Gun Control

gatorfan wrote:

If the statists don't like the 2nd amendment they should get the votes to change it. But they can't, so they will ignore it.

They will will pass a blatantly unconstitutional law and hope some hack leftist judges uphold it.

As horrifying as recent events are, this bad faith process is worse. It undermines everything.

But your modern leftist is ahistorical and hedonistic (not to mention, economically illiterate) so it won't bother them a bit.

All true.

And all the more so when you consider that the legislation they're trying to reinstate and extend has already been tried once and proved itself to be totally ineffectual in reducing or preventing crime. As predicted.

So when we've established that this legislation they want to shred the Constitution to reintroduce won't affect crime anyways, why would they still be so eager to reduce individual rights and freedoms despite that fact?

Why, to further reduce individual rights and freedoms while at the same time increasingly empowering government to say what we can and can't own, do, use, etc. In other words, this gun control won't affect crime in any way, but it will certainly go a long way to improving the governments ability to control citizens' lives. We need leftist/statist masterminds to tell us how to live our lives - masterminds who also have the force of law to coerce us into doing what they think best for the masses.

Just what we needed.

Wow. Heated discussion here!

I would describe myself as a moderate. Registered Republican, but pretty disgusted with my party right now (fodder for another thread). I own a couple of guns, but I never shoot them. Just not that interested. I'd rather ride the bikes or work on them.

Recent tragic events have reignited the gun debate, as they should, but the thought of the government possibly restricting my rights as a law-abiding citizen, just didn't sit right with me. So, what did I do? I went to my local gun store and bought an AR-15 and a couple of extra 30 round magazines (they were flying out of the store when I was there).

I suppose it was more of a protest purchase than anything else, motivated by the threat of restricting my gun ownership rights. I don't even know it I'll ever shoot the thing, just not that interested, but when the law precludes the purchase of such a rifle, I'll already have mine.

Jäger wrote:

A gentle reminder for the dense who have problems with logical thought and concepts.

Why would anyone bother to read beyond that opening line?

deerHater wrote:

Jäger wrote:

A gentle reminder for the dense who have problems with logical thought and concepts.

Why would anyone bother to read beyond that opening line?

For me, I think I'm a sucker for punishment and entertainment.

Careful what you wish for...

After a lil review of amendments, it seems they have grown more frequent as the constitution ages.

Not sure what the average frequency is...but it sure seems to be increasing. That's something to say about an institution that resists change by tradition.

BuilderBob wrote:

Recent tragic events have reignited the gun debate, as they should,

I would have to disagree on that.

First, when have we EVER had an open, balanced debate on firearms? Starting, perhaps, with a discussion of why those in favor of bans and restrictions don't attempt an honest amendment to the constitution, instead of attempting to circumvent or outright violate the Second Amendment? Or asking what the words "shall not be infringed" mean to them, given they have no intention of proposing an amendment to get the result they want.

Since all these slaughters are practically carbon copies of each other: the murderers dress the same, carry the same firearms, carry more firearms than they could use, always choose a location where the carrying of firearms by law abiding people is prohibited, the same sequence of events, etc., where do these murderers get their inspiration and program of events? Is it a genetic mutation that has recently surfaced in the human genome? Do they pick up the template from a chemical absorbed through their skin while handling firearms? Or do they pick up their ability to copycat each other in their search for infamy from the news and entertainment media?

Why haven't these copycat repetitions ignited a media debate? Particularly after we already tried the "assault rifle" ban once already and even the studies commissioned by the gun grabber groups found it was absolutely worthless in reducing violent crime? If the answer lies in infringing on one of our inalienable rights, why aren't we igniting a debate on whether we need government restrictions, control, and censorship of the news and entertainment media? After all, there's no other explanation for the copycat nature of these crimes.

But violating the First Amendment (which I no more believe in than violating the Second) would somehow or other be "different", wouldn't it? Actors like Mark Wahlberg who make a pretty nice piece of coin shooting movies where they use illegal firearms in an illegal manner - sometimes even the evil AR-15 - and who are now calling for gun bans as a no brainer would be pissed right off if you suggested censorship and bans on their films depicting illegal activities they portray for a handsome profit in the movies.

So why don't we start with a debate asking why these murders, without exception, involve murderers who dress the same way, use the same firearms, and follow the same sequence of events? Should we just pretend nobody has noticed that?

Why don't we start by asking why it is that these murderers always choose locations where they're guaranteed a supply of unarmed victims because the facility they're in prohibits law abiding people from possessing firearms? After all, when was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a gun show, a gun range, etc. ? You know... someplace where it is practically certain that people would be immediately shooting back? After all, if you're going to end by committing suicide, why would you care if the intended victims could fight back with lethal force or not?

And maybe we should start by asking those laughing so loudly at the NRA's suggestions why it is terrorists no longer attempt to slaughter Israelis children in their classrooms after the Israelis armed teachers and the next couple of attempts ended up with the terrorists shot to death by school staff before they ever got started? Why haven't El Al aircraft been hijacked since they started arming their flight crews and putting armed air marshals on board?

