Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[frigidweirdo]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

Yet the US still has a much higher murder rate than any other first world country, and it's got the most relaxed gun laws too. And you can't see this.

 

[American_Jihad]

...

 

[Spare_change]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

Yet the US still has a much higher murder rate than any other first world country, and it's got the most relaxed gun laws too. And you can't see this.

Especially since it is categorically FALSE !

 

[frigidweirdo]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

Yet the US still has a much higher murder rate than any other first world country, and it's got the most relaxed gun laws too. And you can't see this.

Especially since it is categorically FALSE !

Really?

Which first world countries have a murder rate lower than the USA?

 

[P@triot]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

Yet the US still has a much higher murder rate than any other first world country, and it's got the most relaxed gun laws too. And you can't see this.

Yeah....a high murder rate because liberals keep banning guns! Like Chicago here

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

 

[P@triot]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Well yeah. You can't arm evil people, disarm law abiding citizens, and expect peace and tranquility.

This is like locking a dozen children in a room with a dozen pedophiles and then being "shocked" when a child is molested. What did you think would happen?!?

 

[American_Jihad]

Amen...

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Well yeah. You can't arm evil people, disarm law abiding citizens, and expect peace and tranquility.

This is like locking a dozen children in a room with a dozen pedophiles and then being "shocked" when a child is molested. What did you think would happen?!?

Only, they disarm law abiding people in most other first world countries, and they get more peace and tranquility than the USA.

So, your hypothesis is wrong.

No, it isn't like locking pedophiles in a room, or anything like this.

Percentage of the Population That Owns Guns State-By-State

I've got the percentage of people with guns.

The lowest 10 states for ownership have an average crime rate of 2639
The next 10 lowest states have 3091
the middle 10 states have 2979
the 2nd highest states have 3000
and the highest states have 2794

So, the lowest crime rates are with the ten states that have the lowest gun ownership.

The highest is with the 2nd lowest, then the 2nd highest, then the middle states, then the highest, then the lowest.

But with this the lowest 10 states for gun ownership have crime rates between 1995 and 3956
The next lowest 10 states have crime rates between 2126 and 4139
The middle 10 states have crime rates between 2114 and 3658
The 2nd highest 10 states have crime rates between 1623 and 3973
The highest 10 states have crime rates between 2067 and 3818

So the reality is that gun ownership doesn't seem to have that much to do with the amount of crime going on.

 

[there4eyeM]

Isn't it odd that many of the same people so scared of 'democracy' insist on the democratization of firearm ownership?
What would happen if all these 'gun' owners suddenly heard a news story (read, 'rumor'), and took to the streets in a 'democratic' display and started shooting up the 'enemy' (minority)? The 'we're-not-a-democracy-we're-a-republic' proponents may wish to meditate on that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Correct, because they don't have guns getting up in the middle of the night, hopping over to their neighbors and shooting them.

Why don't you tell the truth for just once in your life? Those countries never had much of a problem with guns even before their bans. And in fact, some had an increase in gun murders after the ban. Furthermore is they had an increase in other crimes because the criminals there knew their victims were helpless--just like they know here in Gun Free zones which is why most of the mass shootings take place in these zones.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Correct, because they don't have guns getting up in the middle of the night, hopping over to their neighbors and shooting them.

Why don't you tell the truth for just once in your life? Those countries never had much of a problem with guns even before their bans. And in fact, some had an increase in gun murders after the ban. Furthermore is they had an increase in other crimes because the criminals there knew their victims were helpless--just like they know here in Gun Free zones which is why most of the mass shootings take place in these zones.

Wait, what's the argument here?

Is the argument that more guns leads to a safer environment?

How does this equate when there are LESS guns in other first world countries, and LESS crime?

Have they had an increase in "other crimes".

Generally violent crime rates don't appear to be worse than the US in any way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make.

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?

So site me a state law that precludes a city from practicing leniency to offenders. More importantly, we also have federal laws where offenders have to face federal charges if in violation of federal laws. Should we abolish the ability of the federal government to prosecute offenders of such a state?

The truth of the matter is that state has very little to do with city prosecutions. It's also a fact that mostly Democrat cities are the most violent and dangerous regardless of the states leadership.

