It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns

Quote from wjk:

Economy no doubt a factor.



Change private hands to law abiding private hands, and the equation will change substantially.

So are you willing to live unarmed, and rely solely on the police? I say give the police adequate firepower, but do not deny the homeowner who abides by the law the same. The end result of banning guns will have no more effect than banning drugs, and you know it. The people who want them will get them.

I am a law abiding, tax paying citizen. From the perspective of self defense, the type of weapon I choose should be of no concern to anyone (accept someone with bad intentions coming through my door in the middle of the night, or day, for that matter). The more adequate the weapon, the greater the likelihood of success in defending my property and family.

Here's just one example why banning gun ownership by law abiding citizens won't make them safer:

"According to a Scripps Howard report by Michael Hedges (which ran on the front page of the March 14, 1997 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette) on February 2, 1996, the Clinton administration granted Wang Jun's Poly Technologies importation permits to flood America with over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition - despite the president's own gun ban."
More...



Gun lobby is predicated on the first and faulty claim "that criminals will always have guns and law abiding citizens won't"

Case in point UK: they have a knife problem but gun related violence is nowhere near US thanks to strict gun laws. Still, it is kind of hard to rob a bank with a knife, do a drive-by knifing, or stop someone who is driving away from you with a knife.

The founding fathers wanted people to have access to arms. The arms available during that time period where a total joke. Go try to rob a bank with a musket and see what happens. The firepower available now is something they could have never foreseen. As Virginia Tech amply illustrated, one person could mow down people like grass and simply change clips. And no, the possibility of other students with guns would have simply result in a shoot out if that.

It is unrealistic to expect gun control in the US because

a)The guns produced up to now exceed the population
b)Deranged gun lobby will never let it happen.


And yes, I would be more than happy to live in a system where it is almost impossible to get a gun, provided police force is adequate and the country can be "closed off to guns". In the US, NYC can have the strictest gun laws imaginable but if Virginia or Florida do not, it is a problem. The standard has to be uniform and across the whole country.

Many times when I walk to Publix of all things and see a mofo I wonder whether he has a gun.

The reason gun lobby is wrong is a very simple one. When you let people get access to guns you rely on their responsible nature. If an 18 year old without a previous record(or even with one if he/she uses a strawman) gets access to a gun and decides to do a "youthful indiscretion" the consequences are irreversibile.

If you want to see a conclusive proof that guns in private hands are not substitutes for police force consider Baghdad circa 2004. Sunnis while armed to the teeth still could not protect themselves from attacks of Shiite militias. In that case, without a strong governmental body to "keep people in line" it was up to "who had more guns" to administer justice.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

This is much ado about nothing.

When push comes to shove, whether you live in a high crime or low crime area, if you half a brain even, and want to be able to protect your property, and more importantly, your life and those whom you love and depend on you, you certainly must know that being forced to call 911 and wait for help, depending upon government to help you in a meaningful and timely manner, is a risky proposition. [/B]
More...

Someone else said it earlier - - - the anti gunners base their viewpoint on naive ignorance and, in many cases - an underlying cowardice which they try to cover in rightgeousness. So many dodge the question of what they would do if they were confronted with a criminal predator where their life or the life of a loved one could be taken . . . "If some brutal criminal was going to kill or rape your wife or girlfriend, and someone slipped you a gun - - would you toss it away ? " Would they deny that there are bad people out there that would hurt others ? Would they prefer to just push such possibilities out of their mind because its so terrrible to contemplate? Would they answer that theyd 'just call the police' ? Yeah, right - - the violent criminal will let you make a call with your cell phone. - - I spend a lot of time in the rural part of my state where a trooper or sheriff is at minimum a half hour away - and usually it could take even more time. Yes, the bad guy may get me . . . but far better to at least try protecting my family, - than just be a coward. In many cases just the presence of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is enough to discourage an attack. - - -
 
Quote from Tigerjaw:

Someone else said it earlier - - - the anti gunners base their viewpoint on naive ignorance and, in many cases - an underlying cowardice which they try to cover in rightgeousness. So many dodge the question of what they would do if they were confronted with a criminal predator where their life or the life of a loved one could be taken . . . "If some brutal criminal was going to kill or rape your wife or girlfriend, and someone slipped you a gun - - would you toss it away ? " Would they deny that there are bad people out there that would hurt others ? Would they prefer to just push such possibilities out of their mind because its so terrrible to contemplate? Would they answer that theyd 'just call the police' ? Yeah, right - - the violent criminal will let you make a call with your cell phone. - - I spend a lot of time in the rural part of my state where a trooper or sheriff is at minimum a half hour away - and usually it could take even more time. Yes, the bad guy may get me . . . but far better to at least try protecting my family, - than just be a coward. In many cases just the presence of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is enough to discourage an attack. - - -
More...

