Murder Rates Around The World

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not something the U.S. would really want to compare with too many other civilized countries!

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/3csrax
per 100,000


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Map-world-murder-rate.svg/800px-Map-world-murder-rate.svg.png
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9607/m1mu0.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5562/m2dg1.jpg
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/4487/m3jl6.jpg
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8100/m4jq3.jpg
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2562/m5qw7.jpg

[W*GS]

The point being?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The point being?Comparison with other countries. Why is the murder rate so high in the U.S.?

[W*GS]

Comparison with other countries. Why is the murder rate so high in the U.S.?

It's the NRA's fault.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

It's very odd to me that Pakistan is at the bottom. The streets of Karachi are among the most dangerous in the world and areas of Islamabad are almost as bad.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's very odd to me that Pakistan is at the bottom. The streets of Karachi are among the most dangerous in the world and areas of Islamabad are almost as bad.
Doesn't Karachi have like 20 million people? I'm sure not all of them there are reported.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Doesn't Karachi have like 20 million people? I'm sure not all of them there are reported.

Yep. I suspect there are plenty of unreported murders in other places too.

[Spider]

It's the NRA's fault.

well in the NRA defense , it is our right to buy fully automatic assault weapons and kill each other ............. cant blame the NRA and Teddy Nugent for protecting that right ................

[Spider]

Yep. I suspect there are plenty of unreported murders in other places too.

there should be a law ........... you must report all murders with in 24 hours to the nearest police dept........failure to comply will result in harsh punishment ;D

[W*GS]

well in the NRA defense , it is our right to buy fully automatic assault weapons

Well, yes.

and kill each other .............

Well, no.

[Crushaholic]

The national averages in the U.S. appear to have stabilized in this young century, which is great news...

[enjolras]

I'm going to toss the obvious anomalies on the list aside (like Pakistan). Lets compare the U.S. to some countries that really jump off the list for me:

Rates under 1.0:

Greece (sharp racial divisions here)
Austria
Germany

Raters under 2.0

Italy
Poland
France
Croatia (sharp secretarian divisions here)

Still better than the United States:

Romania
Northern Ireland
Israel
Turkey (have a serious problem with seperatist Kurds)


The point being, there are a lot of sizable countries on this list, with very serious problems, that have a tremendously better handle on their murder rates than we do here in the United States. I'm not blaming guns... but it certainly makes me quite upset. Our own loss of Darrent Williams shows just how violent our country can be... To see us so far down that list behind countries like Norther Ireland and Israel angers me. What do these countries do that we don't? Why aren't we fixing this?

[W*GS]

Far too many murders in the US occur in a small subset of the population - urban young black males.

I'll let the lefties and righties argue about why that is.

[Spider]

Well, yes.



Well, no.

well then why fully auto weapons then ? ak47 the freaking out of control thug squirrel ?
A dangerous band of wild chimp monks ?
Mail man ? well maybe not he shoots back with a ak47 .......going postal

[Dudeskey]

Mail man ? well maybe not he shoots back with a ak47 .......going postal

Not anymore since they removed ammo vending machines from the break rooms ;D

[TailgateNut]

Ww just need to get back to "Put 'em up", and it'll cut the rate in half. Many people would think twice if the were risking a broken nose and a couple of shiners!

[defenseman]

It would be an interesting stat to look at the murder rates in our big cities and compare them to the death rate in iraq. I'm guessing, a few cities would easily topple the rate we are at overall in iraq to be honest. Have to dig a bit and see if anything is out there. Last number I heard on iraq is 60 dead per 100,000, given 160,000 troops there at any one time...dman

[W*GS]

well then why fully auto weapons then ?

Fully automatic firearms are legal to own - lots of restrictions, however.

Read up on the reasoning behind your RKBA to understand the "why". Consider the battles of Lexington and Concord as a start, and that one of the first acts of a tyrant is disarming the populace.

[Spider]

Fully automatic firearms are legal to own - lots of restrictions, however.

Read up on the reasoning behind your RKBA to understand the "why". Consider the battles of Lexington and Concord as a start, and that one of the first acts of a tyrant is disarming the populace.

and the first act of a drive by shooting is getting a fully auto ........... funny how that works hey

[W*GS]

Ww just need to get back to "Put 'em up", and it'll cut the rate in half. Many people would think twice if the were risking a broken nose and a couple of shiners!

You're probably trying to be sarcastic, but there is a grain of truth to what you say.

In an ideal world, teenagers would be taught our gun rights and gun safety in school (much as we teach them about sex) and upon successful graduation, they get a concealed-carry permit.

Nothing causes conniption fits in criminals like not knowing who's carrying and who's not.

[W*GS]

and the first act of a drive by shooting is getting a fully auto ........... funny how that works hey

Why do you equate the RKBA with drive-by shootings and murder?

You've got some serious issues...

Besides, how many gangbangers obey all the laws and regulations regarding firearms? Care to guess?

[Spider]

Why do you equate the RKBA with drive-by shootings and murder?

You've got some serious issues...
RKBA helps , no denying it .........

Besides, how many gangbangers obey all the laws and regulations regarding firearms? Care to guess?

I would venture a guess and say none , thats why not allowing these weapons to the public would be a damn good place to start ............

[W*GS]

RKBA helps , no denying it .........

Why do you associate a right guaranteed by the Constitution with abuse or misuse of that right, implying they are one and the same?

I would venture a guess and say none , thats why not allowing these weapons to the public would be a damn good place to start ............

Really?

Do you apply the same "reasoning" to our other rights?

Libel and slander mean that our right to free speech must be rescinded...

Catholic priests who sexually abuse boys means our right to practice our religion must be rescinded...

That riots take place means our right of assembly must be removed...

That people do illegal things in their homes means that our right not to be unreasonably searched must be taken away...

You equate abuse and misuse of the RKBA with its mere existence. Besides, do you really think that even with all the laws and regulations already in place regarding firearms that gangbangers and other criminals are bothered by those laws in the slightest?

You've never told me how you intend to make criminals and others who use guns to commit their crimes to obey the laws about guns... Care to try now?

[Spider]

Why do you associate a right guaranteed by the Constitution with abuse or misuse of that right, implying they are one and the same?
News Flash cupcake , having a gun makes it easier to kill , now I know the Gun has many uses , but even you must grasp the concept of it is easier to shoot someone , then beat them to death ......... Real elementary stuff here



Really?

Do you apply the same "reasoning" to our other rights?

Libel and slander mean that our right to free speech must be rescinded...

Catholic priests who sexually abuse boys means our right to practice our religion must be rescinded...

That riots take place means our right of assembly must be removed...

That people do illegal things in their homes means that our right not to be unreasonably searched must be taken away...

You equate abuse and misuse of the RKBA with its mere existence. Besides, do you really think that even with all the laws and regulations already in place regarding firearms that gangbangers and other criminals are bothered by those laws in the slightest?

You've never told me how you intend to make criminals and others who use guns to commit their crimes to obey the laws about guns... Care to try now?

Could you possibly hike your skirt up any higher drama queen ?
who said anything about other rights ?
this was about fully automatic weapons , I know your argument doesnt stand on its own , but this was a poor attempt to defelct

[Spider]

what does a fully automatic Ak47 have to do with freedom of speech ? anyone ?

[W*GS]

News Flash cupcake , having a gun makes it easier to kill , now I know the Gun has many uses , but even you must grasp the concept of it is easier to shoot someone , then beat them to death ......... Real elementary stuff here

Dearie, a gun is merely a tool - and we have plenty of laws on the books regarding illegal killing. Why are you so obsessed with a tool and not the person who abuses it?

Besides, don't you think killing the guy raping your son would be a Good Thing? You want to use your bare hands or a knife, or something quite effective at doing the job?

who said anything about other rights ?

Since you think the RKBA is responsible ("RKBA helps , no denying it") for some part of gun crime, then, if you're consistent, our other rights have role in making the abuse of the same rights possible.

You just don't understand your RKBA. That's a big problem.

[W*GS]

what does a fully automatic Ak47 have to do with freedom of speech ? anyone ?

I keep forgetting that your mental capacities are too limited to appreciate extensions of your ideology to analogous areas.

My bad.

[Spider]

Dearie, a gun is merely a tool - and we have plenty of laws on the books regarding illegal killing. Why are you so obsessed with a tool and not the person who abuses it?
not obsessed Kiddo , find a new word ........Stil ldoesnt answer the question why you need a fully auto Assualt weapon .......... Keep digging

Besides, don't you think killing the guy raping your son would be a Good Thing? You want to use your bare hands or a knife, or something quite effective at doing the job? why use hypotheticals ? but since you asked , My hands , I would love to put the bastard through pain and suffering



Since you think the RKBA is responsible ("RKBA helps , no denying it") for some part of gun crime, then, if you're consistent, our other rights have role in making the abuse of the same rights possible.

You just don't understand your RKBA. That's a big problem.
this is about fully automatic weapons , this isnt about all of gun rights , you cant make a good argument why we need Fully auto weapons , so you try to place the fully auto under the umbrella of RKBA , having us believe there is no difference in a .357 mag and a AK 47 .......... world of difference .....

[Spider]

I keep forgetting that your mental capacities are too limited to appreciate extensions of your ideology to analogous areas.

My bad.

LOL talk about Irony ......... you never came up with a good reason why we need fully automatic weapons , so you try to use an umbrella defense , then throw a bunch of other rights to prop your argument ........ Can you say , Spider you are right , we dont need fully automatic weapons , but I hate losing to you , so I will muddy up the argument with other bull**** ?

[W*GS]

not obsessed Kiddo , find a new word ........Stil ldoesnt answer the question why you need a fully auto Assualt weapon ..........

Amongst other things, the RKBA guarantees that I have the right to own one, if I so choose. Amend the Constitution if you want. Good luck, however.

why use hypotheticals ? but since you asked , My hands , I would love to put the bastard through pain and suffering

Pity for you the guy makes Mike Tyson look like a wuss. After he's done with your son, he'll turn you into a reddish-pink paste.

Try again. Or maybe your wife is home alone and has to protect herself and your family from an intruder, while you're out on the road. You gonna tell her to take him on with her bare hands?

this is about fully automatic weapons , this isnt about all of gun rights , you cant make a good argument why we need Fully auto weapons , so you try to place the fully auto under the umbrella of RKBA , having us believe there is no difference in a .357 mag and a AK 47 .......... world of difference .....

The RKBA does indeed cover fully automatic weapons - they are legal to own, you know.

What scares you so much about them, anyway?

You do know why the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, don't you? Hint: it's not for hunting or target shooting.

[W*GS]

talk about Irony ......... you never came up with a good reason why we need fully automatic weapons ,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's all the reason I need.

Explain why they should be forbidden.

[Spider]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's all the reason I need.

Explain why they should be forbidden.

I see so you claim you are not an Anarchist , yet you want a well armed militia?
easy why they should be forbidden , they are a Military weapon , Designed by a Military ( russian) , used for Military purposes , Now tell me why again Civialians should have military weapons ?

[Spider]

Pity for you the guy makes Mike Tyson look like a wuss. After he's done with your son, he'll turn you into a reddish-pink paste.
LOL play alot of Kid games dont you .........in the land of Make believe ...... a world of difference from the Boxing ring to the street ......... yo urealy should think before you speak , or at least have a clue .......... I would be more afraid of Bill Romonowski on the street then Mike Tyson ...........

Try again. Or maybe your wife is home alone and has to protect herself and your family from an intruder, while you're out on the road. You gonna tell her to take him on with her bare hands?
got a dog . Damn good one also ..........



