Should the United States have better gun control ???

[RichieT]

a grammarian would remind you that commas separate independent clauses in a compound sentence. the structure is a single sentence, with a period at the end. I would contend that you have to read the whole thing. and that focus on any subset is to support your independent view, not a read on what the author intended. in this sentence, keeping arms is tied to security of the state, and somehow to a well regulated militia.

I do not disagree that you have the right to have your opinion. I am glad you are engaged in discussion of it.

The second amendment clearly states that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the unalienable rights of the people against a too powerful government. These rights are not granted by the government, they are protected from the government. As was stated above, there is ample proof from the Federalist papers that the founders considered it an individual right, but you say we shouldn't focus on what the authors intended but on what the amendment says. Lets look at what it says then. "A well regulated militia", at the time, a well regulated militia meant a well trained militia, and the militia was every able-bodied male with his own arms. So far we have all able bodied males who are well trained with their arms. The next part, " being necessary to the security of a free state" then means that the security of a free state is dependent on the people being armed and well trained. Since we are looking at exactly what it says, there is also the argument that state could refer to a state of being, as in a state of freedom. Grammatically just as plausible as a physical State. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is pretty clear that it protects the peoples' right and not the state. And your argument is the placement of commas??? Or is it, in the constitution, when they say State they mean State, and when they say People they mean People, except in the 2nd amendment when they say State they mean State, and when they say People they mean State. I found your conclusion pretty interesting, too. "...in this sentence, keeping arms is tied to security of the state, and somehow to a well regulated militia." If we use logic instead of sophistry, Well regulated militia is tied to security of free state, not keeping and bearing arms, which is tied to the right of the People. Then , after you writing about being exact, you conclude with and "somehow" to a well regulated militia. SOMEHOW!!! How??? So much for details. Bottom line, everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them. The 2nd amendment is clear in what it says and what the authors intended. If you disagree then you should form your argument that you don't think the amendment should apply any longer and not just try to change the meaning. Maybe you would be happy with a constitution that could be easily changed with the times (living document) and is subject to the whims of politicians, I know I prefer the politicians to be subject to the Constitution.

 

[Short Bus]

OK, time to lighten things up a bit here. I think most will find this funny, I LMAO I would post this in random videos, but I think it would get moved here anyway.

[video=youtube_share;FnQ3EKsZ1sg]http://youtu.be/FnQ3EKsZ1sg[/video]

 

[v7guy]

meerschm-

These "assault weapons" don't function like the selectable fire rifles our soldiers use. These "assault weapons" do function identically to most modern hunting rifles. They look like the weapons used in combat, but they are not the same thing. There are far more dangerous weapons that are commonly used.

You do realize all modern firearms have a serial number don't you?

Do you understand the futility of putting serial numbers on/tracking ammo? The brass is typically recycled and the bullet is obviously destroyed. Much like attempts to keep a database of a bullet fired from a gun to try to fingerprint it. Wear of the parts changed the marks on the ammo over time and the expense was so great NY state scrapped the program entirely after it never assisting in an arrest. Now imagine documenting every round of ammo, not just one bullet per gun.

Without a record of who bought what, how would all of this traceable ammo benefit anything?
If there's a record of who bought what ammunition how could you not call that the beginnings of record keeping of gun owners?

Outside of face to face transactions what do you feel is lacking in our background checks? They already check psychiatric, warrants, criminal history etc

Isn't abuse of firearms already traced by people going to jail?

If you agree that responsible citizens have the right to own firearms why does studies on firearms matter? I understand you say it's so responsible informed decisions can be made. But what happens if studies show you're 200 times more likely to die if you have or are around a firearm? Do we outlaw them in all public places despite the right?

If you also agree that handguns cause far greater loss of life than rifles then how do you justify that rifles (assault weapons) are currently under attack when the greater cause for injury isn't?



I think I understand a lot of what you've written, but the reality frequently doesn't mesh with the intention. I only bring up these questions because I'm unsure if you've really thought about how it plays out or if you have enough experience with firearms to understand what you are proposing. Of course, if you have, fair enough

 

[BoldAdventure]

I like guns and beer.

 

[Sparky]

These "assault weapons" don't function like the selectable fire rifles our soldiers use. These "assault weapons" do function identically to most modern hunting rifles. They look like the weapons used in combat, but they are not the same thing. There are far more dangerous weapons that are commonly used.

Also, most hunting rifles use bigger bullets, which is another reason this "assault weapon" paranoia is really pretty silly.

 

[meerschm]

The second amendment clearly states that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the unalienable rights of the people against a too powerful government. These rights are not granted by the government, they are protected from the government. As was stated above, there is ample proof from the Federalist papers that the founders considered it an individual right, but you say we shouldn't focus on what the authors intended but on what the amendment says. Lets look at what it says then. "A well regulated militia", at the time, a well regulated militia meant a well trained militia, and the militia was every able-bodied male with his own arms. So far we have all able bodied males who are well trained with their arms. The next part, " being necessary to the security of a free state" then means that the security of a free state is dependent on the people being armed and well trained. Since we are looking at exactly what it says, there is also the argument that state could refer to a state of being, as in a state of freedom. Grammatically just as plausible as a physical State. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is pretty clear that it protects the peoples' right and not the state. And your argument is the placement of commas??? Or is it, in the constitution, when they say State they mean State, and when they say People they mean People, except in the 2nd amendment when they say State they mean State, and when they say People they mean State. I found your conclusion pretty interesting, too. "...in this sentence, keeping arms is tied to security of the state, and somehow to a well regulated militia." If we use logic instead of sophistry, Well regulated militia is tied to security of free state, not keeping and bearing arms, which is tied to the right of the People. Then , after you writing about being exact, you conclude with and "somehow" to a well regulated militia. SOMEHOW!!! How??? So much for details. Bottom line, everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them. The 2nd amendment is clear in what it says and what the authors intended. If you disagree then you should form your argument that you don't think the amendment should apply any longer and not just try to change the meaning. Maybe you would be happy with a constitution that could be easily changed with the times (living document) and is subject to the whims of politicians, I know I prefer the politicians to be subject to the Constitution.