It is a dumb example that is only used by demagogues. Appeals to emotion are not valid arguments.
 
The often cited 'fact' that the U.K. and other places have been successful with their gun control laws - - - is wrong.

If you'd check current sources rather than just repeat old propaganda you'll see that there is a growing backlash by the citizens in the U.K. and in other commonwealth countries including Canada and Austraila because of the failure of such laws. It seems the criminals are encouraged by the fact that they know the civilians are easy, unarmed victims. And no govt has the resources to put a policeman on every corner (even if such an environment were desireable.)

Another study was done recently by Prof Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser Univ, Canada and was published with his collaborator attorney and criminologist Don Kates which was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. This study and a number of others are posted in the link below for those interested in actual, recent facts:

http://www.garymauser.net/presentations.html
 
Quote from Tigerjaw:

The often cited 'fact' that the U.K. and other places have been successful with their gun control laws - - - is wrong.

If you'd check current sources rather than just repeat old propaganda you'll see that there is a growing backlash by the citizens in the U.K. and in other commonwealth countries including Canada and Austraila because of the failure of such laws. It seems the criminals are encouraged by the fact that they know the civilians are easy, unarmed victims. And no govt has the resources to put a policeman on every corner (even if such an environment were desireable.)

Another study was done recently by Prof Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser Univ, Canada and was published with his collaborator attorney and criminologist Don Kates which was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. This study and a number of others are posted in the link below for those interested in actual, recent facts:

http://www.garymauser.net/presentations.html
More...

I am supposed to believe some dude who cites certain studies methodology of which I cannot verify.

This dude actually immigrated from California. And he is "importing US ways" into Canada.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:


And yes, I would be more than happy to live in a system where it is almost impossible to get a gun, provided police force is adequate and the country can be "closed off to guns". In the US, NYC can have the strictest gun laws imaginable but if Virginia or Florida do not, it is a problem. The standard has to be uniform and across the whole country.
More...

Australia is attempting to reach that status.

The reason gun lobby is wrong is a very simple one. When you let people get access to guns you rely on their responsible nature. If an 18 year old without a previous record(or even with one if he/she uses a strawman) gets access to a gun and decides to do a "youthful indiscretion" the consequences are irreversibile.
More...


The recent phenom of mass murder by kids is certainly made worse by the guns they gain access to. But for them to reach the mindset of mass murder indicates a serious underlying problem, perhaps in society, and it isn't the issue of guns.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Ok, you gun nutcases, here is a problem for you:

I live in one of the more lenient gun states (Florida) and according to the mythical belief criminals would be afraid of launching attacks for fear of encountering someone who is armed. The reality is quite the opposite:

Banks are robbed on a regular basis, carjackings are starting to inch upward and even burglary is on the increase.


Guns in private hands don't decrease crime, they increase crime but that effect is camouflaged by a high standard of living and a decent police force. With the degradation of living standards we will see the true effect of loose gun laws - notably drowning in crime.
More...

False logic - - FL is 'lenient' in your opinion - - so therefore the cause of any increasing crime must be due to the laws.

But, Vermont has the "most lenient" gun laws in the nation. Permits aren't even required to carry a concealed handgun. They were rated the worst by the Brady anti-gun group. Yet Vermont has among the lowest murder rates in the United States. Similarly, Montana - - which has a history as a Western gun and hunting culture also has among the lowest murder rates in the country.

I haven't done the research, but I would suspect that any increase in FL violent crime has more to do with illegal drugs than with gun laws.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

I am supposed to believe some dude who cites certain studies methodology of which I cannot verify.

This dude actually immigrated from California. And he is "importing US ways" into Canada.
More...

Then check out the link to another study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that was posted earlier in this thread. Or is that author just 'some dude' too ?
 
