Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment

[McLovin]

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.

I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ageo]

I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

So the answer is to punish those who abide by the law while the criminals still go on about their business?

Thats what this country is doing and look how well we are going

 

[McLovin]

So the answer is to punish those who abide by the law while the criminals still go on about their business?

Thats what this country is doing and look how well we are going

What is it with you gun fanciers and your strawman arguments?

 

[gav]

I haven't done either. But let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country. It doesn't take a genius to conclude there is probably a nexus between the two.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Do you really believe Japan would have a similar gun homicide rate to the US if they had the same gun laws as the US?

 

[bandicoot76]

The US has the most liberal gun laws of any developed nation and a gun homicide rate that is significantly above the next nearest developed country.
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,

gunlaws in the US are a STATE (sometimes even city) issue so "cause and effect" comparisons have to be looked at state by state for both the strictness of their respective firearm legislation as against their individual homicide rates

if you do this the states/cities in the US with draconian prohibitive gunlaws such as new york, washington dc, los angeles, chicago etc etc have the highest homicide rates due to racial/gang/drug war related crime, usuallyt combined with an under-resourced overworked police force, a 'progressive' (corrupt?) legal system and a disarmed populace unable to protect themselves ....

compare that to states with libertarian gunlaws such as arizona, texas etc etc and you will see that the homicide rates are much lower...

to match the high homicide rates of the former states to the gunlaws of the latter states in a nation wide summary is disingenious at best!

 

[McLovin]

actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,

What is cherry picked about it? No state can get around the US Constitution; state laws have to work within the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment gives rise to the most liberal gun policy in the developed world (probably the entire world). The US Constitution overrides state law, it is afterall the document that unites the states.

There's nothing inaccurate about it.

You can split it down by city or state but in all the time I lived in the US, I was never stopped at a state border (the Fourth Amendment makes that unconstitutional. It also allows idiots to drive around blind drunk without fear of arrest but that's another story), or even coming from somewhere like Arlington, Virginia a suburb of DC into DC proper. State laws means sweet FA unless you enforce them at the border. But I guess you'd actually have to live there rather than spend your time critiquing at 10,000km's to understand that.

 

[Knobby22]

actually this statement is innaccurate cherry picked propaganda material,

gunlaws in the US are a STATE (sometimes even city) issue so "cause and effect" comparisons have to be looked at state by state for both the strictness of their respective firearm legislation as against their individual homicide rates

if you do this the states/cities in the US with draconian prohibitive gunlaws such as new york, washington dc, los angeles, chicago etc etc have the highest homicide rates due to racial/gang/drug war related crime, usuallyt combined with an under-resourced overworked police force, a 'progressive' (corrupt?) legal system and a disarmed populace unable to protect themselves ....

compare that to states with libertarian gunlaws such as arizona, texas etc etc and you will see that the homicide rates are much lower...

to match the high homicide rates of the former states to the gunlaws of the latter states in a nation wide summary is disingenious at best!

Not strictly true! The gun states have very high homicide rates compared to states like Minnesota with stricter gun laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

[bandicoot76]

What is cherry picked about it? No state can get around the US Constitution; state laws have to work within the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment gives rise to the most liberal gun policy in the developed world (probably the entire world). The US Constitution overrides state law, it is afterall the document that unites the states.

There's nothing inaccurate about it.

You can split it down by city or state but in all the time I lived in the US, I was never stopped at a state border (the Fourth Amendment makes that unconstitutional. It also allows idiots to drive around blind drunk without fear of arrest but that's another story), or even coming from somewhere like Arlington, Virginia a suburb of DC into DC proper. State laws means sweet FA unless you enforce them at the border. But I guess you'd actually have to live there rather than spend your time critiquing at 10,000km's to understand that.

if you've lived there then you should know better than annyone where the homicide hot spots are and how they are generally UNRELATED to an armed majority of law abiding citizen firearm owners (as protected by the 2nd amendment) and how they are DIRECTLY related to urban gang warfare that has its roots tied to racial conflict (bloods vs crips etc) control of drug turf (think florida & mexican border regions) ...

also its ironic that simply because you have lived there for a period of time you feel free to assume noone else has and are simply armchair critics commenting from '10,000 km away'... probly best not to make assumptions on other posters from a position of ignorance to their circumstances methinks!