Seems to work for the Israelis, so if we really do care about the kids, and even one is too many, why is it so ridiculous to discuss giving school staff the means to instantly respond to a murderer with lethal force? When a teacher is brave enough and determined enough to sacrifice her life to a gunman, hoping he won't move on to kill the children, isn't she brave enough and determined enough to protect her kids to defend them with the use of force? Are our teachers really so much more weak and inadequate than Israeli teachers?

So no, even ignoring the fact Obama and company want us to willingly engage in a discussion of voluntarily participating in violating the second amendment, we shouldn't be having a gun debate. Other than to point out: "We already tried that once, and every study we've done found that it didn't make one iota of difference. Let's move on and try something else".

Quote :

but the thought of the government possibly restricting my rights as a law-abiding citizen, just didn't sit right with me.

It shouldn't. All the more so when you see that they never reach a point where they say "Okay, that's enough restrictions of that one". Instead, their fallback position is "Well, we just haven't gone far enough with the restrictions yet, that's why it hasn't worked". The fact that they don't even consider achieving what they want through a constitutional amendment tells you all you need to know about these people.

Quote :

I went to my local gun store and bought an AR-15 and a couple of extra 30 round magazines (they were flying out of the store when I was there).

I can't imagine a better way to sell these rifles than to announce you want to try and ban them. The same thing happened when Biden and Co pushed the first "assault rifle" ban through. Like they couldn't imagine it would happen again.

My belief is they really don't care. This really isn't about gun control, this is about increasing their power to control people. They don't care if it has the opposite effect of what they claim their intention is.

deerHater wrote:

Jäger wrote:

A gentle reminder for the dense who have problems with logical thought and concepts.

Why would anyone bother to read beyond that opening line?

Here...

deerHater wrote:

mucker wrote:

I'ld suggest, quit your crying.

Why would anyone bother to read beyond that opening line?

Fixed that for ya.

Funny, I just read an article on gun related statistics in the US, by Neil McDonald.
Did you know that 7 of the 10 states with the least restrictive gun laws also enjoy the the highest number of deaths by guns?
China is not immune to such tragedy either, even with their highly restricted media sources. Only their latest tragedy, in a school, involved a nut bar with a knife, attacking 22 school children. Only difference between there and the US is that, everyone survived the knife wielding asshole. Would any rational person suggest that they would have had more appealing statistics if everyone involved was armed to the 9's? Consider this isn't the first time china has had nut bar issues to deal with...statistics being similar each time.

A few numbers http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/guns-us/

After all its not flamethrowers that incinerate people, its people who incinerate people...do I have the logic right?
If everyone had a flamethrower, somehow that problem would manage itself, therefore no longer being a problem?

mucker wrote:

Funny, I just read an article on gun related statistics in the US, by Neil McDonald.

I don't find it unusual at all. You, CBC, and McDonald go together like peanut butter and jam.

This would be the same guy who wrote his recent article about a "nation of assault rifles" and called the AR-15 an "assault rifle", right? And Neil knows his guns - he took the time to tell us about his dad shooting a rabid dog and facing down yahoos with his rifle. The problem is that an AR-15 is not an "assault rifle", and you can't manufacture and sell assault rifles in the US and haven't been able to for quit some time now.

Oh yes, and it fires... how did he term this???? "ultra-destructive bullets". Meanwhile, in the military world, the troops are bitching the round lacks stopping power against Taliban fighters clad only in man-jammies.

But Neil - like you - never let's little misstatements and outright mistakes stand in the way of a good story, does he?

So yeah, Neil's our man - one hell of an impartial and authoritative source of facts on firearms.

BTW, as I don't follow ol' Neil much of the time, what did he have to say of the role of the media in providing the template and script for all these murderers so they could all murder dressed the same, equipped the same, same sequence of events, etc? Did he have anything to say about that?

Quote :

Did you know that 7 of the 10 states with the least restrictive gun laws also enjoy the the highest number of deaths by guns?

Now isn't that interesting... How do we cherrypick to come up with this? What's a "least restrictive gun law", and who gets to define it? And where do we get numbers like that when US official statistical tables don't supply those percentiles.

Whaddya say we start by saying murder only counts if they're a state?

That means we don't have to explain Puerto Rico and Washington DC with their extremely high murder rates leading the nation: 30.6 and 17.5 per 100K respectively. That's handy, because there's two US jurisdictions with extremely Draconian gun laws.

Whaddya say we only count it as a murder if it occurs by gun - will the statistics work in our favour then?

How about the basics? What about if we just look at murder rates and least restrictive gun laws for carrying any firearm of your choice, whether concealed or openly?

Vermont's simple - they have no gun laws: 1.9/100K
New Hampshire is almost no gun laws: 1.3/100K
Much the same in Utah: 1.9/100k
Montana - don't even need a concealed permit except for some towns: 2.8/100K
Idaho - pretty much like Montana 2.3/100K

Just as a point of interest, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, Nunavit, and the NWT all had higher murder rates than those states - despite having far more restrictive gun laws, including laws prohibiting owning or carrying a firearm for self defense. Especially them nasty ol' handguns and AR-15s

Well, that's five states that have little or no gun laws, or laws so permissive you can openly carry whatever you want in town, without any permit or license required. And of course, no state "assault rifle" bans. Meanwhile, what about those restrictive jurisdictions other than Washington DC and Puerto Rico?

