Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment

[Ageo]

Only in the USA

Old mate, open carrying a MP5

No wonder shootings happen so much over there. And then he starts with the constitutional right and the 2nd amendment. Bugger me.

[video]http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474[/video]

Since 96 the guns laws were tightened..... but drive by shootings were not that common

today with touger gun laws there is a drive by shooting almost every week in my area (NSW)

remember Switzerland have a high rate of gun ownership (assault rifles for just about all of them) yet very low rates of crime (per capita) so you need to look at the societies and what causes this act of craziness.... and i believe in the U.S alot of their media programs etc... has alot to do with this.

Remember prohibition didnt work in the 1920's and doesnt work today

A banning mentality will only affect those who abide the law not criminals

 

[Glen48]

Government agency such as FEMA has ordered 1.7 Billion rounds which is enough to shoot every on in USA about 4 times.
I am sure they know hard times are coming the feds want to be prepared , if a military exercise taking place in the "burbs some thing is afoot and If i lived in USA i would be gearing up as well.
When you have a train load of tanks rolling in to Burbank you should be getting ready.

 

[Glen48]

HOW TO SHOT NY THE GOOD GUYS:
A Question About The NY Shooting
August 25, 2012By eric
People who want to take guns away from citizens often argue that it’s dangerous for citizens to have guns. They will say, “innocent people will get shot in the crossfire” in the event an armed civilian uses a gun to stop an armed criminal.

I wonder what they’ll say about what just happened in NYC?

According to reports, a laid-off women’s clothing designer named Jeffrey Johnson, 58, decided to shoot his ex-boss. He pulled out a .45 pistol and did so – and was himself almost immediately gunned down by a gaggle of city cops. Problem is, the cops ending up shooting more people than the gunman. Eight people were shot – by the cops. (news story here.)

Will the people who demand citizens be disarmed because “innocent people might get caught in the crossfire” now demand that cops be disarmed, for the same reason?

If not – why?

Will the “reckless” cops – who clearly can’t shoot straight - be held civilly and criminally responsible for shooting innocent bystanders – as a citizen surely would be?

If not, why?

Don’t forget that cops – as a matter of law – are under no obligation to protect any individual from harm. They are law enforcers – not protectors.

Protection – of our individual persons – is ultimately up to us.

Provided, of course, we are permitted to do so. And provided, of course, that we aren’t caught in a cop crossfire.

 

[white_goodman]

the USA are much better off for the 2nd amendment, many people should not be commenting in this thread, you are just showing your ignorance, maby you should be all watching Michael Moore films

 

[McLovin]

the USA are much better off for the 2nd amendment, many people should not be commenting in this thread, you are just showing your ignorance, maby you should be all watching Michael Moore films

Yeah some kid running around with a handgun in Killadelphia is what the framers of the US Constitution meant by "well maintained militia".

 

[white_goodman]

Since 96 the guns laws were tightened..... but drive by shootings were not that common

today with touger gun laws there is a drive by shooting almost every week in my area (NSW)

remember Switzerland have a high rate of gun ownership (assault rifles for just about all of them) yet very low rates of crime (per capita) so you need to look at the societies and what causes this act of craziness.... and i believe in the U.S alot of their media programs etc... has alot to do with this.

Remember prohibition didnt work in the 1920's and doesnt work today

A banning mentality will only affect those who abide the law not criminals

thankyou, nothing quite like facts and empirical evidence to squash r-tarded lines of thinking..

 

[white_goodman]

Yeah some kid running around with a handgun in Killadelphia is what the framers of the US Constitution meant by "well maintained militia".

if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..

the logic is weak in this one..

 

[McLovin]

if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..

the logic is weak in this one..

I didn't say guns needed to be banned. But clinging to some ancient document written by a group of slave-owning revolutionaries living in a highly agrarian society is probably not the best way to frame the gun policy of a highly urbanised, advanced country in the 21st century. And that's ignoring the whole bit about the well maintained militia.