I would submit that what anything "clearly states" is subject to the interpretation of the reader, which is why we have judges, laws, and amendments. The fact that the Bill of Rights were amendments, added after and according to the main body of the constitution, is a reflection of the wisdom of the original founders, even though they did not included these rights in the basic document. It took five years to go through the process, with much discussion and exchange of opinions along the way.
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The relationship I refer to is the grammatical structure of a single sentence. My point is that the second amendment is a single sentence, and if you use part of it, you are not accurately reflecting the entire amendment.

It is likely that some folks involved in the original process thought as you do, but, as today, there were a variety of opinions and values. The net result is a compromise and body of law that was ratified and is in effect. Remember it took until Heller that the 2nd was judged by the Supreme Court to mean that an individual has a right to own firearms. (the judgment does leave as legal regulation of gun ownership)

The Second amendment could have been written as just the last two phrases, without a comma, but it was not. It could have said, "Congress shall make no law regarding the regulation or ownership of firearms", again it does not. Compare the language of the first with the second.

The Federalist papers are interesting, but what matters is the text of the constitution, as amended, and the laws enacted by Congress according to the authority spelled out by the constitution, as judged valid by the courts. The Post article makes a good case that common, legal, understanding of what the second amendment means has changed. The fact that the Heller ruling had a dissenting opinion, split 5-4, and not a unanimous one, should verify to you that almost half the supreme court is not as sure as you are of your understanding of what the second amendment means.

We each can have an opinion, but we Americans rely our courts to decide what is meant by our laws, and if they are within the constitutional authority. This lets us not shoot each other to settle disagreements.

What caught my eye in the Post article is that over 40 years the NRA did what you would object to: that is, take action to change the then-current accepted meaning of the second amendment.



It is clear to me that the amendment recognizes the right of people to own firearms so that they can be used when required as part of a militia, subject to rules and regulations, in protection of the free state from external or internal forces, not for protection of an individual from the state. What level of regulation borders on infringement is a matter of discussion and debate, and subject to making of laws and court cases.

 

[meerschm]

meerschm-

These "assault weapons" don't function like the selectable fire rifles our soldiers use. These "assault weapons" do function identically to most modern hunting rifles. They look like the weapons used in combat, but they are not the same thing. There are far more dangerous weapons that are commonly used.
difference I would rely on would be rate of sustained fire.

You do realize all modern firearms have a serial number don't you?

Do you understand the futility of putting serial numbers on/tracking ammo? The brass is typically recycled and the bullet is obviously destroyed. Much like attempts to keep a database of a bullet fired from a gun to try to fingerprint it. Wear of the parts changed the marks on the ammo over time and the expense was so great NY state scrapped the program entirely after it never assisting in an arrest. Now imagine documenting every round of ammo, not just one bullet per gun.

there are ways to chemically mark propellants and projectiles. we are also familiar with forensic measurement of the relationship of bullets to the exact barrel it came out of. this could be enhanced as well.

Without a record of who bought what, how would all of this traceable ammo benefit anything?
If there's a record of who bought what ammunition how could you not call that the beginnings of record keeping of gun owners?

you could make a case for registration, similar to automobile registration, including requirements for liability insurance and accident insurance.

Outside of face to face transactions what do you feel is lacking in our background checks? They already check psychiatric, warrants, criminal history etc. I think it should require something like a trip to the DMV to remove the seller's liabilty related to giving a nut a gun.

Isn't abuse of firearms already traced by people going to jail? not as effectively as it could be

If you agree that responsible citizens have the right to own firearms why does studies on firearms matter? I understand you say it's so responsible informed decisions can be made. But what happens if studies show you're 200 times more likely to die if you have or are around a firearm? Do we outlaw them in all public places despite the right?

there is quite a bit of recent reporting on the numbers of NRA and related restrictions slipped into laws that keep this research from happening. if the research indicates an undue public safety risk, there are reasonable restrictions which should be considered. I am reminded of my ex, late, father in law who resisted seat belts for their restriction on his freedom. I am not a big fan of any one carry a gun anywhere. I think a good case can be made that it should be at least as hard to get a gun as it is to buy , register and drive a car. and there are places (like NYcity) where most folks do not drive at all.

If you also agree that handguns cause far greater loss of life than rifles then how do you justify that rifles (assault weapons) are currently under attack when the greater cause for injury isn't?

The tragedy of Sandy Hook enabled some discussion and possibility of change related to laws associated with firearms. The bifurcated nature of our political process does not seem to currently allow logical, well thought out discussion and compromise. I do not try to justify it.

Related to handguns, look at comparison between NYC and Chicago gun death rates, police processes, and laws are different. different places, different rules, different results. You could make a case that the stop and frisk, with strict handgun laws, in NY result in fewer gun deaths. Is this the right answer for everywhere? Probably not.



I think I understand a lot of what you've written, but the reality frequently doesn't mesh with the intention. I only bring up these questions because I'm unsure if you've really thought about how it plays out or if you have enough experience with firearms to understand what you are proposing. Of course, if you have, fair enough

Thanks, I am not the expert, but have a few thoughts. I am a big fan of fact-based action, and try a little, test a little, and do what works. I too, have seen unintended consequences, and know of some tragedies related to firearms which could have been prevented with responsible action.

If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. (say that three times fast)

 

[Short Bus]

Thanks, I am not the expert, but have a few thoughts. I am a big fan of fact-based action, and try a little, test a little, and do what works. I too, have seen unintended consequences, and know of some tragedies related to firearms which could have been prevented with responsible action.

If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. (say that three times fast)

I'm glad you see it that way :wootwoot: We tried the AWB ("Assault Weapons" Ban) for 10 years, it didn't work!!!! Let's try something new, like enforcing the laws we have, bring back PUBLIC executions and put away the nut jobs BEFORE they hurt ANYONE!!!

 

[Sparky]

<sigh>

That isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the 1700s.