Federal laws are federal laws and are covered over the whole country. I'm not so sure what these have to do with anything in this topic right now.

A city can practice leniency and so can the rest of the state. The laws are still there.

It's a fact that Democrat cities are some of the most violent and dangerous. And there are loads more facts I could take out of context and present it so it all looks nice and cozy.

The reality is often that there are lots of things at play here.

You're suggesting, more or less, that state legislatures are a complete and utter waste of time.

They make laws, but these laws don't impact any single place which has someone in charge. I don't believe this. You haven't made the case for this at all.

Oh really, then just what did you mean when you wrote this:

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

The implication here is that the state is at fault and not your liberal cities. Yet now you say that the cities can indeed practice leniency any time they want. When you get liberal judges, that's what happens in many cases, so the state isn't at fault.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Correct, because they don't have guns getting up in the middle of the night, hopping over to their neighbors and shooting them.

Why don't you tell the truth for just once in your life? Those countries never had much of a problem with guns even before their bans. And in fact, some had an increase in gun murders after the ban. Furthermore is they had an increase in other crimes because the criminals there knew their victims were helpless--just like they know here in Gun Free zones which is why most of the mass shootings take place in these zones.

Wait, what's the argument here?

Is the argument that more guns leads to a safer environment?

How does this equate when there are LESS guns in other first world countries, and LESS crime?

Have they had an increase in "other crimes".

Generally violent crime rates don't appear to be worse than the US in any way.

It's called logic:

If you don't have a huge gun problem and institute a gun ban, and it proves to be ineffective, then it's pretty obvious that guns are not the problem. It may be the culture, it may be the prison system, it may be the lack of police, but it's not the guns.

It's the exact same thing that took place in the US not long ago with the assault weapons ban. It too showed no difference in crime, so after ten years, they got rid of that too.

You are not going to make a murderer a non-murderer by taking away guns, because if you take away guns, the only people that would abide to that law would be law abiding people. Criminals will never give up their guns; they don't now when they are felons and it's illegal for them to have a firearm on person or even in their home.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make.

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?

So site me a state law that precludes a city from practicing leniency to offenders. More importantly, we also have federal laws where offenders have to face federal charges if in violation of federal laws. Should we abolish the ability of the federal government to prosecute offenders of such a state?

The truth of the matter is that state has very little to do with city prosecutions. It's also a fact that mostly Democrat cities are the most violent and dangerous regardless of the states leadership.

Federal laws are federal laws and are covered over the whole country. I'm not so sure what these have to do with anything in this topic right now.

A city can practice leniency and so can the rest of the state. The laws are still there.

It's a fact that Democrat cities are some of the most violent and dangerous. And there are loads more facts I could take out of context and present it so it all looks nice and cozy.

The reality is often that there are lots of things at play here.

You're suggesting, more or less, that state legislatures are a complete and utter waste of time.

They make laws, but these laws don't impact any single place which has someone in charge. I don't believe this. You haven't made the case for this at all.

Oh really, then just what did you mean when you wrote this:

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

The implication here is that the state is at fault and not your liberal cities. Yet now you say that the cities can indeed practice leniency any time they want. When you get liberal judges, that's what happens in many cases, so the state isn't at fault.

The point being made here is that the state has quite a bit of power. Your argument appeared to be that the state has no impact on the city at all.

So why do states have state governments if they're useless and no one listens to them?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then guns are mostly banned in many first world countries, or at least limited heavily, and they have LOWER murder rates.

Correct, because they don't have guns getting up in the middle of the night, hopping over to their neighbors and shooting them.

Why don't you tell the truth for just once in your life? Those countries never had much of a problem with guns even before their bans. And in fact, some had an increase in gun murders after the ban. Furthermore is they had an increase in other crimes because the criminals there knew their victims were helpless--just like they know here in Gun Free zones which is why most of the mass shootings take place in these zones.

Wait, what's the argument here?

Is the argument that more guns leads to a safer environment?

How does this equate when there are LESS guns in other first world countries, and LESS crime?

Have they had an increase in "other crimes".

Generally violent crime rates don't appear to be worse than the US in any way.

