Gun Control and the Inner City

[JohnA]

The Consitution is not written in stone. Stop living in the 18th century.

Neither is it written on toilet paper, so stop wiping your ass with it.

One does not have to live in the 18th century to respect the laws under which our nation operates and abide by them.

I also like to piss on it after i wipe my ass with it. Which law is more important, the universal right to life or the right to have a gun and I am sure in your world these two are connected but the reality for alot of people in this country is the laws that allow every dumbass on the street access to guns vilolates their right to life.

What a stupid pratt you are .the laws do not ALLOW EVERY DUMDASS on the street access to guns there are perimeters in ALL states .

and the thing a dumbass like you dont get is the DUMBASS who cant get access to guns legally gets one illegally ..and VIOLATES your right to life

 

[BrianH]

Yes, there are lots of criminals with guns in Japan.

You are living in a fantasy world.

No, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Washingint D.C. had the highst gun crime rate in the U.S. during it's ban. Chicago's gun violence increased also. This is also true for the U.K. Like I've said, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who follow laws...

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?

Suicides do count when it comes to gun related deaths....that's what it has to do with it....

I am for reasonable gun regulations that do not restrict law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. I want tougher restrictions when it comes to straw sales, buying used firearms from individuals, seeing as these are the most common ways for criminals and nutjobs to get firearms...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not saying that all your rural folks need to have your guns pried from your cold dead hands, but it’s time to ban handguns within the city limits of the US’s major cities. Handguns serve no purpose but to kill other people, and don’t try that home protection crap, a shotgun works just as well if not better for home protection. Handguns are the number one killer of youth in our major cities and it’s time we stop this insanity, really how many more people have to die?

Yeah cause banning handguns has worked oh so well for Chicago and DC.

Perhaps we need to mandate that everyone purchase handguns in major cities.

Just saying...

Let me rephrase so your feeble mind can grasp what I am saying, Black people in the inner city should be banned from having guns and no I am not rascist, I just watch the news.

You do realize that was how gun control got it start? by banning blacks from gun ownership.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps everyone in big cities chould have guns. it would thin them out so that when times get really hard they will not spill out into the rural areas looking for food and such in a Roadwarrior fashion.
They need to handle their own problems and not be a burden on we more self sufficient types.
heck the polar shift is going to kill us all anyway.

I wouldn't worry about that pole shift to much, nor dec 2012. Those two thing clash with how the bible says things will end. just saying.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps the OP would like to explain why he thinks it's a good idea to take away a persons right to self defense when he/she lives in an area prone to violence. Logically, the right to self defense wouldn't really be necessary if you live in a peaceful area, now would it?

And then perhaps he could explain how applying said ban on exercising one's right to self defense should apply to black people and why that would not be racist.

being logical does not work with gun grabbers

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, there are lots of criminals with guns in Japan.

You are living in a fantasy world.

No, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Washingint D.C. had the highst gun crime rate in the U.S. during it's ban. Chicago's gun violence increased also. This is also true for the U.K. Like I've said, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who follow laws...

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?

No, the two are not related. Gun-related crimes are very rarely perpetrated on people who themselves have guns (gang violence notwithstanding), so the level of gun-related violence in the US is not a reflection on how effective gun ownership is at preventing it, but rather a reflection on how bad things like "gun-free zones" are at doing so.

If you wish to compare the US to other countries in terms of crime, you're going to have to look at other factors to figure out the difference. Which factors would depend on which country you wish to compare us to, since believe it or not, not all countries are alike and interchangeable.

Consider England for a moment. Gun control advocates love to point out that England, with its strict gun control laws, has a lower homicide rate than the United States. While true, one also needs to consider that even before the implementation of those laws, England had a lower homicide rate than we did.

Furthermore, the United States has a NON-gun murder rate that is higher than all of Europe's TOTAL murder rate. So it would seem that guns are not the issue.

I saw Japan mentioned earlier. While it is true that Japan has lower homicide rates, it is ALSO true that Japanese-Americans have lower homicide rates than the rest of the country, despite living under the same laws and having the same access to guns. It would seem, then, that we should be looking at cultural factors, rather than guns.

If you truly want to understand why New Zealand is different from the United States in regards to crime, you must consider the question: In what ways (not just gun-control laws) is New Zealand different from the United States?

 

[idb]

No, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Washingint D.C. had the highst gun crime rate in the U.S. during it's ban. Chicago's gun violence increased also. This is also true for the U.K. Like I've said, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who follow laws...

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?

No, the two are not related. Gun-related crimes are very rarely perpetrated on people who themselves have guns (gang violence notwithstanding), so the level of gun-related violence in the US is not a reflection on how effective gun ownership is at preventing it, but rather a reflection on how bad things like "gun-free zones" are at doing so.

If you wish to compare the US to other countries in terms of crime, you're going to have to look at other factors to figure out the difference. Which factors would depend on which country you wish to compare us to, since believe it or not, not all countries are alike and interchangeable.

Consider England for a moment. Gun control advocates love to point out that England, with its strict gun control laws, has a lower homicide rate than the United States. While true, one also needs to consider that even before the implementation of those laws, England had a lower homicide rate than we did.

