|gun control in the usaPage 1 of 102 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)|
| Introducing ~> Huisatcheman|
" I say, NO to gun control. "
" Gun control is a farce, designed only to take away guns from law-abiding, decent citizens."
" Sure let's just disarm the law abiding citizens and the gutsy millions who support the NRA
... and see what happens. Get a fukin brain!
(~ Thread : Violence Against Women Act II - Msg: 77 ~ Posted: 8/1/2005 by Huisatcheman)
" Blackmanx, there are instances of women abusing men. No doubt about it. But in this
society, men in particular don't believe in using such things as woman abuse as significant enough to warrant a warrant. So kill the bytchs.
~ . . . . . . . . . .
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/6/2005 4:23:25 PM
|Koss, I think we should start the disarming of Americans with the police. What say you?|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/7/2005 6:42:37 AM
|If some one forced their way into my home and demanded my gun, I would give it to them.|
First I would give them the bullets.
Then the spent shells after I reload.
Then the rest of the bullets.
When I am done I will ask if they still want the gun.
If they do not answer I'll drag their sorry ass outside and kick them down the back stairs for messing up my carpets.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/7/2005 11:37:01 AM
|As an American that has lived in (not just visited) many countries I can say for a fact you can obtain a weapon within 30 minutes of leaving an airport in any country including England and the Netherlands which have seriously strict gun control laws for law abiding citizens. And there it is LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, that is who these laws target. I live in the country, the police are a minimum of one hour away thats a fact. You can spew out all the skewed numbers you want. In the end anyone that wants a gun anywhere can get one. I agree with mountain girl whole heartedly. I probably value life more than most and respect others property just as much. But I am more than happy to loose that mindset should you attempt to inflict harm on me and mine. I have two teenage daughters at home who have gone through weapons courses, why, hell ya just never know anymore. No a gun cannot protect you from everything, much the same all the medicine in the world doesn't stop disease. If you don't want one don't buy one, if you don't want to get shot, don't get caught stealing in someones yard.|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/7/2005 11:44:30 AM
F.Y.I. (For Your Information)
I have three masters degrees.
My Husband was a Doctor. (Cancer got him.)
I goto the Sheriff's pistol range almost every other month.
My Husband and I were involved in the Boys and Girls Club on a regular basis.
You don't know what you are talking about.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/7/2005 1:49:17 PM
In case you haven't all, ..figured it out yet.
This guy, is .. Playing you people, .. Right down to his ... phoney "virgin" profile.
( it.. Is.. startling, sometimes, .. how some people . . amuse themselves )
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/8/2005 1:19:51 AM
" canadian, shut up before i come up there and shut you up.
our right to free speech does not extend to you. "
mech ... Does the word ... a**hole ... resonate with you ?
FYI ... PoF is a --> CANADIAN ... site.
~ That kinda sh*t doesn't fly here.
~ Obey the RULES or -----> Get the.. F*ck out !
~ ~ ~>
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 8/8/2005 11:55:29 AM
|Good post jr, we clearly have gun controls in Canada, but it's not hard to get a rifle. Hunting is a legitimate use for a gun - you don't need teflon coated bullets to bring down a deer though. I grew up with guns, had a .22 when I was 5. But, there is are reasonable restrictions that can be applied yet the NRA invariably opposes them. Assault weapons aren't for hunting, you can tell the guy who's never been in the woods cause he's the one with the handgun. You have a drug industry that by it's nature rewards the most ruthless individuals, and yet you have easy and ready access to ridiculous weaponry. You just need to look around and you see what a dangerous mix that is.|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/20/2007 7:39:20 PM
|I resuurrected this thread because the conversation is timely,and the following is an argument for gun control.I will also present an argument from the other point of view in another post on this same forum.|
LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.
The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.
"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.
The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.
Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.
Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.
So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.
In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.
But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.
"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.
Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.
When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.
Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.
Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?
This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.
Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.
A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.
This argument was presented in an article in the L.A. times.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/20/2007 7:50:05 PM
|As I said before,I would present the "other" view in a following post........|
WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.
Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.
Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.
A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.
At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.
More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.
She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.
Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?
I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
What is your take ?
I think the guy that wrote this is Ted Nugent.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/20/2007 9:34:32 PM
|Oh, what a dicey issue to even try to address.|
And that's what disturbs me most about this: how impossible it is to actually engage in civil discussion about gun law. Passions run deep on both sides. Many are naturally appalled by not only dramatic events like the 32 killed at Virginia Tech, but the many thousands of lives lost in the U.S. every year by bullet. On the other side are the many who feel any restrictions whatsoever on any sort of guns, ammo, or gun purchasing policy are a direct threat to their constitutional rights and ability to protect their loved ones.
I learned how to use a gun responsibly as a boy scout. I own two, a rifle and a shotgun, both passed down through the family. I hunt, but only on my own property and only for food for personal consumption. Yet if it were possible for me to give up my guns knowing that every other gun in the country would disappear at the same time I'd turn them over in a heartbeat. Clearly that isn't possible, but I want to make clear that my guns are simply tools, not an expression of my manhood or a symbol of my freedom or even anything that makes me feel any more secure in my own home.
Nor is it at all likely that we'll respond to this tragedy by issuing every student and teacher a gun to tote to class, and that's a good thing. While such a policy might mean we'd never lose 32 lives in a single one-sided incident like this one again, I'm confident we'd lose a lot more than 32 more lives each year through many more disputes settled by gunfire that would otherwise not involve more than harsh words or fisticuffs.
But rather than make an attempt to justify tightening gun restrictions, I'll just lament that we can't even bring a discussion of that option to the table. Yes, there will be dueling editorials and endless irrational debates on forums like these, but no politician hoping to ever win another election will dare introduce even the most meager piece of gun control legislation. The gun lobby simply yields too much clout.
I live in WV, a state with a huge Democrat majority that just made our current president's biggest detractor in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd, the longest serving Senator in history by a landslide. Yet we solidly supported Bush in both elections, more than anything else because the NRA succeeded in convincing our hunters that first Gore, then Kerry were sure to take their hunting rifles away. Never mind that neither even had gun control included in their platform, or that Kerry is a far more avid hunter than Bush. Charlton Heston said vote for Bush, so we did. By a bunch. And when did the Republicans take over Congress? Immediately after the Democrats had the audacity to vote to ban cop-killer bullet and assault weapon purchases. I doubt you'll see them repeat those political mistakes again.
The other lethal weapon many of us have access to is an automobile, yet we don't hear auto clubs screaming in outrage whenever we tweak traffic or drunk driving laws. And we're all held to a much higher standard for the privelege to drive than for the privelege to own a gun, yet with no public outcry.
It sure would be nice if the NRA used an opportunity like this to call for SOME sort of improvements designed to increase the ratio of responsible to irresponsible gun use. But no, all we'll hear is the same sort of vehement defense of ANY sort of gun access for anyone and everyone based on the totally irrational premise that our forefathers INTENDED to create a society with more gun crime than any other civilized country.
I made the proposal in another thread that we open any discussion on gun law by leaving sacred the right to bear the arms that existed for personal use when the second ammendment was ratified. There - now that we've covered the consitutional aspects, can we just sit down and at least TALK about the issue?
I don't know what the answer is. I just wish we could check our weapons and vitriole at the door and sit down like adults to consider reasonable alternatives.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/20/2007 9:44:05 PM
|ted kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun maybe we should ban automobiles|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/20/2007 10:26:46 PM
|A couple of points.|
Waaay back in 1776 the dudes who wrote the Constitution determined, quite accurately, that the biggest threat to the freedom of any peoples was likely NOT outside the borders but their own government. The "right to bare arms" was a way to keep the government honest too and forever empower the citizens to be able to protect themselves from abuses by their own leaders.
The 20th Century saw the elimination of 80 to 100 Million people due to wars. During that same period governments - mostly communist governments - KILLED well over 100 MILLION of THEIR OWN CITIZENS. The populations of those countries were defenseless due to them being unarmed.
