t advocate the banning of firearms.
I go back to my original argument, that states with high firearm ownership rates AND lax gun laws, have higher rates of firearm deaths:
If you compare the states listed in the CRS that have permissive CC laws or reciprocity laws with the map above you’ll notice the correlation.
We do, however, both agree that background checks should be required. As for licensing, to answer your question, it should be renewed at a minimum every 5 or 3 years, like a driver’s license. You wouldn’t want a blind person driving and I wouldn’t want a blind person legally authorized to have a gun. After a certain age or time period, you would have to pass a gun range test and provide a medical certificate that your fit to own a fire arm. A mental health check up if you will. I’ll take a crack at drafting a bill, minus the legalese, of the what and how a revised Gun Control Act might look like.
I highly recommend reading the CRS report as its chock full of interesting facts surrounding the gun control debate. But for me, the fact that the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968 and hasn’t been overhauled to catch up with the 21st century is ridiculous. I’ll read it again and cite those bills that have been introduced since Newtown and prior that were, for one reason or another, not passed and other aspects of the discussion that I agree with and would like to see implemented in an effort to reduce the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured by firearms in the US every year. For me, to say its statistically insignificant or too much of a challenge to change is not acceptable.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
Grandfather current gun owners in, no questions asked. Pass legislation that takes effect in 2 or 3 years. Yes, pass a questionnaire regarding your "state of mind." Any psych majors on here? What "solutions" do you disagree with? Or is it all of them, just say no? State your opposition. A bill was written and proposed after Newtown. What do you disagree with in that bill? Did states raise their drinking age to 21 overnight to stem drunk driving deaths? Did automobiles get safer overnight? How about air travel or any other travel for that matter? Maybe, just maybe, my great grand kids won't have to duck and cover and shelter in place or worry about getting a cap in the movie theater, shopping mall, grocery store or just walking down the street. But maybe its just so insignificant of a problem, statistically speaking, that I'm overly emotional? Or maybe I need to move? Or ask my community what the problem is? Yea ha, Texas! Land of the free, home of the Alamo and Rick Perry and GWB!
Peace.
Way to emotional dude. And what is with this Texas thing? Ahh, I guess since I live in Texas I'm just a gun toting no regulation needed, Wild West kind of gunslinger that rides a horse to work? I'm pretty sure I've stated my opposition. Statistically limiting magazine rounds does nothing. Registration does nothing. I clearly said I was in favor of background checks for all fire arms. If you want to go the route of taking a psych test in order to purchase a gun, it raises the question of how many times after the purchase? If it's once a year, what happens if someone uses a gun to kill someone, do we make it semi annually? Let's say in that 6 month window a person kills someone, do we make it quarterly and ect ect? I stand by my comments that the proposed ideas aren't feasible , will have very limited effects, and that there isn't a simple solution. Guess us down here in Texas, the pro gun people that we are, learned reading and comprehending. Fire up that google machine.
A few questions:
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
You read it all, followed the links, looked at the data relating gun violence and gun ownership and lax vs strict gun control, read his argument for increased background checks and licensing, and that's what you take away from it? Your response is so insightful and productive!
Nope, he can't even get the most basic terminology correct. I can't take anyone serious who can't take the time to figure that sort of thing out. It's really difficult to make a case when one shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. The rest is just copy/paste.
Anyone that wants to take the time to present their argument should know what they are arguing for/against.
It's why groups like moms for gun sense aren't taken seriously. They argue with emotions, not facts.
Nope, he can't even get the most basic terminology correct. I can't take anyone serious who can't take the time to figure that sort of thing out. It's really difficult to make a case when one shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. The rest is just copy/paste.
Anyone that wants to take the time to present their argument should know what they are arguing for/against.
It's why groups like moms for gun sense aren't taken seriously. They argue with emotions, not facts.
so let me get this straight; someone says clip rather than magazine and it invalidates their opinion? Come on, thats weak sauce! Not everybody is a gun nut who requires precise technical terms. If using the improper technical jargon is that damning, I might have to look back through your posts on AMT and I'll just bet I can invalidate plenty of your arguements. You KNOW clip is the "lay" term for magazine, snigger away, but don't act like you can dismiss the rest on that flimsy basis.
Nope, he can't even get the most basic terminology correct. I can't take anyone serious who can't take the time to figure that sort of thing out. It's really difficult to make a case when one shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. The rest is just copy/paste.
