D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

jeffbr wrote:

What means might they be?

Police may or may not be effective after a crime has been committed, but can provide no security or protection beforehand.

But please, enumerate those means by which the government will provide security and protection for each individual.

A - instead of spending x billion dollars securing the freedom of Iraqis (read: invading Iraq for oil), they could educate and empower the poorest 10 percent of Americans. This alone would do wonders. I have no statistics but I would bet the poorest 10 percent of America is responsible for 90 percent of violent crime. Make life better for the weakest link, and the chain as a whole becomes stronger.

B - get guns off the street. Through financial incentive or tax incentive or cash for guns or whatever.

C - Increased sentences for violent crimes or crimes where weapons are involved. Use Singapore as an example if you need a visualization. The current justice system in America is one of the biggest jokes in history.

D - Tax and tariff the HELL out of importers. So much of American unemployment (which is related to poverty and violence) is because many of your jobs for the least educated sector of workers are in....Mexico? China? Japan? India? HELLO PEOPLE WAKE THE FUCK UP. If an American company cannot find a business model that supports Americans, then they can go belly up and make room for a competitor that can.


Need I continue? ...because I can if you want.


As for the bit about police, that's true. Police are largely ineffective before a crime happens. However if you eliminate/reduce the overall need to commit a crime, you will see a lot less crimes, and many more happy Americans. Again, it won't happen overnight, but if change is not initiated, it will never happen.

Derrick wrote:

You might be surprised what could happen if you instill enough fear into the masses. Well, maybe you wouldn't be surprised.

I am definitely not surprised by the power of fear. Look at all of the global warming threads polluting this board.

Derrick wrote:

You might be equally surprised if you could see what happens if you improve the education system as a whole.

I would love to improve the education system. If the government and teachers' unions would move the hell out of the way, maybe we could educate a kid.

zstillings wrote:

When used irresponsibly and illegally, it causes personal injury or death. Knives do this. Golf balls do this. Bowling balls do this. Televisions do this. Computers do this. You get the point. All of these things, when used improperly, can cause injury or death.

all of the above with the exception of a gun were not designed to kill other human beings...

you're last line is telling as it shows that anything used improperly can be a killing machine... but the gun is the only thing when used properly is a killing machine... your comparison are therefore night and day, apples and oranges, etc etc.. ie nonsensical

Derrick wrote:

A - instead of spending x billion dollars securing the freedom of Iraqis (read: invading Iraq for oil), they could educate and empower the poorest 10 percent of Americans. This alone would do wonders. I have no statistics but I would bet the poorest 10 percent of America is responsible for 90 percent of violent crime. Make life better for the weakest link, and the chain as a whole becomes stronger.

I would love to not be spending x billion dollars in Iraq. I'd love to have that money returned to its rightful owners.

We already provide publicly funded education for not only the poorest 10 percent, but for every American. Nobody is denied a public education based on income level.

Derrick wrote:

B - get guns off the street. Through financial incentive or tax incentive or cash for guns or whatever.

I've never seen evidence that this would work. I know that Australia spent half a BILLION dollars getting 600,000 weapons off the street with no effect on the crime rate. For many people, financial incentive won't work with a gun buyback. No way you can get all of the guns off of the street without a high level of government coersion. And only the law-abiding citizens will be giving up their guns. This wouldn't address the criminal element at all.

Derrick wrote:

C - Increased sentences for violent crimes or crimes where weapons are involved. Use Singapore as an example if you need a visualization. The current justice system in America is one of the biggest jokes in history.

I completely agree and have said as much in a previous post. I am absolutely in favor of this.

Derrick wrote:

D - Tax and tariff the HELL out of importers. So much of American unemployment (which is related to poverty and violence) is because many of your jobs for the least educated sector of workers are in....Mexico? China? Japan? India? HELLO PEOPLE WAKE THE FUCK UP. If an American company cannot find a business model that supports Americans, then they can go belly up and make room for a competitor that can.

Taxes and tariffs will only result in cost increases of products here. That will also negatively impact the poor. Why are we losing jobs overseas? Look at auto workers and their unions for a prime example. Same thing with textile workers.

Derrick wrote:

Need I continue? ...because I can if you want.

I believe you can. But so far I remain unconvinced that the government can achieve what you think it can.

zstillings wrote:

Guns used for sport are not used to kill other people. Neither are bowling balls. Hell, golf balls are nothing more than tiny cannonballs. Your hatred and fear of guns is seriously clouding your judgment here.

You're acting like bowling balls or golf balls are as lethal as guns, even though you know it's not true, the comparison is ridiculous.

Derrick wrote:

A - instead of spending x billion dollars securing the freedom of Iraqis (read: invading Iraq for oil), they could educate and empower the poorest 10 percent of Americans. This alone would do wonders. I have no statistics but I would bet the poorest 10 percent of America is responsible for 90 percent of violent crime. Make life better for the weakest link, and the chain as a whole becomes stronger.

B - get guns off the street. Through financial incentive or tax incentive or cash for guns or whatever.

C - Increased sentences for violent crimes or crimes where weapons are involved. Use Singapore as an example if you need a visualization. The current justice system in America is one of the biggest jokes in history.

D - Tax and tariff the HELL out of importers. So much of American unemployment (which is related to poverty and violence) is because many of your jobs for the least educated sector of workers are in....Mexico? China? Japan? India? HELLO PEOPLE WAKE THE FUCK UP. If an American company cannot find a business model that supports Americans, then they can go belly up and make room for a competitor that can.
Need I continue? ...because I can if you want.

trying to make sense...if we spent money on helping the poor how the hell is Halliburton and all the weapons companies going to make a profit...your sooo freakin selfish.

onelongsong wrote:

i've never shot more than once at anything. why not visit a VA hospital and see how many have had several bullet wounds. some as many as 20.

So what? Some people survive 20 stabs wounds, that doesn't prove a thing.

a criminal will not stand 9 feet away. unless he's got 8 foot arms to grab your wallet. you can run away at 9 feet. if he would shoot you running away he was going to kill you no matter what.

I'd just give them my wallet, then. But you were talking about killing, that also includes killing from a distance, that's the whole point.

it's also easier to disarm someone with a gun. disarming someone with a knife causes you to cut up your hands. cut the muscle by your thumb and your hands are useless.

I know how to disarm a person with a knife.

i shoot the head. there's almost no chance of a reflex shot from the attacker. when holding someone i aim at the pelvis which would bring someone right down.

onelongsong wrote:

because i'd rather not kill the attacker if i don't have to.

So you shoot the head?