The RKBA does indeed cover fully automatic weapons - they are legal to own, you know. Why ?

What scares you so much about them, anyway? oh so now I am scared of them ? Life on your planet is different ........ but here in the real world , we see kids shooting these things into a crowd of people ...... do the math


You do know why the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, don't you? Hint: it's not for hunting or target shooting.
and you claim you are not an Anarchist .......

[W*GS]

I see so you claim you are not an Anarchist , yet you want a well armed militia?

Whether or not I "want" one is beside the point; the Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Period.

easy why they should be forbidden , they are a Military weapon , Designed by a Military ( russian) , used for Military purposes , Now tell me why again Civialians should have military weapons ?

Automatic firearms aren't "military" - police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature) have them.

Again, it's completely legal to own a fully-automatic firearm.

You think they should be illegal - but you're going to have to amend the Constitution to make that possible.

[W*GS]

I would be more afraid of Bill Romonowski on the street then Mike Tyson ...........

OK, so it's a guy that can easily kick Romonowski's ass. You're gonna take him on, ya big toughy? Good luck.

got a dog . Damn good one also ..........

Dogs are hardly the be-all of self-defense.

oh so now I am scared of them ? Life on your planet is different ........ but here in the real world , we see kids shooting these things into a crowd of people ...... do the math

Do tell. How often do "we see kids shooting these things into a crowd of people"?

How would making fully-auto firearms (which are extremely rarely used in crime, despite your beliefs) illegal change anything, really?

Making a particular kind of firearm illegal will keep it from being available to those who choose to do harm with one about as well as making cocaine illegal has kept people from getting high with it.

Do you understand the problem(s) with your view?

and you claim you are not an Anarchist .......

You're calling the writers of the Constitution anarchists? Rather "interesting" take, there.

[Spider]

Whether or not I "want" one is beside the point; the Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Period.
yeah ok ...........



Automatic firearms aren't "military" - police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature) have them. if Bullshít was music , you would be the brass section , no way anyone will believe the Police force has the same thing as AK 47 , M 16 , Uzi, etc ...........

Again, it's completely legal to own a fully-automatic firearm. again why ?

You think they should be illegal - but you're going to have to amend the Constitution to make that possible.
then why hike your skirt up and go drama queen ?

[Spider]

OK, so it's a guy that can easily kick Romonowski's ass. You're gonna take him on, ya big toughy? Good luck. agai nwith the make believe ......... tell me does this master criminal shoot flames out of his eyes and Lightning bolts out of his ass ?



Dogs are hardly the be-all of self-defense. come on over for Dinner , we will test your theory ..........



Do tell. How often do "we see kids shooting these things into a crowd of people"? well you may not see it in La La land , but go to east LA .....tell me it doesnt happen

How would making fully-auto firearms (which are extremely rarely used in crime, despite your beliefs) illegal change anything, really? where did I say it would stop murder or Crime ? what it will stop is innocent people caught in the line of fire .........

Making a particular kind of firearm illegal will keep it from being available to those who choose to do harm with one about as well as making cocaine illegal has kept people from getting high with it.

Do you understand the problem(s) with your view? more fantasy from W*GS ....... Lets go back to superman the Criminal , the guy that can kick Romonowski ass ........ he was entertaining to say the least



You're calling the writers of the Constitution anarchists? Rather "interesting" take, there.
Different time Different government ....... Nice try though ..........

[mosca]

if Bullshít was music , you would be the brass section , no way anyone will believe the Police force has the same thing as AK 47 , M 16 , Uzi, etc ...........

Irregardless of what you believe, police and other civilian law enforcement agencies do have assault rifles such as M-16s. Ever heard of the SWAT team?

[Spider]

Irregardless of what you believe, police and other civilian law enforcement agencies do have assault rifles such as M-16s. Ever heard of the SWAT team?

Sure I have , a well trained unit ......get the picture ? the average cop does not have this weapon ............ Some peoples kids .......... they act as if they have an Idea , only to find out they have a hand full of Shít ........ Dismissed mosca

[Spider]

yeah mosca , the average patrol man , and City cop , including sheriffs deputy's all run around on patrol with fully automatic weapons ............
they dont need any special training ...Swat team is 1 step above meter maid ........ Hilarious! dumbass

[mosca]

Sure I have , a well trained unit ......get the picture ? the average cop does not have this weapon ............ Some peoples kids .......... they act as if they have an Idea , only to find out they have a hand full of Shít ........ Dismissed mosca
In Wags' original post he stated: "Automatic firearms aren't "military" - police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature) have them."

You missed the point, that these weapons are not only military weapons. Now you're going off about average joe-schmo cops and sheriff's deputies, as if that's what Wags was specifically referring to in the first place. Go back and read before you discuss.

[Spider]

In Wags' original post he stated: "Automatic firearms aren't "military" - police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature) have them."

You missed the point, that these weapons are not only military weapons. Now you're going off about average joe-schmo cops and sheriff's deputies, as if that's what Wags was specifically referring to in the first place. Go back and read before you discuss.

LOL , SWAT is special trained , they are not part of your average law enforcement , they are for special situations ...........And yes automatic weapons were developed by the military ............
Tell me why does SWAT need to be special trained ? more so then the average cop ?
Face it , you stepped on your own dick on this one ..............

[Spider]

if anything you brining in SWAT reinforces my stances that Civilians shouldnt have these weapons ...........

[W*GS]

if Bullshít was music , you would be the brass section , no way anyone will believe the Police force has the same thing as AK 47 , M 16 , Uzi, etc ...........

You're wrong. One of the concerns you should have about government is the increasing militarization of civilian law enforcement. Widening the grey area between the military and civilian branches of enforcement is dangerous.

[mosca]

LOL , SWAT is special trained , they are not part of your average law enforcement , they are for special situations ...........And yes automatic weapons were developed by the military ............
Tell me why does SWAT need to be special trained ? more so then the average cop ?
Face it , you stepped on your own dick on this one ..............
Who ever said Wags was referring to only to "average law enforcement"? His post mentioned the general blanket term of "police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature)" in order to demonstrate that these are not military-only weapons. You were the one who took that one step further and want to focus only on sheriff's deputies or your local PD up there in Wyoming.

And yes, even regular police departments have assault rifles, SWAT or no. SWAT was just the easiest example to refute this incredibly bright statement you made: "no way anyone will believe the Police force has the same thing as AK 47 , M 16 , Uzi, etc".
if anything you brining in SWAT reinforces my stances that Civilians shouldnt have these weapons ...........
Criminal civilians will always have these weapons. That is why we have things such as SWAT.

[W*GS]

if anything you brining in SWAT reinforces my stances that Civilians shouldnt have these weapons ...........

Thanks for unintentionally advocating a police state.

[Spider]

Who ever said Wags was referring to only to "average law enforcement"? His post mentioned the general blanket term of "police and other law enforcement agencies (civilian in nature)" in order to demonstrate that these are not military-only weapons. You were the one who took that one step further and want to focus only on sheriff's deputies or your local PD up there in Wyoming.

And yes, even regular police departments have assault rifles, SWAT or no. SWAT was just the easiest example to refute this incredibly bright statement you made: "no way anyone will believe the Police force has the same thing as AK 47 , M 16 , Uzi, etc".

Criminal civilians will always have these weapons. That is why we have things such as SWAT.

LOL if you say so .......... fact is you brought up Swat , i pointed out Swat was highly trained , other officers dont carry these weapons ........... now you came up with this long winded bullshít .......... Civilians will not always have these weapons ............

[Spider]

Thanks for unintentionally advocating a police state.

I bet the thought of that makes an anarchist like you wet the bed

[W*GS]

agai nwith the make believe ......... tell me does this master criminal shoot flames out of his eyes and Lightning bolts out of his ass ?

Fair enough - there's no criminal in the world that you can't tear to pieces with your bare hands, you're such a he-man. Now what about everyone else?

come on over for Dinner , we will test your theory ..........

All I'm saying is that dogs are hardly reliable as a tool for self-defense.

well you may not see it in La La land , but go to east LA .....tell me it doesnt happen

Tell me it does.

where did I say it would stop murder or Crime ? what it will stop is innocent people caught in the line of fire .........

Gee, from reading you, one would think fully-auto weapons are widespread and in near-daily use by criminals, with our streets resembling something out of a Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie. Your "reality" certainly doesn't match what the rest of the universe experiences.

Different time Different government ....... Nice try though ..........

You don't even understand the implications of this remark, do you?

Freedom of speech only applies to quill pens, eh?

[mosca]

Civilians will not always have these weapons ............
As long as there is a black market in guns, civilians, particularly criminal-minded ones, will have these weapons. Passing a gun-control law will have no effect on that.

[Spider]

Fair enough - there's no criminal in the world that you can't tear to pieces with your bare hands, you're such a he-man. Now what about everyone else? More fantasy .......... look W*GS , this may come as a Shock , but you dont have to be a bad ass , 110 th degree black belt super Karate guy , just dont be a soft target .......Criminals are criminals cause they dont want to do anything hard ........... and if you need an Uzi or a ak47 to protect yourself , then you are a pussy ........



All I'm saying is that dogs are hardly reliable as a tool for self-defense. neither is a gun jackass , tell me how many people get hurt cause they pulll a firearm and dont know how to use it ?



Tell me it does. maybe not in LA LA land ........



Gee, from reading you, one would think fully-auto weapons are widespread and in near-daily use by criminals, with our streets resembling something out of a Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie. Your "reality" certainly doesn't match what the rest of the universe experiences.
Ha! you want to compare experiences and travels ?



You don't even understand the implications of this remark, do you?

Freedom of speech only applies to quill pens, eh?
didnt say that ........... again this is a different government then 200 year ago........maybe in LA LA land things stay the same

[W*GS]

and if you need an Uzi or a ak47 to protect yourself , then you are a p***Y ........

Funny that you reference LA - look up what happened during the riots after the Rodney King verdict. Were those folks protecting themselves and their property from looters also "p***ies"?

Besides, if the cops think they need an AK-47 or an Uzi, how come we as civilians can't protect ourselves against those same criminals using the same tools as the cops? Certainly the cops can't protect you, nor are they legally obligated to do so.

neither is a gun jackass , tell me how many people get hurt cause they pulll a firearm and dont know how to use it ?

How many get hurt or killed driving a car that's capable of far higher speeds than any speed limit? Why are cars allowed to go 100 mph anyway?

didnt say that ........... again this is a different government then 200 year ago........maybe in LA LA land things stay the same

Oh, so you do realize some of the problems with the "different time, different government" nonsense... If you trash the RKBA with that reasoning, don't be surprised when that same reasoning is used against the rights you do care about.

[Spider]

Funny that you reference LA - look up what happened during the riots after the Rodney King verdict. Were those folks protecting themselves and their property from looters also "p***ies"?
you are comparing Riots to you getting mugged ?

Besides, if the cops think they need an AK-47 or an Uzi, how come we as civilians can't protect ourselves against those same criminals using the same tools as the cops? Certainly the cops can't protect you, nor are they legally obligated to do so. thats the point , the weak attempted by mosca failed , only SWAT carries these weapons , and get right down to it , Swat could classify as a light Infantry paramilitary type of squad ........a cop has to have a certain amount of time in on the beat before he is even considered for SWAT ........alot of these Swat officers do undergo a military type of training ...........A citizen does what ? thats right Watches Rambo



How many get hurt or killed driving a car that's capable of far higher speeds than any speed limit? Why are cars allowed to go 100 mph anyway?
Finlay it sinks in you people cant drive ......... I agree Cars shouldnt go over 100 mph unless they are on a track .........