Anyone that wants to take the time to present their argument should know what they are arguing for/against.
It's why groups like moms for gun sense aren't taken seriously. They argue with emotions, not facts.
so let me get this straight; someone says clip rather than magazine and it invalidates their opinion? Come on, thats weak sauce! Not everybody is a gun nut who requires precise technical terms. If using the improper technical jargon is that damning, I might have to look back through your posts on AMT and I'll just bet I can invalidate plenty of your arguements. You KNOW clip is the "lay" term for magazine, snigger away, but don't act like you can dismiss the rest on that flimsy basis.
I said "clip" once in a message discussing guns years ago and got the same snarky response. I find that funny since one of my friends who is actually pretty responsible with guns and has an arsenal of his own, calls them clips too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines can be removable (detachable) or integral to the firearm. The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often referred to as a clip, although this is technically inaccurate.[1][2][3] High-Magazine Clip Capacity | National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338025/high-magazine-clip-capacity-michael-walsh 1any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook 2 : a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm 3 : a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip
It would appear that the term “clip” is used interchangeably with “magazine.” However, technically, this is incorrect. If you read page 84 of the CRS report you would clearly see and understand that I replaced the word(s) “magazine” with “clip.” I apologize for my typing laziness and the resultant substitution of words (snicker, snicker). I still stand by my argument.
I would also argue that the explosion of cell phone usage in the US between 1992 and 2010 may also have contributed to the decline in firearm related deaths.
Nope, he can't even get the most basic terminology correct. I can't take anyone serious who can't take the time to figure that sort of thing <blockquote class="Quote"
Is there any kind of "cheap shot award" on this forum? Cuz I really think we might have a winner here.
You are weakening your own case, Unsung. He didn't take the time to figure things out?
Hey man, I apologize, was traveling for work and just now being able to relax and check this thread.
I will say first, why do you sound like such a dick when you are trying to make your points?
2) I posted links earlier that had the opposite view that someone stated. I admitted that I didn't have the time to check the validity of them, which you called me lazy and said that's the problem, no one cares. I paraphrased your point. I would also like to point out that you posted links earlier, in which you ultimately had to admit that they the posted contradictory information.
3) can you define for me what an "assault" weapon is?
4) banning guns does make murder rates of the use of gun go down, (I think, again a lot of hazy info on it) but why does overall violent crimes go up? Is that a good trade off?
5) you use the facts of the decline in gun homicides from 1993 -2009, but you credit it to the assault weapons ban that expired in 2005.
6) you use a prison survey. Google a prison survey if the criminals were concerned about their potential victims owning a fire arm.
7) you discredit my use of CRS but then you sight CRS to make your points?
8) what exactly is your point? What are you trying to argue?
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
The evil weapon that anti's are afraid of is the AR-15. It has been proved to be used in less than 1% of gun crime. Chicago had over 500 murders two years ago and only ONE was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
So why is it the mission of liberals to ban that firearm that is really never used illegally? Why are you afraid of it?
The evil weapon that anti's are afraid of is the AR-15. It has been proved to be used in less than 1% of gun crime. Chicago had over 500 murders two years ago and only ONE was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
So why is it the mission of liberals to ban that firearm that is really never used illegally? Why are you afraid of it?
does that stat reflect single, one victim shootings?
seems like every mass shooting with multiple deaths and wounded has a weapon like this.
you are not going to stop every single victim shooting, but you can prevent the mass ones that use weapons like this.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
libs don't like AR's because they are DESIGNED to deliver massive death in a maneuverable, reliable way. AR's are not made for hunting, or self-defense, they are intended for offensive operations. I hate AR's because they glorify war and make responsible "non-obsessed" gun owners look bad. That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
libs don't like AR's because they are DESIGNED to deliver massive death in a maneuverable, reliable way. AR's are not made for hunting, or self-defense, they are intended for offensive operations. I hate AR's because they glorify war and make responsible "non-obsessed" gun owners look bad. That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
But given their design and purpose... is there any need for them given the risk they carry and the mayhem they generate? They are at the core of some of your country's biggest national tragedies.