Times change.

 

[CanOz]

if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..

the logic is weak in this one..

Its the relative ease with which guns can be aquired and the type of guns that can be acquired. In Canada guns are not banned, they're controlled. If i want to buy a gun today and i have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, i can buy the gun. There is however a cooling off period that must transpire before i can actually take possession of the firearm. Even after that there are further controls. I cannot buy an assault weapon that has a magazine larger than standard. I cannot carry the weapon outside of hunting season unless i'm going to the range, or to the gunshop. If i have purchased a pistol, then i can only carry it back and forth to and from the range and i must be a member of a gun club.

Do we still have shootings in Canada, yes. are they perpetrated by individuals in a state of rage hell bent on revenge or by gun owners that are mentally unstable, not in the majority of cases. Most gun related crimes are associated with Robbery etc. These types of crimes can be perpetrated with unlicensed weapons bought on the black market.

CanOz

 

[white_goodman]

I didn't say guns needed to be banned. But clinging to some ancient document written by a group of slave-owning revolutionaries living in a highly agrarian society is probably not the best way to frame the gun policy of a highly urbanised, advanced country in the 21st century. And that's ignoring the whole bit about the well maintained militia.

Times change.

should our constitution also be ratified? whats the rule of thumb for age?, your essentially supporting a society that is dictated/legislated from the bench.

Id argue that cities in switzerland are highly urbanised with high levels of gun ownership.. maby its the system of govt, economics that is the cause of the problem not the gun ownership rights. Looking at the hole in the barn door and not the barn itself.

"this idea of just passing legislation, legislation, legislation every time someone blinks is a nonsense...purely and simply to do the things we used to do, and every time you pass a law you are taking someones privileges away from them." (K Packer, 1991)

 

[McLovin]

should our constitution also be ratified? whats the rule of thumb for age?, your essentially supporting a society that is dictated/legislated from the bench.

The Australian Constitution was ratified in 1901.

The US Constitution is open to interpretation by the Judiciary, just like any other legal document is, isn't that the whole point of having a judiciary? Example: The US Supreme Court in the 1970's essentially ruled that the death penalty was unconsitutional (cruel and unusual punishment) and then four years later said it wasn't anymore.

Id argue that cities in switzerland are highly urbanised with high levels of gun ownership.. maby its the system of govt, economics that is the cause of the problem not the gun ownership rights. Looking at the hole in the barn door and not the barn itself.

Switzerland doesn't have an outdated law that gives it's citizens the right to carry a firearm. In addition, it actually has a militia, most of the firearms are owned by current or former members of the militia. Finally, the sale of ammunition is tightly controlled. You can't just walk into Wal-Mart Geneva and buy a round of hollow-tips. The ammunition given to those in the militia is kept in a sealed box and can be inspected for tampering. Try getting around the 4th Amendment with that last one.

 

[Knobby22]

Switzerland has a third highest gun death rate in the OECD, well above Australia's though only an 1/8th of the USAs.

More guns around, more gun deaths. Pretty basic really.

 

[Tannin]

if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..

the logic is weak in this one..

Actually, not weak at all. This is a furphy put about by the redneck lobby.

In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will stop all criminals owning guns .... but it does and will lower the number. Fewer guns in criuminal hands = fewer gunshot wounds. It's hardly rocket science.

In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all nutcase murders of the Julian Knight variety ..... but it does and will reduce the numbers. (Note that this means real restrictions on ownership, not the sort of pretend restrictions that led to the Tasmanian government allowing a known nutcase to buy and own deadly weapons and commit the massacre at Port Arthur.

In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all domestic gunshot murdersy ..... but it does and will vastly reduce the numbers. When tempers flare, violent people pick up the weapons they have. If they have a gun, they use it. The result is typically a murder or multiple murder. If they don't have a gun, they use a knife, an axe, a hammer, or their fists. Yep, som,etimes that still means a murder. But the victim has a much, much better chance of escaping alive. And in the case of multiple victims, some have a chance of running away. With a gunl, they all die.

