D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

1…5681011…14

Comments

  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    Respondents might falsely provide a positive
    response to the DGU question for any of a number of
    reasons:

    o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
    heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.

    o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
    abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
    memories.

    o They may actually have used a gun defensively
    within the last couple of years but falsely report
    it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
    known as "telescoping."
    First, people who draw their guns to defend
    themselves against perceived threats are not
    necessarily innocent victims; they may have started
    fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken
    about whether the other persons really intended to
    harm them. Survey interviewers must take the
    respondent's word for what happened and why; a
    competent police investigation of the same incident
    would interview all parties before reaching a
    conclusion.

    for that same source.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    Collin wrote:
    When they design a car that is meant to kill, we'll talk. And I never spoke of outlawing.

    me neither Collin... just of tighter controls that match or better those in other countries that dont have this problem!
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    dunkman wrote:
    me neither Collin... just of tighter controls that match or better those in other countries that dont have this problem!
    What, specifically, are you looking for. We have many laws that aren't being properly enforced already. The only think new laws will do is potentially make criminals out of law abiding gun owners as they try to weave their way through our convoluted criminal code. I'd definitely be in favor of much stronger enforcement of existing law which should severely punish those who use firearms in the commission of crimes.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    innane wrote:
    but i guess as an aussie ill never understand the fascination.....we had a government buy back of guns here back when we had a massacre....it was for the better.....i cant remember the last time a mass shooting happened...

    What effect did your ban have on the crime rate?

    How much did this ban cost you/your gov't? How many guns were confiscated?

    Hint: this has already been covered in this thread. I'm glad you haven't had another mass shooting yet.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jeffbr wrote:
    How much did this ban cost you/your gov't? How many guns were confiscated?

    Hint: this has already been covered in this thread. I'm glad you haven't had another mass shooting yet.


    who gives a fuck about cost if it means lives are saved? seriously? i remember the Aussie gun amnesty brought in tons of guns.. i literally mean tons!! hopefully someone can answer you with figures!
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jeffbr wrote:
    What, specifically, are you looking for..


    for instance here in Scotland and i believe the UK, since Dunblane Massacre, it is illegal to own any handgun whatsoever..

    from cnn
    The deadline in Britain was part of the Firearms Amendment Act, which was introduced after a gunman killed 16 school children and their teacher in the Scottish town of Dunblane a year and a half ago.

    The ban tightens what was already one of the world's strictest gun laws. It took effect in July, but a grace period for the handover was extended until the end of this month.

    The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

    Britain had an estimated 200,000 legally-registered handguns, and the law will ban about four-fifths of them.



    interestingly i just read... "... In 1995, there were 81 homicides in Britain involving handguns" thats out of a population of some 56million (1/5 of the US) and the death rates of the US in 1994 were 17,000 as a result of gun-related homicides... thats a staggering comparison... one that will yet again be overlooked by the pro-gunners on here but i'll keep banging the drum :)
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jeffbr wrote:
    What, specifically, are you looking for. We have many laws that aren't being properly enforced already. The only think new laws will do is potentially make criminals out of law abiding gun owners as they try to weave their way through our convoluted criminal code. I'd definitely be in favor of much stronger enforcement of existing law which should severely punish those who use firearms in the commission of crimes.


    can i ask why people on the MT answer a question with a question rather than noting other peoples points or actually debating with them?
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    dunkman wrote:
    who gives a fuck about cost if it means lives are saved? seriously? i remember the Aussie gun amnesty brought in tons of guns.. i literally mean tons!! hopefully someone can answer you with figures!

    Ahh, the "if it save just one life it's worth it" argument. $500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns with no effect on crime rate (although there hasn't been another mass killing yet).
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    dunkman wrote:
    can i ask why people on the MT answer a question with a question rather than noting other peoples points or actually debating with them?

    I both asked a question and and noted a point suggesting enforcement of existing laws. In my other post I asked 2 questions, and referred to another post where the answers were covered. Although I was incorrect, the answers weren't in this gun thread, but rather in the last. Why did you only ask a question in this post?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dunkman wrote:

    interestingly i just read... "... In 1995, there were 81 homicides in Britain involving handguns" thats out of a population of some 56million (1/5 of the US) and the death rates of the US in 1994 were 17,000 as a result of gun-related homicides... thats a staggering comparison... one that will yet again be overlooked by the pro-gunners on here but i'll keep banging the drum :)

    17,000 in 1994 in the us; and hippiemom posted this a few pages back.

    According to the U.S. Justice Department, in 2004 (the last year for which statistics are available), there were 10,624 homicides committed with a gun, and 5,484 committed with all other weapons combined.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...weaponstab.htm

    so in 10 years the homicide rate dropped by almost 7,000. almost half.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    jeffbr wrote:
    Why did you only ask a question in this post?

    because i wasnt answering your post with a question but merely highlighting the fact that people answer questions with a question... i only quoted you to highlight that point... c'mon man, you knew that!!!
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    onelongsong wrote:
    17,000 in 1994 in the us; and hippiemom posted this a few pages back.

