Who owns/ uses firearms-?

[AggieDave 6]

Maybe not, but seeing what happens in places where there are heavy gun bans (NY, Washington DC, England, etc) and the VERY high crime rate they have, compared to places like Texas where gun ownership is damn near a way of life and concealed carry is in place, and Texas has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. I think that would speak volumes to the anti-gun types, but for some reason they always seem to over look that, leaving us to believe their stance merely on what they say, not what is true.

Did you know that most of the "children deaths" by handguns statistics are inflated by includeing 16-21 year old gang related shootings in the innercities?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[indyz 1]

Quote

Maybe not, but seeing what happens in places where there are heavy gun bans (NY, Washington DC, England, etc) and the VERY high crime rate they have, compared to places like Texas where gun ownership is damn near a way of life and concealed carry is in place, and Texas has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. I think that would speak volumes to the anti-gun types, but for some reason they always seem to over look that, leaving us to believe their stance merely on what they say, not what is true.

Did you know that most of the "children deaths" by handguns statistics are inflated by includeing 16-21 year old gang related shootings in the innercities?

Hey, I never said I was opposed to guns. I have an expired FOID card, a couple of merit badges, and an empty space in a closet where a bunch of guns that I never used sat.

I grew up very near a high crime area, and I certainly don't think it would have been higher if Illinois' fairly loose gun laws were relaxed.

[AggieDave 6]

I wasn't trying to imply that you were anti-gun, I was just trying to put another angle of explaination on the table.

All this talk makes me want to go to the range on Saturday if the weather is shitty...I have got to shoot anything in a good 5 days.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Maybe not, but seeing what happens in places where there are heavy gun bans (NY, Washington DC, England, etc) and the VERY high crime rate they have, compared to places like Texas where gun ownership is damn near a way of life and concealed carry is in place, and Texas has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. I think that would speak volumes to the anti-gun types, but for some reason they always seem to over look that, leaving us to believe their stance merely on what they say, not what is true.

Did you know that most of the "children deaths" by handguns statistics are inflated by includeing 16-21 year old gang related shootings in the innercities?

Hey, I never said I was opposed to guns. I have an expired FOID card, a couple of merit badges, and an empty space in a closet where a bunch of guns that I never used sat.

I grew up very near a high crime area, and I certainly don't think it would have been higher if Illinois' fairly loose gun laws were relaxed.

Boy, there's a stretch. A FOID card, and a remark about "fairly loose gun laws". You had to get permission from the almighty state to exercise a constitutional right.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Iam afriad the anti-gun lobby is going to take this sniper ordeal to the extreme- It's not the gun, but the user-

I disagree. The demographics of the involved parties don't lend themselves to anti-gun hysteria.

[kmcguffee 0]

I carry a Glock 22 concealed for my job. It actually is kind of a pain especially when I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I own a 12 gauge shotgun and a 7mm Remington Magnum for hunting. I'm not a gun nut but I need them for my job and hunting. While in the military I qualified on just about every military weapon available. That kind of dulled my enthusiasm for casual sport shooting.

As for the ballistic fingerprinting, I believe that it would be slightly useful. The biggest problem is the expense and the fact that it would take 30-40 years to really see any results due to the number of weapons on the street that would not get fingerprinted. Criminals would also quickly learn how to beat it but it would probably help to solve a few cases. It is not a silver bullet though.

I also think we need tighter gun control in the US. I just haven't heard of a plan that is actually manageable. Every plan I have heard would just harass legal owners and the criminals would blow it off. I can't think of a good one either.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[jdhill 0]

Quote

No. The second amendment is being radically misintrepreted by many, if not most, Americans. The framers' intent is quite clear: The second amendment was designed to keep citizens armed to defend against acts of aggression from other countries. Not to shoot burglars.

The intent of the framers has been argued all over the place... defending one's home and property, and providing for ones family was a given in those times... protecting the nation against foreign agressors was one part of the intent, protecting against the tyranny of the government was the other.