Furthermore, the United States has a NON-gun murder rate that is higher than all of Europe's TOTAL murder rate. So it would seem that guns are not the issue.

I saw Japan mentioned earlier. While it is true that Japan has lower homicide rates, it is ALSO true that Japanese-Americans have lower homicide rates than the rest of the country, despite living under the same laws and having the same access to guns. It would seem, then, that we should be looking at cultural factors, rather than guns.

If you truly want to understand why New Zealand is different from the United States in regards to crime, you must consider the question: In what ways (not just gun-control laws) is New Zealand different from the United States?

I accept that there are cultural differences between countries - both pro- and anti-gun advocates don't always take this into account though.

It would seem to me that, although they grab the headlines, massacres in schools and other 'gun free' zones reflect the minority of gun crimes in the States.

What is the proportion of criminals to law abiding citizens that are killed each year by guns?
A quick Google (I accept that this is once-over-lightly) says that in some cities criminals represent up to 93% of gun homicides.

I suppose what I'm saying is, talking about the USA exclusively, does gun crime really represent the danger to the general public that is portrayed?

 

[daveman]

Way to take obvious joke seriously, if you have nothing to add just click back to all those pics of ron regan you like to look at when your all alone

That your posts are a joke in no way disputes that fact that are also indeed stupid.

Some people take the Constitution seriously. Stupid kids rarely do.

Jesus would be against the constitution

Stupid kid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and you think the 2nd was designed to allow for the daily slaughter that currently goes on in this country

The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

Yes the 2nd was designed that way but you have to admit that it is currently not working that way. It is the criminal who is useing the 2nd to enable him to commit his crimes. Today the 2nd does not operate they way it designed and if something doesn't work then why not fix it

Without the second you wouldn't have the right to talk so stupidly.

 

[idb]

The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

Yes the 2nd was designed that way but you have to admit that it is currently not working that way. It is the criminal who is useing the 2nd to enable him to commit his crimes. Today the 2nd does not operate they way it designed and if something doesn't work then why not fix it

Without the second you wouldn't have the right to talk so stupidly.

I think you are confusing your Amendments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Consitution is not written in stone. Stop living in the 18th century.

Neither is it written on toilet paper, so stop wiping your ass with it.

One does not have to live in the 18th century to respect the laws under which our nation operates and abide by them.

I also like to piss on it after i wipe my ass with it. Which law is more important, the universal right to life or the right to have a gun and I am sure in your world these two are connected but the reality for alot of people in this country is the laws that allow every dumbass on the street access to guns vilolates their right to life.

Well, before I tell you which law is more important, could you first tell me where a "universal right to life" is codified into law?

I don't really care what you're sure of regarding "my world". In the REAL world, the right to keep and bear arms is an actual law, which means you don't get to just ignore it because you've decided something else is more important. If, in fact, it really IS more important, then I suggest you get it codified into law. Shouldn't be any trouble getting enough support for it, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.


Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people presumably peple that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

Question for you, if someone you know and love was murdered on the street with a gun would you still advacate against gun control?

Question for YOU: What makes you think anyone I know would be on the street unarmed?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.


Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

and you think the 2nd was designed to allow for the daily slaughter that currently goes on in this country

No, it was designed in part to allow for the much more common instance of people defending themselves against slaughter.

If you and yours are getting slaughtered, it's your own damned fault for being unarmed and living in a "gun-free zone".

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?

No, the two are not related. Gun-related crimes are very rarely perpetrated on people who themselves have guns (gang violence notwithstanding), so the level of gun-related violence in the US is not a reflection on how effective gun ownership is at preventing it, but rather a reflection on how bad things like "gun-free zones" are at doing so.

If you wish to compare the US to other countries in terms of crime, you're going to have to look at other factors to figure out the difference. Which factors would depend on which country you wish to compare us to, since believe it or not, not all countries are alike and interchangeable.

Consider England for a moment. Gun control advocates love to point out that England, with its strict gun control laws, has a lower homicide rate than the United States. While true, one also needs to consider that even before the implementation of those laws, England had a lower homicide rate than we did.

Furthermore, the United States has a NON-gun murder rate that is higher than all of Europe's TOTAL murder rate. So it would seem that guns are not the issue.

I saw Japan mentioned earlier. While it is true that Japan has lower homicide rates, it is ALSO true that Japanese-Americans have lower homicide rates than the rest of the country, despite living under the same laws and having the same access to guns. It would seem, then, that we should be looking at cultural factors, rather than guns.

If you truly want to understand why New Zealand is different from the United States in regards to crime, you must consider the question: In what ways (not just gun-control laws) is New Zealand different from the United States?

I accept that there are cultural differences between countries - both pro- and anti-gun advocates don't always take this into account though.

It would seem to me that, although they grab the headlines, massacres in schools and other 'gun free' zones reflect the minority of gun crimes in the States.

What is the proportion of criminals to law abiding citizens that are killed each year by guns?
A quick Google (I accept that this is once-over-lightly) says that in some cities criminals represent up to 93% of gun homicides.

I suppose what I'm saying is, talking about the USA exclusively, does gun crime really represent the danger to the general public that is portrayed?