Russia exterminated probably 40 MILLION citizens. China over 80 MILLION. Cambodia & Laos lost almost HALF their populations during the 70's. When America is criticized and held out as THE evil incarnate in the world today it is a statement which knowingly ignores historical FACTS. America has never taken huge numbers of their own citizens and executed them for possibly not thinking pure capitalist thoughts. To seriously compare the two is idiotic or displaying such a level of ignorance one shouldn't even bother arguing with them. "Don't confuse the issue with the FACTS."
Swizterland has remained NEUTRAL for hundreds of years. It has existed as a separate country pretty much since the 12 Century and developed a modern democratic process about 60 years after America did.
The Swiss are armed to the teeth - have been for 400 or 500 years. Nobody screws with their "neutrality" because the loss of armies to conquer Switzerland wouldn't be worth the rewards in the end. EVERY man between 18 and 55 has a handgun and an assault rifle and a 1,000 rounds of ammo for each. They also have fast access to more sophisticated weapons and explosives. The AVERAGE time between reported incidents of a Swiss citizen using his military weapons in a crime or a murder is 13 YEARS !!
Obviously with proper training and attitude guns are NOT the problem. It kind of screws up all this BS about guns killin folk. If THAT was even half right the murder rate in Switzerland would HAVE TO BE the highest in the world, no? No - Not even close.
Canada or rather our idiot politicians, over-reacting to a school shooting in Montreal, initiated a "gun registry". Prior to the massacre gun ownership was controlled by a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. Gun purchases (legal ones) were dependent on the purchaser passing tests, criminal and Mental Health Act background checks and acquiring and showing this certificate. Handguns have had to be licensed and registered since 1927 - 80 YEARS ago.
The shooting which prompted the new legislation was done by a Muslim male in his 20's who thought women shouldn't be in school and they were screwing up his life. He had grown up in the Green Zone of Beruit Lebanon during the civil war there. Guns were THE way of solving "issues." He moved to Canada, changed his name and ended up killing 14 women whom he felt were responsible somehow for him being a complete fµ¢kup.
Government POLLS, after this school shooting
(see: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/montreal_massacre/ )
showed that the average urban citizen had no idea about handgun registration going back 80 years and thought gun purchases were like in the US - walk in with cash - walk out with a machine gun or whatever you wanted. The population was ignorant and that is EXACTLY how governments want us to be. They introduced legislation to REGISTER guns. As handguns were already, it came down to shotguns and rifles, both of which are NOT the weapons of choice if you're a banger and want to blow away a rival in a nightclub in front of his bro's.
TWO AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS later the gun registry is up and NOT running. It is mired in redundancy and error. It has not been shown to have stopped ONE gun crime in Canada since being implemented. Farmers and skeet shooters , if they have not complied with the "law" , are now criminalized while bangers get diddlie-squawat even after multiple convictions of illegal ownership, shooting other bangers and violating probabtion / parole. The gun registry is a JOKE and still we are paying for this bloated bureaucracy to continue paper shuffling and not contributing to a reduction in gun crime at all.
All our weapons are NOT coming in from the USA. Half of ILLEGAL HANDGUNS are coming in through Italy and are the old Eastern Block military handguns. Good hard cash for them. Good high quality handguns for the bangers. Do HONEST citizens buy illegal handguns from ther Balkans? NO WAY!!! Do WE have to register a varmint .22 on our farms on penalty of prison time? Yup. The law actually makes excuses for the bangers and NO excuses for a farmer for not complying with some idiotic law that sees him as a bigger danger to society with his .22 than a Jamaican banger with a 9mm in his pants going to a RAVE with the idea to make hisself look like a MAN by perforating half a dozen innocents in the club.
More later if anybody wants a serious discussion in here ...