 

[bandicoot76]

Not strictly true! The gun states have very high homicide rates compared to states like Minnesota with stricter gun laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

 

[Ageo]

What is it with you gun fanciers and your strawman arguments?

Nothing,

I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...

If your anti gun then so be it... But don't take out your hatred on others and say they should be banned

I don't say latte and frappe's should be banned even thow I might not like them

Criminals and socioeconomics are the problem here not the tools at hand.

 

[MrBurns]

Nothing,

I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...

If your anti gun then so be it... But don't take out your hatred on others and say they should be banned

I don't say latte and frappe's should be banned even thow I might not like them

Criminals and socioeconomics are the problem here not the tools at hand.

We like to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases, the only way is to keep them out of everyones hands, unless the nutcases can be identified.
There is absolutely no reason to have a gun in the city in any case.
No one ever died from a latte as far as I know.

You dont want others views imposed on you ? Ok I live next door to you and I want to keep pit bulls and let them loose on the street, that ok with you ?

 

[Ageo]

We like to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases, the only way is to keep them out of everyones hands, unless the nutcases can be identified.
There is absolutely no reason to have a gun in the city in any case.
No one ever died from a latte as far as I know.

You dont want others views imposed on you ? Ok I live next door to you and I want to keep pit bulls and let them loose on the street, that ok with you ?

Mr burns there a plenty of drive by shootings each week done with illegal firearms by nutcases so banning it will not stop the problem (it will only affect legitimate users)

As for your pit bull views etc... What has that got do with this? If you have put bulls then no problem, letting them loose on the street would be invading other people's privacy which would hold you responsible so inturn the responsible party should be punished not other dog owners.

As for your "if u live in the city you shouldn't have a gun view" what about the hundreds of thousands of legitimate target shooters and hunters? They should all be punished because of a small group of bad apples?

Unfortunately it's these views which makes us into what we call today "a nanny state"

 

[Tink]

I am not sure if this is off topic, but I see the police have confiscated more than 100 guns from motorcycle clubs.
Why would they need 40 guns in a clubhouse, not to mention, more alcohol than in a pub?

Fit-and-proper test sees bikies lose guns
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bikies-lose-guns/story-e6frgczx-1226456997908

 

[MrBurns]

Mr burns there a plenty of drive by shootings each week done with illegal firearms by nutcases so banning it will not stop the problem (it will only affect legitimate users)

Imagine how many more there would be if firearms were legal, these drive by shootings are almost always crims targeting crims anyway, not the general public.

As for your pit bull views etc... What has that got do with this? If you have put bulls then no problem, letting them loose on the street would be invading other people's privacy which would hold you responsible so inturn the responsible party should be punished not other dog owners.

You have a dangertous weapon in your home why shouldn't I ?
It'll be OK the dogs havent attacked anyone yet, but accients do happen dont they, same with guns.

As for your "if u live in the city you shouldn't have a gun view" what about the hundreds of thousands of legitimate target shooters and hunters? They should all be punished because of a small group of bad apples?

Legiimate shooters can have guns now.

Unfortunately it's these views which makes us into what we call today "a nanny state"

Sorry but allowing everyone to own a gun is just plain stupid.

 

[McLovin]

Nothing,

I only have a problem with those who impose their views on others and tell them what they should have shouldn't have...

If your anti gun then so be it... But don't take out your hatred on others and say they should be banned

I don't say latte and frappe's should be banned even thow I might not like them

Criminals and socioeconomics are the problem here not the tools at hand.

For the umpteenth time, I haven't said I want guns banned. I made a comment in relation to the Second Amendment providing people with an inalienable right to own firearms and that I thought, and still think, that it is out of date.

It's ridiculous that in many parts of America it's easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. And then where do you draw the line? A friend of mine from Texas has a semi-automatic machine gun, is that really necessary for anyone outside of the military?

 

[Ageo]

Imagine how many more there would be if firearms were legal, these drive by shootings are almost always crims targeting crims anyway, not the general public.