Kalifornia and their crazy gun laws including banning AR-15s: 4.8/100K
Illinois - more of the same: 5.6/100K
Indiana isn't much better with their gun laws: 4.8/100K
Maryland is pretty picky about gun ownership: 6.8/100K
Michigan likes registering and restricting: 6.2/100K

Kind of looks like you're two to three times more likely to be murdered in states with much more restrictive gun laws. Not knowing where the "7 out of 10" numbers allegedly came from, and what they defined as "least restrictive gun laws", and whether they avoided counting PR and DC, their claim does look a little bit odd.

All the numbers above are the latest years available from Stats Can and the FBI, by the way. Didn't come from Neil McDonald or some other media horse's ass pontificating about something they know nothing about.

Quote :

Would any rational person suggest that they would have had more appealing statistics if everyone involved was armed to the 9's?

Yes, the Israelis would. After the PLO started slaughtering school students in schools and on trips, they have an armed presence in their schools and on outings. Not necessarily teachers as is sometimes claimed, but an armed guard. And how often do you hear of Israeli students being slaughtered since then? About as often as you hear of an El Al jetliner being hijacked since the Israelis got tired of their aircraft being hijacked and Jewish passengers murdered and started putting armed guards on them.

Does it ever occur to any of these people to ask themselves why there are never any mass murders at gun shows? After all, if guns are the cause, surely there's enough guns at those things? Is it possible that the problem is, if you want to slaughter defenseless people, a gun show full of gun owners in a country where it is legal to carry is a poor choice to try and start killing people?

I find it amusing that, in the presence of somebody actively murdering people, some people think dialing 911 on a cellphone is preferable to being able to pick up a 1911.

Quote :

Consider this isn't the first time china has had nut bar issues to deal with...statistics being similar each time.

Consider how these same people don't want to consider the statistical analysis that was repeatedly done after the first "assault rifle" ban that showed it didn't change crime and murder rates one iota.

Consider how these same people don't want to consider the statistics that uniformly show that states with the least gun control laws in place almost without exception have the lowest murder rates.

And consider the statistics where a police officer was able to interrupt and stop a mass murder being committed versus when an armed everyday person on the scene did it.

Quote :

A few numbers http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/guns-us/

Funny that the CBC felt you didn't need to be shown numbers comparing murder rates in Canadian provinces to neighboring states with little or no gun laws, eh? Comparing BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to Washington, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota would not have provided nearly as impressive bar graphs, would it have.

Or would that have been just a few numbers too many in the opinion of CBC and Neil McDonald for their adoring acolytes to handle? Thank God they protected you from seeing something like that.

Quote :

After all its not flamethrowers that incinerate people, its people who incinerate people...do I have the logic right?
If everyone had a flamethrower, somehow that problem would manage itself, therefore no longer being a problem?

Flamethrowers... how dramatic. Does that come from the same book Neil MacDonald uses that says you should call semiautomatic rifles "assault rifles"?

So when was the last crime with a flamethrower committed, again?

But let's make it easy for those who can't even explain what "shall not be infringed" means:

When was the last time a mass murder was attempted where the intended victims were all armed? A gun show, a gun range, a police locker room, etc?

And how come when somebody intent on mass murder is confronted and stopped by an armed bystander, the press never seems to feel that is worth mentioning? Like the shooting just two days prior, for example - how do you report everything but the fact he stopped shooting, ran away, and committed suicide after being confronted by an armed shopper?

How do you miss reporting school shootings where the shooter was stopped by an armed principal in one shooting, and two legally armed students in another? My guess would be that events like those don't fit with an agenda that calls semaiutomatic rifles "assault rifles" and discusses people armed with flame throwers.

Well i was not gonna say a thing,

I knew a guy years ago who had a tank with a flame thrower on it that worked. Ya know he could not buy a tank if it could fire shells,but he could and did get one at a auction the had a working flame thrower.
He did use it but the cost of that was so over the top he replaced the barrel with a "candycane",he had one made that was bent back arround and painted red and white.
I dont recall what model tank it was,gonna say wwII

Even firefighters are not safe <-- clicky

Quote :

A gunman set a trap and shot and killed two firefighters responding to an early morning blaze in Webster, N.Y. Two other first responders were serious condition, police officials said.

"It does appear that it was a trap that was set for first responders, but the cause or reasons we don't have at this time," said Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said describing the scene where shots were fired at West Webster firefighters when they arrived at 5:35 a.m to battle the blaze along Lake Road in Webster, which is about 10 miles west of Rochester.

The apparent gunman was found dead in an area outside the scene, but it’s unclear if he was killed with a self-inflicted gunshot or if it was from a weapon from a police officer who was chasing him.

The USofA has now become such a place that the ONLY way any of us can feel safe (false sense of security to be sure) is to make sure that each and every person has immediate and easy access to the most deadliest of all weapons and unlimited amounts of ammunition.