Either way, the wording is clear... "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". The militia part is not a prerequisite. "The people" means the same in the second ammendment as it does in the first, an individual right, not a collective one.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kallend 2,127]

Quote

Maybe not, but seeing what happens in places where there are heavy gun bans (NY, Washington DC, England, etc)
and the VERY high crime rate they have, compared to places like Texas where gun ownership is damn near a way of life and concealed carry is in place, and Texas has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.

According to USDOJ and FBI data that is simply untrue as far as England is concerned. Maybe you're using NRA propaganda instead of real data. England's crime rate in general is almost identical in all areas but one to the US. The exception is in murders, where the US has a 4:1 lead, which becomes a 20:1 lead if you consider murders committed with firearms.

Comparison of a whole state (Texas) with a city (Washington DC, NYC) is also bogus. You only have to drive 6 miles from central Washington to be able to buy a gun in Virginia with almost no restrictions. Try comparing Houston with London instead.

Another poster country for the NRA is Switzerland, with almost universal gun ownership among males. What the NRA won't tell you is that comparing cities rather than rural populations, Berne (Swiss capital) has 50% MORE murders than London or Paris or Ottawa or Sydney.

[kallend 2,127]

Quote

Quote

No. The second amendment is being radically misintrepreted by many, if not most, Americans. The framers' intent is quite clear: The second amendment was designed to keep citizens armed to defend against acts of aggression from other countries. Not to shoot burglars.

The intent of the framers has been argued all over the place... defending one's home and property, and providing for ones family was a given in those times... protecting the nation against foreign agressors was one part of the intent, protecting against the tyranny of the government was the other.

Either way, the wording is clear... "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". The militia part is not a prerequisite. "The people" means the same in the second ammendment as it does in the first, an individual right, not a collective one.

Josh

The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Their interpretation does not coincide with yours.

[AggieDave 6]

Here's some data:

Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.
Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.
Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.
Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. This is due to Texas inacting CCW laws.


According to “The Dallas Morning News” over 85% of the crimes committed with a firearm, the criminals obtained the weapon through illegal means.

According to the “Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet” website during the 1990s these laws became impossibly strict.
i. These are similar to the third stage of the Bradly Bill which is currently being debated in about 6 different state’s legislatures.
ii. Firearms are generally NOT allowed unless for sporting uses, such as some shotguns and rifles for hunting game. Also, the only ammo allow are sporting loads, self defense loads such as Federal Hydroshock or Black Talon are strictly forbidden.
b. Shown are some charts from the “Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales” website showing a comparison of the crime rates from England and the United States from 1981 to 1995.
i. As shown, England’s crime rates have been steadily on the rise, getting worst as time progresses.
ii. The crimes shown are all violent crimes against individuals.

(see attatched documents taken from Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales website)



Here is the list of sources for that data:

Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html

Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96. The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 5 Nov. 2001
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS. Arms Rights and Liberty Information on the Internet. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html
Texas’ Concealed Carry Law Works. NCPA. 5 Nov. 2001 http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html

Please note, no NRA "Propaganda" was used making this post. AND this is not someone else's research, this is something I did for myself a while back

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the US Supreme Court.

Personally I believe the interpretation of the citizens of this country matter more than that of a group of apointees. Their interpretation may be the one on which the enforcement of laws is based, but I disagree that their's is the only one that "matters".