It's called logic:

If you don't have a huge gun problem and institute a gun ban, and it proves to be ineffective, then it's pretty obvious that guns are not the problem. It may be the culture, it may be the prison system, it may be the lack of police, but it's not the guns.

It's the exact same thing that took place in the US not long ago with the assault weapons ban. It too showed no difference in crime, so after ten years, they got rid of that too.

You are not going to make a murderer a non-murderer by taking away guns, because if you take away guns, the only people that would abide to that law would be law abiding people. Criminals will never give up their guns; they don't now when they are felons and it's illegal for them to have a firearm on person or even in their home.

So are you now saying guns aren't the problem here? So what is the problem?

I'd agree that if you don't have a problem and you make a ban, then what's the point?

However what we're talking about here are whether lots of guns are the problem. Making a ban on something where there isn't much of a problem doesn't show anything.

What we have is Europe with not many guns floating around, and the US with lots of guns floating around, and the US has a much higher murder rate.

Louisiana has the highest murder rate, it has gun ownership of 44.1% (compared to 59.7% for Wyoming and 6.7% for Hawaii) There are 12 states more than Louisiana for gun ownership.

Second highest state for murder is Mississippi which is 6th on the list of gun ownership at 55.5%.

Third on the list of murder is Missouri, which is 21st on the list of gun ownership.


At the other end, Hawaii with the least number of guns has the 5th lowest murder rate.

Next up is New Jersey which is 24th on the list of murders.

So again, more guns don't necessarily mean more murders and more crimes. However nowhere in the US is vacuum and there are no borders between states. The hardest state to smuggle guns must be Hawaii, as it's so far away, and it sees the benefit of this, low guns and low crime.

Here's the issue. States with low gun ownership don't live in a bubble. Guns can come in from other states and it's difficult to almost impossible to stop it from happening without border controls and checks on luggage and vehicles.

New Jersey has a low number of guns, but has two major cities, and one with quite a high murder rate (Phili) very close to its borders. This probably has a massive impact on its crime rate. I'd bet many of NJ's murder and crime happen in places like Newark, Elizabeth and the equivalents close to Phili.

Europe on the other hand doesn't have this problem. It doesn't have countries around which have a much higher gun ownership (except maybe Switzerland, but this is a different case as many of these guns are locked up for militia use), and therefore doesn't have guns seeping in from other countries so much (it still happens, but much less so), getting guns in Europe is harder (I didn't say impossible) because there are less people with guns, and therefore less dealers and this means less people to steal from and less dodgy dealers.

Guns in the US and the way they are handled nationwide lead to issues with guns. In Europe there are less of these problems because there aren't a lot of guns floating around.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Use logic here. I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him. He, being sensible, runs away. Was I in danger, did a gun save my life? It's impossible to know.

Are you afraid of big scary black men?

Is it logical to point a gun at a man because he is black?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.[/QUOTE

Some would view the 2nd in jeopardy with the continuous insistence of banning firearms.

Here alone we have people who think they should be banned and those who refuse to be put in prison.

As long as there is even one person who calls for "the people" to be disarmed then you will have resistance to that call.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country. The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks. Why can't we have access to those things? What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?

Exactly. Our founders didn't say the right to bear "muskets". Or the right to bear "handguns". They said the right to bear arms. There are no limits on the type of weapons we can have. Of it's ok for the government to have them, and the government answers to the people, then it's sure as hell of for the people to have them.

Wrong.

You and other rightwing nitwits whine about the Second Amendment yet are completely ignorant as to its meaning and case law:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

As a fact of settled and accepted law the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on all manner of rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.

And because of your ignorance and stupidity you and other rightwing morons reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and seek to defend the Second Amendment right.

Thank you for posting that quote from arguably the most conservative justice and the right's best ally on the court , Justice Scalia.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Who or what is the evidence that any group is actually trying to cancel the 2nd Amendment? I am curious as to why so many here think the 2nd Amendment is in some great jeopardy.

They are told to be paranoid, and already were in most cases.

The paranoia is you. Why are you so afraid of those of us who are armed?

No one is telling me to be paranoid. I own firearms. Who are you to decide and to insist that it is paranoia to own a tool?