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/21/2007 8:06:35 PM
|Many people who are anti-gun seem to think that gunowners have the attitude of "You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands. I don't care if giving up my gun would decrease the homicide rate by 50% or more, cure cancer, cause world peace, or let lions and lambs sit peacefully side by side..."|
The main issue is that there is no compelling evidence that a gun ban would be effective in signifigantly decreasing violent crime, or even the number of guns themselves. Guns cannot be "uninvented." For that matter, I don't think anything can. Even if they could be effectively banned from the public commercially (and a big "if," at that), a black market of illicitly imported and manufactured guns would arise in its wake. They would be more expensive, yes, but that would just encourage the black marketing of them. Simple, primitive guns can be homemade, to boot (really??). It would be like a second iteration of Prohibition. Declare war on guns if you wish, but don't be surprised if it is as "successful" and costly as the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror."
I found a site that hopes to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
It details various gun crimes and reprints the words of anti-gun activists. But they fail to provide any actual evidence of the benefits, or even the practicality, of imposing a gun ban. They are against guns because they are the weapon of choice in the majority of homicides (about 66%). Fair enough. But upon further thought, I have a philosophical problem with this attitude (surprise). Why not cut out the middle man (the weapon) and campaign against homicide itself? Are they only against murder that involves a firearm? It appears that way from the site. Their passion against firearms overshadows their passion against murder.
If they were to focus on decreasing homicide instead, they might think about campaigning for more police (oops-- they use guns), more prisons, and more education. Here's a quote repopularized after the Patriot Act. I think it is also appropriate to this debate:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/21/2007 8:53:25 PM
|Todays society would rather blame something/someone else than to take responsibility for their own actions.|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/21/2007 9:46:52 PM
|Interesting thing is, the LA Times also put out this article on 4/20/2007.... trying to be 'all things to all people'?|
Gun control isn't the answer
Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.
By James Q. Wilson, JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including "Thinking About Crime."
April 20, 2007
THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.
So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.
This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.
Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).
Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.
First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls.
However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there.
If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun. This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free.
There are federally required background checks on purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and juveniles may not buy them at all. But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.
It's also important to note that guns play an important role in selfdefense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.
There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely.
AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.
Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris.
The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.
It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 12:05:39 PM
|actually, most americans misread the delcaration, it does not mean that every american should own a gun, it only referred to soldiers, read up on your own history|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 1:24:38 PM
actually, most americans misread the delcaration, it does not mean that every american should own a gun, it only referred to soldiers, read up on your own history
Yes, you should read up on OUR history before you make a statement like that:
Federal Court Cases Regarding The Second Amendment
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law..." Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that" t is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it did not need to address the question of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.,
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of the Second Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last word on this subject by the Court.
Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a state appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser, the Supreme Court first found that the Second and Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state action. The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. But because the Court would not hear objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court refused to consider Miller`s contentions.
Thus, rather than reject incorporation of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the Fourteenth, the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the defendant`s claim because its powers of adjudication were limited to the review of errors timely assigned in the trial court. The Court left open the possibility that the right to keep and beararms and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute`s constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.1
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."2 In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized--in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia`" (emphasis added)--thatMiller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C.922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship--including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries--it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases 3
U.S. v. Emerson, No. 99-10331 (Fifth Circuit, 1999) Emerson had been indicted for possessing a firearm while under a certain kind of restraining order, a violation of federal law [18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)]. The trial court quashed the indictment on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, finding that Emerson`s right to arms had been restricted by a mere "boilerplate state court divorce order" and "an obscure, highly technical statute with no mens rea (criminal intent) requirement."
The appeals court disagreed with those particular findings and stated that prohibitions such as affected Emerson are permissable when they are "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."
The court agreed with the trial court that the right to arms is an individually-held right, however. "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans," the court stated. "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms....We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the Eighth Circuit`s one paragraph opinion cited Miller, Oakes, infra, and Warin, infra, without any explanation, in holding that the Second Amendment has been analyzed "purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights." While this statement is true, it certainly does not mean that Miller rejected the conclusion that an individual right was protected. Thus, the Eighth Circuit did not err in concluding that it was important that "Nelson has made no arguments that the Act would impair any state militia . . . . "
U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case involved the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that the "Second Amendment`s guarantee extends only to use or possession which `has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,`" the court held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for the firearm involved.
