TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Guns
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No fucking shit I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment.

Hmmm... did you read my post? Leaving aside the nature of the British government and its "oppressiveness" - something that is viewed with a lot of skepticism by most historians - I'd like to see you make an argument as to how the founding fathers' original intentions can be so clearly interpreted in that way. The majority of legal analysis I've read (including from most gun supporters) does not make that argument.

quote:

Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not.

No, actually, I think a more apt analogy would be that it's like trying to argue whether cigarettes are bad for you with people who have never smoked before. You don't have to experience shooting an assault rifle to make a legal argument.

quote:

Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights.

Ah, I missed the part in the second amendment where it said "the right to bear semi-automatic military-style weaponry shall not be infringed."

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Look at areas like Washington DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and what is the crime rate there?

DC murder rate 1991: 80.6/100,000 residents
DC murder rate 2006: 29.1/100,000 residents

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov DC murder rate 1991: 80.6/100,000 residents DC murder rate 2006: 29.1/100,000 residents

1991 was the peak of the crack epidemic, you can't just compare the murder rate in 1991 to the murder rate in 2006 and say the decrease was a result of gun control. DC passed its strict anti-gun laws in 1976 and had 188 murders that year with a population of 792,000. In 1993 there were 454 murders with a population o f 578,000. That gun control really worked there didn't it?

By 1994 the crack wars were over and DC saw a steady decrease in murders, just like the entire rest of the country that has had less strict gun laws the entire time.

Agreed that a bald comparison of crime rates in two years is an unhelpful way of settling the debate.

The best predictor of a city or country's crime rate (as far as I know) is actually social inequality, which is very much present in DC, and also pretty huge in the U.S. as a whole compared to European countries and Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX 1991 was the peak of the crack epidemic, you can't just compare the murder rate in 1991 to the murder rate in 2006 and say the decrease was a result of gun control. DC passed its strict anti-gun laws in 1976 and had 188 murders that year with a population of 792,000. In 1993 there were 454 murders with a population o f 578,000. That gun control really worked there didn't it? By 1994 the crack wars were over and DC saw a steady decrease in murders, just like the entire rest of the country that has had less strict gun laws the entire time.

You would agree that "anti-gun" laws restrict the selling of guns, and don't magically take away any guns sold in previous years, yes?

Taking snapshots of the year immediately following the passage of a gun law isn't going to show much of anything - that's why I gave you two points in time. There were 149 murders in DC last year. That is the lowest figure since 1966.

In any case, using DC as your case is kind of ridiculous. I live in the District and it is literally a ten minute walk to the closest gun shop in Maryland. In addition, Virginia has among the most lax gun laws in the entire US. Treating DC as a separate entity for the purpose of this discussion is misleading on both sides.

Solve the inequality problem, and the crime will (mostly) take care of itself.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Solve the inequality problem, and the crime will (mostly) take care of itself.

I disagree. Inequality in DC is worse than ever, but the crime rate has come down. The majority of crime isn't poor-on-rich, though proponents of gun proliferation would have you believe that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The majority of crime isn't poor-on-rich...

Nope, most of it is poor on poor.

I didn't have some kind of "poor people take revenge on the rich by assaulting them" idea in mind, which is what you seem to have assumed.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I didn't have some kind of "poor people take revenge on the rich by assaulting them" idea in mind, which is what you seem to have assumed.

I guess that's just what I assumed since you cited "inequality" as the primary cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You would agree that "anti-gun" laws restrict the selling of guns, and don't magically take away any guns sold in previous years, yes? Taking snapshots of the year immediately following the passage of a gun law isn't going to show much of anything - that's why I gave you two points in time. There were 149 murders in DC last year. That is the lowest figure since 1966. In any case, using DC as your case is kind of ridiculous. I live in the District and it is literally a ten minute walk to the closest gun shop in Maryland. In addition, Virginia has among the most lax gun laws in the entire US. Treating DC as a separate entity for the purpose of this discussion is misleading on both sides.

Correct, however what you did was post two points in time showing a large decrease in murder rates in Washington DC. What I was doing is showing how those numbers were misleading. I agree that when a gun law is passed it does not magically remove all guns from the street. However, despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (no handguns at all, all guns and ammunition must be registered) DC had a steadily rising number of murders each year between 1976 and 1994 at the same time the population was also steadily decreasing. That is 18 years of increasing murders between 1976 and 1994, certainly if the gun laws were responsible for the decreasing murders it wouldn't have taken 18 years for them to have an impact. What in fact happened is that for 18 years the per capita number of murders increased until 1994 when the crack wars ended and the country as a whole went into a period of declining crime. In fact, last year New Orleans was by far the murder capital of the US with 207 murders, which is less than half the numbers that DC had in the mid 90s when it held the murder capital title.

