Gun Laws sure do work! 67 people shot in NYC over weekend.

That is crap. It is not the job of the police to protect you. They are there to uphold the law and get those who have broken it already.

I will never understand it. They make it so difficult for law abiding citizens to own weapons, yet any criminal can walk down to the corner and pick up one.

Stop being ridiculous, you can't do (*)(*)(*)(*) in a small apartment in NYC with a bow, crossbow or slingshot. What the hell am I going to do with a sword? This isn't an open battlefield for God's sake. And NYC does have strict laws in obtaining a rifle or shotgun and the permit could take a long time. I am pretty sure that sawed offs are illegal. Tazers are also illegal in NY.

I would rather not be creative, I would rather be safe, thank you. The best way for myself and my wife to be safe is a handgun. Simple.as.that.

It doesn't matter. Even if just 1 of the victims was an innocent resident of NYC who could have defended himself/herself if there were looser gun control laws is all that matters.

Boy, talk about irony. The situation in the article takes place in NYC, which has different gun laws than NYS.

Next time, before you try and be all smug, get your facts straight first.

Glad you agree, my apologizes if I jumped the gun.

 

Actually it is the job of the police to protect you. One of the ways is to make sure people oboy the law.

Safe from what? Tell me how many people save there lives by having a hand gun .

He talks about Sullivan Act thats the state.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, its can be perfectly legal to have a firearm in nyc as a citizen.

 

Sorry, I missed LA. But you missed IL (80.6%) Then GA, then DC.

So, the top number by far (DC 18.84, LA 10.46) (DC 310, TN 92) respectively, is the place that has the strictest gun laws in the country, and your defence is that the rest that fall in the norm of the country are some relaxed gun law states? The problem with using the entire state to judge if a law is working or not, you need to look at the cities, this is where most of the crime is commited. I know the largest gun crime in GA are in large Liberal pocketed areas of the cities. Gun laws or not, it wouldn't stop certain "give me" mentalities of liberals who think someone else MUST give them something.

Accidentals have nothing to do with the laws. That is about how you treat your weapon or raise your kid to treat a gun with respect.

 

Possible did it quick.

No I responded to someone claiming strict gun laws means high gun crime. The logic being easy gun laws give the people the chance to defend themselves and thus lower gun crime.

Those numbers clearly show that to be BS. Shall issue states make up most of the top of the worst states in gun related crime.

I say there is no direct corrolation between the 2 .

"Liberal pocketed areas " crime really doesnt have a politicial preference you know.

Its BS to think that way .

Nothing to do with law? Sure there is, the more guns and the easier you can get one legally the more accidents are going to happen. In that area there is a direct corrolation between easy gun laws and the hight in accidents.

 

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler, 1935


"Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler, 1935


"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

 

But the concern is that not just what the states deem legal or not, but what the cities deem legal or not. That is why when you look at DC vs the states, DC is much higher on different aspects cause they have the highest gun control laws.

Now if you are looking at IL, you will see Chicago as one of the major contributers to the gun crime. In GA, you see ATL, Macon, Montgomery. But you don't see the same numbers outside those cities in the rural areas.

Since the demographic that has the highest crime rate also votes 95% democrat, and is usually living en mass in certain areas, usually where crime is the most prevelant in cities, it is easy to call those area "liberal pocketed areas". To ignore the fact is to keep ones head in the sand and hope no one notices it.

I have a gun, and it is easy for me to buy more anytime I choose. Not a single accident in my house due to a gun has happened. I treat my gun with respect and keep it out of reach from my child (even out of reach from my wife) because the kids are too young. When they get older, they will be taught to respect guns, and treat them as they where loaded. Prohibiting guns from people because there maybe an accident is like telling people they can't go outside cause they may be hit by a meteor. It is unjustified paranoia to get the civilians to give up their only chance to defend against a tyrantical government.

 

Dear god, more republican fantasy! Explain how your .38 is going to look when and if the M1A1 rolls up your street accompanied by a helicopter gunship or two?