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971). Like Synnes, infra, the court here held that the defendant could "present . . . evidence indicating a conflict" between the statute at issue and the Second Amendment. Since he failed to do so, the court declined to hold that the record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 violated the Second Amendment. As withSynnes, the court once again implicitly recognized that the right guaranteed belonged to individuals.
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972). This is another case involving possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In holding that 18 U.S.C. App. Section 1202(a) (reenacted in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) did not infringe the Second Amendment, the court held (based upon its partially erroneous view of Miller) that there needed to be evidence that the statute impaired the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. As there was "no showing that prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a `well regulated militia,`" the court saw "no conflict" between 1202(a) and the Second Amendment. While Miller focused on the need to introduce evidence that the firearm had a militia use, Synnes at least recognized the relevance of a militia nexus. There was a clear recognition, moreover, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071(S.D. Ala. 1989), aff`d, 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir. 1990) (mem). The court held that the Second Amendment "guarantees to all Americans` the right to keep and bear arms`. . ."
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (1Oth Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978). Although the court recognized the requirement of Miller that the defendant show that the firearm in question have a "connection to the militia," the court concluded, without any explanation of how it reached the conclusion, that the mere fact that the defendant was a member of the Kansas militia would not establish that connection. In light of the fact that Miller (which defines the militia as including "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense") saw no relevance in the status of a defendant with respect to the militia, but instead focused upon the firearm itself, this conclusion is not without basis.
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975). In the context of interpreting the meaning of the phrase "engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" in 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1), the court noted, in dicta, merely that "there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." Emphasis added. Clearly, therefore, the court recognized that the right is an individual one, albeit not an absolute one.
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974). This is one of the three court of appeals cases which uses the term "collective right." The entire opinion, however, is one sentence, which states that the Second Amendment "only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a `reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia`."4As authority for this statement, the court cites Miller and Cody v. U.S., supra. Yet, as the Supreme Court in Lewis, supra, made clear, Miller held that it is the firearm itself, not the act of keeping and bearing the firearm, which must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The court did, however, recognize that Miller required evidence of the militia nexus. Moreover, the particular provision at issue in Johnson concerned the interstate transportation of a firearm by convicted felons, a class of persons which historically has suffered the loss of numerous rights (including exclusion from the militia) accorded other citizens.
U.S. v Bowdach, 414 F. Supp. 1346 (D.S. Fla 1976), aff`d, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977). The court held that "possession of the shotgun by a non-felon has no legal consequences. U.S. Const. Amend. II."
U.S. v. Johnson. Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971). Once again, this decision merely quotes from Miller the statement concerning the requirement of an evidentiary showing of a militia nexus and a consequent rejection, without even the briefest of analysis, of the defendant`s challenging to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Apparently, the defendant failed to put on evidence, as required by Miller, that the firearm at issue had a militia use. Thus, Miller bound the appeals court to reject the defendant`s challenge.
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). In rejecting a Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a village handgun ban, the court held that the Second Amendment, either of itself or by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, "does not apply to the states. . ." The court, in dicta, went on, however, to "comment" on the "scope of the second amendment," incorrectly summarizing Miller as holding that the right extends "only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia." Thus, finding (without evidence on the record) that "individually owned handguns [are not] military weapons," the court concluded that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971). This is another case involving the NFA in which the court merely followed Miller in holding that the NFA did not infringe the Second Amendment.
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973). Citing Miller, the court merely concluded, in reviewing a challenge to the statute barring dishonorably discharged persons from possessing firearms, that "there is no absolute right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Emphasis added.) Since there are certain narrowly defined classes of untrustworthy persons, such as convicted felons and, as here, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, who may be barred the possession of firearms, it is a truism to say that there is not an absolute right to possess firearms. In so saying, the court implicitly recognized the individual right of peaceful and honest citizens to possess firearm.
