That is what is being asked of you. Present data pertaining to violence and homicides for the ten years prior to the 1996 laws for the nation of Australia, and the ten years after the passage of the post-Port Arthur laws. Show conclusively that the drop in firearm-related related violence and homicides did not coincide with increases in other areas. It does not. If the number of people who are annually murdered has remained stable, but the methodology of death has changed, then ultimately no meaningful benefit has been achieved.
I got a news flash for you. Armed robbery does not require a gun. A pc of pipe or a machete serves really well for the job, unless the victim has a gun. If the victim has a gun, your intended robbery might not (even probably won't) go as you planned it. Robbers don't stop their ways just because they can't get a gun. They just use stealth, strength of numbers, or sudden ruthlessness to overwhelm their victims.
the stats from the FBI says differently. You are merely projecting. I have a question for you. What other Individual Rights are you willing to surrender for yourself?
Of course the gun control crowd, such as yourself, the OP and B.Bird, can only use data from industrialized, modern nations such as in Japan, Aussieland and the West. But you'll should begin to "think globally" about crime. Worldwide, crime is linked most closely with demographics and cultre---in fact Iceland is # 15 in individual gun ownership, but the #1 safest nation in the world. It does not matter what the gun control laws are in places like Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Colombia or El Salvador. The populus there are so corrupt and backwards that no good data on crime and guns can be established. Do you think when a Hutu slices open a Tutsi with a machete in the jungle, a modern CSI unit will pop up to investigate?
All while the number of firearms in private circulation, and the number of locations in which they can be carried freely, have increased.
False chart reference. You make a claim that overall crime has fallen, and try to validate that with a chart talking about violent crime.
A guy who robbed me in 2007 is now doing 19 years for robbing me with a metal pipe. And ironically in 2009 somebody attempted to assault my wife with a metal pipe. Most of the time they simply rely upon fear. The natural fear everybody has that they do not want to get hurt.
so I take it you are in favor of NYC style gun control laws being applied to the rest of the country which makes you a gun banner. You believe honest citizens cannot be trusted with more than 7 rounds in their guns
if you support NYC gun laws you are a gun banner. That is not name calling but an accurate description of what you support. Since you have not complained about NYC gun laws and have supported them, I am telling the truth
Yes, you saw the same thing I did. Why are gun banners so coy in divulging what they truly believe in? My position is clear 1) the federal government has almost no power to regulate firearms-especially firearms owned by private citizens who are not on federal property 2) state governments can legitimately restrict firearms with time and use restrictions that clearly involve public safety-such as not allowing the discharge of a firearm on the city square or in a residential municipal neighborhood but no state can limit civilians beyond limiting them what civilian police departments can use
sure, if you read MILLER and HELLER and the 2A there is no way those should be banned. They are useful for militia use and your own city's police department-which has no greater right to shoot someone than you do, uses them. You apparently are terrified by SMGs. That demonstrates you don't understand them.
allowing all the people of NYC to own a full-auto sub-machine gun, would be irrational and psychotic.
sure. as long as they don't violate someone else's Rights. Owning it does not violate anyone else's Rights. With the costs of such a weapon and ammo,most people would only shoot them on special occasions. I can't see a person paying several thousands of dollars for a fine piece of machinery just to shoot up anything. I could be wrong, but it's been a very long time since that happened and it was a very long time since before that. A man that can afford a couple of those and enough ammo isn't about to waste on something worth even less. At some point, a mutual common sense will be met, but not at the expense of any portion of the Bill of Rights. You do what you seem fit to do, do not tell us what to do. You want to own guns, and you do, and you want to surrender that right, that's up to you. No, we don't much like the idea of any criminal that uses a gun for nefarious reasons, but reducing our options has had no affect, whatsoever, on just what a broken mind will do. And you would restrict our options to zero. Lock them up in the house, indeed.
why-what makes those cause you so much irrational terror? or do you oppose people being able to own semi auto rifles and shotguns. like many gun banners, you confuse USE with OWNERSHIP
And when someone points a gun in your face you have no right to self-defense because they have not used it yet, just owned it.
I guess you are ignorant of the law. that is a USE Of the weapon that is illegal-its called MENACING. I spent thirty years as a state and federal prosecutor. Your silly games won't work with me. That is far more than mere possession. That is called a THREAT try again gun banner
Hey, I have a penis. Does that automatically mean I am a potential rapist? You see, by your definitions I must be, because I am one, I just have not done it yet I guess.
its amazing someone would think threatening another person with a firearm is merely the same as possessing a weapon.
The most obvious thing here is that honest and law-abiding gun owners are not the ones out there committing crimes? That is why laws and bans and limitations only WORK on the law-abiding people in the first place. Criminals will ignore the law. This is why they are known as "criminals." This is just so obvious that I can't believe I have to repeat it over and over again. I really feel like I keep repeating myself. Lol. IF the gun banners think for one moment that the ones who are doing the killing are going to obey any bans or laws, then they are just . . . silly.
