I Like Guns

[uscitizen]

The solution is not to regulate either one.

Oh my Lord.

The solution to the numbers of children drowning in unfenced or unpatrolled swimming pools is to remove those regulations.

That really is deranged.

I assume you also oppose speed limits, traffic lights and seat belts?

We have speed limits, traffic lights, and seat belts. Yet every year, more people are killed in automobile related accidents than are killed by guns. Should we now ban automobiles?

Please do.

 

[Sodafin]

Calling for more government regulations when the government can't or won't enforce the ones they have is really deranged.

So how do you feel about laws on wearing seat belts, or on drinking driving?

Would you say they have saved lives?

Would you say they are generally observed and frequently enforced?

Where we have logical laws which are widely understood and adequately enforced, we can also see people observing those laws, and lives being saved as a result.

Putting a fence around a swimming pool is one of those laws.

 

[slackjawed]

Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?

Actually they do.

Countries which have low levels of gun ownership, also enjoy low levels of gun violence.

Countries which have high levels of fun ownership, endure high levels of gun violence.

Missouri -

I did read the article. But please try and respond only to what I actually post. I deliberately did not post the 90% figure, because I don't believe it is accurate. What is accurate, is the claim that several thousand weapons have been bought in the US and shipped to Mexico.

I saw a tv report over the weekend that claimed when great britain toughened gun laws, gun violence went up.
There is evidence to support that an armed populace leads to less, not more violence.
Gun laws are the first thing hitler introduced to control his population, you know, back when almost everyone in the us and the rest of the world though he was a good guy and a visionary.

 

[Missourian]

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

OR

More Guns...Less Crime.
​

Why do the rural communities with twice as many legal gun owners and four times the owned firearms have 25 times less gun crime than urban communities?


Look here for firearm ownership study


Of the 22 Missouri counties with populations between 25K and 50K, having a combined population of 806,764 persons, there were 163 total firearm assaults and 2604 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.


MSHP stats for 22 rural Missouri counties


During the same period, in only the city of St. Louis and the city of Kansas City contained within the state of Missouri (half is in Kansas of course), with a combined population of 793,587 persons, there were a total of 4,143 firearm assaults and 8986 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.



MSHP stats for St. Louis



MSHP stats for KC, MO





The 2006 stats on Missouri crime came from this website : Missouri State Highway Patrol Statisical Analysis Center, they are the most recent available.

The 2004 rural/urban chart came from this website : Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2004 study.

If the links for the MSHP data are broken, you can find the information for 2006 here: MO SAC - Data and Statistics - Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Statistical Query


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.

 

[52ndStreet]

All types of fully automatic Rifles , and weapons must be made available for the " The maintinence and the establishment of the States Militia" "The rights of States Militia must not be infringed upon"
Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.

 

[slackjawed]

Calling for more government regulations when the government can't or won't enforce the ones they have is really deranged.

So how do you feel about laws on wearing seat belts, or on drinking driving?

Would you say they have saved lives?

Would you say they are generally observed and frequently enforced?

Where we have logical laws which are widely understood and adequately enforced, we can also see people observing those laws, and lives being saved as a result.

Putting a fence around a swimming pool is one of those laws.

seat belt laws should be a choice, as stated before, drunk driving laws are about public endangerment and should be enforced.
here in az neither is enforced as it should be, but are usually used as an excuse to pull over mexicans or the ragged cars driven by the poor.
Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law. Its only a justification for less personal responsibility and more government control.

 

[Sodafin]

Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.

If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.

In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.

No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!

 

[Sodafin]

Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.

Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?

I think not.

The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.

 

[slackjawed]

Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.

If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.

In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.

No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!

My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
civil rights do not include the right to stay alive, sorry but its a tough world.
passing laws to keep people alive at the cost of freedom and the denial of personal responsibility to provide a nanny state has a name-Socialism.
Thus far we are not a socialist society, (ok maybe new york is but that is their choice)attempts at socialism where I live will always be met with resistance, armed or otherwise.

 

[Sodafin]

My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.

I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier).

Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?

We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?

I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.

 

[Missourian]

Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.

If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.

In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.

No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!

My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
civil rights do not include the right to stay alive, sorry but its a tough world.
passing laws to keep people alive at the cost of freedom and the denial of personal responsibility to provide a nanny state has a name-Socialism.
Thus far we are not a socialist society, (ok maybe new york is but that is their choice)attempts at socialism where I live will always be met with resistance, armed or otherwise.

*You must spread some reputation around before giving it to slackjawed again.*

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.

If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.

In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.

No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!

I could list a million examples of crap that is bad for you that no one would want the government dictating but for some reason I don't think you'd understand.

 

[Missourian]

My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.

I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier).

Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?

We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?

I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.

Then we must rid ourselves of knifes, bats, clubs, blunt objects, sharp sticks, amputate all hands and feet....

 

[Citizen]

My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.

I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier).

Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?

We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?

I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.

I agree that we all have individual natural rights, and my right to keep and bear arms end when I attempt to shoot an innocent person with that firearm because at that time I have infringed upon the individual right of another, but until then I have infringed upon the rights of no one.

 

[The Rabbi]

So students are VA Tech are threatened by guns? WHose? The campus security? The local police? Those of the faculty and staff that they aren't allowed to bring in that might have stopped the shooter?
You are losing coherence here.

My post was perfectly coherent, Rabbi - please try reading the post before responding to it.

The students at Virgina Tech were threatened by a man who entered their school and shot them.

Thus, their civil rights were breached.

Not difficult stuff, this.

Please try following the thread here. Your statement was that people have their rights threatened by guns. I asked which people. You responded those at VA Tech.
Now, VA Tech was one incident several years. Those people are not currently having their rights threatened by anyone with a gun, which is what you implied.
So again, who is currently having his rights threatened by a gun?
And were not the faculty and staff denied their rights by a university that refused to allow them to carry their legal weapons on campus, where they might have thwarted the assailant?

 

[The Rabbi]

Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?

Actually they do.

Countries which have low levels of gun ownership, also enjoy low levels of gun violence.

Countries which have high levels of fun ownership, endure high levels of gun violence.

Missouri -

I did read the article. But please try and respond only to what I actually post. I deliberately did not post the 90% figure, because I don't believe it is accurate. What is accurate, is the claim that several thousand weapons have been bought in the US and shipped to Mexico.

Again, you are talking out of your ass.
In Switzerland every adult male is required to maintain a full automatic weapon in his house (I think they are about to change this). Shooting ranges are plentiful. And yet there is a low level of gun violence.
South Africa has relatively few legal guns and the rate of violence is out the roof.

Please, inform yourself before posting such stupid things again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.

Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?

I think not.

The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.

A Galil is a 5.56mm weapon. there is no 7.67mm weapon I am familiar with.
Yes, the founding fathers anticipated that every able bodied citizen would have a military style weapon in his home and be able to use it to serve with the militia.

 

[Citizen]

Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.

Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?

I think not.

The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.

Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.

 

[Gunny]

[youtube]-TC2xTCb_GU[/youtube]​

This thread sounds kinda gay, if ya know what I mean ...

 

[Sodafin]

Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.

The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.

I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.

Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.