 

[meerschm]

I'm glad you see it that way :wootwoot: We tried the AWB ("Assault Weapons" Ban) for 10 years, it didn't work!!!! Let's try something new, like enforcing the laws we have, bring back PUBLIC executions and put away the nut jobs BEFORE they hurt ANYONE!!!

and if we do next year what we did last year we should expect 30,000 americans to die from firearm injuries next year.

 

[Short Bus]

and if we do next year what we did last year we should expect 30,000 americans to die from firearm injuries next year.

Like I said, enforce the laws we have, bring back PUBLIC executions and put away the nut jobs BEFORE they hurt ANYONE!!! We DIDN'T do that last year.

 

[v7guy]

Thanks, I am not the expert, but have a few thoughts. I am a big fan of fact-based action, and try a little, test a little, and do what works. I too, have seen unintended consequences, and know of some tragedies related to firearms which could have been prevented with responsible action.

If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. (say that three times fast)

I was thrown off a bit with your reply in quote. Didn't realize it at first. I appreciate you taking the time to respond because we obviously have very differing views. I don't get many chances to have an honest exchange. It's always interesting to understand another perspective. I don't ask anything under the guise that I'll change your view. I do hope you and I can get to a point where we can understand where the other is coming from and at worst agree to disagree. At best maybe we could see a compromise.

You say a case could be made for registration and then state you believe owning a firearm should be similar to owning a car where registration and insurance should be required. Previously you mentioned that you believe it is a "right" with "restrictions". I assume those restrictions that are acceptable are registration and insurance?

Given several of your responses I'm going to guess you're for registration. I make this guess because it alleviates me asking twice (or more) as many questions, I'm lazy where it fits . If I'm wrong, please correct me.

When you mention rate of sustained fire, is that with a skilled person or the average waste of skin that decides to shoot up a school or mall? This is pretty important. Because a well trained/enthusiast person can shoot 18+ rounds in central body mass with a 6 shooter revolver in the same time or less than it takes asshole face to shoot a 20/30 round magazine in a semi auto. The shots fired by a trained/enthusiast person will probably also be kill shots where as asshole face would probably miss half the time or more. The person capable of doing the most harm is vastly less likely to do any harm.
In short do you limit the people most capable or do you limit the inexperienced person with no gun experience and call it a good bench mark?
Do you feel limiting the enthusiast/law abiding person is worth the statistically insignificant benefit?

Under some proposed laws insurance would cost $1-200 a month, more than most peoples car insurance... does this seem reasonable for a right? I think the proposed limits are probably low based on our litigious society. Keep in mind driving isn't a "right".
N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance - Washington Times

When you say abuse of firearms aren't traced as effectively as it could be, is this because you view the laws on the books as not enforced or that more laws need to be created to track gun owners, or both? California can't even enforce the laws on the books, so why make more?
California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people - latimes.com

When you say you aren't a fan of people carrying guns anywhere does that include law enforcement?
If so why do you see law enforcement as a different class of citizen? They largely go through the same background checks that citizens do that have a CCW lisc with only a very few minor enhancements.

I'm still unsure about the whole tracing ammo thing. Bullets can't be reliably traced to firearms because even if the bullet isn't completely destroyed the characteristics of the barrel change. The barrel is a wear item and any enthusiast is going to wear out barrels every few years, during this time the wear on the bullet will change (even if the marks on the bullet are recoverable, which NY gave up on). Even under the most ideal circumstances this is all but impossible. Chemically tracing ammo is interesting to me, but you'd have to trace every box of ammo to a specific person, in addition all reloading supplies would have to be traced and recycled shells not confused with the original purchaser. I think this would end up largely like the NY database. I'd be interested in any info you could provide to the contrary.

I guess one of my two biggest hangup with your comments revolves around registration. Every country that has registered firearms has ended up confiscating them. History is full of examples. 20 years ago people that registered their guns in California had them confiscated despite being told registering them would make them ok. The proof is at the bottom.

My second biggest hangup is that we are interpreting things now, based on what is written. You admit that what is "clearly stated" is based on interpretation. The writings of the constitution are clarified in the federalist papers and I think that's really important despite you saying the federalist papers are "interesting". The intention is made known there. Obviously I roughly see the 2nd amendment as voted. I'm a bit confused as how it could be read otherwise and how it was held as narrowly as it was. But I readily admit it could be shortcomings on my part.

 

[BoldAdventure]

The gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate, so good luck reaching this guy.

One tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people.

The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But there are those who believe that the people are empowered by government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust and holding society back from being truly civilized. These are the same people who tell children that violence doesn't solve anything, but they are perfectly content to let their government commit violence on their behalf.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun proponents gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting. We have a perfect example of this in government right now with the Obama administration. They have utter disgust and contempt for gun owners.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real.

I'm generally against the notions of right vs left, but on some issues, an individuals social conditioning absolutely places them into one category or another.

And meerschm just seems like the type who wants to be dictated too.

 

[RichieT]

<sigh>

That isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the 1700s.

Here's an excerpt from a paper by Henry Schaffer, a researcher with North Carolina State University.

The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."

Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.

1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.

2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".

Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.

An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.

This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training
in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more
widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill
and experience; the art of war."

and if we do next year what we did last year we should expect 30,000 americans to die from firearm injuries next year.

A quote from Medical News Today

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.


Lets ban doctors and save 200,000 lives. Ban cars and we save another 45,000 lives.

 

[Bartonmd]

and if we do next year what we did last year we should expect 30,000 americans to die from firearm injuries next year.

I love this statistic. You know that includes police action shootings, lawful self-defense, and suicides, right? You can take down the number of lawful self-defense deaths by regulating guns, but then you raise the deaths of good people who weren't able to defend themselves from the bad people that currently get shot.

Another LARGE percentage of those deaths, behind suicides (that makes up about 1/2 of that number) are by people who aren't allowed to have guns, in the first place. Gun laws don't affect these people in the slightest. Look at Chicago and DC.