Florida population in 1974: 8,090,000, homicides: 1191.

Florida population in 1989: 12,671,000, homicides 1405.

Florida population 2007:18,251,243,homicides 1,201.

The murder rate in Florida is LESS THAN ONE HALF of what it registered in the mid 1970's.

To put things in perspective, in 2007 there were 3221 traffic deaths in Florida. There's around 400 drownings here each year. 10 people in 2007 died from lightning strikes.

To blame firearms when the vast evidence links the rates of violent crime to race is disingenuous.

Never in recorded history has America's white population posted a lower murder rate than today. At the same time the Black murder rate is only marginally decreasing and Mexican's who commit murder at a hybrid rate between blacks and whites are greatly growing in population.

It gets down to a question of whose culture accepts laws. If the shine you're scared of at Publix isn't intimidated by the threat of 20 years at Stark for jacking you out of 50 bucks then what penalty would frighten him to not carry a firearm? Is there any shortage of drug dealers risking 70 to life for trafficking? Like I say if white rates hadn't PLUMMETED during my lifetime I'd see an imperative to disarm whites but as long as I'm a peaceful species surrounded by a primitive, lawless minority I'm packing-although I seldom do anymore outside the house. Compared to Chicago, South Florida is safe as Vienna....

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Gun lobby is predicated on the first and faulty claim "that criminals will always have guns and law abiding citizens won't"

Case in point UK: they have a knife problem but gun related violence is nowhere near US thanks to strict gun laws. Still, it is kind of hard to rob a bank with a knife, do a drive-by knifing, or stop someone who is driving away from you with a knife.

The founding fathers wanted people to have access to arms. The arms available during that time period where a total joke. Go try to rob a bank with a musket and see what happens. The firepower available now is something they could have never foreseen. As Virginia Tech amply illustrated, one person could mow down people like grass and simply change clips. And no, the possibility of other students with guns would have simply result in a shoot out if that.

It is unrealistic to expect gun control in the US because

a)The guns produced up to now exceed the population
b)Deranged gun lobby will never let it happen.


And yes, I would be more than happy to live in a system where it is almost impossible to get a gun, provided police force is adequate and the country can be "closed off to guns". In the US, NYC can have the strictest gun laws imaginable but if Virginia or Florida do not, it is a problem. The standard has to be uniform and across the whole country.

Many times when I walk to Publix of all things and see a mofo I wonder whether he has a gun.

The reason gun lobby is wrong is a very simple one. When you let people get access to guns you rely on their responsible nature. If an 18 year old without a previous record(or even with one if he/she uses a strawman) gets access to a gun and decides to do a "youthful indiscretion" the consequences are irreversibile.

If you want to see a conclusive proof that guns in private hands are not substitutes for police force consider Baghdad circa 2004. Sunnis while armed to the teeth still could not protect themselves from attacks of Shiite militias. In that case, without a strong governmental body to "keep people in line" it was up to "who had more guns" to administer justice.
More...
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

It is a dumb example that is only used by demagogues. Appeals to emotion are not valid arguments.
More...

I strongly disagree.

You say it's an emotional argument now.

If you had just one experience where a powerful, aggressive criminal was intent on doing you or one of your loved ones serious bodily harm or death - just one - your idealism would quickly be shattered, as in a nanosecond.

Your idealism would melt instantaneously into realism and pragmatism.

It's a mean world out there. Home invasions happen. Rapes happen. Assaults happen. Murders happen.

Every day.

Nothing is more American in concept and practice than self-empowerment; this is probably why the country is in the mess it is right now, as we're becoming a nanny state, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power at any given time.

We used to be free of government shackles to empower ourselves. We used to be free to make our own decisions, based on our individual desires, so long as those desires were not harmful to others.

We used to be empowered by our government. Now we are shackled by it.

Government in America is not 'by, of and for the people' anymore. Government is a machine that just grows in power and regulatory appetite each successive year, holding out false promises of 'safety' to lure people into giving up self-empowerment, while delivering less and less of anything worthwhile.

So, if the bad man comes into your home late at night, and wants to do you and your family harm, and he is armed well with a sawed off shotgun or .45ACP handgun, do you feel comfortable calling 911 and arming yourself with a bat or crowbar, and riding it out for what could be as long as 20 minutes?

Well, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top