Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Overall numbers, worldwide, show absolutely no correlation either way. There is quite literally no link between the legality of gun ownership and crime rates.
There is, however, substantial evidence linking poverty and crime, and the economy is currently tanking. Look at the big picture, lest you get played.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
And are 10 pounds of shit stuffed in a 5 pound political suit as well.
Edit: That sounded a lot better in my head
+1
I think I'll buy 2 new guns to celebrate this historic day too -- the victory over the likes of anti-gun partisans craig234 and ericlp in this thread!
@Jeff -- Got the cash and need an idea? Say hello to my baby:
Sako TRG-22 .308
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
My point is not that I think you're against these rights. Rather that there should be some things that do override States' rights. States' rights are all well and good, but there are higher principles and the individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are perfect examples thereof.
ZV
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Put it to good use
Bought 2 today. Nothing to do with Heller, just was able to find my Visa card finally.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Most of those are gang members or people directly involved in illegal activity. If you look only at accidents involving legally-owned firearms you'll see that the death rate is negligible. The CDC statistics are misleading and cannot be used as an example of issues stemming from legal firearms ownership.
Also, firearms are used 2,500,000 times each year to prevent crimes against people and property. In over 98% of all cases, the firearms are never even fired.
Studies also show that criminals are more afraid of an armed victim than they are of police.
You need to learn that there is a vast difference between legally-owned firearms and firearms use by criminals.
ZV
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
well, this was response to the video that already had Gun Restrictions in place. You know the cities that have 3-400 gun deaths per year. I am not saying we should ban gun ownership but we should let DC and other cities like LA control guns where gun crime numbers are at the peak.
As for Drugs and Guns, funny how they go hand in hand eh? Just quoting the facts. The numbers are too high. How much you want to bet the numbers get higher?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Worldwide numbers fail to take into account cultural differences. The US is not the entire world. The only valid numbers in this discussion are those pertaining solely to the US; and those numbers support the position that an increase in legal firearms ownership reduces the instances of violent crime.
ZV
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Links? Proof?
Other wise your just talking out of your ass and your shit is beginning to smell...
You need to learn that cities should be able to have a say what can and can not go on in their cities ... It's very obvious that you don't live in a war zone or a city that has a lot of gun violence ... What about these people that got to put up with the BS daily. Maybe it will come to a city near you then your'll be singing a different tune...
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
The supremes have family & friends that live/work in DC, the ban was stupid and nearly unenforceable, and made criminals out of normally law abiding citizens.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-...GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
All the proof and links you'll need. Not that you'll actually bother to verify any of it since it disagrees with your delusions.
ZV
Sounds like some despots are hard at work, to me. I dare them to attempt taking the peoples guns away.
ElMonoDelMar
Golden Member
- Apr 29, 2004
- 1,163
- 338
- 136
You know what the beautiful thing about a right is? We don't have to justify it to anyone including you.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Here is a good one...
POLICE AND GUNS
Myth: Police favor gun control
Fact: 94% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.
Since when is a firearm only a gun? I'm sure most cops would tell you to buy a shotgun not a hand gun for self defense ... That's a bit miss leading. Your source is full of holes...
Mean while the chief of police in California quotes "The insanity continues ... "
ElMonoDelMar
Golden Member
- Apr 29, 2004
- 1,163
- 338
- 136
I've already posted this once in this thread, but who the hell are you to presume that you know what's best for each person in a self-defense situation?
On an un-related note: the hilarity.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Don't worry sparky... I know your all for violence no one is going to take your toys away. It will be interesting to see the numbers in the following years. I own a few shotguns and S&W in a gun safes just in case it gets really bad. Tho, I'd gladly give it up if I lived in a high gun death city that passed a state law that banned the hand guns. If they asked me to give up my shot guns I'd have an issue with that.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I got the following snippet from yahoo news, and it somewhat puzzles me. I number the paragraphs 1,2,3
1. The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
2. The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
3. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
And will respond on paragraphs 1,2,3
1. The bill of rights to the constitution, specifically this second amendment issue on the rights to be bear arms, is vague in the extreme. Examine the very sentence---"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." The very sentence starts out mumbling about a militia, which implies not an individual, but rather a collection of organized individuals which also implies a larger State of the Union. Surely there is no logic in deciding a collection of thugs like the mafia should enjoy a constitutional right although they would meet that definition of a militia. And then ends with the people which may be individuals or may be the individual States have a right to bear arms to oppose the the force of a larger Federal government in the case of an Individual State of the union or other armed individuals in the case of an individual person. Maybe leaving somewhat hanging the issue of if, for example, the State of New Jersey has a right to seize guns from the other wise innocent but still cold dead fingers of its resisting citizens should that State outlaw individual gun ownership and declare it a State monopoly. Even if the larger Federal government does not have that constitutional right.