Oh, so you do realize some of the problems with the "different time, different government" nonsense... If you trash the RKBA with that reasoning, don't be surprised when that same reasoning is used against the rights you do care about.
not really , and no I shouldnt expect other rights being brought up when talking about fully automatic weapons ........... if you want to make a case about free speech , then do so , we will leave Automatic weapons alone and talk about your Buddy Ward Churchill and Rosie ODonnell ;D

[mosca]

thats the point , the weak attempted by mosca failed , only SWAT carries these weapons , and get right down to it , Swat could classify as a light Infantry paramilitary type of squad ........a cop has to have a certain amount of time in on the beat before he is even considered for SWAT ........alot of these Swat officers do undergo a military type of training ...........A citizen does what ? thats right Watches Rambo

Wrong again, Spider... It's not just SWAT that is using assault rifles. Regular cops are using them, too. Check out these four links disproving your statement:

Antioch Police Add Six Assault Rifles to Weapons Arsenal (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/precision-rifles/articles/90356/)

The Hudson Falls Police Department has upgraded their weapons from standard issue shotguns to the AR-15 assault rifle (http://www.hudsonfallspd.com/ar15.html)

500 Officers to Be Issued High-Powered Weapons Used by Elite Unit (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B12F7345B0C758DDDAB0994D94044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fP% 2fPolice)

UTPD assault rifles concern students (http://www.utwatch.org/oldnews/texas_guns_5_01_03.html)

Not to mention other civilian, non-military agencies using these kinds of weapons, such as DEA, FBI, ATF, etc.

[Spider]

Wrong again, Spider... It's not just SWAT that is using assault rifles. Regular cops are using them, too. Check out these four links disproving your statement:

Antioch Police Add Six Assault Rifles to Weapons Arsenal (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/precision-rifles/articles/90356/)

The Hudson Falls Police Department has upgraded their weapons from standard issue shotguns to the AR-15 assault rifle (http://www.hudsonfallspd.com/ar15.html)

500 Officers to Be Issued High-Powered Weapons Used by Elite Unit (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B12F7345B0C758DDDAB0994D94044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fP% 2fPolice)

UTPD assault rifles concern students (http://www.utwatch.org/oldnews/texas_guns_5_01_03.html)
ok fair enough , I didnt follow ill. close enough , although one hasnt been fired , they still do have them .......... I am sure they will be trained ......

Not to mention other civilian, non-military agencies using these kinds of weapons, such as DEA, FBI, ATF, etc.
Government agency's imagine that ..... nope no training there either huh .........

[Spider]

looks like they will be training alot more Swat officers ........ Still doesnt say the average patrol man will be carrying them

[Spider]

oh and mosca , did you read the part about heavy training , and the officers having to qualify to use them ? .......... I am sure you did , so you would agree that these guys being trained will not be writting tickets and patroling with these weapons .......... all it is they are expanding Swat ...........

[mosca]

Well, I sure hope they're trained properly. But I dunno if this trend can be interpreted simply as an expansion of SWAT.

Check out the Hudson Falls site. It clearly shows a picture of a patrolman holding an AR-15 next to his cruiser. Regular cop, not SWAT. And at UTPD, they have campus police armed with them. To quote their Police Chief, "When you have an active shooter on campus and we call in a SWAT team and have to wait, more people are more likely to be killed or harmed," he said.

[W*GS]

you are comparing Riots to you getting mugged ?

I'm noting an instance where (semi-automatic) AK-47s were used to protect lives and property - and calling those who did so "pussy" is wrong.

alot of these Swat officers do undergo a military type of training ...........A citizen does what ? thats right Watches Rambo

Don't you find it a little uncomfortable that civilian LEOs are trained in military-style tactics and thinking, if what you claim is actually true? Do we want cops to think and act like soldiers?

And no, not everyone civilian who has a gun learns how to use it from watching Rambo. Sheesh.

not really , and no I shouldnt expect other rights being brought up when talking about fully automatic weapons ...........

In your view, the RKBA doesn't protect ownership of full-auto weapons because it was written in a "different time" - but all of the Bill of Rights was written in that "different time". So what others of our rights are no longer protected because of their age? Any ideas?

[Spider]

I'm noting an instance where (semi-automatic) AK-47s were used to protect lives and property - and calling those who did so "p***Y" is wrong.
well being there in the first place is wrong , they knew it was coming .......



Don't you find it a little uncomfortable that civilian LEOs are trained in military-style tactics and thinking, if what you claim is actually true? Do we want cops to think and act like soldiers?
double edge sword , what I would really like is quicker response time from swat , those links mosca provided seems to be addressing that very issue , W*GS , the bad guys have some heavy duty firepower , the Police have to keep pace .......

And no, not everyone civilian who has a gun learns how to use it from watching Rambo. Sheesh. I was referring to Fully automatic weapons , not other guns



In your view, the RKBA doesn't protect ownership of full-auto weapons because it was written in a "different time" - but all of the Bill of Rights was written in that "different time". So what others of our rights are no longer protected because of their age? Any ideas?
The internet comes to mind , and shouting fire in a crowed theater , dropping F bombs in church , or discussing bowel movements at a lunch date .........

[Spider]

Well, I sure hope they're trained properly. But I dunno if this trend can be interpreted simply as an expansion of SWAT.

Check out the Hudson Falls site. It clearly shows a picture of a patrolman holding an AR-15 next to his cruiser. Regular cop, not SWAT. And at UTPD, they have campus police armed with them. To quote their Police Chief, "When you have an active shooter on campus and we call in a SWAT team and have to wait, more people are more likely to be killed or harmed," he said.

of course he has it in his car , but not all patrol men will have them , i was under the impression that Campus police were under the direction of the campus and not really public /Civilian control ..........
i doubt they will call the new cops swat , but they will have almost the same training , probably has more to do with wages .......... Swat gets paid more

[Rascal]

what does a fully automatic Ak47 have to do with freedom of speech ? anyone ?

How many people were killed in the US last year due to an automatic?

[Rascal]

LOL , SWAT is special trained , they are not part of your average law enforcement , they are for special situations ...........And yes automatic weapons were developed by the military ............
Tell me why does SWAT need to be special trained ? more so then the average cop ?
Face it , you stepped on your own dick on this one ..............

In case you don't know it, most cops in big cities have auto's.

[TailgateNut]

In case you don't know it, most cops in big cities have auto's.

I believe they are SEMI-Automatic, not AUTO's! Slight difference, but a difference!

[Spider]

In case you don't know it, most cops in big cities have auto's.

LOL , you may want to rethink that .....Semi Auto is different the Fully Auto

[Spider]

See I am not sure these A-15's are fully automatic , but for argument sake , I take it that they are ..............

[W*GS]

well being there in the first place is wrong , they knew it was coming .......

Protecting your property and your livelihood is somehow wrong? Why?

W*GS , the bad guys have some heavy duty firepower , the Police have to keep pace .......

How did the bad guys get that firepower, if they're bad?

[Spider]

Protecting your property and your livelihood is somehow wrong? Why?
first off , they should be insured ........ my truck is my livelihood , it is insured ......



How did the bad guys get that firepower, if they're bad?

thats the point , these weapons need to be baned ......... i dont know what part of that escapes you but I have said this over and over

[Spider]

ok ...........
Firepower

The AR-15 assault rifle is similar to the M-16 rifles used by the U.S. military. The M-16, however, can also be fired as a machine gun. That type of weaponry is reserved for SWAT teams, McKeever said.

"The AR-15 round is actually a military round and the rifles have a round capacity of 30 rounds per ammunition clip," Roth said.

Unlike the shotguns used by local police agencies, which eject nine .32-caliber bullets with just one pull of the trigger, the AR-15 fires just one bullet at a time.

"This fires a .223-caliber bullet, which is less than a quarter inch in diameter," McKeever said. "But it''s got a great deal more distance and accuracy."

The typical shotgun, McKeever said, has a range of 50 to 75 feet. Handguns, which are also used by local police, are not too accurate beyond an even smaller space, he added.

"These things have a range of a couple hundred feet," he said of the AR-15.

Roth added there is a variety of ammunition that can be used with the AR-15, one of which is powerful enough to penetrate metal or tempered glass.

The assault rifle would be ideal in a situation where an active shooter is holed up inside a building. That situation arose in Lindenhurst in June 2001 when a Lindenhurst resident shot two plain-clothes state police officers and held a 13-hour stand-off in the former Eagle Country Market store on Grand Avenue.

Fortunately, Lindenhurst police didn''t have to use their AR-15 rifles.

"We didn''t have to face directly dealing with him," McKeever said. "He retreated inside. Once it''s at that stage, local police normally should not be the main operatives there."
from mosca's link ......... it seems they want these weapons for their range .....not to be used as Fully Automatic , that is still reserved for swat ......
so now back to the question of why Should the public have a weapon style fully Auto assault rifle ?

[Spider]

So now what ?

[Spider]

How many people were killed in the US last year due to an automatic?

why do you need a fully automatic assault rifle ?

[W*GS]

first off , they should be insured ........ my truck is my livelihood , it is insured ......

Does your insurance cover your truck if it gets destroyed during a riot?

thats the point , these weapons need to be baned ......... i dont know what part of that escapes you but I have said this over and over

How would banning these firearms solve the problem of bad guys having them? How does banning anything solve the problem of bad guys getting whatever it is?

[Spider]

Does your insurance cover your truck if it gets destroyed during a riot?
if my truck comes disabled or totaled due to vandelism yes it is covered , If I ma in my rig without a trailer it is covered under what is called non dispatched driving , if I drive my rig into water it is covered , if I am struck by a non insured driver I am covered , I have 1.5 mill cargo insurance , my trailer has 150K coverage , I have insurgence coming out of the ass , but you have to have it People are sue happy ........



How would banning these firearms solve the problem of bad guys having them? How does banning anything solve the problem of bad guys getting whatever it is?

it is a start , sure you have the black market , but some stop gap measures are better then your plan ........ oh well cant do anything about it , might as well arm felons ..........

[W*GS]

if my truck comes disabled or totaled due to vandelism yes it is covered

Not what I asked - if your truck is damaged or destroyed during a "civil disturbance", is your loss covered? None of our auto insurances cover that specific instance - and I suspect your truck insurance doesn't cover it either, nor would the insurance of those who took up arms to protect their property and livelihoods during the LA riots.

So, your argument is gone.

it is a start , sure you have the black market , but some stop gap measures are better then your plan ........ oh well cant do anything about it , might as well arm felons ..........

It's not an either-or situation. You propose banning (which won't work) so you think I support giving them away. That's incorrect - and my merely noting that your ban won't work cannot lead you to your beliefs about what I think. You've killed that strawman so many times it's got better recuperative powers than Jesus Christ.

[Spider]

Not what I asked - if your truck is damaged or destroyed during a "civil disturbance", is your loss covered? None of our auto insurances cover that specific instance - and I suspect your truck insurance doesn't cover it either, nor would the insurance of those who took up arms to protect their property and livelihoods during the LA riots.

So, your argument is gone.
Hardly , vandalism is vandalism , regardless of the situation , My truck insurance covers a wide range of things, all I have to do is is be willing to be pay premiums ........ Just to show how shallow your thinking is , I carry over a million $$'s worth of goods into Crime infested parts of a city , now you tell me what kind of insurance I should carry ?
BTW , I know you didnt compare a private car insurance policy to that of a commercial vehicle ............