[riggerrob 643]

I grew up in a household containing hundreds of guns but now own none.
My dad was on the Canadian Olympic Shooting Team twice, so we always had guns around.
When I served in the Canadian Armed Forces, I got to play with most of their toys and developed a fascination with heavy machine guns.
But now that they will not let me collect heavy machine guns and anti-tank rockets, I cannot see the point to owning any firearms.
The other problem is that I fear the police far more than I fear criminals. What with Canada's National Firearms Manual that changes at random with Orders In Council, (read FASCIST), Canadian police can legally seize all your firearms and assests because you failed to comply with a change in the firearms laws that was only published in the Hansard.
In elementary school I learned that authority figures (read school principles) were totally useless in keeping petty criminals (bullies) off my back, so I have zero faith in police protection.
In adult life, I learned that I am considered a dangerous mark by muggers. Despite staggering drunk through the red-light districts of dozens of foreign ports, no-one has ever tried to mug me. It was something to do with being big and walking straight. If you still look physically fit by the time you grow grey hair, few muggers will mess with you, so guns become a non-issue.
I don't own any guns because I fear the police far more than I fear the criminals.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I disagree. The demographics of the involved parties don't lend themselves to anti-gun hysteria.

Umm, you don't live in Maryland, do you? I'm stuck here for a little longer and, let me tell you, Montgomery County is covered with "anti-gun hysteria" even when there'e nothing going on. They rank right up with NYC and LA County.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

First off, I'd have to ask where you get your numbers. The "NRA propaganda" you mention is DOJ public info.

Quote

where the US has a 4:1 lead, which becomes a 20:1 lead if you consider murders committed with firearms.

I've seen this before. It is, quite simply, crap. If there is a gun in your safe, a thug comes in while you sleep, smashes your head with a brick, robs your house and flees, they reported it as a firearms homicide. That was the work of a statistician paid for pre-determined results, not for honest statistics.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Their interpretation does not coincide with yours.

And the last gun control measure they ruled on was...? The court has routinely avoided ruling on gun cases, as the congress has routinely buried the bills in committee...

They (the court) have a hard time changing the definition of the words without taking away a lot of other "civil rights"... it is an inconsistent argument to say that the framers meant the word "people" to mean an individual right when it comes to free speech and a collective right when it comes to guns... they were written and adopted at the same time... if the 2nd amendment was adopted outside the bill of rights, say as the 11th amendment, then you might have an argument, but it wasn't... it's number 2 and is there to protect all the others from a government that would seek to take the others away.

The SC's opinion only counts when they hear cases and make decisions, creating "case law" that cannot be overturned by anything but a Constitutional Amendment or subsequent SC ruling. Up to that point it is opinion of those that make laws, appoint judges, and elect local, state, and federal representatives (THE PEOPLE) who's opinions count. And the fact that we can still own guns shows the opinion that has been expressed by the majority (at least of those that vote).

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[jdhill 0]

You can also look at these decisions by the court and you will see what the opinions have been recently...

Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) - This is a 1990 Supreme Court case that pretty well extinguishes the argument that the 2nd amendment means states can have a National Guard w/o interference from the feds. Perpich was governor of Minn., who didn't want any of his National Guard troops being put on active duty for training in Central America. In 1987 the federal law that made state Guards part of the US Guard was amended to take away from governors the power to veto active duty missions, except for very limited circumstances; being a commie governor opposed to missions in Central America wasn't one of them. The court said that the feds could if they wanted make state Guards part of the US armed forces, as they had, and subject to being called to active duty as part of the Army, w/o the consent of that state's governor. The court identified the Guard as the "active militia" drawn from the general population of the state, which was the militia. While the court said it might violate the constitution for the feds to do such training with a truly state militia, (under the militia clause of the Constitution) the National Guard was just an extension of the US Guard, which was almost half of the manpower of the US Army, although not on active duty except when needed. Minnesota never made an argument that the 2nd amendment prohibited having the state militia be under the thumb of the feds. Even though that is precisely what HCI would have you believe it means. The National Guard is clearly a militia, but it can hardly be the one in the 2nd amendment, given the otherwise constitutional relationship it has to the federal government. And the opinion in this case was unanimous.

Printz v. U.S., - U.S. - (1997) - In this case the Supreme Court reverses the 9th circuit's decision in Mack v. U.S., and decides that the burdens placed on local law enforcement by the Brady handgun control law are unconstitutional, under the 10th amendment, and general federalism principles.