I agree that the handgun is the big problem with regards to your gun problem, but safeguarding future classrooms and movie theaters at the expense of shooting a really cool gun at beer cans at the local landfill seems reasonable.
why not just put metal detectors up at every public place?? that way no guns go into an area where they shouldn't go. like a school, or a bar, or an airport, etc.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
libs don't like AR's because they are DESIGNED to deliver massive death in a maneuverable, reliable way. AR's are not made for hunting, or self-defense, they are intended for offensive operations. I hate AR's because they glorify war and make responsible "non-obsessed" gun owners look bad. That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
The US Department of Homeland Security would disagree with you. On one of their latest purchases the rifles were line item 'personal defense firearm'.
why not just put metal detectors up at every public place?? that way no guns go into an area where they shouldn't go. like a school, or a bar, or an airport, etc.
Or we could just put up signs that say "gun free zone", that'll work... oh wait.
libs don't like AR's because they are DESIGNED to deliver massive death in a maneuverable, reliable way. AR's are not made for hunting, or self-defense, they are intended for offensive operations. I hate AR's because they glorify war and make responsible "non-obsessed" gun owners look bad. That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
But given their design and purpose... is there any need for them given the risk they carry and the mayhem they generate? They are at the core of some of your country's biggest national tragedies.
I agree that the handgun is the big problem with regards to your gun problem, but safeguarding future classrooms and movie theaters at the expense of shooting a really cool gun at beer cans at the local landfill seems reasonable.
So when the next crazy uses a handgun like that idiot in Arizona are you going to call for a ban?
What about a stabbing spree like what recently happened in China? Ban all knives?
libs don't like AR's because they are DESIGNED to deliver massive death in a maneuverable, reliable way. AR's are not made for hunting, or self-defense, they are intended for offensive operations. I hate AR's because they glorify war and make responsible "non-obsessed" gun owners look bad. That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
But given their design and purpose... is there any need for them given the risk they carry and the mayhem they generate? They are at the core of some of your country's biggest national tragedies.
I agree that the handgun is the big problem with regards to your gun problem, but safeguarding future classrooms and movie theaters at the expense of shooting a really cool gun at beer cans at the local landfill seems reasonable.
So when the next crazy uses a handgun like that idiot in Arizona are you going to call for a ban?
What about a stabbing spree like what recently happened in China? Ban all knives?
Seriously where does the knee-jerk lunacy stop?
Speaking of lunacy... geez, man.
I've been calling for greater restrictions on handguns since my very first post with regards to this issue. One shouldn't be able to buy a handgun from 7-11. And not everyone should own a handgun.
Knives have multiple purposes and their ability to inflict damage compared to the AR-15 is significantly lower. If that little pencil-necked geek, Lanza, had a knife instead of an AR-15... your country wouldn't have the Sandy Hook calamity on its resume like it does now.
Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.
And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.
And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
You don't know that for certain.
He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.
Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.
And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
You don't know that for certain.
He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.
*looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*
How exactly is it 'punishing' the law abiding? You could still shoot stuff with some other guns.
Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.
And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
You don't know that for certain. He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things. All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't. *looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*
... Wait... are you talking about Adam Lanza... did he commit 35 felonies prior to murdering those children? What felonies did Adam Lanza commit before his murderous spree? ... i think the Newton case points out a lot of what is in this discussion. Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding citizen. She obtained these weapons by legal means. She didn't buy the guns for her son. By definition you can call her a responsible gun owner. Where that definition fails in the fact that her son, Adam, had access to those same weapons. ... What we saw was that there is a requirement for all gun ownser to fully secure all of his weapons from family members... or have full control over his family members in order to be responsible for his own gun. Mrs/ Lanza could have either locked away all of her guns from her son... either in a gun safe where she held both of the keys or storge them offsite, away from the home she shared with her son... or sold off the guns until her son was out of the house. That... is being responsible.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/03/Congressional-Research-Service-More-Guns-Less-Crime
http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/
There's some links for you. I personally like to take the time to understand how conclusions are made, and not just take the headlines for what they read. Hence why I simply stated that there are conflicting articles on the subject. Fire up your google machine, and let's keep emotion out of it.
Wind this thing up.