It's not an either-or situation. You propose banning (which won't work) so you think I support giving them away. That's incorrect - and my merely noting that your ban won't work cannot lead you to your beliefs about what I think. You've killed that strawman so many times it's got better recuperative powers than Jesus Christ.
yeah sure thing , you dont have an answer ........ you just as soon as every gun was made available to everyone ........ you could care less if it was a felon buying a weapon or not ..........

[W*GS]

Hardly , vandalism is vandalism , regardless of the situation

Wrong. A kid throwing a rock through your windshield is one thing, a mob during a riot setting fire to your truck is another. Provide some proof that your truck is covered during a riot. I gravely doubt that it is.

Just to show how shallow your thinking is , I carry over a million $$'s worth of goods into Crime infested parts of a city , now you tell me what kind of insurance I should carry ?

You're not the party who needs to be insured - whomever it is whose goods you're carrying is the insured party.

Insurance companies are very careful to exclude acts like war, riots, "civil disturbances" and the like in what they cover.

yeah sure thing , you dont have an answer ........ you just as soon as every gun was made available to everyone ........ you could care less if it was a felon buying a weapon or not ..........

When you can prove that felons will obey the gun laws we have, we'll have a place to start from. As long as felons get guns via illegal means, there's no reason to infringe the RKBA of law-abiding citizens. Period.

[Spider]

Wrong. A kid throwing a rock through your windshield is one thing, a mob during a riot setting fire to your truck is another. Provide some proof that your truck is covered during a riot. I gravely doubt that it is.



You're not the party who needs to be insured - whomever it is whose goods you're carrying is the insured party.

Insurance companies are very careful to exclude acts like war, riots, "civil disturbances" and the like in what they cover.



When you can prove that felons will obey the gun laws we have, we'll have a place to start from. As long as felons get guns via illegal means, there's no reason to infringe the RKBA of law-abiding citizens. Period.

what are you an Idiot ?
Ima responcible for the cargo untill it hits the place where I am to unload , if something falls off of my truck , Damn right I have to pay ...... Non Trucking Liability, often referred to as Bobtail, protects the vehicle owner's interest when the covered auto is not being operated in a business capacity. The bodily injury coverage provides legal liability protection for causing injury or death to another, and the property damage coverage provides protection against liability for damage to another's tangible property, including loss of use.

Bodily Injury and Property Damage Limits
The following limits for Bodily Injury (BI) and Property Damage (PD) for non-trucking liability are available on a Combined Single Limit (CSL) basis. Combined single limit means that the policyholder can purchase a stated limit that, in the event of a claim, can be used to cover losses for bodily injury and/or property damage up to but not exceeding the purchased limit.
Physical Damage coverage is designed to meet the Physical Damage Insurance needs of long haul trucking operations, including:

Collision - Coverage applies to the covered auto's collision with another object or the covered auto's overturn.

Towing - Coverage applies to a scheduled vehicle only when it is towed in connection with a covered loss.

Specified Perils:

* Fire, Lightning or Explosion
* Theft
* Windstorm, Hail or Earthquake
* Flood
* Mischief or Vandalism
* The Sinking, Burning, Collision or Derailment of any conveyance transporting the covered auto.

Comprehensive:

* Any cause of loss under physical damage except the covered auto's collision with another object or the covered auto's overturn.
* Glass Breakage
* Loss caused by hitting a bird or animal.
* Loss caused by falling objects or missiles.
dumbass
I better add this little tid bit ..... this is the exact same policy ( almost standard) I have on just the Truck , not the load or trailer ........ and this is also known as Non Dispatch operations ........... When I ma under dispatch the company I ma leased to has a much wider and better coverage ......

[Spider]

so now what W*GS ?
Care to keep showing me how clueless you are ?

[Spider]

W*GS how stupid can you be ?
Driving a vehicle over 70 foot in length , carrying goods worth millions , into high crime areas , and you think I can get by with a typical Car insurance policy ?
wtf are you smoking ?

[Spider]

When you can prove that felons will obey the gun laws we have, we'll have a place to start from. As long as felons get guns via illegal means, there's no reason to infringe the RKBA of law-abiding citizens. Period.

see , your policy is , let them have em ......... Felons included .........case closed

[Spider]

ot. I gravely doubt that it is.



You're not the party who needs to be insured - whomever it is whose goods you're carrying is the insured party.





.
Hilarious! this right here is a gem ......... classic ......... in LA LA land where W*GS lives , Cargo can fall off my trailer , and I dont have to pay ......... W*GS give me the address to LALA land , I could make some big bucks there .....

[Rascal]

why do you need a fully automatic assault rifle ?

Because it's my right if I want too.

Prove that fully automatic assault rifles are the significant cause for the murders in this country and I'll listen. Handguns are the significant cause, not assault rifles. But everybody wants to focus on the assault rifles. The focus needs to be on implementing and enforcing the laws that are currently in place (especially for handguns), not taking away assault rifles that are owned by a small majority.

[Spider]

Because it's my right if I want too.

Prove that fully automatic assault rifles are the significant cause for the murders in this country and I'll listen. Handguns are the significant cause, not assault rifles. But everybody wants to focus on the assault rifles. The focus needs to be on implementing and enforcing the laws that are currently in place (especially for handguns), not taking away assault rifles that are owned by a small majority.

I dont care if you listen or not , not to be rude , but that is how it is, no one , not 1 person can come up with a good use for these weapons , just more blather ........... And I have not once said ban all guns , just fully automatic weapons ........

[Rascal]

It's a slippery slope. And as shown in other countries, once you ban one type of gun, all guns are soon to be banned as well.

Can anybody come up with a good excuse for a Hummer? It's their right guaranteed by the constitution. How many were killed getting hit by a Hummer compared to being shot by an auto?

Assault rifles are just an excuse for this society, because the government has been unable to implement the current laws on guns, to focus and blame the murder rate on. Assault rifles are not the problem.

[Spider]

It's a slippery slope. And as shown in other countries, once you ban one type of gun, all guns are soon to be banned as well.

Can anybody come up with a good excuse for a Hummer? It's their right guaranteed by the constitution.

Assault rifles are just an excuse for this society, because the government has been unable to implement the current laws on guns, to focus and blame the murder rate on. Assault rifles are not the problem.

good use for a hummer ? ......... off road travel , Law enforcment can get to remote ares on search and rescue missions , a hunter can use them ... I dont want to ban all guns , that would be a huge mistake , with natural preditors #'s diminishing , Hunters full fill that role very well ....

[W*GS]

see , your policy is , let them have em ......... Felons included .........case closed

Felons already have guns, despite your ideas about preventing law-abiding citizens from having the "scary" ones.

Case closed.

[W*GS]

what are you an Idiot ?
Ima responcible for the cargo untill it hits the place where I am to unload , if something falls off of my truck , Damn right I have to pay

What if a crowd of rioters surrounds your truck and demands you leave it and its cargo for them? Does your insurance cover that?

That's quite different from your negligence in failing to secure the load properly.

Who covers the loss when your truck and trailer, and its cargo, are destroyed during a riot?

Besides, exactly how does the insurance on your truck compare to a shopowner's insurance of her property and its contents?

[W*GS]

Hilarious! this right here is a gem ......... classic ......... in LA LA land where W*GS lives , Cargo can fall off my trailer , and I dont have to pay ......... W*GS give me the address to LALA land , I could make some big bucks there .....

If you're negligent in securing your load properly, then yes, you are liable.

That's not the instance we were talking about - but you've never let an opportunity to change the subject to issue a smartass remark (that you think applies) pass you by.

[Spider]

If you're negligent in securing your load properly, then yes, you are liable.

That's not the instance we were talking about - but you've never let an opportunity to change the subject to issue a smartass remark (that you think applies) pass you by.

Let me explain it to you ........... once I sign the bill of lading , the goods are now under my care , theft , damage , shortage , loss of cargo , you name it , it is under my care , what that means is we are responsible ..... we have to be insured ........if I am in Denver , and I have my load tampered with , then it becomes a claim on my company ......... one claim I had was from Cleveland , latex gloves , a box was missing from the center of the tie and the tie was shrink wrapped ( the way the boxs were placed on the pellet ) I got charged for that box ..........
another one was I was on too steep of a hill , so a D11 cat had to pull me up , well he pulled me into a gate , took out some hydraulic lines , not only did I have to pay for it , but I had to take a drug and Alcohol test ................

[Spider]

What if a crowd of rioters surrounds your truck and demands you leave it and its cargo for them? Does your insurance cover that?
Believe it or not , this does happen , though it isnt rioters , but alot of local crime stealing meat , TV's etc .......... and yes you are covered , they tell you dont be a hero , if your life isnt threatened do not attack ...........


Who covers the loss when your truck and trailer, and its cargo, are destroyed during a riot? if I am under a load , then the company we are leased to , well they have a $$$ amount , meaning I cant let my Pete get destroyed , then buy a brand new one ........If I am not under a load , then my trailer is covered up to a 150 grand ....... not enough to buy a new one , but ....

Besides, exactly how does the insurance on your truck compare to a shopowner's insurance of her property and its contents?
Insurance is insurance you gravely doubted that my truck was covered , I showed you it was , you should quit now , it is obvious you dont have a clue ......

[Spider]

Felons already have guns, despite your ideas about preventing law-abiding citizens from having the "scary" ones.

Case closed.

see and your plan wont even slow them down ............ Case closed

[Spider]

Another trick they used to use in NYC ......Push a car out of an alley into your path , and when you stopped , you was "Hit" .........they would clean you out .....alot of "hits"happen in Chicago near the meat market ........
Color TV's in California ........... they took a JB hunt truck in Canada and burned it down to the ground ( JB hunt was Cutting rates in Canada ) ....They didnt hurt the driver , they put his ass on a bus to the boarder ...........

[Florida_Bronco]

yeah mosca , the average patrol man , and City cop , including sheriffs deputy's all run around on patrol with fully automatic weapons ............
they dont need any special training ...Swat team is 1 step above meter maid ........ Hilarious! dumbass

I know this post is old, but I would just like to point out that the Sheriff's Department here allows their deputies to carry the CAR-15 (a smaller version of the M-16) assault rifle in their patrol cars. Ordinary civilians can also purchase assault rifles such as the M-16, AK-47, SKS and their variants.

[Steve Sewell]

You're probably trying to be sarcastic, but there is a grain of truth to what you say.

In an ideal world, teenagers would be taught our gun rights and gun safety in school (much as we teach them about sex) and upon successful graduation, they get a concealed-carry permit.

Nothing causes conniption fits in criminals like not knowing who's carrying and who's not.

Criminals would be MORE likely to carry weapons and commit violent crimes if they knew more people were carrying.

Advancing gun rights is the reason the murder rate is so high today. Most of the western world is light blue on that map, I wonder why?

[Steve Sewell]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's all the reason I need.

Explain why they should be forbidden.

Well we have a national army now. At the time that was written, local and state militias were the primary defenders in this country. Protecting our right to bear arms at that time was essential in fielding an army when needed. That's not the case anymore.

[W*GS]

Criminals would be MORE likely to carry weapons and commit violent crimes if they knew more people were carrying.

What's your proof?

Advancing gun rights is the reason the murder rate is so high today.

Again, your proof, please. Perhaps you can plot a time series of murder rate vs. the number of firearms in private ownership. If what you assert is true, the two lines should be in lockstep with each other.

Most of the western world is light blue on that map, I wonder why?

The availability of guns is waaaaaay down the list of factors in what a country's overall crime rate or murder rate is.

[W*GS]

Well we have a national army now.

Indeed - the RKBA has never been more important.

At the time that was written, local and state militias were the primary defenders in this country. Protecting our right to bear arms at that time was essential in fielding an army when needed. That's not the case anymore.

