Cocaine is illegal everywhere in the US. Name a US city or town where you cannot buy cocaine.
Game. Set. Match.
Cocaine is illegal everywhere in the US. Name a US city or town where you cannot buy cocaine.
Game. Set. Match.
Wogten wrote:
Cocaine is illegal everywhere in the US. Name a US city or town where you cannot buy cocaine.
Game. Set. Match.
Game set...you're a moron.
Name a city where you can't get anything illegal...completely irrelevant. Just because you can get something illegally doens't mean there wouldn't be more of it if it was legal. If it was legal it would be cheaper and there would be no reprecusions. Look at how quick and widespread legal drug use was from things you can buy at the drug store without a prescription in the 90's and 00's.
I saw someone mention the england stats about violence increasing since htey enacted their current guns laws. You might find it hard to find any data past 2002. It's because it's dropped significantly since they changed a few loopholes in letting guns to people and people still cite outdated articles from 2002.
Uhhh, because car accidents aren't premeditated? Here's a fun game to play, cull out the premeditated car homicides and compare them to the premeditated gun murders and, just for s**** and giggles, see which should be banned.
By history are you referring to the Civil War or the Clinton Administration?
How many times has this actually happened to you? And when it did happen why didn't you have the presence of mind to reach into your Batman outfit, grab your Batphone and dial 911? I somehow think that a trained professional could take care of the situation better than you?
For every hundred of incidents that helped there are thousands that hurt.
Why do people who own guns actually believe that they will be able to pull the trigger? Especially 105 lb women?There are trained professionals, who have access to training, therapists, equipment who can't do it. Why do you think you could?
All these arguments are just lip service and make no sense. You are right that I am more likely to die in a car accident than I am to die by gun but those odds should be even greater. Doing away with guns won't do away with violent crime but the will diminish it, of that I have no doubt.
My family owns a combined 350+ firearms (albeit some 100 are antiques). Ban guns, I won't mind one bit...
You should have an exception for hunter gatherers, bedouins and 1st Nation oeople who live off the land and animals. Other than that I would agree with you. If you shop at the grocery store then you don\'t need a gun. Meltdown all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns. There\'s no need for sports hunters, close all loopholes for obtaining rifles. Who the hell needs a bolt action 50 calibre rifle, only a guy with a short dick.
You will take our guns from our cold, dead hands.
Hunter Gatherers wrote:
close all loopholes for obtaining rifles.
That's just it. You can't close all the loopholes for obtaining rifles just like nobody has been able to close all the loopholes for obtaining illegal drugs, soliciting a prostitute, or whatever else has been "banned." There will be a market, and those who want to do it will access that market. You can close the market for law abiding citizens, but those aren't the people you have to worry about. It is clear that that VA Tech shooter planned his actions. If guns had been illegal, he would have simply had to factor into his plans how to get a gun, and if he had been determined to get one, he could have even if there was a law against them.
Wogten wrote:
Let me put it to you like this. I have guns in my house and I carry a gun on my person. If I was walking to my car in the parking lot of a mall, and witnessed a rapist attempting to carjack your mother with a knife, I would shoot him.
Oh yeah??? Well what if he was a meth addicted cult following radioactive rapist who was carjacking his mother while tearing the label off a bedsheet the day after he failed to file his income tax return and he was using a knife he stole from a blind storefront vendor while smoking in his place of business and replaced his Canola oil with trans fats?
Shoot HIM twice, just to make sure.
Maybe he wasn't hugged enough as a child? I'd let him go about his business for a few minutes while I wring my hands deciding whether it was society, mental illness, or a lack of values that caused him to choose the path of crime.
Then I would try to talk to him. Get to know him as a person and let him know that I wasn't there to judge, just listen.
Flowers and moonbeams for everyone!!!!!!
I'm not "too scared to defend myself" (whatever that means). I just don't get a boner from walking around with a gun strapped to mey side. How many times has this happened to you? Why couldn't you call the cops? Why don;t you just fight him? the list goe on and on. These are weak argumets. I think what we are basically arguing here is which degree of weaponry people should be allowed to possess. I think assault weapons make it far too easy for any emotionally unstable idiot to go and buy a gun and start killing people.
