There are already millions of them out there, outlawing “new” ones would only mean that somebody would have to buy a used/old one, for a higher price.
Regardless, nobody will ever again be assassinated in America if a new law that King is introducing gets passed:
"Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions. "
If we had had this law two weeks ago, then Jared could not have gotten closer than 1000 feet of Congresswoman Giffords.
I’m gonna assume you’re speaking sarcastically here, in which case I fully agree with your sentiment.
Even better, another GOP Congresscritter is submitting a bill to authorize Congresscritters to carry firearms in the Capitol and to and from home. Then if both laws were passed, they’d all have to arrest each other for violating the 1000 foot law!
Originally Posted by Susanann
Regardless, nobody will ever again be assassinated in America if a new law that King is introducing gets passed: "Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions. "
If we had had this law two weeks ago, then Jared could not have gotten closer than 1000 feet of Congresswoman Giffords.
I may or may not be sarcastic, but New York **Rep. Peter King **is totally and completely 100% serious about his new proposed law to prevent assassinations.
Not only that, but Bloomberg is also totally seriously supporting it.
"Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions.
King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King’s measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it."*
For homicides related deaths per 100,000, The US ranks 8th in the world, just behind Mexico. The rest of us in first world countries have a firearms related homicide rate 1/10 of the US and in a number of cases significantly better(lower) than that.
Accidental deaths by gunshot in the US are the third highest in the world. Too many people who own a gun and don’t know how to use it.
And you want everyone to carry for a safer country ?
The rest of us don’t have a 2nd amendment. The rest of us aren’t clamouring for gun rights. The rest of us are much safer.
And yet if you look at total homocides the US is 45th. Some countries are violent and people will kill each other with whatever they can. Some countries are not violent and people will not kill each other no matter what method they have available. Actually, the US isn’t even in the ‘violent’ category, when all nations are averaged together, the worldwide homicide rate is 7.6 homicides per 100,000. The US is at 5.0.
Isn’t it astounding how different the stats appear if you look at all murders instead of cherry picking data?
Look at the countries above us. Krygyzstan? Really? Even with a highly liberal definition of “first world”, the US is about fifth in homicide rate among first world nations.
Those mags have been made in such extremely high volumes since they were originally banned that the prices will never come close to the $50+ that some dealers were charging for high caps in the mid 90’s.
Hmm - godix seems to be advocating having fewer guns around.
If Americans in general are not that ‘violent’…except when guns are around, in which case we’re one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, with murder rates orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the industrialized world…seems pretty obvious based on godix’ post that fewer guns around = sharp fall in homicide rates.
Not only that , but there is wide disparity between the different states, and between different ethnic groups in the USA. The United States is a Federation of States, and if you look at the state numbers, you get some big differences. For example, the homicide rates for North Dakota are among the lowest, if not “the” lowest, in the world even though North Dakota has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Ditto for Vermont.
The chances of being murdered in Taylor Nebraska or Fargo North Dakota is quite a bit different(lower) than how you would fare in East St Louis or Detroit.
I dont have a cite right now, but I saw a study that the Canadians who move to the USA have a lower murder rate(commit less murders) than Canadians living in Canada.
Furthermore, other countries use different means of gathering statistics, and different ways to count crime/murders.
Until somebody can show me that Swedes and Swiss and Canadian immigrants now living in the USA have a high rate of committing murders in the USA then I say anyone who complains about America is just cherry picking.
.
While I realize what you’re trying to do, my point actually is that the level of violence is independent of the level of firearms. So focusing on guns at all is actually a side show to what should be the real issue, which is if America is more violent regardless of method than other countries and what can be done about that?
I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse, pat. I hope so.
If I want to steal a gun so I can go rob a bank, or whatever, it’s not hard for me to find one in the US. Rob three houses and at least one will have a firearm in it.
If I want to steal a gun with a high capacity magazine so I can shoot a lot of people (which would be rare, assuming sales of new ones are banned) it will be quite a bit harder. Make sense?
Your point is wrong. See above. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct, it’s much harder to kill people with a knife or an ice pick or a bear than it is with a gun, so removing firearms from society still helps.
Right…but I still come to the same conclusion: if we assume America is more violent than other countries (regardless of weapon), that’s still a pretty strong argument for having fewer firearms around.