I strongly disagree. That we have a federal military means the RKBA is even more critical. Do you know why?

[Steve Sewell]

What's your proof?



Again, your proof, please. Perhaps you can plot a time series of murder rate vs. the number of firearms in private ownership. If what you assert is true, the two lines should be in lockstep with each other.



The availability of guns is waaaaaay down the list of factors in what a country's overall crime rate or murder rate is.

Proof? Look on the map on the original post. You'll see a strong correlation between countries with strict gun laws and low murder rates.

And can you please state your proof for the statement in bold?

EDIT...I did some research on this, and here are some interesting facts:

• In 2001, firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany. In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,348 in the United States.

• In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.

[Steve Sewell]

Indeed - the RKBA has never been more important.



I strongly disagree. That we have a federal military means the RKBA is even more critical. Do you know why?

What does an individual's RKBA have to do with the ability of our national army to arm itself? Nothing...

So no, I don't know why the RKBA is even more critical, but I'm sure your answer will be some sort of extreme example that you think further bolsters your argument. I'm intrigued...

[W*GS]

Proof? Look on the map on the original post. You'll see a strong correlation between countries with strict gun laws and low murder rates.

Correlation isn't causation. Compare the murder rates in those countries over time and they'll always been low. And also do the study I suggested - what you will not see is a relationship between firearm ownership and murder rates.

And can you please state your proof for the statement in bold?

The murder rate is more closely correlated to how many young men don't have jobs, and the economy in general, than it is to firearm ownership. Consider all the rural places in which firearms are common and their murder rates are very low.

[W*GS]

What does an individual's RKBA have to do with the ability of our national army to arm itself? Nothing...

The RKBA isn't there to provide a means for the nation to defend itself against attack. Nor is it to protect hunting or personal self-defense. It's there to provide a viable means to carry out a revolution against a tyrannical government.

[Steve Sewell]

Correlation isn't causation. Compare the murder rates in those countries over time and they'll always been low. And also do the study I suggested - what you will not see is a relationship between firearm ownership and murder rates.



The murder rate is more closely correlated to how many young men don't have jobs, and the economy in general, than it is to firearm ownership. Consider all the rural places in which firearms are common and their murder rates are very low.

Read my post again I edited to provide some facts for you.

Also, can you explain why murder rates in those countries have been historically low compared to the US? Economy and quality of living is being relatively similar, if not better in the US compared to those countries...what is the reason for the incredible amount of violent crime in the US?

[Steve Sewell]

The RKBA isn't there to provide a means for the nation to defend itself against attack. Nor is it to protect hunting or personal self-defense. It's there to provide a viable means to carry out a revolution against a tyrannical government.

I figured you'd use an unreasonable, extreme, and out-dated example. There are other checks and balances in place to safeguard against the development of a tyrannical government. This was a valid reason during revolutionary times but really doesn't apply to the modern United States.

[W*GS]

Also, can you explain why murder rates in those countries have been historically low compared to the US? Economy and quality of living is being relatively similar, if not better in the US compared to those countries...what is the reason for the incredible amount of violent crime in the US?

Outside of the drug culture and urban inner cities, the US murder rate is low.

The amount of violent crime in the US isn't "incredible" across all categories - including things like rape, assault, armed robbery and the like.

It's sufficient to note that guns aren't what makes the US murder rate or violent crime rate higher than other countries. Other factors are more important.

[Steve Sewell]

Because it's my right if I want too.

Prove that fully automatic assault rifles are the significant cause for the murders in this country and I'll listen. Handguns are the significant cause, not assault rifles. But everybody wants to focus on the assault rifles. The focus needs to be on implementing and enforcing the laws that are currently in place (especially for handguns), not taking away assault rifles that are owned by a small majority.

You have a point here...it is mostly from handguns from what I've read. People tend to focus on assualt rifles, because owning one of those is even more pointless than owning a handgun. I think people just tend to focus on the extreme and work their way down.

[W*GS]

I figured you'd use an unreasonable, extreme, and out-dated example.

"Out-dated"? What other parts of the Constitution are also "out-dated"?

There are other checks and balances in place to safeguard against the development of a tyrannical government. This was a valid reason during revolutionary times but really doesn't apply to the modern United States.

What "checks and balances" do you have in mind? No way I would trust the government to reign in its own power.

[Steve Sewell]

Outside of the drug culture and urban inner cities, the US murder rate is low.

The amount of violent crime in the US isn't "incredible" across all categories - including things like rape, assault, armed robbery and the like.

It's sufficient to note that guns aren't what makes the US murder rate or violent crime rate higher than other countries. Other factors are more important.

Of course it's low outside of the drug culture and urban inner cities. Are you saying that places like Great Britain or Australia don't have areas like this as well? Drug culture and urban inner cities aren't unique to the United States.

Compared to other 1st world countries, the difference in the amount of violent crimes involving the use of guns is significant. Provide me with some figures contrary to what I've provided for you.

And finally, other factors are more important in the violent crime rate? Like what? The gun is ultimately used to commit the violent crime, correct? The gun is more lethal than say, a person's bare hands or a blade of some sort, correct? I'd like for you to tell me what percentage of violent crimes are committed without the use of a gun. Explain to me how the gun isn't the most important factor in the violent crime rate. I would say it's THE #1 factor in committing a violent crime because it is the items that facilitates the killing.

[Bronco Bob]

Something to consider. Why did the crime rate in New York go down
drastically after Rudy Giuliani cracked down on guns and implemented
strict gun control laws in New York?

[Steve Sewell]

"Out-dated"? What other parts of the Constitution are also "out-dated"?



What "checks and balances" do you have in mind? No way I would trust the government to reign in its own power.

That's a ridiculous, deflecting question to ask because it has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.

And with regard to "checks and balances", I guess the notion of the 3 branches of government should be considered "outdated" since nobody can reasonably "trust the government to reign in its own power", eh? Or elected representatives, for that matter.

We can go on and on with this, but not only will you continue to deflect and get off track, you'll probably continue to contradict yourself.

[Steve Sewell]

Something to consider. Why did the crime rate in New York go down
drastically after Rudy Giuliani cracked down on guns and implemented
strict gun control laws in New York?

Oh come on Bronco Bob...there's NO correlation between lax gun laws and violent crime...it's all about "other" factors, which have yet to be elaborated on in any detail.:rofl:

[alkemical]

I figured you'd use an unreasonable, extreme, and out-dated example. There are other checks and balances in place to safeguard against the development of a tyrannical government. This was a valid reason during revolutionary times but really doesn't apply to the modern United States.

Uhhh, duuuude - have you been paying attention lately?

[alkemical]

That's a ridiculous, deflecting question to ask because it has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.

And with regard to "checks and balances", I guess the notion of the 3 branches of government should be considered "outdated" since nobody can reasonably "trust the government to reign in its own power", eh? Or elected representatives, for that matter.

We can go on and on with this, but not only will you continue to deflect and get off track, you'll probably continue to contradict yourself.

Just as an example:

When was the last time the gov't repealed it's own power, and/or lowered taxes?

[Steve Sewell]

Uhhh, duuuude - have you been paying attention lately?

Yes, I have been paying attention. I do think the executive branch is currently out of control, which is why the public voted to put the democrats in control of the house and senate...thanks for providing the perfect example of the public's ability to "check and balance" power without having to rise up by force and overthrow a tyrannical government (which is an extreme example, wouldn't you say?).

[alkemical]

Yes, I have been paying attention. I do think the executive branch is currently out of control, which is why the public voted to put the democrats in control of the house and senate...thanks for providing the perfect example of the public's ability to "check and balance" power without having to rise up by force and overthrow a tyrannical government (which is an extreme example, wouldn't you say?).

And... what has changed? Oh yeah, now your internet can be monitored...

It's not like i can go to the supreme court and say:

"in the constitution, it states that if the gov't is no longer serving the best needs of the people, we can by right of law demand that the gov't as it operates cease so we may instill a new one".

Like the US Supreme Court, is going to let that slide on the side of the people.

[Steve Sewell]

Just as an example:

When was the last time the gov't repealed it's own power, and/or lowered taxes?

I don't know and I don't care to do the research to answer a question that doesn't reasonably contribute to the topic at hand.

But I will say that the notion that the public needs to retain the right to bear arms solely for its ability to overthrow a tyrannical government is far-fetched by today's standards, and an insult to the US governmental structure that was primarily designed as a peaceful means to preventing a tyrannical government from gaining power.

[alkemical]

I don't know and I don't care to do the research to answer a question that doesn't reasonably contribute to the topic at hand.

But I will say that the notion that the public needs to retain the right to bear arms solely for its ability to overthrow a tyrannical government is far-fetched by today's standards, and an insult to the US governmental structure that was primarily designed as a peaceful means to preventing a tyrannical government from gaining power.


LOL, i like you. You are funny!

[Bronco Bob]

I don't know and I don't care to do the research to answer a question that doesn't reasonably contribute to the topic at hand.

But I will say that the notion that the public needs to retain the right to bear arms solely for its ability to overthrow a tyrannical government is far-fetched by today's standards, and an insult to the US governmental structure that was primarily designed as a peaceful means to preventing a tyrannical government from gaining power.

What's more, right now most of the people most in favor of guns are the
same people most in favor of this government and most in favor of this
government stripping away our rights.

[Steve Sewell]

And... what has changed? Oh yeah, now your internet can be monitored...

It's not like i can go to the supreme court and say:

"in the constitution, it states that if the gov't is no longer serving the best needs of the people, we can by right of law demand that the gov't as it operates cease so we may instill a new one".

Like the US Supreme Court, is going to let that slide on the side of the people.

People elect the representative body to make changes to constitutional law. The Supreme Court interprets the constitutional law. So the scenario you present is impossible either way.

The people do, however, have the ability to vote for their representatives, which gives the collective will of the people a legitimate voice in the matters you suggest.

[Steve Sewell]

LOL, i like you. You are funny!

Funny? There's nothing funny about my statement.

What's funny is your lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanics of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government. Not to mention, your general paranoia that we are somehow currently under tyrannical rule where the public has no peaceful means of rectifying the issue, when that process is WELL underway.

[W*GS]

Of course it's low outside of the drug culture and urban inner cities.

Many of those rural areas have very high rates of firearm ownership. That points out a serious flaw in the "more guns -> more violent crime" argument.

Are you saying that places like Great Britain or Australia don't have areas like this as well? Drug culture and urban inner cities aren't unique to the United States.

True, but not many places have the long-standing problem that the US does.

Compared to other 1st world countries, the difference in the amount of violent crimes involving the use of guns is significant. Provide me with some figures contrary to what I've provided for you.

The US has a higher non-gun violent crime rate as well.

And finally, other factors are more important in the violent crime rate? Like what? The gun is ultimately used to commit the violent crime, correct?

The criminal commits the crime, not the gun. And not always is a gun used.

If you can determine a means in which criminals are barred from getting guns, and that doesn't infringe on our RKBA, I'm interested.

The gun is more lethal than say, a person's bare hands or a blade of some sort, correct?

Knives can be just as lethal as guns.

And remember - the deadly force that a gun can provide works both ways.

Explain to me how the gun isn't the most important factor in the violent crime rate. I would say it's THE #1 factor in committing a violent crime because it is the items that facilitates the killing.

Guns don't make people commit violent crimes.

[alkemical]

People elect the representative body to make changes to constitutional law. The Supreme Court interprets the constitutional law. So the scenario you present is impossible either way.

The people do, however, have the ability to vote for their representatives, which gives the collective will of the people a legitimate voice in the matters you suggest.