When you boil it down, the last time I actually broke down the statistics and did the research (it was ~2009, I think), there are around 1,500 firearm murders committed by people who were legally allowed to posses the weapons. A lot of these are simply people who are criminals, but don't yet have a record, and therefore, won't follow the laws, anyway. Also, a lot of them are domestic issues, so it could be a gun, or it could be a lamp cord or baseball bat that ends it. Either way, with a population of 314,000,000 people, 1,500 is a REALLY low number. Nearly all of these are with handguns, and the average round count is between 2 and 3, regardless of how many rounds the weapon holds. With tens of thousands of lawful uses of self-defense with guns ever year, if you start making laws to try and take a few lives off of the 1500 number, you take away peoples' ability to defend themselves, and they start getting killed by their attackers, far overshadowing the handful of lives that you could possibly save by further regulating guns. Then, added to that, the other murder and crime numbers go up, the same way they always do when you enact gun control on law abiding citizens, giving criminals free reign.

Mike

 

[meerschm]

Like I said, enforce the laws we have, bring back PUBLIC executions and put away the nut jobs BEFORE they hurt ANYONE!!! We DIDN'T do that last year.

we did not have an effective assault weapons ban either, and lots of other stuff, My point, is try something different.

I would not support public exectutions, in fact, being from Michigan, I do not really support any executions, we are not smart enough not to make mistakes and kill the wrong person.

i would settle on efforts to not let the nut jobs have weapons. suggestions which could work are welcome.

I love this statistic. You know that includes police action shootings, lawful self-defense, and suicides, right? You can take down the number of lawful self-defense deaths by regulating guns, but then you raise the deaths of good people who weren't able to defend themselves from the bad people that currently get shot.

Another LARGE percentage of those deaths, behind suicides (that makes up about 1/2 of that number) are by people who aren't allowed to have guns, in the first place. Gun laws don't affect these people in the slightest. Look at Chicago and DC.

When you boil it down, the last time I actually broke down the statistics and did the research (it was ~2009, I think), there are around 1,500 firearm murders committed by people who were legally allowed to posses the weapons. A lot of these are simply people who are criminals, but don't yet have a record, and therefore, won't follow the laws, anyway. Also, a lot of them are domestic issues, so it could be a gun, or it could be a lamp cord or baseball bat that ends it. Either way, with a population of 314,000,000 people, 1,500 is a REALLY low number. Nearly all of these are with handguns, and the average round count is between 2 and 3, regardless of how many rounds the weapon holds. With tens of thousands of lawful uses of self-defense with guns ever year, if you start making laws to try and take a few lives off of the 1500 number, you take away peoples' ability to defend themselves, and they start getting killed by their attackers, far overshadowing the handful of lives that you could possibly save by further regulating guns. Then, added to that, the other murder and crime numbers go up, the same way they always do when you enact gun control on law abiding citizens, giving criminals free reign.

Mike

I get the impression that the stop and frisk, and resulting removal of handguns in the NYC area has directly reduced the rate of firearm deaths.

The gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate, so good luck reaching this guy.

One tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people.

The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But there are those who believe that the people are empowered by government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust and holding society back from being truly civilized. These are the same people who tell children that violence doesn't solve anything, but they are perfectly content to let their government commit violence on their behalf.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun proponents gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting. We have a perfect example of this in government right now with the Obama administration. They have utter disgust and contempt for gun owners.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real.

I'm generally against the notions of right vs left, but on some issues, an individuals social conditioning absolutely places them into one category or another.

And meerschm just seems like the type who wants to be dictated too.

Be nice.

just because I may not agree with you, does not mean you should feel the need to throw insults. It seemed to me that early in this thread there were a few posts intended to bully off any one who thought there was any good in any form of gun restriction.

Referring to your first arguments, there are also people who think our government (Of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Lincoln phrased it) should serve the people, in ways that work. (that is the key, to keep it responsive and effective, and to make investments productive) The questions of government are not so simple as yes or no, but how much is appropriate.

It looks like you are making the argument in an either/or basis, and then try to demonize the side you consider not your side.




lets go back to figuring out how to keep our GMTs on the road.

 

[Short Bus]

Why not try teaching kids gun safety, get rid of gun free zone and encourage teachers to get training and carry a concealed handgun. Gun grabbers always say "if we can save one life", how about we take steps to be able to defend our kids, and not let these nut jobs have free shots at our children. What makes it harder to commit a mass killing??? It seems to me it would be a lot harder if someone was shooting back. Don't give me the cross fire BS, there's already a nut shooting and he's not going to stop until someone stops him.

 

[BoldAdventure]

Be nice.


lets go back to figuring out how to keep our GMTs on the road.

Wait, are you trying to exit the debate you started after I pointed out the simple fact that people's cultural perception shapes their opinions? Really?

 

[BoldAdventure]

Lets not forget, for someone looking for a "different way" you have rejected every different way presented to you. In good liberal fashion, the only way is your way. Those who do not agree are unfit. Perhaps, lacking in "common sense" or are "deniers" or "uneducated" as liberals often accuse us.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

 

[blazinlow89]

I get the impression that the stop and frisk, and resulting removal of handguns in the NYC area has directly reduced the rate of firearm deaths.

This article has some statistics that make stop and frisk seem like a huge waste of money, man hours and police time.

NYPD Stop And Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About A Controversial Program

It is not something I would usually link to by seeing as I am on my phone, my options are limited.

At the same extent I would not use something from the NannY state as an example. Some of the things I hear that get passed for legislation , are not just a means of removing freedoms, but an assault on the general rights of people. Its frightening that these people get re elected.

If you want to look at some statistics, check out the Las in Chicago. Look at the murder rate, violent crimes etc. Then look at how often a gun is used in self defense, vs homicide. The difference is astonishing.

Calm down with the personal attacks, fastest way to get a thread locked. We can have an adult conversation without them.

 

[meerschm]

I was thrown off a bit with your reply in quote. Didn't realize it at first. I appreciate you taking the time to respond because we obviously have very differing views. I don't get many chances to have an honest exchange. It's always interesting to understand another perspective. I don't ask anything under the guise that I'll change your view. I do hope you and I can get to a point where we can understand where the other is coming from and at worst agree to disagree. At best maybe we could see a compromise.

