U.S. Report Fails to Link Gun Laws to Violent Crime

I was guessing on a very bad memory, but still a ratio of more then 133-1, on a country that is only 1/5th our size.


And people say easy access to guns is not to blame....PUUUHHHLLLEEAAAASSSSEE !!

DD

 

But if we removed gun control laws like background checks, wouldn't that just make it easier for criminals to get guns and cause even more chaos? I'm curious as to what the rate is of murders by illegaly and legally purchased hand guns.

 

Most gun owners like myself have no problem with background checks, but when you start getting into all this trigger lock/registration b.s., that's when my support for it starts to wane. Read the statistics in my post, the rate of violence in this country is not on the rise. And as for the "gun violence" deaths from the UK, you need to put those in terms of a ratio, because we are much more populous than that tiny island.

And as for guns killing people, far more people die from simple traffic accidents than from gun "violence." And if more people did what I do with my kids and guns, they wouldn't have any problems.

I established several rules with my weapons:
1. First of all, my kids are extremely used to firearms. I figured if I got rid of their curiosity on them, they wouldn't bother them if I told them not to. Both my son and daughter have BB guns and enjoy target practice with the paper targets outside with their Dad's supervision.

2. I told them to never, ever point a gun, even a toy gun at anyone or themselves.

3. To always check to make sure that the safety is on and to make sure there are no rounds in the weapon when they put it away.

4. I also told them that they are not allowed to touch or even look at my guns or their BB guns without my supervision.

When you set those sort of strict ground rules, there is no chance of accidents. My son attempted to circumvent the rules once and he was quickly reminded that I'm extremely serious about them via a good spanking and the command voice. As a result, he knows I don't budge on those rules.

Guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands and our present-day paranoia concerning what is a relatively minor problem makes it hard for people to develop proper safety and respect for what is a tool. If you don't want to own guns, fine, but don't attempt to throw a monkey wrench into my ability to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

 

And Reuters, too, like the Washington Times, is often just a propaganda arm. As I read in Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Reuters had a rep at confidential meetings (yes, yes, insert here, conspiracy conspiracy; he used actual documents to prove the meetings took place) involving the IMF, World Bank, etc, and put out a cover story that hid the group's actual findings.

Because anyone with common sense can tell you that an angry man without a gun is impotent. An angry man with a gun has a score to settle and the means to do it.

This Reuters story does kind-of say, Well, this is inconclusive. But most people are too lazy to read well past the headline.

Man, the media sucks.

 

While we're here, I wanted to quote a line from a John Woo movie I watched the other day called Hard Boiled. I just thought it was really cool and doesn't really have any relevence to the current discussion. I may make it my sig.

 

Do like Chris Rock suggests

make bullets cost $5,000 each..

 

2 things

relatively minor problem? over 10,000 gun-related deaths each year in this country is a minor problem ?


you are NOT exercising your 2nd Amendment rights..are you in a militia? the second amendment is clear: everyone in a well regulated militia is free to have a muzzle loading flintlock rifle. This does not mean everyone in the country is entitled to a gun.

anyways...I think the problem is a combination of 1)too easy of access to guns and 2) the break-down of the family unit resulting in those in poverty remaining in poverty, generation after generation especially African-American families...

 

It is? I've done a bit of reading on the subject, and I hear legal analysts & constitional law types use words like "vague", "contradictory" ("well-regulated" vs. "shall not be infringed"), etc... but I've never, ever heard anyone state that it's intent is easily decipherable, else why would we still be having this discussion?

 

As an aside, it is probably worth considering what effect the differences in emergency medical infrastructure have on the statistics. I know that is pretty much given that the rise in gun murders in the US in the last 50 years is considered to not be an accurate reflection of how many attemps there are, because the current medical establishment is able to save an exponentialy larger number of people than was possible in, say, the 1950's.

 

I'll never own a gun. If I can't protect my family with a baseball bat, I had no chance to begin with anyway.

That said, I go back and forth on gun control, depending on my mood. The government has no business telling me I can't own a gun. If I use it improperly, then I should pay the price.

But "paying the price" isn't a deterrent to gun crimes, either. "Paying the price" doesn't save the thousands of people who die every year from gun shot wounds. So is the principle of gun ownership more important than saving lives? If it were only that simple.

Man, I just don't know. Tough issue.

 

actually the Supreme Court has always rulled that the 2nd admenment says exactly what I said it says and nothing more..

that everyone in a well regulated militia is free to have a muzzle loading flintlock rifle

that is why the NRA never takes cases before the Supreme Court and they only Lobby Congress on gun-control laws..

 

How do you account for the low incidence of gun violence in Switzerland? Canada? How about in Kennesaw, GA?

 

D'oh. I meand to quote this:

from DaDa's post with my above questions. Damn lack of edit.

 

It says nothing about flint-lock rifles, you are just pulling that out of your posterior. And in the colonial context, the militia was every able-bodied male, not just some national guard.

The right of the people does not mean that the Natl Guard, an extension of the govt, are the only citizens allowed to keep and bear arms. That is all encompassing for every citizen. Being necessary to the security of a free state means that you take responsibilty for your own security and you act as a check on the power of govt. Those "experts" you cite are obviously on the left hand side of the dial and just trying to justify their anti-gun agenda.

 

well support your argumnet that the 2nd amendment is about an "individual's" right to bear arm vs a "state's" right to bear arms?

you can't win that argument..it has been decided long ago and EVERY Supreme Court decision on this matter supports my argument, that the 2nd Amendment speaks about a "STATE'S RIGHT" to bear arms..

again, why do you think the NRA doens't challenge gun-control laws in court? Why do you think they only lobby Congress?

plain and simple...the 2nd amendment says ZERO about an individual's right to bear arms..sorry

 

Amendment II

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.


In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms.

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Miller that that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

In 1976. United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated and the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

 

well I think (as well as the courts) that the 2nd Amendment pertains to state's right to arm its militia....and the state militia turned into the National Guard.

I am not arguing that the Government should take away all your guns.

But I am saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent Congress from putting through stricter gun-control laws and I feel that the "right" for individuals to own a gun is found no where in it.

If you feel that the Government has the right to restrict ownership by individuals Nuculer Weapons, Anti-Aircraft weapons, or other ristrictions, then you've already accepted that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals... "shall not be infringed"