Fully automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles of any and all calibers. Night vision. Full and complete kevlar body armor.

It won't be long before we're all trapped into being required to look like this whenever we're not bathing ourselves or creating babies.


I'm really looking forward to nuclear tipped radio-active armor piercing incendiary bunker busting smart bullets that can be programmed to bend around corners.

Then we'll all REALLY be FREE.

Of course - it'll all be Obama's fault, because that was his plan all along.

Merry X-mas.

I guess sometimes things just have to be said...


The Second Amendment Still stands as the cornerstone of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This provision empowers the people with the tools to protect themselves, their land, and their country, from invaders (foes) both domestic and foreign. Anyone seeking to topple these rights poses a danger to our freedoms. Do not give away your right to defend yourself and others freedoms. Without those freedoms there is no common good.

motokid wrote:

Even firefighters are not safe <-- clicky

Oh look! The media helping to guarantee another murderer their infamy and provide a template for the next one to follow when he decides its his turn to be noticed on his way out.

I've always wondered - why do the statists who are so on board with seizing more and more individual rights and freedoms only endorse attacking the rights in the Second Amendment - never the rights in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, etc? It's a curious phenomena totally inexplicable to me - but of course, they can't even explain what "shall not be infringed" means to them either, so they operate from a very unusual head space.

Maybe it's because if they said anything about the First Amendment, they might lose access to their Halo games and other games where they can play at blasting everything living on their computer screen?

Quote :

The USofA has now become such a place that the ONLY way any of us can feel safe (false sense of security to be sure) is to make sure that each and every person has immediate and easy access to the most deadliest of all weapons and unlimited amounts of ammunition.

First, let's try to provide a little mental health assistance to those so slavishly addicted to the mainstream media that they've lost touch with reality.

Can we ease their anxiety a bit by pointing out that if they bother to put the media aside long enough to actually look at the government's crime data over the past decade, the situation isn't anything like what they bleat to anyone who will pay attention?

Would it help them to know that the violent crime rate in the US has been decreasing during that time - not increasing?

Would it help them to know that violent crime with rifles - including the malevolent AR-15 and other "assault rifles" - has been steadily decreasing during that time? Will it sooth their anxiety to know that while no homicide is good, last year only about 350 people were killed with rifles while about 750 were beaten to death (apparently by people who didn't have a rifle handy), about 1500 with blunt objects, and about another 1600 with knives and other similar weapons?

So, their paranoia aside, no, the US isn't becoming increasingly dangerous each year. In fact, it's becoming less dangerous each year. Curiously enough, this trend is paralleling the increasing number of states passing "shall issue" legislation or removing unconstitutional laws banning using firearms for self defense.

On the other hand, it is true that you are far more secure from victimization when you carry a firearm for self defense. This should be simple logic to even the dimmest out there - when confronted by a violent criminal, a firearm is far better at persuading them to leave you alone than pulling a cellphone and threatening to call 911.

This isn't merely logic and common sense. Department of Justice surveys done over a ten year period produced results showing that intended victims who were armed had the lowest rates of injury or death - lower even than those who victims who tried passive non-resistance or fleeing. And yet, statists cling to the belief that disarming the law abiding to provide a safer workplace for violent criminals is the answer.

Quote :

Fully automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles of any and all calibers. Night vision. Full and complete kevlar body armor.

It won't be long before we're all trapped into being required to look like this whenever we're not bathing ourselves or creating babies.

I guess that's supposed to be another angle on ranting about people wanting to carry flame throwers, calling seamiautomatic rifles "assault rifles", and so on. Right out of Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals.

Reality is you aren't "trapped" into anything. While statists are regularly foaming at the mouth about people exercising their Second Amendment rights, supporting more unconstitutional gun laws (never suggesting trying change through an amendment, of course) to strip others of their rights, the reverse is not true. Those who believe the Constitution actually means something never suggest that those who choose not to exercise their Second Amendment rights should be forced to buy and carry guns. They believe that anyone who wants to participate in the victim lottery should be free to do that if they so choose - what they object to is those who want EVERYONE to be forced to participate in the victim lottery with them.

Quote :

Oh look - somebody is a fan of the Halo game series. You know... the one where you play the part of some being who just wanders around slaughtering everything with a pulse. I wonder if the folks who can find those images have also managed to find the studies on the effects of those games which have been published in refereed journals? Probably not - otherwise, they'd be ranting about crushing the First Amendment, not the Second.

Quote :

I'm really looking forward to nuclear tipped radio-active armor piercing incendiary bunker busting smart bullets that can be programmed to bend around corners.

Oh dear... so disconnected from reality. Did the statist mind set come after that, or was that a result of adopting statism?

Quote :

Then we'll all REALLY be FREE.

When you can't explain what the words "shall not be infringed" mean, I doubt you have any better an understanding of freedom.

Particularly when you somehow or other visualize limiting the Second Amendment as somehow or other increasing personal freedom in a country which is a republic emphasizing individual rights and liberty, not group think. For those whose idea of freedom is not individual liberty and freedom to choose, but instead "peace, order, and good government" where priority goes to individual rights not interfering with governance, Canada for one exists as an option. That should be a particularly popular option, because Canada has stripped property rights from their citizens and the new Constitution even has a really cool section which allows the ruling government to suspend all individual civil rights by a simple majority vote. Now that's cool!