You say a case could be made for registration and then state you believe owning a firearm should be similar to owning a car where registration and insurance should be required. Previously you mentioned that you believe it is a "right" with "restrictions". I assume those restrictions that are acceptable are registration and insurance?

Given several of your responses I'm going to guess you're for registration. I make this guess because it alleviates me asking twice (or more) as many questions, I'm lazy where it fits . If I'm wrong, please correct me.

When you mention rate of sustained fire, is that with a skilled person or the average waste of skin that decides to shoot up a school or mall? This is pretty important. Because a well trained/enthusiast person can shoot 18+ rounds in central body mass with a 6 shooter revolver in the same time or less than it takes asshole face to shoot a 20/30 round magazine in a semi auto. The shots fired by a trained/enthusiast person will probably also be kill shots where as asshole face would probably miss half the time or more. The person capable of doing the most harm is vastly less likely to do any harm.
In short do you limit the people most capable or do you limit the inexperienced person with no gun experience and call it a good bench mark?
Do you feel limiting the enthusiast/law abiding person is worth the statistically insignificant benefit?

Under some proposed laws insurance would cost $1-200 a month, more than most peoples car insurance... does this seem reasonable for a right? I think the proposed limits are probably low based on our litigious society. Keep in mind driving isn't a "right".
N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance - Washington Times

When you say abuse of firearms aren't traced as effectively as it could be, is this because you view the laws on the books as not enforced or that more laws need to be created to track gun owners, or both? California can't even enforce the laws on the books, so why make more?
California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people - latimes.com

When you say you aren't a fan of people carrying guns anywhere does that include law enforcement?
If so why do you see law enforcement as a different class of citizen? They largely go through the same background checks that citizens do that have a CCW lisc with only a very few minor enhancements.

I'm still unsure about the whole tracing ammo thing. Bullets can't be reliably traced to firearms because even if the bullet isn't completely destroyed the characteristics of the barrel change. The barrel is a wear item and any enthusiast is going to wear out barrels every few years, during this time the wear on the bullet will change (even if the marks on the bullet are recoverable, which NY gave up on). Even under the most ideal circumstances this is all but impossible. Chemically tracing ammo is interesting to me, but you'd have to trace every box of ammo to a specific person, in addition all reloading supplies would have to be traced and recycled shells not confused with the original purchaser. I think this would end up largely like the NY database. I'd be interested in any info you could provide to the contrary.

I guess one of my two biggest hangup with your comments revolves around registration. Every country that has registered firearms has ended up confiscating them. History is full of examples. 20 years ago people that registered their guns in California had them confiscated despite being told registering them would make them ok. The proof is at the bottom.

My second biggest hangup is that we are interpreting things now, based on what is written. You admit that what is "clearly stated" is based on interpretation. The writings of the constitution are clarified in the federalist papers and I think that's really important despite you saying the federalist papers are "interesting". The intention is made known there. Obviously I roughly see the 2nd amendment as voted. I'm a bit confused as how it could be read otherwise and how it was held as narrowly as it was. But I readily admit it could be shortcomings on my part.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I do not want to dictate anything, nor have things dictated to me. I understand we have a variety of opinions, and backgrounds, and that our nation has a history of gun ownership, which in some parts of our country, has resulted in huge numbers of unneeded deaths and injuries. if you don't live in south Chicago, or a "bad" part of DC, it may not be that important, but it does exist as part of our nation. seems like we could do something that makes it less likely a 12 year old girl gets shot at a bus stop minding her own business.

I understand the reluctance to sign up for registration, that is why there should be some happy medium. require the guns to have records of legal transactions, 100% background checks, register sales, and trace guns used in unlawful shootings to the last transaction. perhaps 30 day records with max numbers of guns purchased, there should be some way forward to make things better. i probably think it would make sense to increase enforcement, and to adjust a few laws. I think we should keep at it, to make things work, and work better. the way things are going, the huge mega databases and sensors everywhere are going to let folks infer your gun ownership anyway. I also think, (and this is backed up by the supreme court) that rules can be made be local and state governments appropriate to their specific circumstance, including as it relates to firearms. should be appropriate to the locality.

My opinion would be to quantify which weapons are suitable for private use. we do this now on a full auto not allowed. no one is allowed to own shoulder fired anti-aircraft, or anti-tank weapons. this is just a matter of scale and working out the details.

Thanks again for considering a few thoughts. I consider myself pretty middle of the road, perhaps a nudge to the left. depends on the subject. There are plenty of folks to the left of me, as many posting in this thread are to the right of me. Most people in this country support some kind of increased restrictions on assault weapons.

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States has a few interesting, relevant charts and discussion.

I will probably go back to ignoring this thread. too easy to get the blood pressure up.

Wait, are you trying to exit the debate you started after I pointed out the simple fact that people's cultural perception shapes their opinions? Really?

just not in the market for personal insults.

 

[BoldAdventure]

just not in the market for personal insults.

No one is personally insulting you yet. There is a difference between course jester in debate and a direct insult, like me calling you a dumby or something, which I am not implying, nor would I.

 

[fishsticks]

if you don't live in south Chicago, or a "bad" part of DC, it may not be that important, but it does exist as part of our nation. seems like we could do something that makes it less likely a 12 year old girl gets shot at a bus stop minding her own business.

Both places you cited have some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. They are not working. The AWB of 94 didn't work. Criminals will always get guns. If desperate, one can make a zip gun from common household items. They are quite deadly.

All these laws do is make politicians and misinformed people feel good for awhile. Oh, and they set us up for dire situations if our government turns against its people, like so many in the past have. I'm not spoiling for a fight with the feds, I hope nothing like that ever happens to me, my kids or my grandchildren. But if my grandchildren ever need to take up arms against a tyrannical regime, my generation will not be the ones who stripped them of that ability nor will we stand by while the Boomers do it.