The reality is that passing harsh laws do not deter criminals. If guns were completely banned in the entire country criminals would find a way to get them illegally or would use knives, bats, pipes, or whatever other kind of weapons they can find in order to rob and kill. The problem with passing laws in order to restrict criminals is that criminals by definition don't follow laws to begin with.

Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm thinkin about gettin me one of these...

watch where you point that thing. laugh @ boys & their guns

my favorite gun

Ain't she a beaut:



and my other baby:



God bless 2nd amendment!

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX California's assult weapons law is an absolute masterpiece of stupid and useless legislation created by politicians who want to look like they are doing something to reduce crime rather than actually doing something that will reduce crime. Not to mention that all laws banning firearms of any kind are flawed and doomed to be a failure because by definition criminals do not obey laws. You have to be an idiot of the worst kind to think that someone who steals, robs, rapes, kills, etc is going to obey a law banning the possession of firearms. Gun laws do one thing and one thing only and that is take weapons out of the hands of people who obey laws when those are exactly the people who should have them.

i forget the statistic, but something like 7/8 guns used in violent crimes in NYC come from the south. That means gun laws that intend to make it difficult to get weapons actually work. if there was a uniform set of strict gun regulations throughout the US the good old days of stabbings would return.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX In theory that all makes sense but in practice it doesn't work. It has been proven time and time again that gun control does not prevent gun violence. Criminals will still find ways to get their hands on weapons, gun control takes guns out of the hands of the people that should have them (people who obey laws). Fuck if all of the sudden you snapped your fingers and there was no longer any such thing as guns you think that would stop all crime and there would no longer be any murders? Look at areas like Washington DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and what is the crime rate there? Extra credit assignment for all the people who think "assult" weapons are so dangerous. Do some research and find me actual cases where a law abiding citizen with a legally purchased military style weapon used that gun to commit a crime and kill someone (self defense does not count, it has to be a crime). Good luck, it won't be easy. Then find the total number of murders in the US and divide the number of assult weapon murders by the total number of murders and look at the percentage and then tell me again why it is an issue for law abiding people to own military style weapons?

that's because there isn't a uniform set of gun control laws in the US. if you can't get a gun in NY, you can get it in virginia. if there was an uniform set of laws across the country you would surely see a greater effect.

as for constitutional rights, we will see what the supreme court says in the beginning of the summer. i suspect they will punt on whether a state has the right to control guns, however, i'm pretty sure the conservative court will rule that DC (an extension of the federal government) has only a limited right to control guns. However, 10 of the 12 circuits have ruled against your individual rights theory. with respect to forefather intent, do you think black people are worth 3/5 of a free man and shouldn't have the right to vote? That was also your forefathers intent.

Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by pinkbubblegum watch where you point that thing. laugh @ boys & their guns

Nothin better than unloading some stress at the shooting range...

Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nothin better than unloading some stress at the shooting range...

fallasy... wanking off, gettin bj, or eatin the poon is much better, imho.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by aNYthing fallasy... wanking off, gettin bj, or eatin the poon is much better, imho.

See, that's sexual stress. I'm talking about anger/work stress.

Unleash the alpha male inside. Every guy has it. Every guy should embrace their alpha male...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton See, that's sexual stress. I'm talking about anger/work stress. Unleash the alpha male inside. Every guy has it. Every guy should embrace their alpha male...

not every guy can be an alpha male. some males have to be the alpha male's bitch. the alpha male has to push someone around, hence, computer geeks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not every guy can be an alpha male. some males have to be the alpha male's bitch. the alpha male has to push someone around, hence, computer geeks.

Even the nerdiest nerds have alpha males inside them. Each male just lets it out in different ways. A nerd might unleash his alpha male in a video game killing everything in sight. Or a dude like me will unload a few clips out of an assault rifle at the range. Even better, PAINTBALLING is soooo much fun!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not every guy can be an alpha male. some males have to be the alpha male's bitch. the alpha male has to push someone around, hence, computer geeks.

the alpha male is situational, not intrinsic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm the alpha male is situational, not intrinsic.

i disagree. the alpha male has an innate ability to dominate.