Quote :

Of course - it'll all be Obama's fault, because that was his plan all along.

Well now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection any longer, he's working pretty hard on shredding the Second Amendment like has other parts of the Constitution earlier in this first term. Which shouldn't surprise anyone who was paying attention and bothered to notice that part of his platform when running for his first term was re-instituting the "Assault Rifle" Ban.

You know, the Ban that sunsetted and expired, and which studies showed did not do one iota to reduce violent crime in general or crimes with the types of semiautomatic firearms it banned. The Ban authored by Joe Biden, the guy now taking an "impartial" look at what we should do next.

Wasn't it Einstein who said the definition of the insane is they want to keep doing the same thing over and over again and yet expect a different result the next time they do it? Like bringing back the "assault rifle" ban again, for example?

Am I the only one who notices that neither Obama nor any of his acolytes ever explain or defend their demands for more unconstitutional legislation in terms of the Constitution? Is it because they're shy they can't explain what "shall not be infringed" means to them?

Is it because they're afraid that any mention of the Constitution will result in somebody asking them why they don't simply propose an amendment to the Constitution if they really do have the public on their side as they claim?

That damned Constitution and Bill of Rights. What a pain in the ass it is...

IndigoWolf wrote:

I guess sometimes things just have to be said...

Hey! I stood and talked with him at the Lowe's here in Kalispell last spring for about 15 minutes. Seems he does his own gardening and lawn as well!

You are trying to explain something to a group from a "special kind of stupid" indeed.

These people you're trying to explain this to cannot (even in the simplest of terms a 12 year old girl might use) explain what the words "shall not be infringed" mean to them.

Given that, how can you expect them to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Much less have any respect for it or understand how to attempt to properly amend it if they believe it is defective in its current wording.

Hell, they don't even notice that the biggest proponents of disarming Americans are themselves protected by armed guards 24/7. Nobody bothers to ask them why they don't just tell their gunmen on standby to go home if that's the answer to violent crime.

just to give some thoughts from the view of someone standing from the outside. some figures:

US:

Number of Homicides by any means per 100.000 2010: 4.6
Number of Homicides by guns per 100.000 2009: 2.98
Number of unintentional gun deaths per 100.000 2005: 0.27


Germany:

Number of Homicides by any means per 100.000 2010: 0.8
Nmber of Homicides by guns per 100.000 2010: 0.2 ( 2009: 0.2 )
Number of unintentional gun deaths per 100.000 2010: 0.02 ( 2005: 0.01 )

this is comparing two countries with similar wealth, economic status and technological advancement. guns or no guns, it just shows that the US has a problem overall with homicides. the number is almost 6 times that of germany. now thats a lot. So I think to really fully address this problem it has to be looked deeper, at the original causes. however, comparing deaths by gun (which is 15 times higher) and unintentional deaths by guns (which is 13,5 times higher) is just scary. I'd be more likely to get shot in the US by accident than in germany on purpose

it just goes to show that stricter guns laws are good for something. they will not make the rate drop from 2.98 to 0.00, but making it drop to 0.2 is a realistic option. however I do see how that would be difficult to implement, especially with all the guns running around... pro gun or anti gun, I think those figures are kinda scary and something should be done about it, but from the outside (thats me) it's difficult to say which way to approach to *attempt* to solve this problem.


stats from http://www.gunpolicy.org/

bigg wrote:

just to give some thoughts from the view of someone standing from the outside. some figures:
this is comparing two countries with similar wealth, economic status and technological advancement. guns or no guns, it just shows that the US has a problem overall with homicides.

Mostly, it shows that there are many people who persist in comparing apples to oranges.

As just one example, does Germany share a border with a country full of drug cartels, with violence from those cartels spilling over into Germany as it does in the US?

Does Germany also enjoy having to deal with about 18 MILLION illegal aliens like the US does - a significant number of them violent criminals who are members of street gangs?

Does Germany have anywhere near the number of violent criminal street gangs like the US does? Do you have any idea how many street gang members the US has? According to the FBI, there are currently 1.5 MILLION violent criminal gang members active in the US as of 2011 - now how many violent criminal gang members does Germany have contributing to their violent crime rate?

No, Germany is nothing like that. Are we supposed to believe this has no effect on violent crime; it's strictly about guns?

And yet, people persist in the fantasy of just picking two countries and going "Well, what the hell, close enough". The reason they do this is the more logical way of making comparisons does not support their theories on how gun control should work. But their theory of how to assess firearms versus crime works the other way as well.

Under this theory of social comparison, we should just make sure every household in the US has at least one assault rifle - REAL assault rifles, meaning machine guns. Because Switzerland's crime rate is proof that this will result in low violent crime rates.

But no, the folks at Gun Policy don't like Switzerland either - even though their violent crime rates are much lower than other countries they applaud for having strict gun laws.

