In a stunning example of stupidity, some New York newspaper made a map of gun owners. Data was obtained legally via some freedom of information act. Anyway, this is why gun owners do not want registration. Way to go to get gun owners trusting of new rules.
Don't force me to join the NRA too, but they might be the lesser of two evils.
Like I said earlier, if the US wants to condone the slaughter of its own children and enshrine that "freedom" in law, well who are we to argue?
Even if by some minor miracle any meaningful legislation does get passed, then it is obvious that the NRA are going to go full throttle to oppose, undermine and ensure that any legislation becomes full of loopholes allowing another slaughter of innocents.
Sounds like first amendment freedom of speech to me.
Besides, this is useful to people are deciding where they want to live. You could look at a propsective neighbourhood on this map, and discover that it was so dangerous that many of the residents found it necessary to acquire a gun, and choose to live elsewhere.
Personally I prefer to choose to live somewhere which is so safe that even the police mostly don't find it necessary to acquire guns, but I appreciate that not everybody can achieve this, as we don't have the space.
We could have a "certificate of sanity". You apply to be officially listed as "not a threat". Appropriate investigations are carried out. Guns yes or no would be only one factor. Then you get your official certificate that you are not a threat.
Personally I prefer to choose to live somewhere which is so safe that even the police mostly don't find it necessary to acquire guns, but I appreciate that not everybody can achieve this, as we don't have the space.
Not that you are given a choice in the matter of owning a handgun or the dreaded "assault" rifle, but indeed.
How does gun law vary from state to state? Isn't California ahead of the lesser forty-nine? And why?
I see the hook, but I'll bite anyway.
California, as well as many of the 'blue' states, has very restrictive gun laws. Limited capacity magazines, VERY strict concealed carry restrictions (unless one is a celebrity or politician, then it's easy. Right, Sen. Feinstein?).
Illinois, until a week or so ago, forbade ANY concealed carry until a Federal Appeals Court overruled them. Chicago has draconian anti-gun laws. Guess where the highest murder rate is? 40 + kids have been killed in Chicago this year - more than double the Newtown tragedy. Nearly 100% of those murders were committed with illegal weapons.
As a general rule, 'red' states have looser gun laws and lower levels of all crimes, but especially those of violent crimes.
Washington, D.C., until recently had no ability for citizens to have weapons in their own homes. Another court said comply with the Constitution but the District is dragging its feet. But it is still illegal for surrounding states' citizens to bring a firearm into the District. Again, nearly 100% of the D.C. violence is committed with illegal guns. And the murder/violent crime rate is astronomical.
If an evil person does something bad, why should everyone be punished?
Anyone enjoy the TSA and think it particularly effective?
Imagine something like that but not at controlled environments like airports but in every street, neighborhood, state, and entire continental-sized nation.
We could have a "certificate of sanity". You apply to be officially listed as "not a threat". Appropriate investigations are carried out. Guns yes or no would be only one factor. Then you get your official certificate that you are not a threat.
No, they are pretty much the last in terms of ability to get, own, and gasp, carry a gun.
But they are ahead in the number of murders by firearm in 2011, with 1,220 of the 8,583 murders by gun nationwide in 2011 or 14% of ALL murders using a firearm........
Last edited by hellsbrink; 26th Dec 2012 at 03:39.
Yes, as a local councillor I do of course follow these figures.
Most of the violent offences are yoofs beating each other up or domestics. Neither scenario would be improved by the introduction of weapons, and the police don't need anything more than their batons (and rarely those) to sort them out.
Yes, spot the very deliberate use of the word "mostly". How many shifts were there in total across the force, and in what proportion were guns not issued?
Except, Gertrude, the figures given by ORAC are for ALL operations where firearms were authorised.
Look at the ones on the same link that tell you how many times Armed Response Vehicles were sent in. After all, these are officers who have firearms issued to them at all times, so that nullifies your argument......
Even though the number of police authorised to use firearms has dropped slightly, the responses from them has risen sharply since 2001/02. And that's in your own county so you now have fewer officers doing more work in a fairly large area. Do the maths on what will happen.
Now, if "gun control" works so well, you can tell us all why the number of responses of ARV's more than TREBLED between 2002/03 and 2003/04.
The problem is still there, the criminals still have firearms except now they have more of them than before and are willing to use them in some way more often. No "gun control" will change that.
Oh, have you thrown out all your knives yet? After all, you are the one who claimed that keeping knives means you are more at risk of being killed by them. Or do you just prefer to tell us how much a "Liberal" you are by trying to tell everyone what they must do, which is the opposite of what being "Liberal" as you are determined to take peoples' "Liberties" away?
I, for one, would love to hear your views on narcotics, but that is maybe a subject for another thread.........
Last edited by hellsbrink; 26th Dec 2012 at 11:43.
A Knife Free Kitchen....oh I must see how that works! While we are at it....the Scissors have to go....then Cricket Bats....Rolling Pins....even Bic Ball Point Pens with the plastic cap that comes free and wind up choking Infants.
Don't ask me, SASless, I only replied to what GtW said..............
Quote:
Keeping and/or carrying weapons, whether guns in the USA or knives in the UK, greatly increases your chances of dying from those weapons.
So any sane person concerned for their own safety does not keep or carry such weapons, this being what I believe our American cousins call a "no brainer".
By Gertrude's rules, I should already be dead because of the knives in my kitchen, the knives I use at work, the knives in my van, the two right in front of me now and the 3 pigstickers that are carefully placed in my apartment so if I hear anyone trying to break in I have a defense against that person...........
But Gertrude's own words say that cutting a piece of meat is impossible since that would mean "keeping knives". Of course, we are talking about a Liberal so the bollocks being spoken by GtW are expected. After all, he has knives at home, he keeps them there, so he must be insane as a "normal" person will use the knives to defend him and his family instead of thinking that merely being able to chop up a carrot means you are at a higher risk of being killed...........