This last point is the key one: when you increase the number of guns in households, you dramatically increase the number of domestic murders. Therre are other good reasons, but this is the key reason why we have restrictions on gun ownership (and should have more stringent ones) - it saves lives. Every year, in every state, it saves lives.

 

[white_goodman]

Switzerland has a third highest gun death rate in the OECD, well above Australia's though only an 1/8th of the USAs.

More guns around, more gun deaths. Pretty basic really.

as a % rate of homicides yes maby, but Australia kills more people via guns per 100,000 then Switzerland, its even lower then New Zealand (doesnt allow guns from memory), Spain, Germany and Canada...

 

[white_goodman]

This last point is the key one: when you increase the number of guns in households, you dramatically increase the number of domestic murders. Therre are other good reasons, but this is the key reason why we have restrictions on gun ownership (and should have more stringent ones) - it saves lives. Every year, in every state, it saves lives.

find me the statistic where it shows the amount of crimes prevented due to gun ownership, let alone all the other crimes it prevents.. this whole guns yes, America bad idea is stupid, rates of gun death have a lot more to do with the economic and political realm then a legal right to ownership.

Oh the unseen consequences, stage 1 thinking as usual

 

[Tannin]

find me the statistic where it shows the amount of crimes prevented due to gun ownership

In the decade before stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related murder rate was 6 per million.

After that time, the gun-related murder rate dropped to 1.6 per million people.

Not exactly rocket science, is it. More guns = more murders.

 

[white_goodman]

In the decade before stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related murder rate was 6 per million.

After that time, the gun-related murder rate dropped to 1.6 per million people.

Not exactly rocket science, is it. More guns = more murders.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

 

[McLovin]

In the decade before stricter gun laws were introduced in 1987, the gun-related murder rate was 6 per million.

After that time, the gun-related murder rate dropped to 1.6 per million people.

Not exactly rocket science, is it. More guns = more murders.

The crime rate was generally falling, the legislation just happened to catch the trend. That's been shown to be the case by the Institute of Criminology. Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.

 

[white_goodman]

The crime rate was generally falling, the legislation just happened to catch the trend. That's been shown to be the case by the Institute of Criminology. Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.

ding ding ding exactly, of course level of guns have impact on gun crime, to what degree however.. what other factors contribute to gun crime..

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"

 

[gav]

Of course the pro-gun lobby clings to that statistic like a fly on **** as justification that the widespread availability of firearms (ala the US) would have no impact on crime. Just like the Swiss canard.

It's quite ironic that people use the USA as an example of why stronger gun laws are required, and list the low gun-related crime stats of nations with very strict gun laws, such as Japan - as if gun laws are the main (or only) factor. Do people really think that if Japan's gun laws were the same as the USA's, that Japan's gun-related crime stats would be even remotely similar to the USA's? The massive disparities in culture and other factors make a huge difference. As has already been pointed out, Switzerland has more guns per capita than the USA, yet only has 1/8th of the gun-related crimes per person, or as White Goodman just mentioned, the fact that Australia (with its tough stance on guns) has more deaths from guns per person than Switzerland.

I believe the issue is blown out of proportion - even when you consider the vial acts of Martin Bryan and Anders Behring Breivik. Especially when you consider other issues, like the total cost of drug abuse in Australia amounting to approx $55B per year (mainly alcohol and tobacco related, illicits contribute to less than 15% of the total) and heart diseases cause 50,000 deaths per year and costs $6B. How many times did you see on the news that approx 1000 Australians died this week from heart disease? Unfortunately, that's not as attention-grabbing as an overseas shooting. The knee-jerk reaction over guns is no different to the USA's extreme over-reaction to the threat of terrorists after the 9/11.