Now your contradicting yourself.... 1stly firearms are legal to obtain and 2nd your saying if there were more guns there would be more shootings but then you say the shootings are done by crims so if there are more legal guns in circulation how does this change the fact that crims get and use guns that are actually banned already so im yet to see your point of view? Remember you could ban all guns tomorrow and i can assure you there would be weekly drive by shootings

You have a dangertous weapon in your home why shouldn't I ?
It'll be OK the dogs havent attacked anyone yet, but accients do happen dont they, same with guns.

Im not saying you shouldnt have dogs, as with anything else but it when you abuse those freedoms you should be punished... people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and not keep blaming guns for killing, mac's for being fat, or pokies for going broke... this is the point im saying



Legiimate shooters can have guns now.



Sorry but allowing everyone to own a gun is just plain stupid.

Well then all of Switzerland are idiots and Australia is a much safer place for imposing tougher laws

While your at it ban fast cars as they kill, smoking cause that kills, alcohol because that kills, drugs (oops already banned) and fast food cause they causes alot of obesity which inturn kills.........

you see my point? or not really?

 

[Ageo]

For the umpteenth time, I haven't said I want guns banned. I made a comment in relation to the Second Amendment providing people with an inalienable right to own firearms and that I thought, and still think, that it is out of date.

It's ridiculous that in many parts of America it's easier to obtain a gun than it is to obtain a driver's license. And then where do you draw the line? A friend of mine from Texas has a semi-automatic machine gun, is that really necessary for anyone outside of the military?

I understand Mclovin but remember in the U.S most gun related crime happens in areas where the gun laws are much more strict..... than those that are lax

 

[MrBurns]

While your at it ban fast cars as they kill, smoking cause that kills, alcohol because that kills, drugs (oops already banned) and fast food cause they causes alot of obesity which inturn kills.........

you see my point? or not really?

You really dont have a point just a weak excuse, you cant compare guns with cars, it's just the usual gun lovers excuse the arm everyone and stuff any safety there is left in society.

 

[McLovin]

I understand Mclovin but remember in the U.S most gun related crime happens in areas where the gun laws are much more strict..... than those that are lax

The problem with that argument, as I explained up thread, is that it is impossible to enforce. Too hard to buy a handgun in Chicago? No problem, just drive across the border into Indiana, where there are vitually no restrictions. Ditto Virginia, if I live in DC. Without probable cause, the police can't stop me for a random search when I cross the border back into Illinois, or into the Chicago city limit.

It's a dangerous slippery slope once you start allowing people to arm themselves. If someone breaks into my home it's highly unlikely they will have a weapon on them because it's highly unlikely I will have one. Contrast that to the US, if someone breaks into your home it is highly likely that they have a gun because they will be expecting you to have one. Consequently people sleep with shotguns in their bedrooms. And I don't mean rednecks out in the sticks, I mean Democrat voting inner-city trendies.

I would be interested in knowing where you think the line should be drawn. Should people be allowed to purchase semi-automatics or missile launchers, bazookas, flame throwers etc?

 

[Ageo]

It's a dangerous slippery slope once you start allowing people to arm themselves. If someone breaks into my home it's highly unlikely they will have a weapon on them because it's highly unlikely I will have one. Contrast that to the US, if someone breaks into your home it is highly likely that they have a gun because they will be expecting you to have one. Consequently people sleep with shotguns in their bedrooms. And I don't mean rednecks out in the sticks, I mean Democrat voting inner-city trendies.

I would be interested in knowing where you think the line should be drawn. Should people be allowed to purchase semi-automatics or missile launchers, bazookas, flame throwers etc?

Well if I was a robber I would defiantely want to pick a house that has an unarmed person as opposed to an armed 1.... I have 2 young daughters and I can tell you if someone were to break into my house I would defend my house with whatever means possible as its my house and my rules if you don't like it don't come here.

As for the line drawn well civilians were never allowed to own bazookas and flame throwers (unless with a very special permit for FT) as previously mentioned semi auto and full auto rifles are owned in swiss land and they have hardly any crime compared to many countries that have harsh gun laws like the U.K for example so I understand people don't like firearms but it doesn't mean if you have 1 it automatically makes you a murderer (although some sad people perceive that)