U S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir 1976), cert. denied,426 U.S. 948 (1976). Following, and relying upon, its earlier decision in Stevens, supra, the court simply concluded, without any reference to the history of the Second Amendment, that it "is clear the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." The court also indicated that, in reaching its decision, it was relying upon the First Circuit`s decision in Cases. infra. Yet in concluding that not all arms were protected by the Second Amendment, Cases did not hold, as did Warin, that the Second Amendment afforded individuals no protections whatever. Warin also erred in concluding that Warin`s relationship to the militia was relevant to determining whether his possession of a machine gun was protected by the Second Amendment since the Supreme Court in Miller focused on the firearm itself, not the individual involved. In fact, Miller quite expansively defined the constitutional militia as encompassing "all males physically capable of action in concert for the common defense."
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev`d on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943). This is another case involving possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Despite holding that the failure of the defendant to prove, as required by Miller, a militia use for the firearm was an adequate basis for ruling against the defendant, the court, in dicta, concluded that the Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in mind . . ." This result was based on reliance on an extremely brief--and erroneous--analysis of common law and colonial history.5In addition, apparently recognizing that it decided the case on unnecessarily broad grounds, the court noted that, at common law, while there was a right to bear arms, that right was not absolute and could be restricted for certain classes of persons "who have previously. . . been shown to be aggressors against society."
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977). Since the defendant in this case did not raise the Second Amendment as a challenge to the "statutory program which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous propensities,"6 the only discussion of the Second Amendment is found in a bartnote wherein the court states "[a]rguably, any regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional provision."
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert.denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943). In this case, the court held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not intended "to formulate a general rule" regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not protected. Nonetheless, the court in Cases expressly acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right when it noted that the law in question "undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms . . ." Id. at 921. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the court in Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that Miller should not be read as holding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that could not be carried by an individual.
U.S. District Court Cases
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff`d on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971). In rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that those who engage in the business of dealing in firearms must be licensed, the court, following its view of Miller, held that the defendant had not shown that "the licensing of dealers in firearms in any way destroys, or impairs the efficiency of, a well regulated militia."
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972). In ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment, the court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) -- which prohibited sales of firearms to residents of other states. Recognizing that an individual right was protected, it held that "second amendment protection might arise if proof were offered at the trial demonstrating that his possession of the weapon in question had a reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a `well-regulated Militia.`"
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982). An applicant for relief from disabilities (a prohibited person) brought an action against the federal agents involved in denying his application. The court dismissed the case, holding that, because there was no "absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," there was "no liberty or property interest sufficient to give rise to a procedural due process claim."
Vietnamese Fishermen`s Assoc. v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D.Tex. 1982). Like the statute faced by the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1876), the Texas statute and the injunction at issue here prohibited private military activity. Mis-characterizing Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment "prohibits only such infringement on the bearing of weapons as would interfere with `the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,` organized by the State." Later, however, the court, following Miller, explained that the "Second Amendment`s guarantee is limited to the right to keep and bear such arms as have `a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.`" The courts`s understanding of the Second Amendment is thus inconsistent and, given the facts of the case, largely dicta.
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842 (1984). In the context of a challenge to the law prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons; the court, while holding correctly (see discussion of Nelson, supra) that the Second Amendment "is not a grant of a right but a limitation upon the power of Congress and the national government, "concluded that the right "is a collective right . . . rather that an individual right," citing only Warin, supra. As a district court in the First Circuit, however, the court was bound by Cases, supra, which expressly recognized that the right belonged to individuals.
1 According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.
2 Thus, when combined with the militia test--see bartnote 1--it is clear that cannons, trench mortars, rockets, missiles, anti-tank weapons (such as bazookas), and bombs would not be "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
3 Of the 13 federal courts of appeals, 8 have spoken on the Second Amendment, half holding that the right guaranteed is not an individual right, half holding that it is an individual right; one circuit has gone both ways. The remaining four have been silent. All of these cases, however, preceded the Supreme Court`s decision in U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez.
4 As with all rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment does not "confer" any rights; it merely protects rights from government interference.
5 For example, the court referred to the colonists as "a defenseless citizenry. . ." In fact, it was precisely because the citizens did have arms and were not defenseless that they desired the Second Amendment; they did not want to become defenseless.