Breitbart? Really? That’s one of your “sources?” Well, okay then. The screaming headline is entitled, “Congressional Study: Murder Rate Plummets As Gun Ownership Soars.” The article goes on to posit that the reason the murder rate has plummeted is because gun sales have soared and it links to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. However, CRS reports by their nature do not draw conclusions. They just report facts around a question asked by Congress members and their staffs. They offer a lot of background information about or surrounding a particular issue that congress may be considering, in this instance gun control legislation. And while it is true that crime rates did go down while the number of firearms sold went up, it does not prove that increased guns were the sole determining factor of why this is so. The article and the studies this article relied upon make no mention of other factors that may have lead to lower crime rates. Factors such as: an improved economy during the Clinton years, the waning of the crack epidemic, lower unemployment and an economy at almost full employment during the Clinton Administration, longer jail terms for violent offenders and minimum, longer sentences for drug and violent crimes, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, and dare I say as some right wing pundits did, higher numbers of abortion. This article relies on the single factor of higher gun sales as the sole reason for the decline in crime but doesn’t mention that while gun sales and the importation of fire arms nearly doubled, the number of households reporting possession of fire arms actually declined. Of the 118 page CRS report issued on November 14, 2012, I gleaned these nuggets:
• The increases and decreases in non-firearm murder rates from 1993 to 2011 were of a lesser magnitude than fire arm related murder rates (pages 14-15)
• Gun related fatalities, for all ages, dropped from 39,500 (I rounded) in 1993 to 31,300 in 2009 (page 16)
• Gun related fatalities for juveniles fell from 3,200 in 1993 to 1,300 in 2009 (page 17)
• It is unclear whether the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004, if it had been in place, would have prevented the Aurora, CO movie shooter from possessing and using the 100 round barrel clip (page 45)
• During the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004, there was a steady decrease in gun related deaths but then they ticked back up from 2004, when the ban expired, to 2008, (page 16)
• AK, AZ, WY AND VT have CC laws that don’t require a permit. CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KN, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO,MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY have shall issue CC laws with less restrictions than states that have more restrictions on CC but issue CC permits: CA, DE, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI (page 48)
• Concealed Carry Permit Holders killed 11 law enforcement officers, 375 private citizens, committed 20 mass shootings and 29 murder/suicides between May 2007 and October 25, 2011 (page 49)
• The NRA claimed that states with concealed carry laws had on average had lower violent crime rate (22%) than states that did not. However, the NRA admitted that the data was for 2004 only, from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and just for that year (page 49)
• The shooting in Tucson, AZ in which Gabriel Giffords was gravely injured, the shooter had two 33 round clips with 31 bullets loaded. He fired all 31 shots killing 6 and injuring 13 before being tackled while he tried to reload. High capacity magazines were previously banned during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 (page 84)
• A 1997 survey of 203,300 of state and federal prisoners showed that 2%, or 4,066, had used an assault weapon in the crime for which they were imprisoned (page 98)
Your next nugget of scholarly research that you cite is from Infowars gem Paul Joseph Watson, shill for Alex Jones whose article blathers on about comparing violent crime in Great Britain, Scotland, India, Australia and Switzerland to the United States and tries to make the comparison that violent crime is high in those countries because gun ownership is banned or highly regulated. But we're not discussing all violent crime, just deaths caused by guns and whether more guns equates to less crime. Again, the article makes a lot of statements but doesn’t address other underlying issues.
Then the gem of all gems of links to back your argument, a “paper” or “scholarly research” that claims that more guns = less crime. I won’t surmise my dismissal of this fraud as the following links will provide plenty of fodder for why this fraud has been discredited and his research is bunk. There is a reason he is no longer at the University of Chicago and its not because he conducted scholarly research with valid data:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/25/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lotts-failed-at/192391
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/gun_policy_fraudster_john_lott036987.php
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/ayres_donohue_article.pdf
And your final link to back your argument is an article that relies heavily upon the aforementioned fraud noted above and has the following on page 12: “Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States’ approach are the most important, or whether all three elements acting in concert were necessary to reduce violent crimes.” It also appears to discuss “banning” firearms. Again, not the topic of this thread nor the debate thus far. I don’t recall anyone advocating for a ban of firearms in the 7 pages of this thread. And I certainly don’t advocate the banning of firearms.
I go back to my original argument, that states with high firearm ownership rates AND lax gun laws, have higher rates of firearm deaths:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/230867/this-is-why-i-need-an-ar-15-with-30rd-mags/p6
If you compare the states listed in the CRS that have permissive CC laws or reciprocity laws with the map above you’ll notice the correlation.
We do, however, both agree that background checks should be required. As for licensing, to answer your question, it should be renewed at a minimum every 5 or 3 years, like a driver’s license. You wouldn’t want a blind person driving and I wouldn’t want a blind person legally authorized to have a gun. After a certain age or time period, you would have to pass a gun range test and provide a medical certificate that your fit to own a fire arm. A mental health check up if you will. I’ll take a crack at drafting a bill, minus the legalese, of the what and how a revised Gun Control Act might look like.