This is part of the reason criminals get guns, states like virginia and georgia are so concerned about preventing NY, NJ and Mass from preventing gun dealers from selling illegally.

quote:

Va. Tells NYC to Stop Gun Stings Attorney General Warns of Charges By Tim Craig Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 10, 2007; A01 RICHMOND, May 9 -- Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell is warning New York to stop, by the summer, sending private agents into Virginia to look for illegal gun sales, saying that the agents could face legal action. Because of a Virginia law that goes into effect in July, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and his agents could be charged with a felony if they continue to target Virginia gun dealers with undercover sting operations, McDonnell said. McDonnell (R) has sent Bloomberg what amounts to a cease-and-desist letter. "This was a courtesy letter to the mayor to advise him about a change in Virginia law of which he should be aware," McDonnell said Wednesday. Bloomberg's spokesman, Jason Post, did not seem shaken: "We wish Attorney General McDonnell was as aggressive in enforcing the laws that prevent illegal guns from getting in the hands of criminals as he was in enforcing the laws that protect the gun lobby." Convinced that illegal gun sales in Virginia contribute to violent crime in his city, Bloomberg has been arming private investigators with hidden cameras and sending them into Virginia gun stores to try to make illegal buys. The process involves "straw purchases," in which one person legally fills out a form and buys a gun for someone else. New York has filed suit against two dozen gun dealers over such practices, including six in Virginia. In February, Town & Country Pawn Shop of Roanoke settled with New York and agreed to allow a special judge monitor their firearms sales. But several other dealers, including Bob Moate's Sports Shop in Richmond, are fighting the lawsuit in court. According to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York police recovered 22 guns between 1994 and 2002, including some used in homicides, that they said were sold by at Bob Moate's. In March 2006, New York sent a man and woman into the store to confirm its suspicion that the store was making illegal gun sales. "Once the male investigator selected a gun and indicated a desire to purchase it, the female investigator, who had not been part of the discussion, approached the counter to make the purchase," the suit alleges. The woman filled out the required paperwork, but then the man came and paid cash for the gun, the suit says. Richard Gardiner, the store's attorney, says his client has "no connection" to New York's gun violence. He also accuses the investigators of tricking his clients into making the sale. "If anything, these dealers are the victims," Gardiner said. Gun rights groups are also furious, and in the spring they convinced the Republican-controlled General Assembly to intervene. The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved a law that says Virginia or federal law enforcement officials have to be present before such stings can be conducted. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) signed the law in March. "This new law strikes the proper balance between ensuring proper law enforcement and protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms dealers and those of Virginia citizens under the Second Amendment," McDonnell, a possible Republican candidate for governor in 2009, wrote to Bloomberg. Mike Stollenwerk, a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, praised McDonnell's letter, saying he put "Bloomberg on notice." The league has also been holding a series of "Bloomberg Gun Giveaways" to support the dealers' legal expenses. Next week, at Fairfax County's Mason Government Center, "a handgun, a long gun, lots of ammunition, and other prizes will be awarded" as part of a drawing, according to a statement from Stollenwerk. Post says Bloomberg "will continue to develop innovative and aggressive ways to keep New Yorkers safe."

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's because there isn't a uniform set of gun control laws in the US. if you can't get a gun in NY, you can get it in virginia. if there was an uniform set of laws across the country you would surely see a greater effect. as for constitutional rights, we will see what the supreme court says in the beginning of the summer. i suspect they will punt on whether a state has the right to control guns, however, i'm pretty sure the conservative court will rule that DC (an extension of the federal government) has only a limited right to control guns. However, 11 of the 13 circuits have ruled against your individual rights theory. with respect to forefather intent, do you think black people are worth 3/5 of a free man and shouldn't have the right to vote? That was also your forefathers intent.

Actually all the recent decisions from the Circuit courts have been in favor of the individual rights theory. In fact, this quote came from the majority decision in Parker v. District of Columbia:

"In determining whether the Second Amendment�s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right��the people.� That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment��The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people��indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between �the people,� on the one hand, and �the states,� on the other. The natural reading of �the right of the people� in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights."

Seems pretty clear to me that the courts understand that the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended for the individual to have the right to own a gun.

Maybe instead of more worthless anti-gun laws we should look at Switzerland. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the entire world and a large number of them are military style "assult" weapons. In 2006 there were all of 34 recorded killings involving firearms in a population of 7.5 million people and its overall crime rate is very low by international standards. Why so few gun crimes in a country with so many guns? If you listen to the logic of gun control advocates in the US you would think the number of shootings in a country with near universal gun ownership would be off the charts. However that doesn't turn out to be the case, probably because criminals are much less likely to attack someone in there home when there is an almost 100% chance that the occupant will have multiple guns and be trained in their use.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.