This isn't a left or right issue. I'm a Libertarian. I can make most Republicans' hair catch fire in seconds on social issues. I think Democrats are happy to trade away every freedom we have if it means they get some perception of safety. The world is not a safe place, and will likely never be.

I think the NRA is full of Fudds. But we're on the same side when it comes to the 2A issue (this time). They get some of my money, as does GOA, SAF, local groups etc.

Don't mess with The People's final check and balance.

No one is personally insulting you yet. There is a difference between course jester in debate and a direct insult, like me calling you a dumby or something, which I am not implying, nor would I.

The word you are looking for is "ad hominem," and I've seen no evidence of any ad hominem attacks directed in either direction so far...


That said, IB4TL.

 

[BoldAdventure]

My opinion would be to quantify which weapons are suitable for private use. we do this now on a full auto not allowed. no one is allowed to own shoulder fired anti-aircraft, or anti-tank weapons. this is just a matter of scale and working out the details.

Actually you can own fully auto. With a 200 tax stamp from the ATF. It cost about 12,450 to purchase a pre-ban M4. This leaves average gun collectors and enthusiast purchasing standard, semi auto's and only serious gun collectors purchasing these guns.

To be honest, the stamp is highly effective pay to play method. You want a good AR you've got to drop at least $1000.00 (don't start me on the cheapo's) and if I had to pay for a tax stamp and fill out another form I'd be fine with that. I'm willing to pay.

What I'm not fine with is a huge spy networks, mental evaluations, and other invasions of privacy and stupid ideas proposed by some.

One Democrat here in florida actually proposed that all gun owns take a mandatory anger management class! She wrote a bill and submitted it on the floor!

Do you know how many hunters are in florida, it's incredibly insulting. You know why gun owners are up in arms. We're all being treated like criminals and thugs. When most of the thugs and criminals are wearing badges and in office.

I consider myself pretty middle of the road, perhaps a nudge to the left. depends on the subject. There are plenty of folks to the left of me, as many posting in this thread are to the right of me.

Some of us are libertarians and do not like to be labeled within a left right paradigms. Please do not label us as such.

Most people in this country support some kind of increased restrictions on assault weapons.

Really? Says who? A survey of 100 americans?

I will probably go back to ignoring this thread. too easy to get the blood pressure up.

Only because you let it.

 

[Bartonmd]

I get the impression that the stop and frisk, and resulting removal of handguns in the NYC area has directly reduced the rate of firearm deaths.

Keep in mind that the only people that this removes guns from is the criminals. i.e. enforcing laws on the books. New laws only affect the law abiding.

Mike

 

[plaen]

I'll chime in with my thoughts, First, I agree partly with the expanded background checks here in Colorado, if I were to purchase another firearm, I would be subjected to 2 investigations, one from the ATF, and one from the CBI. I agree that any purchase should follow that, private party, etc. However, what I don't agree with is, how the current bills in Colorado are written, if I were to bring a friend/relative/another person to the range with me, I legally can not hand them my firearm with out a background check being performed. Currently in the state, mental health records are part of the investigation process performed by the CBI, however, that data is only updated twice a year, which our governor signed an order to update those monthly.

A very very large misconception is that all of these shooting occurred with fully automatic weapons, with the exception of Columbine(which occurred during the strictest assault weapons ban in history). In fact, all of them were performed with standard semi automatic weapons, where the shooter had prior experience with the firearm(s) in question. Given the shooter had experience with the firearms, they had practiced changing magazines. With the new laws signed into effect, all that it means is anyone who legally purchases the firearms, would need to purchase 2 magazines instead of 1 30 round, since there is magazine couplers that attach two magazines to each other, changing an empty mag becomes a simple, drop empty, flip mag, reinsert, release slide. Anyone who practices that, would be able to change a magazine in as little as 2-3 seconds, hardly any thought involved.

As of yesterday, a bill was signed into law that limits magazine capacities to 15 rounds/8 rounds for shotguns. The problem with this is how the bill was worded, it included writing such as "any magazine that can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds" That bans any magazines that have removable floor plates that extenders are manufactured for. Then it also makes purchasing a firearm with a built in magazine that holds more than 15 rounds illegal to purchase, most of which are single shot bolt action rifles. The governor stated when he signed them that he agreed there was vague wording in the bill, and said "it will be sent to the justice dept to figure out the interpretation of the bill". 62 Sheriffs departments in the state have publicly stated they do not agree with these laws, and will not enforce them. They're also in talks about filing a lawsuit against the state for forcing them to break the sworn oath they have to uphold the US constitution.

Besides preventing the legal sale of more than 15 round magazines, the capacity law could make things worse. My reasoning behind this is, take for example the aurora theater shooting, he had 30 round magazines. Now lets replace those with 15 rounders with couplers, assuming the average person who maybe grossly misinformed about firearms(mostly from tv shows or movies), is hiding behind cover of some sort out of view of the shooter, the shooter is out of ammo, and needs to reload, the person hiding takes note of this, assumes that it takes 10-15 seconds or longer for a reload to occur, makes a break for safety, now instead of the shooter having a non visible target, there is multiple more targets to shoot at.

If that happened in the theater with just as little as 10 people, who we'll assume were critically injured to the point of immient death, that increased the death count by 50%.

What most media outlets also do not talk about, is his weapon jammed multiple times from the heat of being fired at such a rapid rate, he was still able to successfully clear the breech and continue putting lead on targets in a very very short period of time(only a few seconds at most). Also, he had a 12 ga shotgun, 2 handguns on him, and 1 in the vehicle, any of them would still be able to perform the same amount of damage. Now had there been an armed civilian in the theater, or school(s), as soon as the first shot was fired, that person could have returned fire, dramatically reducing the amount of injuries or deaths.

Here in Colorado, in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, you must complete a firearms safety course, including covering the applicable laws from a state certified firearms instructor, most are police officers who do it on the side. This includes, but does not mandate, live fire exercises, along with written closed book testing with a passing score of 100% only.