    According to the U.S. Justice Department, in 2004 (the last year for which statistics are available), there were 10,624 homicides committed with a gun, and 5,484 committed with all other weapons combined.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...weaponstab.htm

    so in 10 years the homicide rate dropped by almost 7,000. almost half.


    well thats commendable... only another 8000 or so fewer dead people and your figures will be in line with other countries
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dunkman wrote:
    but i'll keep banging the drum :)

    stop with the bloody drum already. you're wasting your time and giving us both a headache. the ONLY way to remove americans right is through revolution; or come pry them from our cold dead fingers.

    short of those two; you're wasting your time.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dunkman wrote:
    well thats commendable... only another 8000 or so fewer dead people and your figures will be in line with other countries

    yes; other countries feel much better that their murders are performed with different weapons. now explain why it's better that uk muggings and home invasions are up since the ban. how is more crime a better payoff?
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    onelongsong wrote:
    stop with the bloody drum already. you're wasting your time and giving us both a headache. the ONLY way to remove americans right is through revolution; or come pry them from our cold dead fingers.

    short of those two; you're wasting your time.

    and stop with the "cold dead" shite... its not even your line... its by some weather beaten actor with a penchant for monkeys

    you had you're right removed to own slaves and one day your archaic gun laws will go the same way... until that time continue killing each other by all means, just try not to aim for young toddlers faces as they are quite innocent in all of this..... but shoot each other all you wish, i live in a country without fear... and its good to be able to sleep at night knowing i dont have to keep a gun next to my bed to get an erection
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    onelongsong wrote:
    now explain why it's better that uk muggings and home invasions are up since the ban.

    proof?
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dunkman wrote:
    proof?

    someone posted the link/stats a few pages back.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    dunkman wrote:
    and stop with the "cold dead" shite... its not even your line... its by some weather beaten actor with a penchant for monkeys

    you had you're right removed to own slaves and one day your archaic gun laws will go the same way... until that time continue killing each other by all means, just try not to aim for young toddlers faces as they are quite innocent in all of this..... but shoot each other all you wish, i live in a country without fear... and its good to be able to sleep at night knowing i dont have to keep a gun next to my bed to get an erection

    which of the first 10 ammendments gave us the RIGHT to own slaves? and when was that ammendment changed? the first 10 ammendments are inalienable rights and can not be changed; except through revolution.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    onelongsong wrote:
    which of the first 10 ammendments gave us the RIGHT to own slaves? and when was that ammendment changed? the first 10 ammendments are inalienable rights and can not be changed; except through revolution.


    course they can be changed... they are words on a bit of paper..

    it was the 13th amendment.. .... officially abolished, and continues to prohibit, slavery, and, with limited exceptions such as those convicted of a crime, prohibits involuntary servitude...

    so prior to that point it was a "freedom", a "right" of yours to own and keep slaves... then they made an, key word here, amendment.. to prohibit slavery!!

    the 28th amendment will hopefully be an amendment to the 2nd amendment
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    dunkman wrote:
    for instance here in Scotland and i believe the UK, since Dunblane Massacre, it is illegal to own any handgun whatsoever..

    from cnn
    The deadline in Britain was part of the Firearms Amendment Act, which was introduced after a gunman killed 16 school children and their teacher in the Scottish town of Dunblane a year and a half ago.

    The ban tightens what was already one of the world's strictest gun laws. It took effect in July, but a grace period for the handover was extended until the end of this month.

    The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

    Britain had an estimated 200,000 legally-registered handguns, and the law will ban about four-fifths of them.



    interestingly i just read... "... In 1995, there were 81 homicides in Britain involving handguns" thats out of a population of some 56million (1/5 of the US) and the death rates of the US in 1994 were 17,000 as a result of gun-related homicides... thats a staggering comparison... one that will yet again be overlooked by the pro-gunners on here but i'll keep banging the drum :)
    You somehow fail to mention how the crime rates of other violent crimes in Great Britain have been rising since the gun ban, while the crime rate in the US has been falling within the same time period.

    “It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser"
    That quote has a lot of truth to it and the article published in 2003 that it came from is even more interesting. I suggest you read........this is just one of many that can be found stating the same statistics.
    http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

    Again, that is from one one of many interesting articles about the issue that show how more strict gun laws have not helped with violent crime rates............just because there is less gun crime in Great Britain does not mean that the crime rates have been decreasing. Any information I can find says that the violent crime rates have been increasing in Great Britain since 1996. I'm not even going to get into how Great Britain gathers its statistics and the difference of policies within the legal systems.

Categories