Lets get off the damn point and go straight to gun control, how liberal of us. Lets get this straight without the 2nd ammendment all the others fail through the domino effect. The real question is how did he get in, and why the did suddenly feel the need to kill a lot of people? If you pricks havent figured it through Iraq/Islam, guns etc. wont stop an idea, they just do a damn good job of suppressing them.
Oh and for those of you who are uber-gun control freaks, how about we give them to the terrorists instead of melting th e down, the kJ of energy need for melting guns would probably throw the world out of balance, and cause the onset of global warming. Because essential removing guns from society would just lead to terrorist victory, and Cuba's invasion of the US, but all that could help Obama's 0% chances of winning in '08. Maybe he wont be the black sheep. Liberal's say they're the party of equality bs bs bs... but when it comes down to it, it's not the NRA guys who are going to get screwed by possible gun control its minorities in less that suburban, upper-middle class settings, because lets face it the majority of voters dont need a gun protecting. They have the police, walls, unwritten-segregation, guarded gates etc.... The real question is who are you trying to keep out so bad, your fellowman, with whom you wanna "live as one" (John Lennon). Because Im pretty sure that why he got shot, for trying to "live as one"
PS Liberals enjoy avoiding issues, spreading fear, and munipulating the ignorant...Last time liberals stuck to the issues we got Jimmy Carter, how did that ended up again, because every history book I've read trys to dodge the issue of Jimmy Carter, because of the essential need to right whole volumes to cover his mess, but about 2 lines to cover his sucesses...by sucesses I mean the names of the states he won in the election...
[quote]well...... wrote:
[quote]
If you aren't going to parse your responses I'm not going to read through all that.
Damn I'm tired of being right.
Another Hero wrote:
I somehow think that a trained professional could take care of the situation better than you?
Aside from the fact that police response is too slow to help most times, and the Supreme Court has determined that the police ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for you safety, just because someone has a certain job, does not make them "Batman". As you so eloquently put it.
Example:
Secret Service Officer has a negligent discharge of a firearm.
Secret Service Officers Injured in Accidental Shooting
The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 17, 2007; 3:34 PM
Two Secret Service officers have been injured in an accidental shooting outside the White House.
Today's incident occurred in a security booth at the southwest gate.
Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said one officer was injured in the leg and the other received a shrapnel wound in his face.
Bruce said the injuries appear to be non-life threatening. Both officers were taken to nearby George Washington University Hospital.
Bruce said the gun involved was a service-issued weapon. She said the Secret Service Office of Inspection will conduct a review.
Kind of shoots the shit out of your "trained professional" argument, doesn't it?
I personally have never had a negligent discharge in public.
Mrr82 wrote:
Game set...you're a moron.
Name a city where you can't get anything illegal...completely irrelevant. Just because you can get something illegally doens't mean there wouldn't be more of it if it was legal. If it was legal it would be cheaper and there would be no reprecusions. Look at how quick and widespread legal drug use was from things you can buy at the drug store without a prescription in the 90's and 00's.
I saw someone mention the england stats about violence increasing since htey enacted their current guns laws. You might find it hard to find any data past 2002. It's because it's dropped significantly since they changed a few loopholes in letting guns to people and people still cite outdated articles from 2002.
Shootings dropped. Stabbings rose exponentially.
If I want to kill you, and Uncle Sam takes away my guns, I will use an axe.
A gun is a piece of metal. People kill people.
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
Sigmund Freud * General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
enough wrote:
Well if YOU have had enough, then I guess it's time.
Are you saying you want to see another massacre?
The original purpose of the second amendment is no longer necessary. Even if every American had the most powerful legal weapon available we could not defend ourselves against the US Military. Therefore there is no purpose for the second amendment.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year in America. Your 'freedom' to go have fun shooting guns is not worth 30,000 American lives per year.
Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%
Posted: March 3, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.
Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.
According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."
And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.
Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.
"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."
Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.
Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."
Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"
Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."
Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.
Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.
"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.
Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.
"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."
Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.
"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.
Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.
"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."
In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.
Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.
Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase
by staff reporter
March 4, 2005 Lake County Record-Bee (CA, USA)
The cure is worse than the disease
In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.
Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.
The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.
contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.
Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.
Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.
As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.
Damn straight...