I highly recommend reading the CRS report as its chock full of interesting facts surrounding the gun control debate. But for me, the fact that the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968 and hasn’t been overhauled to catch up with the 21st century is ridiculous. I’ll read it again and cite those bills that have been introduced since Newtown and prior that were, for one reason or another, not passed and other aspects of the discussion that I agree with and would like to see implemented in an effort to reduce the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured by firearms in the US every year. For me, to say its statistically insignificant or too much of a challenge to change is not acceptable.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Anyone that wants to take the time to present their argument should know what they are arguing for/against.
It's why groups like moms for gun sense aren't taken seriously. They argue with emotions, not facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip
A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines can be removable (detachable) or integral to the firearm. The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often referred to as a clip, although this is technically inaccurate.[1][2][3]
High-Magazine Clip Capacity | National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338025/high-magazine-clip-capacity-michael-walsh
1any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
2
: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
3
: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip
It would appear that the term “clip” is used interchangeably with “magazine.” However, technically, this is incorrect. If you read page 84 of the CRS report you would clearly see and understand that I replaced the word(s) “magazine” with “clip.” I apologize for my typing laziness and the resultant substitution of words (snicker, snicker). I still stand by my argument.
I would also argue that the explosion of cell phone usage in the US between 1992 and 2010 may also have contributed to the decline in firearm related deaths.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I will say first, why do you sound like such a dick when you are trying to make your points?
2) I posted links earlier that had the opposite view that someone stated. I admitted that I didn't have the time to check the validity of them, which you called me lazy and said that's the problem, no one cares. I paraphrased your point. I would also like to point out that you posted links earlier, in which you ultimately had to admit that they the posted contradictory information.
3) can you define for me what an "assault" weapon is?
4) banning guns does make murder rates of the use of gun go down, (I think, again a lot of hazy info on it) but why does overall violent crimes go up? Is that a good trade off?
5) you use the facts of the decline in gun homicides from 1993 -2009, but you credit it to the assault weapons ban that expired in 2005.
6) you use a prison survey. Google a prison survey if the criminals were concerned about their potential victims owning a fire arm.
7) you discredit my use of CRS but then you sight CRS to make your points?
8) what exactly is your point? What are you trying to argue?
A few questions:
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
So why is it the mission of liberals to ban that firearm that is really never used illegally? Why are you afraid of it?
seems like every mass shooting with multiple deaths and wounded has a weapon like this.
you are not going to stop every single victim shooting, but you can prevent the mass ones that use weapons like this.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That being said, banning AR's doesn't affect gun death rates very much as the overwelming majority of cases involve handguns.
I agree that the handgun is the big problem with regards to your gun problem, but safeguarding future classrooms and movie theaters at the expense of shooting a really cool gun at beer cans at the local landfill seems reasonable.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The US Department of Homeland Security would disagree with you. On one of their latest purchases the rifles were line item 'personal defense firearm'.
Or we could just put up signs that say "gun free zone", that'll work... oh wait.
What about a stabbing spree like what recently happened in China? Ban all knives?
Seriously where does the knee-jerk lunacy stop?
I've been calling for greater restrictions on handguns since my very first post with regards to this issue. One shouldn't be able to buy a handgun from 7-11. And not everyone should own a handgun.
Knives have multiple purposes and their ability to inflict damage compared to the AR-15 is significantly lower. If that little pencil-necked geek, Lanza, had a knife instead of an AR-15... your country wouldn't have the Sandy Hook calamity on its resume like it does now.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.
*looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*
Wait... are you talking about Adam Lanza... did he commit 35 felonies prior to murdering those children? What felonies did Adam Lanza commit before his murderous spree?
...
i think the Newton case points out a lot of what is in this discussion.
Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding citizen. She obtained these weapons by legal means. She didn't buy the guns for her son.
By definition you can call her a responsible gun owner.
Where that definition fails in the fact that her son, Adam, had access to those same weapons.
...
What we saw was that there is a requirement for all gun ownser to fully secure all of his weapons from family members... or have full control over his family members in order to be responsible for his own gun.
Mrs/ Lanza could have either locked away all of her guns from her son... either in a gun safe where she held both of the keys or storge them offsite, away from the home she shared with her son... or sold off the guns until her son was out of the house. That... is being responsible.
Hail, Hail!!!