It is a fact that a lot of the gun violence in the US is due to gang activity (another cultural difference between the US and many other countries), and that a lot of the "victims" are gang members themselves. However, of those gun crimes that are NOT gang-related, I believe most occur in places where there is not likely to be anyone armed and able to stop them, and the victims are people who are unarmed. Consider, for example, how much more likely an armed robbery is to happen in a convenience store than in a bank or pawn shop. Convenience store clerks, particularly those in large chains, are unarmed. Banks have armed security guards and pawn shop owners routinely go well-armed.

Also, it seems to me that gang members tend to be more likely to carry on their activities in places where they are probably going to be the only armed people around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes the 2nd was designed that way but you have to admit that it is currently not working that way. It is the criminal who is useing the 2nd to enable him to commit his crimes. Today the 2nd does not operate they way it designed and if something doesn't work then why not fix it

Without the second you wouldn't have the right to talk so stupidly.

I think you are confusing your Amendments.

I think he's saying that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not be able to protect and ensure any of our other rights.

 

[westcoast]

Without the second you wouldn't have the right to talk so stupidly.

I think you are confusing your Amendments.

I think he's saying that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not be able to protect and ensure any of our other rights.

How many times have you had to use a gun to protect your rights?

 

[BrianH]

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?

No, the two are not related. Gun-related crimes are very rarely perpetrated on people who themselves have guns (gang violence notwithstanding), so the level of gun-related violence in the US is not a reflection on how effective gun ownership is at preventing it, but rather a reflection on how bad things like "gun-free zones" are at doing so.

If you wish to compare the US to other countries in terms of crime, you're going to have to look at other factors to figure out the difference. Which factors would depend on which country you wish to compare us to, since believe it or not, not all countries are alike and interchangeable.

Consider England for a moment. Gun control advocates love to point out that England, with its strict gun control laws, has a lower homicide rate than the United States. While true, one also needs to consider that even before the implementation of those laws, England had a lower homicide rate than we did.

Furthermore, the United States has a NON-gun murder rate that is higher than all of Europe's TOTAL murder rate. So it would seem that guns are not the issue.

I saw Japan mentioned earlier. While it is true that Japan has lower homicide rates, it is ALSO true that Japanese-Americans have lower homicide rates than the rest of the country, despite living under the same laws and having the same access to guns. It would seem, then, that we should be looking at cultural factors, rather than guns.

If you truly want to understand why New Zealand is different from the United States in regards to crime, you must consider the question: In what ways (not just gun-control laws) is New Zealand different from the United States?

I accept that there are cultural differences between countries - both pro- and anti-gun advocates don't always take this into account though.

It would seem to me that, although they grab the headlines, massacres in schools and other 'gun free' zones reflect the minority of gun crimes in the States.

What is the proportion of criminals to law abiding citizens that are killed each year by guns?
A quick Google (I accept that this is once-over-lightly) says that in some cities criminals represent up to 93% of gun homicides.

I suppose what I'm saying is, talking about the USA exclusively, does gun crime really represent the danger to the general public that is portrayed?

Yes. People are robbed, car-jacked, murdered, assaulted, etc...by criminals every day. It's nothing to see at least 2 or 3 murders or robberies by criminals on the 10 o'clock news. I also live near the southern border, so that's also a good reason to be packin if you ask me...

 

[BrianH]

I think you are confusing your Amendments.

I think he's saying that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not be able to protect and ensure any of our other rights.

How many times have you had to use a gun to protect your rights?

By rights to you mean the right to feel safe? The right to protect yourself and your family? When criminals violate your rights, having a gun to protect your right to live is far better than throwing a rock at them. (especially when they have a gun)

I haven't had to use a gun to protect my rights and hope I never have to. However, it's good to know that in the event that my rights are threatened I have somethign to protect them with.

"It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

Of course, I use my guns all of the time and haven't hurt anyone. This is also true for the MAJORITY of legal gun owners.

 

[Vargulf]

As an avid gun owner, I look at it this way.
The police are a "reactionary" force. They get the call that you have already become a victim and they drive to the scene of the crime against you. If you are alive, they say they will do their best to locate the culprit and sometimes do; but often don't.
The anti-gun factions take on the whole matter: It is better to be a dead or crippled unarmed citizen, than a gun owner.
Two important issues to remember:
1. The Supreme Court has already said that we may possess firearms in our homes for self-defense (this includes inner-city residences).
2. If there were a law against guns, not a single criminal would turn in his/her firearm. They are important to ensure compliance by the victim.
3. There are over 200 million firearms in the hands of about 70 million private citizens and if even only 10% of those 70 million said, "to hell with giving up our firearms," they would fight to the death to retain them, thus causing one hell of a blood bath in this nation. National Guard, police, ATF and sheriffs would be fighting house to house and losing a hell of a lot of their own in an effort to get them all.
I know I'd definitely take up arms against those trying to take my weapons. Better to die fighting for your right to bear arms than be sheep.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Without the second you wouldn't have the right to talk so stupidly.

I think you are confusing your Amendments.

I think he's saying that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not be able to protect and ensure any of our other rights.

Thank you for the clarification.