Honestly, the only reason I’m involved in this round of the debate is that the news started talking about ‘assault weapons’ and random things like that, and it annoyed me.
True dat.
I could care less if it’s called a clip or a magazine or a heffalump.
What I do care about is situations like the one that occurred a few months ago In New York City, in Queens, when a few cops opened up on a completely unarmed groom-to-be, killing him.
One emptied his clip/magazine, STOPPED TO RELOAD, and continued firing. Apparently empying it just wasn’t enough.
You want to know why there is an anti-gun lobby? The list is long and bloody and unfortunately for the- dare I say again unarmed- man that night, his name is now added to the list.
Then, there’s Amadou Diallo whose horrific crime- easily deserving the 41 shots pumped his way- was brandishing a fully loaded… wallet. A wallet that contained his I.D. Which the cops who were screaming at him kept demanding he produce. So… he was…complying with the cops. But- to his great fault- he was male and black and not a cop and so, of course, fair game for the hunt that night.
But then, the other side is soooooooo very tired of hearing about all of the senseless murders by gun when there are plenty of very sensible murders that they can call upon to defend their position.
:rolleyes:
I’m sure somewhere in that post you have a point, Cartooniverse, I’m just not sure what it is.
Care to elaborate?
You shouldn’t arm the cops. They’ll just shoot people.
We are given to understand that the gun is not, essentially, evil, that a deadly weapon held in responsible hands is no threat. Gun safety training and proper procedures will eliminate any problems.
And yet, as Cartoon point out, even men who are most assiduously trained and empowered can “lose it” with a gun. No one has more firearms training than policemen, no one is more drilled in gun safety procedures. So we have ample reason that it is not, in fact, a matter of training and education, but that deadly weapons are, by their very nature, not meant for any but the very, very few.
Actually I think it’s perfectly rational to be at least somewhat nervous about deadly weapons that can kill someone accidently even if they’re in the “right hands.”
How many gun crimes are there in the U.S. compared to Canada, and Europe, and Japan? Do you think it might have to do with the fact that those places aren’t up to their ears in handguns? :rolleyes:
The only responsible gun-owners are law-enforcement officials who have extensive training with the use of firearms. Anyone who isn’t in this category is a menace.
This is, as a statement, incorrect. Policemen are known for their haphazard approach to gun safety, and to their… unorthodox behavior on the range. Not all policemen, but enough of them for it to be a fairly recognized phenomenon.
The above is an absolutely false statement. Having grown up around, known, and even gone shooting with both police officers and sheriffs deputies, I can tell you that the ones I have known are no better or worse than the average gun owner in terms of training and range safety. Which means they were decent overall. And the level of training that police officers receive, as well as the practice they get, varies tremendously. I’ve known cops who never fired their gun more than once a year for qualification. Police are also not necessarily firearms experts in anything outside of their personal weapons. I’ve also personally seen a police officer, advertised as a SWAT team “expert”, hold up an SKS and say to a group at a university meeting “this is an AK-47…”
You may have other reasonable objections and very valid points on opposing firearms, or handgun ownership, but this isn’t one of them.
If such is the state of firearm proficiency amongst the police, who carry firearms daily, for a living…what makes you think that its a good idea for people in general to have such weapons? Heck, if you’re going to demand a prohibitive or impractical level of training in order to purchase/carry a handgun…that is to say more thoroughly trained than the everyday policemen… hell, I’m all for it! Kind of a backhanded way to accomplish one’s ends, but hey! your idea, after all.
I don’t give a rats ass how many “gun crimes” there are. The fact that someone is murdered is important- if they use a samurai sword, or a bomb, or a #2 can of maple syrup, or a gun- they are all still dead. So comparing “gun crimes” is meaningless nonsense.
And yes, different nations with different econo-social backrounds have different crime rates- but that doesn’t mean that guns are the cause. For example- Switzerland has an extremely low violent crime rate- yet each and every able-bodied male citizen possesses a fully-automatic assault rifle, and keeps said “assault weapon” at his home or place of business.
But here in the USA- with dudes from the USA with USA socio-economic background: gan laws seem to make not a bit of difference in the crime rate. Areas with extremely strict guns laws- Wash DC, New York- are known for high levels of violent crime, whereas States with very loose guns laws- Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado aren’t as dangerous. In fact, DC- with the the tightest and most restrictive gun laws in the nation- has a violent crime rate (1,371.2) over TEN times that of Vermont (112.0)- the state (from Wiki) …"is notable in that it has no gun control laws aside from prohibiting counties and other localities from making their own gun control laws (preemption). The only firearm laws that apply in Vermont are federal ones.[31]
The term “Vermont Carry” is used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement. ."
Of course, DC blames guns bought elsewhere for their violence- but if the guns are so much easier to buy in VT- why doesn’t anyone commit crimes* there*?
Here are the nations with murder rates higher than the USA:
Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Note how many were part of the Former USSR, with extreme Gun Control.
Would you rather live in Vermont or Columbia (District or Nation)? or Switzerland, home of more gun toting dudes than just about any nation on earth.
In error. Does the daily life of a policeman revolve around a gun? No. It’s a large weight they carry around. Your average policeman will not draw and fire his service weapon once during his career.
Leap of logic. How do you go from ‘policemen are often poor examples of gun safety’ to ‘demand prohibitive or impractical level of training’?
Leap of logic, again, leading to ‘I will twist someone else’s words to make them support my conclusion.’
Really, do better.
Clearly, the answer is either disarming the police, or training them better. Remember, the rules are different for state actors than for private citizens.
You’re going to bat with Vermont versus D.C.? Fucking cherry pick much? Why not compare overall homicide rates, firearms homicide rates and murders of police officers by handguns, all of which are routinely higher in the south and southeastern parts of America than the other regions of the country. Help remind me - are the south/south eastern parts of the country generally more in favor of gun control, or less?
I was referring to post # 97 and 98.
I disagree. As I proved up above, guns move faster than anything else. Those few seconds might well allow someone to stop themselves or be stopped before striking out with lethal force.
While it is possible to beat someone to death with a can of maple syrup, it is much less likely that one would actually DO such a thing, opposed to runing someone through with a large sword or shooting them to death with a gun. Poor analogy. We’re not discussing things in the world that can be used to kill, so you’re dragging up a thin straw man. We are discussing guns.
You mean Hoplophobia?
There’s obviously a lot more gang violence and organized crime in DC and New York than Vermont.
But instead of cracking down on guns, the U.S. would rather wage war on imaginary threats like drugs and terrorism. Almost anyone can walk into a gun store and buy guns so they can mow down thirty people, but someone who wants a few grams of marijuana to smoke in the privacy of their own home has to risk jail by buying it illegally. :rolleyes:
The risk of terrorism is very small, but it is not imaginary. If you doubt that I would recommend you take a look at the big hole in the ground on Manhattan Island. I do agree with your rolleyes with regard to the so-called “War on Drugs”. It’s a war we cannot win.
But there is one big difference between drugs and guns: the 2nd Amendment. It’s really that simple. If you want to declare a “War on Guns”, start by repealing the 2nd Amendment. I wish you luck.
Ok, I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘imaginary’. ‘Exaggerated’ may have been more appropriate.
You’ll take my Panzer when you can pry it from my cold dead logistical supply line.
Dave, you know as well as I that there is a lot of learned opinion on the significance of the 2nd Amendment. As well as you know that some of it agrees with your interpretation, some does not. Your use of the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental proof of your position is just a bit disingenuous.