 

You are right, that is why I said previously that those with the money should be able to purchase what they are able to. Do you think the British had a better arsenal than the colonies?

 

Does the fact that some people hurt themselves with things mean that all or most people shouldn't have access to those things? There are many activities that carry danger; if it is imperative for the government to protect us from ourselves, then you'll agree that all unnecessary activity that carries risk should be prohibited or, at the very least, subject to strict licensing and monitoring.

 

Tyrannical governments don't start by rolling up tanks. They start by coming in the night and dragging you away. It's much easier to drag you off for a political crime if you aren't able or likely to fight back.

 

Thats the BS part, the crime in DC has got nothing to do with its gun laws. Just like the crime in states that have easy gun laws it also has nothing to do with.

Show me 1 study that shows there is a direct link between the 2 .

Of course not, but that has got nothing to do with gun laws. Rural area's always have less crime, its that way in every country.

BS again crime doesnt have a political preference. Again there is no direct link between the 2 .

All excuses the question still is wether or not easy gun laws make crime go down. And all troughout the country you have high crime are's with leasy and strict gun laws or low crime with easy and strict gun laws.

Its that way troughout the world as well btw western countries with strict gun laws have simular differences between area's and cities. It has got nothing to do with gun laws as all those country have 1 gun law for all.

So? Accidents happen, no matter how many times you say it will not happen its just a matter of when, not if.

1000+die a year because of firearm accidents. A multitude of that are wounded. 500 000 guns get stolen, each year finding its way to the criminal black market.

Even worse third party vendors or friends and family provide several times as much guns to criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firearmsources.svg

BS that comparison doesn tmake any sense. Who has a meteor in his closet?

Its like forbidding drugs. Plenty of people can function without any problem even when using drugs. Drugs even have benefitial properties for some, yet they are banned by almost all states from soft to hard drugs because the riscs they bring with them dont outweigh the benefits.

BS your little gun will not stop the USA army, and if you truly believe a tyranical gouv will rise up shortly there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

Are you for real? Are you comparing a time in wich simple guns and crude cannons were the main weapons with now with its high tech warfare?



Oh and again who in godsname would let civilians buy war arms like RPG and heavy machineguns? You have got any idea what those can do in hands of criminals?

 

No but if the benefits of that thing dont outweigh the negetive then yes.

I would say to protect someone is the job of the police, trained people in higher risk area's like shop owners perhaps, but not the average citizen .

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. DC, a city which has complete control over their police force and laws, is not the same as a state which puts out a generic law, which can be made stricter by the cities. What are the highest crime CITIES for guns, and what are their laws on guns.

You are right, they aren't criminals because they are democrats, or even democrats cause they are criminals. That wasn't what I was saying. Just saying that these pockets filled with crime, are ALSO filled with democrats.

Being that these pockets of high crime areas are also pockets the vote for democrats, they end up with liberals that put in stricter gun laws that keep self protecting, law abiding citizens from owning guns that would only be us to protect ones family. The criminals know this, that is why there is no fear of being chalenged when trying to rob someone in a gun restrictive city.

Our gun laws are different anywhere you go. Hense why we are a great case study on how poor gun control laws DON'T work. Police can't stop 5% of the shooting that happen, only those that are already on scene that maybe armed can defend against a shooter.

Yep.

And stopping citizens from having guns will stop criminals from having guns?

Ok, how about a car? More people get hit walking down the street than get accidentially shot. Guess GAP and Old Navy should start making cloths with reflective tape up and down the cloths huh? Its "for the good of the people".

Now that is just opinionated. Weed is helping a lot of cancer patients. Heroin is a better pain killer and less addictive (clean heroin) than morphine. Coca leaves were just a stimulant like coffee. But since the laws have been put on the books to restrict these products (racially motivated btw) they have become dangerous and harmful.