Quote :

I'd be more likely to get shot in the US by accident than in germany on purpose

And if one country has a thousand cars, and the other only has ten, then it is just quite possible you're more likely to be hit by a car in the first country than the second. Of course, we're also not supposed to take note of the fact Germany has only about a quarter of the population of the US.

Quote :

it just goes to show that stricter guns laws are good for something.

No, it just goes to show that people will make simplistic comparisons to bolster their case, utterly ignoring the fact there are many confounding factors in doing so. Even people who claim to be all about facts and science. Let's leave the sophomoric comparisons between countries with differing gun laws, and stick to comparisons of gun laws within a single country.

For example, the US had "stricter gun laws" when the original "Assault Rifle Ban" was in place. And yet, review after review of the effects of that ban determined it did not affect violent crime in general or murders in particular one iota while it was in force. That includes reviews done by the Department of Justice and at least one gun banner group, incidentally. So what good did that particular gun law do other than violating the Bill of Rights?

And then we have states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, etc where you can openly carry any firearm and walk down main street with it, carry concealed without even a license, etc and it is perfectly legal. Meanwhile, jurisdictions with Draconian gun laws like Washington DC, California, Illinois, etc have murder rates two to three times greater than those states whose gun laws are almost non-existent.

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law in 1987, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law in 1996, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. national murder rate has averaged 28% lower.

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban in 1982, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, but the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Note that we aren't even making cross border comparisons here that have cultural differences, different federal governing systems and laws, etc. We're comparing jurisdictions within the same country, with the same federal government and federal laws. And in some case, the same jurisdictions before and after gun laws were struck down or put in place.

So if stricter gun laws are supposed to be good for something other than reducing individual rights and freedoms, why did more Draconian federal gun laws fail to make any difference in violent crime rates? And how is it possible for states with little or no gun laws to have much lower murder rates than states with Draconian gun laws? If what you claimed were true, it should be the other way around. But it isn't.

And if very restrictive gun laws do reduce crime, why do Mexico and Jamaica have such enormously higher murder rates than the US when the one country makes civilian firearm ownership extremely difficult and the other outright bans the possession of firearms?

It's one thing to claim something is true; it is quite another to find evidence that is so. Here, the reverse is true: restrictive gun laws do nothing but violate civil rights and disarm law abiding citizens.

In reality, stricter gun laws don't make a bit of difference. Not surprising, really, because criminals using guns are already ignoring existing laws that say they can't possess a firearm to begin with, and laws that say you can't shoot people. And when we can't even keep weapons out of jails, where inmates are under lock down and surveillance 24/7, how do we come up with gun laws that disarm anyone other than the law abiding?

Quote :

stats from http://www.gunpolicy.org/

A yes... a dedicated coalition of advocates of gun bans, restrictions, and outright seizures. A perfectly impartial source of information on firearms; no axes to grind or mission to demonize firearms and find more ways to violate the Bill of Rights. Not unlike those yammering today AR-15s have no suitable use for self defense - conveniently omitting the Korean shop owners who guarded their property with those rifles during the Rodney King riots. Their property was left untouched while property around them was looted and destroyed by arson. It is very important that you shape and outright change the data to achieve the intended result.

Here's a few questions about the scientific folks at gunpolicy.org:

Given their apparent commitment to providing folks like you with information, why are they silent on research showing that the assault rifle ban was an abject failure - particularly when they're all for having it brought back?

Why are they silent on the research showing that victims of violent crime in the US are least likely to be injured or killed if they resist with a firearm rather than any other option - including completely passive compliance with their assailant?

Why are they so helpful in providing figures for murder and accidents with firearms, but kind of forget to provide you with references to the long term studies that show between 2.5 and 3 MILLION defensive uses of firearms in the US each year? And did they provide comparative figures for Germany to show how many intended victims of violent criime were saved by use of a firearm in that country?

Jeez... they sort of forgot to address all those gun facts, didn't they? I wonder why??????

You'll get more honesty out of a thief than a group like that.

A friend of mine posted this up on FB recently. I think it explains things quite clearly.

"I usually try to avoid politics or political postings. However, the recent events in Newtown, and the responses all around have really brought gun and arms misinformation to a new level. I'm not going into all the fine points of law that were either ignored, or broken here, nor on regulation, or weapons. This is for everyone who asks "Why do we even have guns? Those are for the Army!" or those who say "We all get to have guns because we are all part of the Militia!"
You know, while I’ve been a longtime gun owner, I didn't realize until just now why “well-regulated militia” was part of the Second Amendment.
For so many years, I’ve heard it argued wrongly by both sides, and I'm ashamed to say I never gave it too much thought beyond my own generally-held preconceptions. The gun-control crowd always said this reading meant that only the militia could own firearms. The gun-rights crowd always said “that’s because the militia is made up of all the people.” They are both wrong.

The Founders knew that from time to time we’d need an army of some sort to beat back invasions, aggressors, and other threats.

The Founders also knew that a standing army was one of the biggest threats to any free state – one military coup, and you’ve lost everything. The Founders knew as well as Eisenhower that the military-industrial complex is something to be feared.