6 Implicit in this language is the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, albeit a right that may not be enjoyed by some narrowly defined class of untrustworthy persons.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 1:48:30 PM
|Freedom of speach? too many words in the USA, maybe they should limit what you can say. Does that sound good to you too? Everyone is always wanting to change what this country was based on, get a life would you!|
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:33:30 PM
|I can't understand how people think gun control is the answer. Someone explain the reasoning behind it. Don't give me statistics, statistics can be used to prove any point someone wants to make. Give me a common sense argument on how gun control is going to save lives when there are so many other ways to kill people if that is someones goal. If not with a gun then something else will be used. A homemade bomb, a car bomb, a deliberately set fire, a knife, a club, a broken bottle, a knife, even a pair of fists, any of these things will work as good as a gun.|
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun, a bomb, a knife, a broken beer bottle, or fists, what's the difference how violence is committed ? Those who want to do violence, create mayhem will always find a way.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:56:47 PM
Do people in the US really feel that unsafe that they feel the need to own a gun?
The US has a fairly high crime rate. However, studies have shown that violent crime increases when gun control laws are put in place. It has also been shown that Americans use firearms in self-defense over a million times each year. The vast majority of gun owners do not use them in the commission of a crime.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:52:46 PM
So what you're openly saying here is you don't want facts, you want something that sounds good. Unfortunately public policy is usually best when it involves facts rather than emotional pandering.
What I'm saying is that it gets to the point were on person posts stats to back up his point and then someone else posts stats to back up their point and you have post after posts of statistics instead of debate.
My point is what is the difference if you kill someone with a knife or a gun or by any other means. Many point to the VT incident and say if only there were gun control. My point is if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun he could have used a home made bomb or set a fire or poisioned the water, air or food.
Would it have been any less tragic if he would have killed 35 people by bombing the building or setting it on fire or by some other means ?
That is the point I was trying to make, and would like to hear why that's not a valid point. The fact that people can use other things to commit mass murder besides guns. Years ago someone blew up a school using dynamite killed more people than VT. The airplane that flew into the WTC killed thousands.
I'm saying we cann't protect ourselves from somone that is intent to cause harm. That person will find away. That is the point I was trying to make, and was looking for someone to explain to me how that isn't the case.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/22/2007 5:22:10 PM
|The state legislatures of New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, and other states have made it difficult for law abiding citizens to carry firearms, and all have seen their violent crime rates increase. When criminals realize that their prospective victims are unarmed, they have been much more likely to victimize people. The stereotype of Americans having easy access to firearms compared to the rest of the world is only true in a few "shall issue" states, which consequently attract a strong gun culture, a deter criminals.|
Florida and Texas both reversed strict gun control laws--i.e., laws disarming citizens with no criminal offenses--and saw violent crime rate decline. New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, and other states that are so called "shall issue" states tend to have more heavily armed populations.
Cities like Washington, D.C., Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City, San Francisco, and other cities have disarmed their people, and crime rates have skyrocketed. Australia, Jamaica, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, Canada have enacted strict gun control laws, and all have seen their crime rates increases. The gun buyback fad ended in the States after it became apparent that gun buyback cities also saw crime increases. They became havens for criminals.
If you are undecided about gun control, I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of More Guns Less Crime, by John R. Lott. The book is thoroughly researched and well written. It is an objective and widely respected book that has opened a lot of eyes on the issue.
Today, a majority of rank and file police officers, police chiefs, and criminal justice policy experts no longer support gun control, having seen its negative effects.
|gun control in the usa|
Posted: 4/23/2007 1:00:07 AM
You have no idea what he was capable of.
Exactly, You nor I have any idea of what he was capable of, there is not way to say that if he didn't have a gun 30 people won't have died.
Pro-gunners in the USA just don't like how every other first world nation has better crime statistics.
Now that's funny. rotfl That statement reminds me of some little kid going around saying na na na na na you're just jealous cause my countries crime stats. are better than your countries crime stats. rotfl . It has nothing to do with jealousy, it's a difference of opinion, in a way of thinking.
102 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)