And why is it impossible? Because the gov't won't allow that part of the constitution to be applicable.

[W*GS]

But I will say that the notion that the public needs to retain the right to bear arms solely for its ability to overthrow a tyrannical government is far-fetched by today's standards, and an insult to the US governmental structure that was primarily designed as a peaceful means to preventing a tyrannical government from gaining power.

An "insult to the US governmental structure"? How dare we insult the State!

If it's impossible for the government to become a tyranny, why was the 2nd Amendment included in the Constitution?

[alkemical]

Funny? There's nothing funny about my statement.

What's funny is your lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanics of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government. Not to mention, your general paranoia that we are somehow currently under tyrannical rule where the public has no peaceful means of rectifying the issue, when that process is WELL underway.


There's no point in discussing anything with you since you don't want to put time and effort in seeing if the gov't ever returns freedoms and money to it's people.

I don't trust the gov't any more than i trust any other human to tell me how to live my life.

it's not paranoia - i already know that we live in a survelience society - It's just when people think the gov't is nice and friendly whilst taxes be raised and lines be drawn all in the guise of "for saftey, for you" - i find it rather silly. Thus the reason why i think you are funny.

[alkemical]

An "insult to the US governmental structure"? How dare we insult the State!

If it's impossible for the government to become a tyranny, why was the 2nd Amendment included in the Constitution?



It was? ;)

[W*GS]

Why did the crime rate in New York go down drastically after Rudy Giuliani cracked down on guns and implemented strict gun control laws in New York?

NYC has had very strict gun control since before Giuliani took office.

Read the book "Freakonomics" for an interesting take on the issue of violent crime.

[Steve Sewell]

Many of those rural areas have very high rates of firearm ownership. That points out a serious flaw in the "more guns -> more violent crime" argument.

I would venture to guess that a similar trend would be evident in rural areas of other 1st world countries



True, but not many places have the long-standing problem that the US does.

And those problems are?



The US has a higher non-gun violent crime rate as well.

How does this support your point? That there would be a higher crime rate regardless of guns being there or not? Sure, that makes sense, however it doesn't explain the disparity in violent crimes with the use of firearms committed in the US compaired to it's 1st world counterparts with stricter gun laws.

The criminal commits the crime, not the gun. And not always is a gun used.

If you can determine a means in which criminals are barred from getting guns, and that doesn't infringe on our RKBA, I'm interested.

Knives can be just as lethal as guns.

And remember - the deadly force that a gun can provide works both ways.

Guns don't make people commit violent crimes.

Yes the criminal commits the crime, but the gun enables the criminal to commit the crime in a more effective manner.

My whole point is that your notion of why should have the RKBA is flawed and outdated. This right increases the availability of weapons on the secondary and black markets for criminals who cannot legally purchase guns in the US.

Knives "can" be just as lethal as guns, if properly trained, which the majority of criminals are not.

[Steve Sewell]

There's no point in discussing anything with you since you don't want to put time and effort in seeing if the gov't ever returns freedoms and money to it's people.

I don't trust the gov't any more than i trust any other human to tell me how to live my life.

it's not paranoia - i already know that we live in a survelience society - It's just when people think the gov't is nice and friendly whilst taxes be raised and lines be drawn all in the guise of "for saftey, for you" - i find it rather silly. Thus the reason why i think you are funny.


There's no point in discussing anything with you either, since you refuse to delve deeper into economic, social, and defense realities of modern times to reveal the answers as to why the US hasn't remained EXACTLY the same as it was in the late 18th century.

I am certainly glad that I don't have to worry about providing my own sewage lines, public utilities, pave the street in front of my house...that sort of thing.

You see things too black and white when there are many gray areas. My taxes provide me with the freedom from worrying about providing some of the most rudimentary of services on my own.

I suppose we should also sanction the private enterprises that provide these services through government contracts, since they are the ones that are actually getting paid and setting the market prices for their services. They are raising our taxes!

There's no one FORCING you to live "on the grid", man. If you really feel that yours rights are so infringed, you can always buy your own property in the country and set up a tent.

[W*GS]

I would venture to guess that a similar trend would be evident in rural areas of other 1st world countries

So the problem is inner cities and the drug culture, not the guns.

And those problems are?

Too many unemployed and underemployed young men, who feel that gangs and other dysfunctional collectives are the only means to validate themselves.

It's easiest to pass gun control laws, but they address only a symptom, not the real problem, which is much tougher to solve.

How does this support your point? That there would be a higher crime rate regardless of guns being there or not? Sure, that makes sense, however it doesn't explain the disparity in violent crimes with the use of firearms committed in the US compaired to it's 1st world counterparts with stricter gun laws.

It's not the case that countries with stricter gun control saw a drop in gun-related crime after those laws were passed. In some places, gun-related crime has increased - the UK and Australia, as two examples.

Like I said, if you can get criminals intent on committing violent crimes to not use guns, I'm interested.

Yes the criminal commits the crime, but the gun enables the criminal to commit the crime in a more effective manner.

Criminals aren't allows to have guns - and since they somehow manage to get them, law-abiding citizens have every right to an effective defense. That can mean a firearm, if the person so chooses. Period.

My whole point is that your notion of why should have the RKBA is flawed and outdated.

It's neither flawed nor outdated. It's extremely relevant.

This right increases the availability of weapons on the secondary and black markets for criminals who cannot legally purchase guns in the US.

So? The right of free speech expression allows Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods. Is that a Good Thing?

An abuse of a right doesn't mean the right is itself incorrect.

Knives "can" be just as lethal as guns, if properly trained, which the majority of criminals are not.

I'd rather face a criminal with a knife with my own firearm, rather than take chances.

[alkemical]

There's no point in discussing anything with you either, since you refuse to delve deeper into economic, social, and defense realities of modern times to reveal the answers as to why the US hasn't remained EXACTLY the same as it was in the late 18th century.

I am certainly glad that I don't have to worry about providing my own sewage lines, public utilities, pave the street in front of my house...that sort of thing.

You see things too black and white when there are many gray areas. My taxes provide me with the freedom from worrying about providing some of the most rudimentary of services on my own.

I suppose we should also sanction the private enterprises that provide these services through government contracts, since they are the ones that are actually getting paid and setting the market prices for their services. They are raising our taxes!

There's no one FORCING you to live "on the grid", man. If you really feel that yours rights are so infringed, you can always buy your own property in the country and set up a tent.

What happens if i play a role of civil disobedience and refuse to pay the property tax on what i own?

[Steve Sewell]

If it's impossible for the government to become a tyranny, why was the 2nd Amendment included in the Constitution?

So, every law EVER instituted, regardless of the time period or changes in society over hundreds or even thousands of years, is applicable to this country and it's current state of affairs? Laws never become outdated or inapplicable to their intended purpose? Just because something is in the constitution, doesn't necessarily make it right...

The 2nd amendment certainly applied it's intended purpose in the late 18th century, but to suggest that your RKBA applies to the amendments original, intended purpose is absurd. That's why we have the ability to amend our constitution.

[Steve Sewell]

What happens if i play a role of civil disobedience and refuse to pay the property tax on what i own?

I should amend that...live on public property like a homeless person would...the ultimate freedom!

[alkemical]

I should amend that...live on public property like a homeless person would...the ultimate freedom!

But then I'm taking advantage of taxpayers like you, who gleefully give money away. E for effort on the deflection, but you didn't answer what would happen if i refused to pay the property tax on said property in the "wilderness"?

(PS, i was homeless as well, nice try)

[Steve Sewell]

This is going to go round and round...

So the problem is inner cities and the drug culture, not the guns.

Yes, it is...compounded by the availability of firearms to people living in those areas and participating in that culture to facilitate their interests in a more effective manner. Hence, the high rate of violent crimes with firearms in the US.

Too many unemployed and underemployed young men, who feel that gangs and other dysfunctional collectives are the only means to validate themselves.

Quantify this, please. Or is this only an opinion? Is unemployment or gang culture in inner city areas more prevalent in the US compared to it's peers by a similiar percentage to the violent crime rate using firearms?

It's easiest to pass gun control laws, but they address only a symptom, not the real problem, which is much tougher to solve.

Guns facilitate a person's ability to commit violent crimes. Limit guns, and you limit a person's ability/willingness to commit a violent crime.

It's not the case that countries with stricter gun control saw a drop in gun-related crime after those laws were passed. In some places, gun-related crime has increased - the UK and Australia, as two examples.

Wrong: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=australia

Like I said, if you can get criminals intent on committing violent crimes to not use guns, I'm interested.

Criminals aren't allows to have guns - and since they somehow manage to get them, law-abiding citizens have every right to an effective defense. That can mean a firearm, if the person so chooses. Period.

There will always be guns, but limiting their availabilty to the general public will limit their availability to criminals that want to acquire them illegally.




It's neither flawed nor outdated. It's extremely relevant.

Not really: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second

So? The right of free speech expression allows Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods. Is that a Good Thing?

An abuse of a right doesn't mean the right is itself incorrect.

Abusing a right to express your beliefs in an unpopular way is not comparable to abusing a right that allows you to partake in a criminal act (selling a firearm illegally), wouldn't you say? Don't insult my intelligence.


I'd rather face a criminal with a knife with my own firearm, rather than take chances.

Yes, but your right/ability to own that firearm would increase the chances that a gun would be available to said criminal. If you have a gun which is easily acquired under our laws, chances are that criminal will have one as well.

[Steve Sewell]

But then I'm taking advantage of taxpayers like you, who gleefully give money away. E for effort on the deflection, but you didn't answer what would happen if i refused to pay the property tax on said property in the "wilderness"?

(PS, i was homeless as well, nice try)

How was I deflecting? You pointed out an obvious inaccuracy in my statement of "living off the grid" and I amended it. So in essence I did answer your question admitting my mistake and providing you with an alternative scenario.

[W*GS]

So, every law EVER instituted, regardless of the time period or changes in society over hundreds or even thousands of years, is applicable to this country and it's current state of affairs? Laws never become outdated or inapplicable to their intended purpose? Just because something is in the constitution, doesn't necessarily make it right...

The 2nd Amendment isn't a law - it's a recognition of a pre-existing ("natural") right, and a restriction placed upon the government against violating that right.

Your argument is a strawman.

The 2nd amendment certainly applied it's intended purpose in the late 18th century, but to suggest that your RKBA applies to the amendments original, intended purpose is absurd.

How so? Because you think too many people die from violent crime?

How would you argue against violating our right to free speech in light of the use of the Internet by pedophiles and child pornographers? Certainly the 'Net didn't exist in the 18th century - neither did radio, or television, or the telephone...

That's why we have the ability to amend our constitution.

So go ahead and try to amend the 2nd out of existence. Good luck.

[W*GS]

This is going to go round and round...

Indeed. Too bad for you I have facts on my side.

It comes down to this:

How does the misuse of a firearm by a criminal legitimize your belief that our RKBA is somehow dated or wrong, and that I should be forbidden from owning guns?

And no, the Brady folks are not credible.

Guns facilitate a person's ability to commit violent crimes. Limit guns, and you limit a person's ability/willingness to commit a violent crime.

Limit guns, and you keep potential victims disarmed and vulnerable to criminals.

There will always be guns, but limiting their availabilty to the general public will limit their availability to criminals that want to acquire them illegally.

Why not prosecute the criminals in the first place, instead of relying on such an indirect and flawed method? Because some cars are used in crimes, we should have restrictions based on that for buying a car?

Yes, but your right/ability to own that firearm would increase the chances that a gun would be available to said criminal. If you have a gun which is easily acquired under our laws, chances are that criminal will have one as well.