So, you have to have a military around to keep threats away, but what do you do about the military threat? This is why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right to keep and bear arms is a check on the militia, a standing Army. It has exactly nothing to do with people who belong to the militia. It has nothing to do with forming a militia. Arms are the primary mechanism to keep the militia under control. "Well-regulated" doesn't mean "professional." "Well-regulated" means "under constraints so as not to become a threat to a free state." The Founders knew that the only defense against a government in control of an army, or an army attempting a coup against a state, was an armed citizenry.

An armed populace is a threat to any military force. In the United States, this is by design.

Now, re-read the Second Amendment, with that in mind:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A quote, from someone who was there:
Samuel Adams in 1776: “A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People…. Such a Power should be watched with a jealous eye.”

Now, to those of you who say "What are a bunch of armchair warriors going to do against the most powerful army on Earth?"

In 1776, the British held the most powerful army on Earth. They were beaten by a bunch of underfunded farmers. Does this seem to have any parallels today?"

"One more thing: For those of you who say "That could never happen here" - I want you to think about how many times you've heard a politican say "It would be nice if I could just make them do what I say" - even in jest. I want you to think about how many times you've read some opinion where the author expresses admiration for countries like China where "they can just get things done because people have to listen." Think about what those people are really wishing for when they say things like that."
-EW

skidmarx wrote:

Now, to those of you who say "What are a bunch of armchair warriors going to do against the most powerful army on Earth?"

An armed population was the reason Hitler left the Swiss alone.

gatorfan wrote:

skidmarx wrote:

Now, to those of you who say "What are a bunch of armchair warriors going to do against the most powerful army on Earth?"

An armed population was the reason Hitler left the Swiss alone.

Well now that the media and general public has gone to sleep again once the "fiscal cliff" emergency was announced as solved and the Republicans properly beaten up as we all know they deserved, it seems the mental masterminds in government who rule us and the media elites who support them can now get back to the business of destroying the Second Amendment - but not by a proper constitutional amendment process, of course.

In this corner, we have Senator Dianne Feinstein. She carried a gun for protection when she wasn't important enough to rate her own gunslingers, and now travels with an entourage of gunslingers/bullet catchers so she doesn't get gun oil on her clothes or have a couple of pounds of metal in her purse. Ms Feinstein let it slip that she has been working on this bill for well over a year now and was just waiting for the right moment and the election to be over before throwing it to Obama to gnaw on. As Obama's Emmanual said "Never let a disaster go to waste", and she's acting on that.

Feinstein's complete bill hasn't seen the light of day yet, but little snippets of it have been leaked. Aside from restoring much of the original "assault rifle" ban (but on steroids this time), it bears a remarkable resemblance to much of Canada's Firearms Act from back about 1993. That too was an emotional response to a mass shooting, banned many firearms - most of them on cosmetic appearance alone - attacked both personal liberty and property rights... and to the surprise of nobody who had a brain in their head, didn't affect crime rates one iota.

So her bill will outright ban 120 firearms - including the popular AR-15 which we are led to believe is the Devil's own handwork. There's a little over two million already in the hands of the citizenry, since they first started being sold about 1965. The fact that tens of thousands of these rifles are used in precision shooting matches, including the oldest organized sporting event in the US, doesn't mean anything. The fact that just as many are using in action shooting events doesn't matter either. Nor that many use these for simply enjoying sport shooting, pest control, etc. Not one AR-15 is used by any military in the world, and not one is a real assault rifle - that being a rifle having selective automatic fire. No matter, they have no sporting purpose, they're military weaponry, and civilians should not be allowed to own them. Please avoid looking at what the Founders had to say on the Second Amendment in the ratification debates, what the Supreme Court said in the Miller decision, and above all don't ask what the words "shall not be infringed" mean to an adult.

But Feinstein is not heartless. If you already own any of the rifles, shotguns, handguns, and magazines she intends to ban - either as a specifically named firearm, or one with one of the named cosmetic characteristics of an "assault rifle" - she'll let you keep it. You won't be able to sell or transfer it, however - it will actually belong to the government for now, and it's merely still yours on suffrage. You won't be able to even buy or sell from other grandfathered individuals, and you certainly can't bequeath such dangerous items to your kids or siblings or other family members when you die. No, once you die (or say you just don't want it anymore), then the government comes to collect it. It's theirs.

Might as well shred the Ninth Amendment as well as the Second...

But there's a bit more to make all this work. All you folks with those grandfathered rifles, handguns, magazines? Well, there's a few other things, such as:

• Registering owners with the federal government, including photograph and fingerprints
  
• Registering the make, model, and serial number of the firearm with the federal government
  
• A background check on all grandfathered owners before they and their firearms can be registered

There's more (of course), but it sure is comforting to know that we can trust the federal government to register firearms owners like they do sex offenders, and begin the process of registering firearms and where they're located and who has them. And of course, the press to use their First Amendment (do we ever get a chance to trash that one?) rights and freedom of information rights to publish the names, addresses of those using firearms and what they own - which they have done numerous times in the past with data from states who require similar registration/licensing.

