Poor, poor, pathetic statists, hating on freedom. Sad and predictable. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2FcIKoGFRDY?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LQo2Or1PuEI?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Pretty hard to argue firearm related crime in the US vs firearm related crime in almost every other nation which does not allow firearms. Also, you would be surprised how difficult it is for a human to 'succesfully' commit suicide without a gun. You should google it. There's the additional factor that the US should be compared to developed economies, not to every country in the world. There is a legitimate expectation that life holds more value in a developed economy. Surely there are situations where fire arms have helped, but if you had to bet whether more lives are saved than lost because of guns in the home, you would have to be crazy to bet that it's safer. Especially since a robbery could be just punches and chasing and running etc, whereas when both parties are holding a gun, someone basically has to die. You must understand that despite best efforts, it's not just the good guys that own guns. This is what I was alluding to earlier. A potential solution is to have a temporary ban, revamping the management of gun sales to make it far more difficult to get a gun (lots of training and tests) and then re-introduce it. But I imagine this kind of measure would spark the "the government is taking it away from us slowly and sneakily" atmosphere.
Okay, I take back my "and they know it" from my post to Mathloom. They clearly don't know it. SM, you're being at least as biased as those you rail against. Two suggestions for you. Compare the stats of repelling a home invasion with your gun (sorry, but ) to the odds of having your gun stolen (and then used for lord knows what.) Then I'd ask you to re-examine your view on suicide. Suicide rates totally follow the availability of guns (Australia's case demonstrates this as a recent example, I believe), and there but for the grace of god go you or a family member! Especially anyone with a teen in their family or anyone fighting depression would hopefully be less ho-hum about suicide. Finally, let me put it to you this way. Do you own a gun, and if so, do you own a gun for the idea/fantasy of successfully repelling a home invasion?
Where are those stats? Do all home invasions that result in nothing because the victim scared the criminal out of his house get reported? Which stats are you refering too? Suicides do not follow gun availability, Japan is a perfect example, suicide is about culture, not tools.
Does he then argue "big accident, I was, uh, trying to hunt geese" or "I was crazy and did not pre-meditate this attack." I do hope he ends up put to death.
Easily solved by locking the gun up. Also, I don't think we should restrict people's freedoms based on what some hypothetical criminal might do. In fact, I could give you several alternatives that would save a LOT more lives that are less restrictive of people's freedoms and don't infringe on any constitutional rights. I think people should be free to end their life if they so choose. Suicide rates do not concern me. And yes, I have known people who have committed suicide. That is their choice. I personally think it is the coward's way out, generally, but that is still their choice to make. Having said that, my objection to including those numbers in the stats that gun control people love to use is that they are not clearly distinguished as suicides. They are generally presented within the general group of household members killed by the gun. They are used in that way to create a false impression. The gun control advocates know that the general public will view suicide deaths differently than accidental deaths. Nope, I don't own a gun. I am not afraid of home invasions, nor do I have vigilante fantasies. On the other hand, I am also not afraid of having guns in my home. When my cousin visited and brought her gun, it didn't bother me. I just don't feel any particular burning need to spend money on a gun.
I agree, but that kind of limits using the guns for home protection and self defense. I keep my guns locked up, and my ammunition locked up separately, but I don't really plan on using my guns for self defense or home protection anyway sense my hand gun ammo uses only 130 grain, and my shotgun ammo is featherlight.
I'm against the DP, but since he has decided to be a little s**tf**k and waste even MORE tax dollars by defending this case, I say put a bullet in his skull.
If this was at the arraignment, it is pretty standard to plead not guilty to start with. Plea negotiations come later, but before the trial. I don't know what stage they are in, but it seems a bit early for the trial.
I'm not sure this needs another thread since this topic came up earlier in this one. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41257218/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts U.S.: Gun raids show cartels at work in Arizona Weak laws let ‘straw buyers’ amass hundreds of assault rifles, federal officials say Federal officials say they have new evidence that Mexico's most violent drug cartels are exploiting weak U.S. guns laws to acquire massive quantities of assault rifles and other firearms for use in their war against the Mexican government. In an early morning round-up in Arizona, law enforcement agents Tuesday arrested 20 people who are accused of illegally buying hundreds of AK-47s and other firearms at U.S. gun stores. The defendants allegedly acted as "straw purchasers," falsely declaring on federal forms they were purchasing the weapons for themselves, rather than their real clients: the Sinoloa Cartel and other Mexican drug trafficking organizations across the border, the officials said. "The massive size of this operation exemplifies the magnitude of the problem — Mexican drug lords go shopping for war weapons in Arizona," said Dennis K. Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, who announced the raids at a press conference in Phoenix. The raids, along with five accompanying indictments, are likely to call new attention to the state of U.S. gun laws at a time they have been the subject of mounting debate in recent weeks triggered by the Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner is accused of taking advantage of those laws to acquire a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol and at least two high-capacity magazines at an Arizona gun store despite a history of mental troubles and drug use. U.S. agents say Mexico's drug cartels have similarly exploited the laws. In the cases announced Tuesday, officials said the alleged straw buyers managed to acquire the weapons — and pass federal background checks — without raising red flags despite the fact that in some cases they plunked down large sums of cash for multiple purchases of assault rifles. In one case, officials said, seven individuals spent $104,251 in cash at various Phoenix-area firearms dealers to acquire 140 firearms. Many of the weapons purchased by the groups were AK-47s, which were banned under federal law in 1994, but became legal when the ban lapsed in 2004. In addition, officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the arrests point to the urgent need for White House approval of a federal rule they proposed last month that would require firearms dealers in four southwest border states — Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California — to report multiple sales of long guns. Currently, firearms dealers must report to the ATF when a customer buys two or more handguns, but no such requirement exists for long guns such as AK-47s. ATF officials said such reporting would be an invaluable "intelligence tool" that would allow them identify potential straw buyers for the cartels. But that proposal, which was published in Federal Register in December, has drawn angry protests from the National Rifle Association and firearms industry, whose spokesmen argue it would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on the gun stores and potentially infringe on the Second Amendment rights of legitimate gun buyers. When ATF acting director Ken Melson announced the proposal on Dec. 20, he said he expected it would be finalized and take effect in early January. But that has not happened, raising concerns within ATF that the gun lobby's opposition may have stalled it. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.