Criminals will always have guns, regardless of the laws - only law-abiding folks will obey the law, by definition.

How comfortable are you with making good people subject to the whims of criminals? Quite, apparently.

[Steve Sewell]

The 2nd Amendment isn't a law - it's a recognition of a pre-existing ("natural") right, and a restriction placed upon the government against violating that right.

Your argument is a strawman.

It's an amendment to the constitution that can be repealed. I suppose you could construe my statement as "strawman"... my only purpose was to convey how utterly absurd your notion of the infallibility of a certain constitutional amendment is.

How so? Because you think too many people die from violent crime?

How would you argue against violating our right to free speech in light of the use of the Internet by pedophiles and child pornographers? Certainly the 'Net didn't exist in the 18th century - neither did radio, or television, or the telephone...

There are laws against these types of things as our culture and technology have evolved, no? Thank you for bolstering my point.

So go ahead and try to amend the 2nd out of existence. Good luck.

I'd like to...it no longer serves any positive societal purpose in the US. In fact a bastardized interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is used by lobbyists and people like yourself to argue for the right to own firearms. Times have changed and statistics don't lie.

[W*GS]

It's an amendment to the constitution that can be repealed. I suppose you could construe my statement as "strawman"... my only purpose was to convey how utterly absurd your notion of the infallibility of a certain constitutional amendment is.

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment grants the RKBA - that right exists regardless of the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Period.

There are laws against these types of things as our culture and technology have evolved, no? Thank you for bolstering my point.

The right of free expression exists regardless of the attempts to unreasonably restrict it, for much the same reason as I noted above.

I'd like to...it no longer serves any positive societal purpose in the US.

Wrong.

In fact a bastardized interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is used by lobbyists and people like yourself to argue for the right to own firearms. Times have changed and statistics don't lie.

"Times have changed" is utter baloney.

Do you ever consider the benefits of the RKBA?

Given that criminals will always have access to firearms, why are you so intent on disarming the rest of us?

[alkemical]

How was I deflecting? You pointed out an obvious inaccuracy in my statement of "living off the grid" and I amended it. So in essence I did answer your question admitting my mistake and providing you with an alternative scenario.

And as a lower classed citizen, i'd have no rights - thus proving that civil rights are only about how much $$$ you have, right?

[Steve Sewell]

Indeed. Too bad for you I have facts on my side.

It comes down to this:

How does the misuse of a firearm by a criminal legitimize your belief that our RKBA is somehow dated or wrong, and that I should be forbidden from owning guns?

And no, the Brady folks are not credible.

Don't confuse your opinions with actual facts. So far you've presented no links or viable statistics to bolster your argument. At least the "Brady folks" can do that. You have yet to explain the correlation between lower violent crime rates in countries with strict gun regulation. All you have provided is your opinion that the "inner city" and the "drug culture" in the US is more responsible for the large number of violent crimes in the US compared to it's 1st world counterparts, without providing any statistics or evidence that inner city areas or the drug culture are any more prevalent in the US compared to it's peers.


Limit guns, and you keep potential victims disarmed and vulnerable to criminals.

Limiting the supply of guns will limit the availability to both potential victims and criminals, thus reducing the potential for a person to be a victim of a crime using a firearm.

This is simply a fundamental difference in opinion between you and I as to how we think we can best defend ourselves. I'd rather decrease the probability of someone being able to attack me with a firearm through gun control laws and take my chances, and you'd rather simply arm yourself and take your chances (people that choose not to arm themselves be damned!).

If you have a utilitarian view of the world, you'd certainly support gun control laws because statistics show violent crime committed with firearms is much, much lower in countries with strict gun control than in countries with more liberal regulations.

Why not prosecute the criminals in the first place, instead of relying on such an indirect and flawed method? Because some cars are used in crimes, we should have restrictions based on that for buying a car?

Speaking of strawman arguments...

Criminals will always have guns, regardless of the laws - only law-abiding folks will obey the law, by definition.

Statistics related to violent crime in countries with strict gun control laws would suggest otherwise.

How comfortable are you with making good people subject to the whims of criminals? Quite, apparently.

Very comfortable based on the statistics on violent crime in countries with strict gun control laws.

[Steve Sewell]

And as a lower classed citizen, i'd have no rights - thus proving that civil rights are only about how much $$$ you have, right?

You have the freedom of choice with regard to how you live your life. You could technically live "off the grid" if you wanted to, but life would be hard...like 18th century hard, which by your interpretation of the state of things now would be a preferred way of life for you. But to blame the government for the current situation is faulty and short sighted considering we live in a capitalistic, market-driven society.

[alkemical]

You have the freedom of choice with regard to how you live your life. You could technically live "off the grid" if you wanted to, but life would be hard...like 18th century hard, which by your interpretation of the state of things now would be a preferred way of life for you. But to blame the government for the current situation is faulty and short sighted considering we live in a capitalistic, market-driven society.



Actually my beef is with the general public, but i fault those in power for taking advantage. Also, we ar enot in a capitalistic free market system. We are currently in a Corporate Welfare market driven system.

I don't want an 18th centry world, i just don't want 50% of my pay going to the gov't. If that's your world, i guess you are a fan of socialism, eh?

Land of the free? Keep waving your flag, esp. the white parts!

Viva la meximericanada! (http://www.spp.gov)

[W*GS]

Don't confuse your opinions with actual facts. So far you've presented no links or viable statistics to bolster your argument. At least the "Brady folks" can do that. You have yet to explain the correlation between lower violent crime rates in countries with strict gun regulation.

Read

http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf

or

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Limiting the supply of guns will limit the availability to both potential victims and criminals, thus reducing the potential for a person to be a victim of a crime using a firearm.

See

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

We already have thousands of laws regulating the proper use of firearms. Why not try enforcing them?

This is simply a fundamental difference in opinion between you and I as to how we think we can best defend ourselves. I'd rather decrease the probability of someone being able to attack me with a firearm through gun control laws and take my chances, and you'd rather simply arm yourself and take your chances (people that choose not to arm themselves be damned!).

Given criminals will always have access to firearms, regardless, your view will necessarily fail.

And no, folks who choose to go without firearms benefit from more guns in the hands of the law-abiding. Criminals go after the softest "targets" - and increasing the likelihood that a potential victim is armed will make criminals reconsider.

Given that over the last 10-15 years, more and more states have passed concealed-carry laws, if one adopted your view, we should have seen a big increase in gun-related crime. We have not. How do you explain that?

If you have a utilitarian view of the world, you'd certainly support gun control laws because statistics show violent crime comitted with firearms is much, much lower than in countries with more liberal regulations.

You're confusing correlation and causation.

Consider that NYC and Washington DC have some of the strictest gun control in the country - it's virtually impossible to legally own a firearm in either city. Yet DC in particular has a very high murder rate - either their gun control doesn't work (obviously) or that the criminals who commit those murders aren't obeying the law (obviously).

Very comfortable based on the statistics on violent crime in countries with strict gun control laws.

Who is responsible for your personal protection?

[Steve Sewell]

Actually my beef is with the general public, but i fault those in power for taking advantage. Also, we ar enot in a capitalistic free market system. We are currently in a Corporate Welfare market driven system.

I don't want an 18th centry world, i just don't want 50% of my pay going to the gov't. If that's your world, i guess you are a fan of socialism, eh?

Land of the free? Keep waving your flag, esp. the white parts!

Viva la meximericanada! (http://www.spp.gov)

I understand your frustration with the state of things today, based what your interpretations are of how our fore-father's intended them to be. Obviously times have changed. We live in a world of big government. What got us in the position that we rely on big government for a lot of things? Technology, the general public expectations for quality of life, the government greed for more power, war, etc...who knows? Only signficant reforms and public outcry will ever reverse the trend. We'll see how it goes.

[Bronco Bob]

Read





Consider that NYC and Washington DC have some of the strictest gun control in the country - it's virtually impossible to legally own a firearm in either city. Yet DC in particular has a very high murder rate - either their gun control doesn't work (obviously) or that the criminals who commit those murders aren't obeying the law (obviously).



Yet on the other hand New York City has one of the lowest murder rates
of any major US city. Why? Because they don't just have the laws on the
books, they actively enforce the laws.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

In fact New York City has a lower murder rate than place like Denver, Tulsa, and Omaha.

[gunns]

Libel and slander mean that our right to free speech must be rescinded...

Libel and slander don't kill people.

Catholic priests who sexually abuse boys means our right to practice our religion must be rescinded...

No, we have a choice to practice elsewhere and not every priest is like that.

That riots take place means our right of assembly must be removed...


Why, riots don't kill people, it's usually the police and their guns that do.

That people do illegal things in their homes means that our right not to be unreasonably searched must be taken away...

Usually if it's known that illegal things are going on a legal search is done.

I fail to see these analogies as they relate to AK47's being in the hands of anyone. Actually I'd like to know the point? Is it a matter of having a "right"? Then why do some of you have a problem with abortion?

[REB]

Well as far as abortion goes I'd say some believe in the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You obviously can't have Life, Liberty and Pursue Happiness if mommy/daddy have ya killed. But that's another issue.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

From the 2006 Libertarian Platform...

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

Have fun :thumbs:

[gunns]

Well as far as abortion goes I'd say some believe in the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You obviously can't have Life, Liberty and Pursue Happiness if mommy/daddy have ya killed. But that's another issue.

I guess what am asking is what's the need for an AK47? Is there any other purpose but to kill? Thus ending any right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Florida_Bronco]

I guess what am asking is what's the need for an AK47? Is there any other purpose but to kill? Thus ending any right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Hunting and recreation. Just like the CAR-15, the Ak-47 is a very popular rifle for those activities.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hunting and recreation. Just like the CAR-15, the Ak-47 is a very popular rifle for those activities.
Hunting what?

[alkemical]

the dinosaurs in the centre of the earth.

[Steve Sewell]

Hunting and recreation. Just like the CAR-15, the Ak-47 is a very popular rifle for those activities.

Don't forget the hollow point bullets...if you ain't killin' with those, you ain't really killin'.

[Bronco Bob]

Don't forget the hollow point bullets...if you ain't killin' with those, you ain't really killin'.

And with teflon coating too. Got to be able to penetrate those thick hides.

[Steve Sewell]

And with teflon coating too. Got to be able to penetrate those thick hides.

I just find it funny that people actually find "sport" in using a fully automatic assault rifle to kill an animal. At least level the playing field a bit so the animal has some sort of a chance to avoid you!

[W*GS]

I just find it funny that people actually find "sport" in using a fully automatic assault rifle to kill an animal.

Most, if not all states, forbid hunting with a rifle on full-auto mode.

[Florida_Bronco]

Hunting what?

I know they are used to hunt deer, boar and stuff like that.

Don't forget the hollow point bullets...if you ain't killin' with those, you ain't really killin'.

Hollowpoints are used in handguns as a personal defense round, and although I'm not a hunter, I don't believe they would be the type of load you want for hunting.

And with teflon coating too. Got to be able to penetrate those thick hides.

The 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO rounds will easily penetrate most animals without any of that fancy stuff.

I just find it funny that people actually find "sport" in using a fully automatic assault rifle to kill an animal. At least level the playing field a bit so the animal has some sort of a chance to avoid you!

The AK-47 and CAR-15 rifles are not, by default, fully automatic. Most civilian versions are semi-automatic and those that aren't are either already illegal unless the owner has a Class 3 firearms license. Also, as Wags stated, most states prohibit hunting with fully automatic weapons.

[RodInCanton]

Let's see if I can come out of this thread unscathed...

My personal belief (I'm too lazy to look up figures) is that our high murder rate is directly caused by our nations misguided war on drugs. Much like during the times of prohibition, this has just created a black market for gangs to make their money in. And any time you are dealing w/ a black market, pretty much anything is available. This means automatic weapons as well.

Also, a lot of these inner city kids have not been properly educated about guns. I remember when I was in school, we were so worried about the high teen pregnancy rate so they started teaching us sex ed in school. How about some type of hunter safety course to be taught for two weeks in school. Guns are here, they are part of our society. We can either turn a blind eye to that fact or we can accept they are here and try to educate ourselves about them as much as we can.

[Florida_Bronco]

Also, a lot of these inner city kids have not been properly educated about guns. I remember when I was in school, we were so worried about the high teen pregnancy rate so they started teaching us sex ed in school. How about some type of hunter safety course to be taught for two weeks in school. Guns are here, they are part of our society. We can either turn a blind eye to that fact or we can accept they are here and try to educate ourselves about them as much as we can.

Exactly. Think how many kid's lives could be spared if they knew that you have to clear the chamber of a semi-automatic handgun to ensure that it is unloaded.

[Steve Sewell]

Let's see if I can come out of this thread unscathed...

My personal belief (I'm too lazy to look up figures) is that our high murder rate is directly caused by our nations misguided war on drugs. Much like during the times of prohibition, this has just created a black market for gangs to make their money in. And any time you are dealing w/ a black market, pretty much anything is available. This means automatic weapons as well.

Also, a lot of these inner city kids have not been properly educated about guns. I remember when I was in school, we were so worried about the high teen pregnancy rate so they started teaching us sex ed in school. How about some type of hunter safety course to be taught for two weeks in school. Guns are here, they are part of our society. We can either turn a blind eye to that fact or we can accept they are here and try to educate ourselves about them as much as we can.

I'm confused...

You are saying that the high murder rates in the US are because of the drug culture in the inner city, so teaching inner city kids how to use a gun safely (via a hunter safety course) would somehow curb that trend? That doesn't make any sense. Murders aren't a result of people not knowing how to use a gun, they are a result of the person using a gun (or other deadly weapon...but in the US case, mostly guns) to kill another person.

Now if we had required education on the lethality of guns and the mortality rate of inner city youth, along with more stringent gun laws that were strictly enforced...now we're talking.

[RodInCanton]

I'm confused...

You are saying that the high murder rates in the US are because of the drug culture in the inner city, so teaching inner city kids how to use a gun safely (via a hunter safety course) would somehow curb that trend? That doesn't make any sense. Murders aren't a result of people not knowing how to use a gun, they are a result of the person using a gun (or other deadly weapon...but in the US case, mostly guns) to kill another person.

Now if we had required education on the lethality of guns and the mortality rate of inner city youth, along with more stringent gun laws that were strictly enforced...now we're talking.

Arghh....dang two hour commute home!!!

Yes, you are confused but probably because I didn't make myself very clear.

I was actually responding to the two different conversations this thread turned into hence the two paragraphs. The first paragraph was my response to why I think we have high murder rates in the US. I believe it is because of our ill advised war on drugs. This war takes place a lot in the inner cities and sometimes gunplay is involved in this war. A lot of these kids who participate in the gunplay don't know anything about guns other than what they have seen on TV. If you taught them a gun safety course they could see the dangers these guns can bring and think twice about their actions. I understand and can respect that you are very gun control but you have to realize that this country has guaranteed the right to possess them. You can turn a blind eye to that or you can educate.

[Steve Sewell]

Arghh....dang two hour commute home!!!

Yes, you are confused but probably because I didn't make myself very clear.

I was actually responding to the two different conversations this thread turned into hence the two paragraphs. The first paragraph was my response to why I think we have high murder rates in the US. I believe it is because of our ill advised war on drugs. This war takes place a lot in the inner cities and sometimes gunplay is involved in this war. A lot of these kids who participate in the gunplay don't know anything about guns other than what they have seen on TV. If you taught them a gun safety course they could see the dangers these guns can bring and think twice about their actions. I understand and can respect that you are very gun control but you have to realize that this country has guaranteed the right to possess them. You can turn a blind eye to that or you can educate.

OK that clears it up a little bit. However, kids in the inner city are plenty aware of the dangers of guns...in all likelihood, they know someone in their neighborhood that has been killed by guns or have seen it themselves. I have a good friend from my grade school years that grew up on 33rd and Oneida (NE Denver) and was shot through the arm in a drive by when he was 7 years old.

I'm for gun control because I believe that the reasons for citizen's wanting the right to bear arms were valid 200 years ago, but not so much now. Guns should be in the hands of our military and law enforcement officials (which were not established in such an organized manner at that time), but instead they are available to most American's, which creates a flush secondary market for criminals to obtain them EASILY if they wish.

[Florida_Bronco]

I'm for gun control because I believe that the reasons for citizen's wanting the right to bear arms were valid 200 years ago, but not so much now. Guns should be in the hands of our military and law enforcement officials (which were not established in such an organized manner at that time), but instead they are available to most American's, which creates a flush secondary market for criminals to obtain them EASILY if they wish.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but every law abiding citzen should ALWAYS have the right to firearms, whether they are used for sport, recreation or the most important reason...personal defense.

[W*GS]

I'm for gun control because I believe that the reasons for citizen's wanting the right to bear arms were valid 200 years ago, but not so much now.

I still don't understand what was so different 200 years ago compared to today. Was there a greater risk of tyranny back then, and it's much less now?

The fact that the Constitution includes the 2nd Amendment (with the purpose of assuring that the citizenry be armed to overthrow a tyrannical regime) points out that even with all the checks and balances and restrictions on government (that the Constitution creates) that the authors didn't believe that what they had created was impervious to tyranny, thus, the RKBA is protected.

The other issue is that once you allow the ol' "things were different back then" argument to apply to the RKBA, other, less-savory elements, will use it against all of our other rights. That's a dangerous slope.

Guns should be in the hands of our military and law enforcement officials (which were not established in such an organized manner at that time), but instead they are available to most American's, which creates a flush secondary market for criminals to obtain them EASILY if they wish.

If there's a key ingredient to the existence of a tyranny, it's a disarmed populace. If you meant to say above that only the military and law enforcement should have guns, and the citizenry should not, that's exactly the dangerous situation the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent.

And once again, that criminals can get guns and use them to commit crimes doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens don't have the right to have firearms. Besides, guns are used to prevent crime far more often than they are used to commit them.

[RodInCanton]

OK that clears it up a little bit. However, kids in the inner city are plenty aware of the dangers of guns...in all likelihood, they know someone in their neighborhood that has been killed by guns or have seen it themselves. I have a good friend from my grade school years that grew up on 33rd and Oneida (NE Denver) and was shot through the arm in a drive by when he was 7 years old.


These kids know the dangers of guns but do they know how to make sure a gun is unloaded? Do they know how to clean it? Do they realize it is a tool and the respect you need to treat it with?

Just because you know the dangers of something does not mean you are educated about it. Before they were teaching sex ed in schools, kids still knew how to ram and jam and the dangers associated w/ it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I know they are used to hunt deer, boar and stuff like that.

The AK-47 and CAR-15 rifles are not, by default, fully automatic. Most civilian versions are semi-automatic and those that aren't are either already illegal unless the owner has a Class 3 firearms license. Also, as Wags stated, most states prohibit hunting with fully automatic weapons.
The Kalashnikova 1947 is most definitely fully automatic as is the XM16E1, the M16A1 and the M-16 (all AR/CAR-15 rifles)!!

[Florida_Bronco]

The Kalashnikova 1947 is most definitely fully automatic as is the XM16E1, the M16A1 and the M-16 (all AR/CAR-15 rifles)!!

Not the versions should to civilians, with the exceptions of civilians having the proper license.

[yavoon]

Let's see if I can come out of this thread unscathed...

My personal belief (I'm too lazy to look up figures) is that our high murder rate is directly caused by our nations misguided war on drugs. Much like during the times of prohibition, this has just created a black market for gangs to make their money in. And any time you are dealing w/ a black market, pretty much anything is available. This means automatic weapons as well.

Also, a lot of these inner city kids have not been properly educated about guns. I remember when I was in school, we were so worried about the high teen pregnancy rate so they started teaching us sex ed in school. How about some type of hunter safety course to be taught for two weeks in school. Guns are here, they are part of our society. We can either turn a blind eye to that fact or we can accept they are here and try to educate ourselves about them as much as we can.

the penalty for drug posession in singapore is death.

I love how pakistan is leading the world! hahahahaha, yah no1 gets wacked in that haven of love.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not the versions should to civilians, with the exceptions of civilians having the proper license.

I didn't comment on altered weapons that can be purchased by most U.S. citizens, I commented on your erroneous statement below....


The AK-47 and CAR-15 rifles are not, by default, fully automatic.

[Florida_Bronco]

I didn't comment on altered weapons that can be purchased by most U.S. citizens, I commented on your erroneous statement below....

It's not erroneous. The CAR-15 and AK-47 rifles that are available to civilians are semi-automatic. Military and properly licensed civilians can get the fully automatic versions, although it should be noted that from my understanding, most branches of the military now only issue the fully automatic M4 (military version of the CAR-15) to their Special Forces units.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's not erroneous. The CAR-15 and AK-47 rifles that are available to civilians are semi-automatic. Military and properly licensed civilians can get the fully automatic versions, although it should be noted that from my understanding, most branches of the military now only issue the fully automatic M4 (military version of the CAR-15) to their Special Forces units.

I tried to explain it to you but apparently it's not sinking in. Those weapons have to be ALTERED from the DEFAULT VERSIONS (your words) to be sold to the public.

I played army 35 years ago with them so I do know of what I speak :)

[alkemical]

I believe you have to have something like a "class C" license to purchase legally, an automatic weapon being stated. You can buy a semi-auto version and modify it, but really what you want more laws, etc?

[REB]

I have no problem with people who have been convicted of a violent crime or those who have been determined to have mental problems not being able to legally own a firearm, but don't take them away from those of us who have never harmed anyone and have no intention of doing so unless it's self defense. But truth be told, even those who are mentally ill or who have or are hurting others will get a firearm if they really want one. No way your gonna stop it.

[Florida_Bronco]

I tried to explain it to you but apparently it's not sinking in. Those weapons have to be ALTERED from the DEFAULT VERSIONS (your words) to be sold to the public.

I played army 35 years ago with them so I do know of what I speak :)

I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that military rifles were given the mods to make them fully automatic.

Anyways though, th default civilian versions (should have worded it better) are semi-auto.

[Bronco Bob]

I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that military rifles were given the mods to make them fully automatic.



That doesn't make any sense. Why would they design a military rifle
to be semi-automatic and then modify it to be fully automatic? It would
make more sense to design a military rifle to be fully automatic in the first
place, as that is what it is intended for, and then if it is to be non-standard
issue, for civilian use, to then modify it to semi-automatic. The way
military rifles are made semi-automatic is they leave out or remove certain
parts. It's basically a crippled version of a military rifle. So the rifle was
designed to be fully automatic from the ground up.

[Florida_Bronco]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they design a military rifle
to be semi-automatic and then modify it to be fully automatic? It would
make more sense to design a military rifle to be fully automatic in the first
place, as that is what it is intended for, and then if it is to be non-standard
issue, for civilian use, to then modify it to semi-automatic. The way
military rifles are made semi-automatic is they leave out or remove certain
parts. It's basically a crippled version of a military rifle. So the rifle was
designed to be fully automatic from the ground up.

Yeah, you're probably right.