As long as I have been alive, that is where the issue has hung. I am not enough of a constitutional scholar to know if this is merely a 20'th century argument, or how far back in American history it goes. But its far too late to ask the last living framer of the constitution what they meant, they have been pushing up daisies long before any of us were born.
2. Examine proposition #2.--------The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
While I hardly can conceive of a State of the Union being a now archaic group, prior to the civil war, many people tied their loyalties to their individual States rather than to the larger Federal Government. And that now current Federal dominance was won on the fields of battle, rather than through any constitutional process, the issue of States of the Union is still not a moot point.
3. Examine the reasoning of Scalia, somewhat of a self avowed strict constructionist, but a legal whore IMHO----Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
Which basically means Scalia is admitting that an individuals right to bear arms has little to do with the second amendment itself or the constitution itself. But rather may be referring to an inalienable human right perhaps enshrined in English common law best summed as "My home is my castle."
And if that is the sense of the court to be taken from this ruling, an individual has an absolute right to make his home into an armory, and the next legal battle ground may well become, what right does an individual have to transport his gun from inside the confines of his castle and into a larger world?
1. The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
2. The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
3. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
And will respond on paragraphs 1,2,3
1. The bill of rights to the constitution, specifically this second amendment issue on the rights to be bear arms, is vague in the extreme. Examine the very sentence---"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." The very sentence starts out mumbling about a militia, which implies not an individual, but rather a collection of organized individuals which also implies a larger State of the Union. Surely there is no logic in deciding a collection of thugs like the mafia should enjoy a constitutional right although they would meet that definition of a militia. And then ends with the people which may be individuals or may be the individual States have a right to bear arms to oppose the the force of a larger Federal government in the case of an Individual State of the union or other armed individuals in the case of an individual person. Maybe leaving somewhat hanging the issue of if, for example, the State of New Jersey has a right to seize guns from the other wise innocent but still cold dead fingers of its resisting citizens should that State outlaw individual gun ownership and declare it a State monopoly. Even if the larger Federal government does not have that constitutional right.
As long as I have been alive, that is where the issue has hung. I am not enough of a constitutional scholar to know if this is merely a 20'th century argument, or how far back in American history it goes. But its far too late to ask the last living framer of the constitution what they meant, they have been pushing up daisies long before any of us were born.
2. Examine proposition #2.--------The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
While I hardly can conceive of a State of the Union being a now archaic group, prior to the civil war, many people tied their loyalties to their individual States rather than to the larger Federal Government. And that now current Federal dominance was won on the fields of battle, rather than through any constitutional process, the issue of States of the Union is still not a moot point.
3. Examine the reasoning of Scalia, somewhat of a self avowed strict constructionist, but a legal whore IMHO----Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
Which basically means Scalia is admitting that an individuals right to bear arms has little to do with the second amendment itself or the constitution itself. But rather may be referring to an inalienable human right perhaps enshrined in English common law best summed as "My home is my castle."
And if that is the sense of the court to be taken from this ruling, an individual has an absolute right to make his home into an armory, and the next legal battle ground may well become, what right does an individual have to transport his gun from inside the confines of his castle and into a larger world?
The bigger problem is....people have changed. Give me the people of the 1700's, arm them all to the teeth with today's weapons, and I'd feel safe and happy. Have you walked around your local walmart lately, and looked at the people? Do you really want 2/3's of them to have guns? I don't. Neither, I'm sure, do must NRA-kooks. The problem is, how do you keep guns out of the hands of the thugs and gang bangers, and keep them in the hands of the scared white folks that need them? Probably the best course of action, is to let virtually anyone have a gun, and when the thugs shoot people (and they will), incarcarate them for life, and have a couple of million people out of the US populaiton sitting in jails for the rest of their lives.
That's the sad reality. I don't see a way around it.
He's citing Kleck. If you don't like Kleck you can find your own, but every study supports at least an order of magnitude more defensive gun uses than negative gun uses. It's pretty much impossible to argue fewer than 300k, though a small portion attempt to cling to 130k.
The other points in his post are from various academic studies as well. They are largely unrefuted.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter