Nope, sorry, wrong. As posted above, I am against all private handgun ownership. When I was growing up, my dad used to semi-regularly take me to the shooting range on Saturdays. Where I actually held and fired handguns. I’m still against private ownership.
-
-
- I feel very strongly that most people should not be allowed to own fire. Fire is a very bad thing, burning many things and hurting people. It is the work of sorcerers and the devil and Jews and Catholics that want to allow gay priests, and it is the Pope’s army that fights these battles every day, 5000 dead in 2003 alone but they are covered up by the UN, a filthy wildebeest people, ignorant and set in their ways.
~
- I feel very strongly that most people should not be allowed to own fire. Fire is a very bad thing, burning many things and hurting people. It is the work of sorcerers and the devil and Jews and Catholics that want to allow gay priests, and it is the Pope’s army that fights these battles every day, 5000 dead in 2003 alone but they are covered up by the UN, a filthy wildebeest people, ignorant and set in their ways.
-
Did someone forget to take their medication today?
I disagree. I live in the US, but am not an American. However, I used to be a target shooter in NZ. Handguns and rifles. I support an almost total ban on handguns (and tough restrictions on long arms) - much like the system there. To get a license to own a rifle or shotgun you must sit firearms safety exams and attend courses the police put on. You must also allow the police into your home and show them the gun safe you are going to keep the firearms in. They must remain there at all times when not in use.
Handguns may only be owned by members of a club, used only for target shooting on club premises and are subject to greater restrictions. IMHO, rightly so - the only real purpose for a handgun is killing human beings.
Interestingly NZ has a relatively low rate of homicide in general and firearm related homicide in particular. Even the cops do not carry firearms.
I vote nay nay a thousand times nay. I’ve been in New York City (Sullivan law). I’ve been in Texas. I’ve been in Washington DC. I’m now in L.A. I’ve been lots of places. It looks to me (purely anecdotal) the the places with the strongest and harshest antigun laws are usually the most dangerous (NYC, DC, LA). It looks to me like some of the safest places are in the deep South (Texas, Florida, Alabama etc). Maybe the criminals and gangs are less bold in places that are more risky for them. Maybe they are more bold in places where only they have weapons. Maybe since they are criminals anyway, no gun law will affect them - they will just ignore it, like they already do in many cities and states.
Aside from that, I don’t care for the snarky remark about comparing dick size to compared to gun size. Is that the sort of logic we can expect from “the other side of the fence”?
Sorry, I intended to keep this post short.
From disastercenter.com
The crime rate in Alabama is 4,059.7 per 100,000 people, in NY of 2,545.7 per 100,000 people.
Further:
“Also in the year 2000 Alabama had 7.4 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 6th highest rate for Murder. Alabama’s 33.3 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 24th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Alabama’s rate was 128.2 which ranked the state 22nd highest for Robbery. The state also had 317.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 19th highest position for this crime among the states.”
" Also in the year 2000 New York had 5.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 23rd highest rate for Murder. New York’s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, New York’s rate was 213.6 which ranked the state as having the 3rd highest for Robbery. The state also had 316.7 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people"
Crimes against property seem more likely in NY, crimes against the person in Alabama. Feeling safer and being safer seem to be quite different.
Someday there may be a forum where opposing sides on the subject of gun control meet and discuss the issue with facts and reason and do not ascribe psychological infirmities to the people who disagree with them. But apparently this is not that day.
UnwrittenNocturne: you need to check updated stats from an unbiased source, like, say, The F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports.
Specifically, the 2003 Crime Stats, with their breakdown by state.
As a police officer, let me point out that when duffer breaks into your house, I probably won’t be there to stop him. I’ll try to get there as quickly as I can, but you will probably have to defend yourself until I arrive.
On the OP: If we could wave a magic wand and make all the guns in America disappear, I wouldn’t mind at all. However, outlawing guns now will leave just the bad guys and the cops with guns. Everyone else will have little defence against that criminal with a gun.
raises hand in response to the OP
That’s a very inportant point. Even if you have the hottest badass police car ever made, it still takes time to get there. Personally, if I was in that situation, I would be more interested in protecting my own life than the criminal. A police guy like you might then have to arrest me for excessive force, but that is better than maybe pushing up daisies.