My gun, no. But there would be soldiers that would not stand for following such a blaintant dismissal of the constitution to attack citizens.

As for the "rise up shortly", it wouldn't be hard. But you go a head and keep thinking that this one government will always have restraint from forming a dictatorship. It is still in the way, WAY minority of history of governments that haven't become totally authortarian. Who has the next oldest constitution, or longest sustained same form of government?

 

Not everyone had the ability to make those "crude" cannons.

Criminals already have those, are you that nieve?

 

Back in their day, "simple guns and crude cannons" were high tech... What is high tech now, will be quaint later...

I'm sure tyrants and idiots of years past said the same thing... If people cannot protect themselves, what's the use of he 2nd amendment? How are people suppose to defend themselves from governments?


High tech weapon from the past... quaint to us, but when compared to the weapons in its era (axes, knives, etc), extremely high tech..

 

I see, so you agree then that all unnecessary driving of vehicles should be prohibited. Tens of thousands are killed every year in auto accidents, and hundreds of thousands are maimed. Think of all the lives that could be saved if vehicle travel were restricted solely to beneficial purposes such as commuting to an from work, going to school, etc. No more vacation travel by car, no more going to the store (stores deliver), no more shopping, or pleasure driving.

It's not the job of the police to protect you. The job of the police is to investigate crime and to enforce the rules created by government. The police will harm you before they will protect you if you are breaking one of those rules and even if the illegal activity is causing no harm or threat to anyone.

You are arguing that the average citizen does not have the right to the means of self-defense. Do you agree?

 

You tell me, you are the one claiming there is a connection.

And also with republicans, its like saying many wear nike shoes. Pointless sneer that makes no sense unless you on purpose want to link the 2 .

Oh please its stupid explenation like this that fuel the devide between the partys. No democrats arent like this and no criminals and citizens arent like this.

Liberals put in these laws to protect the average citizen NOT the democrat voting criminals. Do you honestly think those criminals vote? Most of them CANT even vote.

easy gun control laws also dont work, plenty of cases for that. You cant control crime with gun laws period.

Nope

A car has a very distinct advantage for mobility of people, without it economy would collaps. You can say the same about guns or drugs.

opinionated ? No thats science severalforbiden soft and harddrugs have advantages abnd its uses.

And they has just as little acces to war weapons. They dont drive that tank home you know.

So you actually think that can happen in the near future? Seek help I would say.

Show me 1 stable democratic regime that did this.

 

I would bet that not a single person either doing the shooting or being shot, legally owned the weapon in question.

 

For the predators...

 

What about total crime? It is likely that criminals who are too lazy to get a firearm, just use their hands or ordinary objects (knives, bats, etc.) to commit crimes. With looser gun laws, their maybe more gun crime, but the total number of crimes are lower because less criminals would risk getting shot trying to mug someone.

There are studies that show there is less rape, robberies, theft, muggings when concealed carry is in effect. There is a net positive effect on the crime rate

 

So we all should keep tanks and SAMS in our arsenol disposals?

 

Please dont try to defend it, it was a stupid comment. Crude connaos were within the realm to make, fighter jets ,tanks, hell even modern RPG's arent .

In very limited numbers, RPG and SAM are not to barely used in crime . Put those in hands of civilians and a couple of months later they will be in the hands of criminals.

 

BS, guns , swords powder bullets could all easily be fabricated by civilians without specialised equipment.

You can produce RPG, SAM tanks and aircraft without whole factories.

Give me examples of stable democraties that were taken over by tyrants.

Checks and balances are a surer way then some light firearms.

BS, a bow for example is in esence not all that different from the muskets used in those days. Plenty of swords ,horses ,fortificatons,... warfare was different but not radical. Now its a whole different affair .

 

No again the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Car usage may be temepered by taxing the fuel or the car itself so people will use there head but beyond that would do more harm.

yes it is. Dont know why you refuse tio accept that.

"To serve and protect" ring a bell?

I never said such a thing.