Kill someone? Not Smith & Wesson's fault, copy a movie? that's Grokster's fault

The lesson is the Golden Rule.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

The first thing in US Constitutions that needs to be amended is the Second Amendment. A civilized society doesn't need guns. Guns do kill!

 

Especially if he makes a golden gun.

 

I disagree. If you look at crime statistics, states with concealed carry laws like Texas and Arizona have seen dramatic drops in crime after these laws were passed. Criminals tend to think twice when they are aware that anyone and everyone could potentially be carrying a gun.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

I have now the crime statistics in all states after I googled a bit. When did Texas and Arizona pass concealed weapon laws?

 

Thou shall not worship false idols

 

Depends on who's statistics you believe:

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm

<I>
<B>Crime Rates in States with Strict Concealed Carry Laws Fell Faster Than in States with Lax Laws; </B>

Debunks the NRA’s Missouri Strategy

(Washington, D.C.)
An analysis conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: more concealed handguns do not mean less crime. <B>According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws.</B> This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.

In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia withstrict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.

<B>Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws</B> – falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.

“These numbers demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along,” said Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, Inc. “We don’t need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don’t get guns in the first place.”

Lax or “shall issue” CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called “may issue” states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past five years.

For several years now, the National Rifle Association and others have made it a priority to get state legislatures to pass lax CCW laws. They claim that putting more guns on our streets reduces crime, despite the fact that almost every major law enforcement organization in the country opposes lax CCW laws.

“Common sense and practical experience dictate that more concealed handguns in the hands of untrained persons do not reduce crime,” says Hazelwood, MO, Chief Carl R. Wolf, President-elect of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association. “Law enforcement has known this simple fact for years, and that’s why leading state and national police groups have fought against the gun lobby’s national push for lax laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns by private citizens. This study further
debunks the myth perpetuated by the gun lobby.”

On April 6, Missouri voters will vote on a state-wide referendum, sponsored by the NRA, that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. Currently, Missouri does not allow the general public to carry concealed weapons outside of one’s private property. From 1992 to 1997, Missouri enjoyed a 22% drop in its violent crime rate -- almost double the drop of the lax CCW states.

“These numbers should make everyone question the NRA’s campaign for lax CCW laws under the guise of fighting crime,” said Mrs. Brady. “If the gun lobby is truly interested in reducing crime, they should work for common sense measures like stopping criminals from getting guns at gun shows and limiting handgun sales to one per person per month to cut gun trafficking. Working with lawmakers, law enforcement, the public health community and civic leaders on proven crime-fighting strategies, we can make America safer for everyone.”
</I>

 

It's "Thou shall not worship false Billy idols".

 

Government from the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Just like our founding fathers envisioned all along.

How do you define "fascism" again?

 

Texas was the late '90s and Arizona was much earlier than that. I remember seeing people wearing handguns on their hips in Arizona in the late '70s.

 

Arizona and the great State of Texas ranked 39th and 40th, respectively, in violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2003. From another set of data I saw, the violent crime rate in Texas peaked in 1991 and decreased thereafter, until it "stablized" at the end of 1990s to 2003 at around 550 per 100,000 people. Arizona pretty much followed the same trend. Lets see, on the national scale, neither AZ nor TX are doing very well, especially compared to those states with tighter gun control laws. Historically, violent crime rates in both AZ and TX declined markedly in the 1990s. But they haven't go down much further since the turn of the new millenium. As a liberal you may remember there was a great economic expansion in the 1990s. So perhaps that had more to do with significant drop in violent crimes than the relaxed gun laws enacted (especially if you consider AZ)?

 

Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

 

I'm against guns and for file sharing, even though I believe it is legally stealing.

However, your comparison does not work out. As the Grokster opinion clearly states, they were against technology that was made primarily for the purpose of illegal file-sharing, thus distinguishing it from Sony's VCR case. The program is to blame because of its intent, but naturally, Dell, Compaq etc. will never be held liable.

Guns, although usually used for killing and injuring, are not primarily used for that purpose, as they are also used for 1. hunting 2. security 3. collecting 4. confidence building if one has a small....car 5. waving at boys that want to date your daughter 6. ways to make profit to be used by lobbyists 7. art 8. to exercise a much debated constitutional right. One could argue guns are like computers in that they can be used to break the law, but were not made to do so. A stronger argument would be to compare grokster to a manufacturer that made armour piercing bullets made primarily for killing cops.

Guns are more of an issue between product liability and constitutional rights, whereas file sharing programs are about technology and its ability to be used for illegal purposes. If only our forefathers knew the goodness of getting free music in the face of record companies, our third amendment could have been much cooler...I mean, can you see Ben Franklin paying for Ashlee Simpson's music?

 

I don't think violent death=gun deaths.

I found this page on an anti-gun page:

http://www.campaignadvantage.com/se...agsfoundation/asp/gundeaths.asp?state=arizona

The numbers aren't even in the same ballpark. I remember reading something a few years back that claimed that a huge percentage (I think it was over 40 percent) of gun homicides occurred in the inner cities. Of this, the vast majority was street gangs, illegal guns, etc. I don't think this is part of the traditional NRA constituency. Sort of debunks Michael Moore's movie. If someone smarter than me has info on this - it could be enlightening to all.

I don't have a gun and am pretty neutral on this but just thought it was worth pointing out that the fantasy of the redneck, NRA, gun-toting good ol' boy spiking up the gun-homicide rates may very well be a manufactured illusion.

Would stricter gun laws curb illegal gun distribution? If it would, I suppose I would be for it. If not, well then maybe it's misguided such efforts would simply be taking guns away from the law-abiding.

 

Seriously.


I am in need of an Uzi, or something high powered, automatic. I like the uzi.


I really, really, really need one.

I rather it be stolen, and not linked to anybody.

 

And a third nipple.
And a midget assistant.
And a mirror maze in his basement.

 

I think you probably want to read the related posts again, andymoon and I are not debating gun-related deaths, violent or otherwise. What we are arguing is whether relaxed gun laws contributed to the declines of violent crimes (not necessarily mean deaths) in states like TX and AZ. The figures I put out here were compiled directly from FBI statistics publically available to all. These numbers don't lend any support to the claim that the relaxed gun laws suppress violent crimes when you make state-to-state comparisons. The chronological comparisons within the same states may be somewhat helpful to his claim only if one regards gun ownership is the sole factor in bring down violent crimes - iffy at best, unfounded at worst. At least the stats from AZ do not support it, at all.

 

Two things -

1. The violent crime thing is important because the idea of concealed carry laws is that if you have people armed, it will discourage violent crime. Some statistics show the opposite effect.

2. I don't think anyone is saying that arming NRA members increases crime in itself. Most gun crime is committed with stolen guns - it's far easier to steal guns or get a stolen gun if there are more guns around, and especially if those guns are wandering the city rather than being kept in locked safes in people's houses. That's where the "more guns = more crime" theory comes from, I think.

 

This is like the movey runaway jury. Leave the Bill of Rights alone. It not just about guns if you mess with one of the articles in BOR then there might be a possibility of messing with another. Its absurd to start suing gun makers, if I sell you a can of paint and you sniff it and die should the paint maker be responsible?