These cases and their descriptions are drawn from http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases.html

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Dumpster 0]

Quote

The poll is missing any category that I would check.

How about adding something like

***"guns are fine, but gun laws should be uniform and uniformly enforced across the nation."

Main problem I have noticed, is there are lots of good laws, but lack of enforcement-

Easy Does It

[bill2 0]

Somehow, New Yorkers with "juice" mange to get CCW good everywhere in the state except NYC. Donald Trump's got one. Willim F Buckley's got one. Ditto Laurence Rockefeller. Same for Howard Stern.
_________________
and don't forget Buddy Hackett

[bill2 0]

I've got an HK USP 45, S & W .357 mag, and S& W .22 revolver. Armalite .223, Benelli 12 ga. I shoot in a pistol league every Monday night, and have been to Front Sight (outside of Las Vegas) for a couple of classes. CCW should be allowed in every state for any non felony adult who asks for one. When it's restricted, only the "connected" get them, which is wrong.

[kallend 2,127]

Quote

I've got an HK USP 45, S & W .357 mag, and S& W .22 revolver. Armalite .223, Benelli 12 ga. I shoot in a pistol league every Monday night, and have been to Front Sight (outside of Las Vegas) for a couple of classes. CCW should be allowed in every state for any non felony adult who asks for one. When it's restricted, only the "connected" get them, which is wrong.

So do you believe a retarded adult with an IQ of 60 and no felony record should be allowed CCW. How about someone who just turned 18 with no felony record but a long record as a juvenile delinquent?

[kallend 2,127]

Quote

First off, I'd have to ask where you get your numbers. The "NRA propaganda" you mention is DOJ public info.

Quote

where the US has a 4:1 lead, which becomes a 20:1 lead if you consider murders committed with firearms.

I've seen this before. It is, quite simply, crap. If there is a gun in your safe, a thug comes in while you sleep, smashes your head with a brick, robs your house and flees, they reported it as a firearms homicide. That was the work of a statistician paid for pre-determined results, not for honest statistics.

Apparently you haven't actually looked at the US DOJ web site. The head of the US DOJ is a right wing Republican by the name of John Ashcroft, so I doubt they'd be paying statisticians to falsify the data to make guns look bad.

[Dumpster 0]

Yeah- Like Rosie ODonnel- Spouting off for heavy gun control- Then word gets out she carries-
But SHE"S important, so she gets too carry a gun- What makes her any more important than you or I?

Easy Does It

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So do you believe a retarded adult with an IQ of 60 and no felony record should be allowed CCW. How about someone who just turned 18 with no felony record but a long record as a juvenile delinquent?

Not his choice. Those contingencies have been taken care of just about everywhere. And I can't think of anyone who would argue that they should. I wouldn't.

What about you? Should people with histories of blackouts be allowed to drive? People kill with cars a hell of a lot more than guns. Yet any idiot can get a driving license and it's getting harder and harder to carry a gun. You ever been to a shrink? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive, or own a gun, or skydive even.

What about President Lincoln? He was diagnosed with melancholia? Would you have let him own a gun?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

Quote

Yeah- Like Rosie ODonnel- Spouting off for heavy gun control- Then word gets out she carries- But SHE"S important, so she gets too carry a gun-

Ditto for Dianne Feinstein...CA senator. Heavy heavy anti-gun lobbyist.

(I wonder if this thread will show up in the 'bots thing HH was referring to earlier...???)

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bill2 0]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah- Like Rosie ODonnel- Spouting off for heavy gun control- Then word gets out she carries- But SHE"S important, so she gets too carry a gun-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ditto for Dianne Feinstein...CA senator. Heavy heavy anti-gun lobbyist.

_______________________

yeah it's funny how so many anti gun types actually have guns for themselves but they don't want the unwashed masses to have them because they're so dangerous.