Another big topic I get all the time about discussing firearms is "assault rifles", I personally own an Armalite Rifle 15, manufactured by Colt Arms. Now some people at this point would go what is an armalite rifle? It is the proper nomenclature of an AR-15. The "AR" in the name is Armalite Rilfe, from the original design and manufacturer for the firearm, which was produced for the military in select fire modes. When the design was sold to Colt, it was made publicly available in a semi auto only, unless the purchaser was a ATF licensee to possess fully automatic firearms. The thing that is a very very large misconception that the media plays up very very well is the AR-15 is a "high caliber" weapon, yes, it can be adapted to fire .308 rounds(still only .08mm larger than .22 rounds), however, the stock ammo size is .223MM, the actual projectile measurement is .003MM larger than a .22 round, that people use for varmint hunting hardly high caliber.

With all that said, I am for a very very select set of "gun control" laws, as I first said, any purchase or trade should have a background check performed, outside of that, I do not agree with any other law or control. Yes, I own multiple calibers in both handguns and rifles. Since I have no children or significant others, and I am the only one in my home, they are all loaded with a round in the chamber, with full magazines inserted, unlocked and at the ready on my dresser. As said previously in this thread, "an unloaded firearm is just a paperweight" or as my CCW instructor put it, a 5lb thrown object. When ever I have company over, they are locked up, with at least trigger locks, and case locks, not to mention the safetys are turned on, with the only keys being in my possesion only. I do keep them out and loaded in case I need to defend my home from what ever may be occuring, Colorado in that right provides me immunity from criminal and civil liabilities for shooting an uninvited guest in a place of dwelling.

Also as said before, "gun control does nothing to prevent any type of tradgedy from occuring" as shown by columbine, 2 federal laws broken, a) Feinman/Clinton assault weapons ban, and b)Federal firearm act of 1984(banning fully auto for non-licensed persons). Going back to Meerschm's arguement of "that didn't work, lets try something else" That was the strictest gun control ever enacted, it made it illegal to purchase essentially any semi auto rifle. If that didn't work, not much else will besides banning the sale/transfer/possession of all firearms, with existing ones being taken and destroyed, even then, a criminal would still be able to obtain a firearm, look at Austrailia, where guns are illegal, shootings still occur. Not only would that violate the 2nd Amendment, it would also violate the 14th, and would essentially start a revolution to take down the tyranical government(as the 2nd amendment is written).

 

[Bartonmd]

FWIW, a mag change takes less than 1 second, even without the couplers.

Also, he was using a 100rd mega-mag, and it malfunctioned, as per SOP with those things. ARs have to fire hundreds and hundreds of rounds before they get hot enough to affect function. Any carbines that I may or may not own or have owned get the 7 mag (210rds) test done to them in rapid succession, to make sure they function when hot. (except my .458 SOCOM carbine, that is, because I like my shoulder)

Mike

A pretty good video put out by my local sheriff, here.

[video=youtube;MjnsBH9jGxc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc[/video]

 

[Conner299]

 

[plaen]

FWIW, a mag change takes less than 1 second, even without the couplers.

Also, he was using a 100rd mega-mag, and it malfunctioned, as per SOP with those things. ARs have to fire hundreds and hundreds of rounds before they get hot enough to affect function. Any carbines that I may or may not own or have owned get the 7 mag (210rds) test done to them in rapid succession, to make sure they function when hot. (except my .458 SOCOM carbine, that is, because I like my shoulder)

Mike

Exactly what I was saying, mag changes are really quick, and the misconception behind reloads could cause more harm. Personally I own 25 30 round pmags, 10 steel 30 rounders, and 5 10 round steel for the AR, and currently in the process of installing a new upper, since I hate the colt handle on the top, with mounting scopes and not being very stable and having a hard time zeroing it.

It was 100, all of my post was one stream of thoughts, the accounts from people there was that the weapon jammed, but I could see having to pull the bolt back from a misfeed being seen as a jam.

Sadly no range around here(within 1.5 hours) will let me have more than 5 rounds in a mag, add in the cost of .223 currently, and it gets expensive to run a test like that, lol.

The cheap knock offs of the beta c-mags do have their issues, a long time friend of mine has an original c-mag, and put many a rounds through his m4, with 1 actual jam, and no misfeeds.

Oh, and not to mention, our governor signing that bill caused Magpul to move out of state, causing an up to 100 mil/year loss in revenue for the state, not to mention the job losses at the suppliers, and those who are directly employed by Magpul that can't move. My biggest rant is with the comparison between the civil unions bill here, and the gun bills, on one hand, he upholds the constitution, specifically where "All men are created equal"(I do agree with this, not to take this off topic, but for comparisons sake) and on the other, if it goes bang, then the 2nd amendment in the constitution becomes toilet paper. How is that fair and balanced in any shape or form, and to top it off the magazine limits are "an inconvenience for gun owners", on that same civil unions token, if being LGBT was an inconvenience, there would be a large majority of angry people and that elected official would be immediately taken from his post(although a recall has already garnered 200k signatures to remove the gov).

Essentially, rights are rights, one does not apply any more than the other, and they should all apply 100% to anyone without infringement and without having to be interpreted, just like facts and stats, each one can be skewed to point more towards one side or the other.

 

[blazinlow89]

Just seen an article saying the circuit court involved with the CCW case here has upheld MD's current laws. This I s disappointing and a setback, but some more waiting it is supposes to go to SCOTUS. I hope they can uphold the constitution rather than MDs laws removing freedoms.

In other news my uncle has started manufacturing AR 80% lowers. They look pretty freaking sweet, will try and find the picture.

View attachment 26959

Here is the lower on an assembled AR, not mine but came out nice after anodising

 

[v7guy]

Just to drive it home. Gun control in action. NY says it's your duty to turn in your neighbor, we'll even pay you for the arrest (not the conviction)... a pretty important distinction. The broad definition of an illegal gun/firearm in the state will make things very interesting in the near future since many commonly owned guns, if it isn't registered, it's illegal. Even if the firearm is found to be legally owned the tipper will still be rewarded because of the arrest.

