I very clearly asked you whether you would prefer to do something more effective, that has shown measurable and verifiable results, or you would choose to ban firearms which hasn’t.
You chose banning firearms, which costs more and has little-to-no effect on crimes.
You never provided any information to support your claim of being more effective.
That’s been provided for you a dozen times in this thread, directly and via links to other threads.
I don’t mind doing some of the leg work, but if you want to ban/restrict access to something it’s your place to prove that it’s the most efficient way to reduce death/crime. Not my place to disprove it.
Point taken.
I would make the logical conclusion that if there were no guns in the nation at all then there would be no gun crime or violence?
Pardon for not slogging through all the dreck in this thread, but is that a statement or a question? If it’s a question, it’s a stupid one, but the answer would be, no, there would still be violence. If it’s a statement, well, that just means you’re either an actual idiot, or just play one on the internet.
Carry on.
buttonjockey
Perhaps it is you who are the idiot? Or perhaps your reading skills are just not up to third grade level? Or perhaps you simply are knowingly distorting what I actually did write for some nefarious purpose like attempting to make your self look good at my expense?
here is what I actually wrote word for word.
and your reply
Are you unable to comprehend that the phrase “gun crime and violence” go together as in GUN CRIME… GUN VIOLENCE? Did that somehow escape you or did you just ignore the obvious to try to be snarky?
SCOTUS determined that the militia clause in the 2nd has nothing to do with the right to individual ownership of a firearm.
Argue with them all you want. You are wrong on your interpretation of the 2nd, and you know so little about fire arms and are so afraid to be educated that there is really no point in talking to you at all.
I’ll save you some reading haymarketmartyr Bolding mine. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to vote your choice. Or take it up with SCOTUS. Most people here agree with them. It may be that you are wrong…
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
Quote ----
Would you also make the logical conclusion that if Alcohol were banned, drunkeness and alcoholism would disappear entirely as well?
In the UK, where pistols have been banned entirely (and strictly controlled and registered for much longer), firearm crime has done nothing but risen since the institution of an outright ban.
Could you give us those shocking statistics on firearm crime in the UK?
I have a sneaking suspicion they pale in comparison to those in the USA. But thats just my suspicion.
Enipla: I am well aware of the recent Court decision. This is not news. I does not however preclude any citizen from disagreeing with that opinion… does it?
You obviously feel that it is an attainable goal or you would not have suggested it as part of you compromise suggestion. My response is that it is no more difficult to pass another amendment canceling out the one that you suggested.
Exactly, leaving gun owners with absolutely nothing.
These would be the same folks that are currently carrying in their home states. the increase would not be that great.
More likely than not. Increase the number of people who pass background checks, training requirements and shooting proficiency exams. these are the people today who overwhelmingly commit no crimes with their guns. The good guys in other words.
It looked like he had no problem carrying without a national concealed carry as far as I can tell. This program would only allow those who pass several tests, background checks, etc. prior to being able to carry. It would also add federal penalties to those who choose to carry without. Either those penalties would scare enough people to not carry illegally or they would add to the punishments to those who did. I see it as a win either way.
Because you yourself stated that you recognize the right for people to defend themselves. This adds a layer of Federal control to the concealed carry phenomenon making sure that a large segment of gun owners are proficient with their tools.
You are welcome to vote in any manor you choose. I voted for Obama because I do believe he is the best man for the job.
It is pointless from both sides to argue who is in the Militia. As per the SCOTUS understanding of the 2nd, it does no matter if you are, where or will be in the militia. As per SCOTUS, you have an INDIVIDUAL right to a gun and you do not need to be in a militia to have one. That is quite clear.
If, you would like to disagree with the Supreme Court, you are welcome to do so. But don’t be surprised that someone may cite a SCOTUS interpretation of a single sentence that you have, in their and my opinion, misinterpreted.
You are welcome to disagree.
Have at it and good luck.
Johns
I stated before, and state again here, that I think there is nothing wrong, and perhaps beneficial, for a person to have a gun in their home or place of business for protection. I said nothing about tens of millions of people being able to carry it around in public.
To be honest, I would like society to progress towards peace and harmony and not regress to the days of the Old West, Deadwood and Dodge City. But thats just me and my own particular bias.
Well hay. Your own particular bias is just that. ‘Shoot outs’ where not that common. Though I do believe that a city in Kansas made sure everyone was un-armed (cowboys pushing cattle for days on the trail tended to get a bit out of control on whiskey).
Did you say that it’s OK to have a gun? I must have missed that.
What in the hell are you going on about to start a thread like this?
Personally, I think you owe a LOT of people at the very least an apology. You have ducked into a room of very intelligent people that have personal ties to this subject.
I appreciate the clarification. If you are interested, I’d like to understand how you draw the line of self protection at someone’s doorstep or workplace. It seems to me that those are two environments where I can control my risks to a certain degree.
I also appreciate your desire for progress toward peace. But since the people who are legally carrying today ARE NOT creating Deadwood or Tombstone like environments, when in fact, the opposite can be proven, it seems again as an emotional cop out without facts to back you up.
This is meaningless nonsense rhetoric. Old West and Deadwood? Do you get all your information about life, and history, from television shows and movies? (A lot of the anti-gun crowd certainly seems to.)
Tell me this - was America during the 1940s and 1950s like “the days of the Old West and Dodge City?” Because America had far more permissive gun laws back then. Yet I feel fairly confident in saying I would rather walk down a street at night in Los Angeles, Detroit or Washington DC in 1950 than in 2009.
Is Switzerland - a place where every citizen has an automatic rifle in his home - like the Old West and Deadwood?
And tell me - where exactly did you get your scholarly information about how the Old West supposedly was?
███** SIT NOMINE DIGNA **███
Johns
I have no proof that allowing large numbers of people to carry concealed weapons would return us to the days of the old west - be it reality or what is portrayed in film. All I have is no own gut level suspicion that anytime you introduce loaded weapons to a situation where there were no loaded weapons previously, you also increase the chances of lots of bad things happening. Road rage comes to mind right off the bat.
From Argent Towers
Yeah, the late 20’s and early 30’s were really peaceful years in places like Detroit and Chicago. Guns played no role at all in violent crime now did they?
Unfortunately, this gut feeling – like the one you had earlier about firearms being bad and scary – is incorrect.
Florida kept statistics of crimes committed with firearms, by licensed CHL holders… after 4 years they stopped, would you like to know why?
Almost none had been committed. It was a waste of resources. The average (floridan) CHL holder is 840 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population.
No, I honestly read it as “gun crime” and “violence” because not every gun crime is violent and not every incident of violence involves a gun.
So what’s your real question here? What do you want to happen? because it seems to me like you’re saying: Hey hey, ho ho, Second amendment has got to go (or whatever).
Then you say
Which is it cousin?
Oh you betcha, guns were HUGE in Big Al’s day baby and the shooters knew how to shoot 'em. No accidentally wasting little girls at bus stops and crap like that, no sir. Those were criminals that knew how to shoot, by god.
Did I mention they were criminals?
Never once did I say a single damn word about the 1920s and 1930s, so our workers-murdered-by-armed-police-memorializing friend has - as gun opponents are so apt to do - changed the subject.
Neither did I say anything about Chicago.
Of course the Depression era had its share of gangland activity. But that has nothing to do with the 1940s and 1950s and early 1960s - all times when America’s gun laws were far more permissive than they are today.
And again, Switzerland has automatic weapons in every home - is Switzerland like the “Wild West?” Why do I keep bringing up Switzerland, a lot of people are probably asking themselves - the answer is because it is eminently relevant to this gun control debate. One of the big arguments that a lot of anti-gunners short on facts but long on emotional appeals use is the idea that simply having lots of guns around leads to gun violence. Bringing up Switzerland forces them to at least admit that there are other factors in play than the guns themselves - there are the people behind the triggers. What about America is different from Switzerland, that the Swiss would have so many guns and so little crime - and how can America be made more like Switzerland (in its relative lack of crime.) What is it about the citizens there that make them unlikely to wantonly shoot and kill and rob each other even though they all have automatic rifles? Whatever it is, we need some of that mentality here in the US.
███** SIT NOMINE DIGNA **███