And very few politicians and practically none of the press have a problem with this. John Boehner certainly hasn't said anything, nor Mitch McConnell. It's kind of a post-Constitutional world out there right now.

And in this corner, we have Joe Biden - author of the first "assault rifle" ban. You know, the one that didn't accomplish one bloody thing other than increasing government and infringing on individual rights and freedoms.

The story we have from Obama - you know, the guy we're told isn't after anybody's guns, according to him and his acolytes - is that Joe Biden is heading a committee looking into gun violence. What is pretty clear is that this "committee" is mostly a who's who of some of the most Draconian gun banners in the nation. They are not looking at causes of violence, nor are they looking at the positive side of firearms. What they are doing is trying to figure out how far they can go in confiscating and banning firearms, and how they can manage to do it without tripping themselves up. And we know they're in a hurry, because the best time to steal individual freedom and liberty is when emotions are high and peoples' brains are in their back pocket.

In fact, Biden is issuing guarantees Obama and him will have gun bans out in just a few weeks. From a Boston newspaper, interviewing radical gun banner Mayor Tom Menino:
Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” Mayor Thomas M. Menino — a leading national gun control advocate — that President Obama will pass sweeping firearms reforms by the end of the month, the mayor said today.

“He said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end of January,’” Menino said at City Hall today."

We could talk about how gun bans and violating the Bill of Rights becomes a "reform" when you're dealing with the far left and those who hold the Constitution in contempt. But that's another story.

What's interesting here to those who understand enough about the constitution to know how government is supposed to work, is that both Obama and Biden are talking about making law.

And as Americans with even a rudimentary grade school education should understand, presidents and their administrations don't have the constitutional authority to make laws. Oh, they can write something up and send it to Congress and ask them to please pass it. But they have no constitutional authority to ignore the separation of powers and just make laws on their own as they see fit.

Of course, this is the same president and administration that ignored American bankruptcy laws to kick guaranteed creditors to one side while they took over most of the auto industry and handed control and money over to the unions who supported them, so it is unlikely they feel too limited about making up laws on their own either.

And again... nobody seems to have much question about this. Any more than they did the war in Libya Obama went into without Congressional permission. It's a post-Constitutional world out there indeed.

And, in a glimpse of things to come, a snippet from a story about a girl in Maryland killed by a stray bullet:
Police said a homicide investigation is underway in Maryland.

Cops are "searching door to door looking for information as well as searching those homes with known firearms," said Michael Holmes, a spokesman for the Cecil Country Sheriff's Office.

Any of our resident statists/socialists see a problem with any of that?

Illinois, already known for Draconian gun laws - and having just lost a court battle that ruled many of their gun laws unconstutional - decided to double down on stupid:

Quinn Applauds Senate Committee's Approval of Gun Control Bills

(SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) -- The Illinois Senate Public Health Committee approved two bills on Wednesday that ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity ammunition clips.

"Following the horrific Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre that left 12 dead, I proposed a statewide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines to best protect the people of Illinois," Gov. Pat Quinn said in a statement. "As I have repeatedly made clear, there is no place in Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range."

One bill seeks to ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns and rifles. However, it allows people who already own such weapons to keep them, with the requirement that they register the weapons. The other bill seeks to limit clips to no more than 10 rounds.

If there's no place in Illinois for firearms that can rapidly fire at human targets at close range, I guess no pistols for self defense in Illinois any longer I guess, huh? And does that mean all police in Illinois - including federal law enforcement - will be mandated back to revolvers? Or is that rule only for the peons?

It's worth noting that Chicago had about 500 murders last year, despite extremely restrictive gun laws, some just ruled unconstitutional. So, in a mark of the usual stupidity of the left, instead of recognizing the Constitution and abandoning failed theories, they decided to double down and go even further. If current bans don't work, well hell, just extend the bans.

They mention Aurora, but they didn't mention that it was discovered that all the theaters near his home did not prohibit those legally carrying concealed weapons, and so the murderer went further away to a theater complex that DID prohibit being on the premises with firearms. Hmmmm... why would he have done that? And did the sign keep the murderer off the premises, by the way?

For that matter, are any of the street criminals responsible for the great majority of Illinois' violent crime paying any more attention to what they can and can't have under his new laws than they were to the former prohibitions and bans they ignored under his old laws?

Maybe he should change Illinois law making murder illegal; reword it to say murder is really, REALLY illegal. After all, increasing prohibitions even further when they don't work originally is supposed to work for firearms, right?

Of course, they not only want their opinion, they also want their version of the facts. Quinn declares that semiautomatic firearms are designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range. Observe the morons sitting there, their heads nodding up and down in dumb agreement.

That statement, of course, is absurd stupidity - or blatant dishonesty, whatever you prefer - when you compare that statement to the overwhelming majority of semiautomatic firearms out there. For example, the ban he is seeking will make semiautomatic handguns that cost thousands of dollars and specifically designed and intended for Olympic competition illegal. Ditto for models of semiautomatic hunting rifles that have been in constant production since before he was born.

See CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc bringing any of that up? Wouldn't objective news coverage suggest you might point that out?

And when you oppose this kind of crap, why, you're an "extremist".

+

edit