New York offers $500 reward for reporting illegal gun owners | Fox News


This shit isn't going to affect me personally, but it's still completely fu(king outrageous. I thought this state was off the rails 6 years ago when I moved here and it just keeps getting more bonkers.

 

[TollKeeper]

we did not have an effective assault weapons ban either, and lots of other stuff, My point, is try something different.

I would not support public exectutions, in fact, being from Michigan, I do not really support any executions, we are not smart enough not to make mistakes and kill the wrong person.

i would settle on efforts to not let the nut jobs have weapons. suggestions which could work are welcome.

I get the impression that the stop and frisk, and resulting removal of handguns in the NYC area has directly reduced the rate of firearm deaths.

just because I may not agree with you, does not mean you should feel the need to throw insults. It seemed to me that early in this thread there were a few posts intended to bully off any one who thought there was any good in any form of gun restriction.

Referring to your first arguments, there are also people who think our government (Of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Lincoln phrased it) should serve the people, in ways that work. (that is the key, to keep it responsive and effective, and to make investments productive) The questions of government are not so simple as yes or no, but how much is appropriate.

Sorry, couple clear arguments here.

First, Stop and Frisk has done nothing but promote racism, period, end all further discussions. It has done NOTHING to curb the gun related crimes in NY. Furthermore, the NY gun bans have already proved to be detrimental, and have increased gun related crimes. A cowering, unarmed person, is easy to kill/assault/rob after all.

Secondly, no assault weapons ban is going to work, EVER. First, THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS!. Just because I can make my rifle look like a Assault weapon, does not make it one. Assault weapons have multi select fire switches, usually single fire, triple burst, rapid fire, and safe. Rifles, that everyone on this forum, except for those with a FFL class 3, have 2 selections, single fire, and safe. Also, putting laws up to interfere with my "un-alienable" rights, that no criminal is even going to pay attention too anyways, does nothing! You want to stop the nuts from killing people? You put someone, or many someone's, in the same room that also are armed, and know how to protect themselves. One good guy that knows how to defend/protect himself and his family is stronger, and has a larger will to survive, than any criminal. You will NEVER be able to keep the guns out of the nuts hands, not as long as you have a corrupt government selling guns to Mexico, not as long as there is a need for a black market. As long as our rights as "free men" are being infringed upon by a tyrannical government, there will always be a need for a gun/pistol (Termed depending if you are a military person or not).

Thirdly, Why not support public executions? You support our government going over to country's that don't want us, don't need us, don't support us, and love taking our jobs.., killing people at will, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. But that's ok? Mostly innocents getting killed? really? But putting someone like James Holmes, who will be in jail for the rest of his life, living off the public dime, we cant put him on public execution? Even thou there is no doubt in anyone's mind, even his, that he committed these murders. Wow, just wow.

I don't see him throwing insults, what I see him doing is just simply not able to comprehend why most people throughout the land cant accept simple logic, and/or facts. The fact is that I have a much higher likelihood of protecting myself, because a cop cant get here in time. And cops are not going to rush in bullets blazing, to pull me out, they have to protect their livelihood as well. If any one person tried breaking into the houses on my street, being that all of us are armed, and advertise it to further deter the criminals, I would surmise that it would be a fast track to 6 feet under. I don't aim to wound, and neither do they.

Lastly, the government quit working for the people back in 1913, with the inception, and creation, of the IRS. Dually noted in history as TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The government no longer "serves the people", or is "by the people", and as long as we have lobbyist, hard liners, lawyers, etc, it will never, EVER, be "of the people".

Open your eyes people. Those of us fighting to keep our guns, rifles, etc, are also doing it to protect you. Just because you have not asked for my help when you are being mugged/robbed/raped, doesn't mean I wont help.

 

[BoldAdventure]

First, Stop and Frisk has done nothing but promote racism, period, end all further discussions.

BAM! Not to mention it's a clear volition of the US constitution and protections from on reasonable searches.

 

[BO TIE SS]

First, Stop and Frisk has done nothing but promote racism, period, end all further discussions.

I'd be interested in seeing facts to support that claim.

BAM! Not to mention it's a clear volition of the US constitution and protections from on reasonable searches.

"...in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity, it violates their Constitutional rights to be stopped?

 

[BoldAdventure]

I'd be interested in seeing facts to support that claim.


"...in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity, it violates their Constitutional rights to be stopped?

Please define reasonable suspicion.

 

[Short Bus]

OK, time to lighten things up a bit here. I think most will find this funny, I LMAO I would post this in random videos, but I think it would get moved here anyway.

[video=youtube_share;FnQ3EKsZ1sg]http://youtu.be/FnQ3EKsZ1sg[/video]

Anti- gunners skip to 1:10 to avoid most of the rant, pro-gunners enjoy

[video=youtube;qdGGUkyvvMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGGUkyvvMs[/video]

 

[blazinlow89]

I'd be interested in seeing facts to support that claim.


"...in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity, it violates their Constitutional rights to be stopped?

NYPD Stop And Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About A Controversial Program

3, 5 & 7

 

[v7guy]

Stop and Frisk is focused in places of heavy crime, heavy crime areas are frequently, predominantly minority here in NYC. While the charts presented may very well be accurate (i wouldn't be surprised), I've been around long enough to be suspicious of any charts that aren't VERY specific in their classifications, especially when comparing group A to group B and C.

It's also of note that the NYC area is 44% white, Black and Hispanic people make up 53% of the population. Minorities make up the majority of the population.


I don't agree with the stop and frisk policy at all. I would rather take the risk that myself, or a friend or family member gets shot/knifed/assaulted and killed than to see our people stopped and searched without breaking any laws. The path this goes down isn't a good one. Freedom ain't easy. Life ain't easy.

 

[BO TIE SS]

Please define reasonable suspicion.

Something for a court of law to decide on a case by case basis.

 

[TollKeeper]

"...in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity"
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity, it violates their Constitutional rights to be stopped?

So walking down the street is reasonable suspicion? really? They have no more reasonable suspicion than that, and (not trying to sound racist), that they are black.

Man there are a lot of Sheeple in this nation.