|
02-27-2013, 05:58 AM
|
#661 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by NdAppy Clava, honest question here, do you honestly have that hard of a time wrapping your mind around the fact that your gun laws would not work here? Saying it works for you guys over and over and over doesn't change the fact it will not work in a country this size with borders as large as ours are. | Until gun control is effectively tried throughout your country I don't believe you can say that. Things can change, and more guns means more people die with guns, there is no proof that having guns reduces crime rates but there is a direct relationship between having free access to guns and more people dying by guns - it's not rocket science. The same question back to you, can you not wrap your mind around that? Yes you need to sort your policing out, but you guys seem to be so set that guns are the only way that you can't imagine not having them.
The arguments for having them have ranged from fighting off an elected government  to being "free" means you can carry a gun, to it being necessary because we have so many armed criminals (because criminals have free access to guns, and I don't mean the hardened criminals but petty ones), to needing to kill bears and snakes and game (which as far as I'm concerned is logical but I don't see assault weapons needed for that). I think the rest of the civilised world looks at the US and cannot understand the attitude towards guns...Really, it doesn't seem to be working out so well for you, or at least for the victims of the shootings. | |
| | |
02-27-2013, 07:12 AM
|
#662 | | | Studies have shown that crime rates go down in areas that allow concealed carry. Bad guys like easy victims. | |
| | |
02-27-2013, 08:05 AM
|
#663 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Clava Things can change, and more guns means more people die with guns, there is no proof that having guns reduces crime rates but there is a direct relationship between having free access to guns and more people dying by guns - it's not rocket science. | I guess it is Rocket Science  Quote: |
Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared.
| During the same time another city banned guns, what happened? Quote: |
In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the crime rate has increased, especially right after the ban.
| Firearm Ownership is Mandatory for All Households in Kennesaw, Georgia - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
. | |
| | |
02-27-2013, 10:40 AM
|
#664 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Clava Until gun control is effectively tried throughout your country I don't believe you can say that. Things can change, and more guns means more people die with guns, there is no proof that having guns reduces crime rates but there is a direct relationship between having free access to guns and more people dying by guns - it's not rocket science. The same question back to you, can you not wrap your mind around that? Yes you need to sort your policing out, but you guys seem to be so set that guns are the only way that you can't imagine not having them.
The arguments for having them have ranged from fighting off an elected government to being "free" means you can carry a gun, to it being necessary because we have so many armed criminals (because criminals have free access to guns, and I don't mean the hardened criminals but petty ones), to needing to kill bears and snakes and game (which as far as I'm concerned is logical but I don't see assault weapons needed for that). I think the rest of the civilised world looks at the US and cannot understand the attitude towards guns...Really, it doesn't seem to be working out so well for you, or at least for the victims of the shootings. | I'll state it again. We have gun control in the US and that's not where our problem is. Our problem is not effectively enforcing gun controls. Our problem is not effectively locking up criminals and keeping them locked up. Our problem is not taking care of our mentally ill. Address those three problems first and see what happens to our gun death rate. If afterwards it hasn't significantly dropped we can come back to the possibility of more gun controls. Until then it's all flapping our gums in the wind. | |
| | |
02-27-2013, 04:57 PM
|
#665 | | | From Thomas Sowell:
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.
But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.
The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.
Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.
Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.
Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand, and self-righteous people to "make a statement" — but all at the cost of other people's lives.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Should we Control Guns through Laws? | |
| | |
02-27-2013, 06:37 PM
|
#666 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Clava The arguments for having them have ranged from fighting off an elected government ... I think the rest of the civilised world looks at the US and cannot understand the attitude towards guns... | Well, Americans DID fight off an oppressive government. You've heard of a little scuffle called the American Revolution? A war fought on our shores against the British King George? Armed American citizens fought and won a war against a tyrant from what you call a "civilised" country with a "civilised" government.
You are naïve enough to believe that an "elected government" can't turn on its people? ANY government can turn on its people.
That's why the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. The men and women who fought the American Revolution would never have been able to throw off a tyrannical government if they hadn't been armed. Our Founders wanted the Americans who would follow them to have the same ability to defend their own freedom.
Your "civilised" world cannot understand the US attitude toward guns? That's because it's **not your history**. It's ours. | |
| | |
02-28-2013, 09:02 AM
|
#667 | | | And you then went on to use those guns against each other in one of the bloodiest civil wars in history - 1861 - 1865 culminating in the death of a president.
I cannot see how the new gun laws are removing your rights to defend yourselves. They are just about trying to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people
This is the 21st century not the 18th - any tyrannical government is going to hit you with something a lot worse than anything the ordinary household can possess. Most likely some sort of gas or biological warfare. | |
| | |
02-28-2013, 10:34 AM
|
#668 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydee I cannot see how the new gun laws are removing your rights to defend yourselves. They are just about trying to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people | Read SB3200 from Oregon, this is a proposed amendment. Bolded parts are what they want to add to an existing bill. Tell me how the bulk of these proposed changes will stop one criminal from getting an assault weapon. Then read it again with a critical eye to see how this will prevent lawful from getting guns for self defense. http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/mea...3200.intro.pdf
PS What would you consider a good gun for self defense? | |
| | |
02-28-2013, 10:48 AM
|
#669 | | | Gun-friendly bills advancing in North Dakota House, including concealed weapons in schools, churches | INFORUM | Fargo, ND Quote:
BISMARCK – House lawmakers said Monday that North Dakotans should be able to carry concealed weapons at public events and, with the proper permission, in churches and schools.
The House passed three bills aimed at allowing concealed weapon permit holders to legally carry a weapon for protection purposes. Recent gun-related tragedies have increased a nationwide effort to protect vulnerable children and locations that have been devastated by mass shootings.
The most contested bill came with the discussion to allow a school board to meet in an executive session, or without public input or knowledge of what is said, to determine who can carry a concealed weapon into a school, if the person is legally permitted to carry it.
House Bill 1215 passed with a 60-33 vote.
“We don’t need any more secret meetings, particularly about determining who can carry in schools,” said Rep. Glen Froseth, R-Kenmare. “Anytime you give a public body an opportunity to give a secret meeting, they will take advantage of the meeting.”
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dwight Kiefert, R-Valley City, said larger schools have the option, or funding, to hire armed staff – commonly referred to as a resource officer. The bill would allow for smaller schools to have an armed teacher in a school that often takes law enforcement awhile to get to.
He said the bill also keeps everything organized, and prevents parents from arming themselves and standing on the playground.
“If a school board decides not to protect schools, it would be like putting a white flag up,” he said, arguing that if a perpetrator knows that a teacher or administrator is carrying a weapon, they won’t try to walk into the school.
Froseth said it won’t matter if the closed meeting keeps the general public from knowing which teacher is carrying a weapon.
Rep. Bill Amerman, D-Forman, agreed, arguing that idea “doesn’t hold water.”
“They are not only going to kill children and shoot up the school, but they are going there to die; that’s their mental state,” he said. “They are not going to worry if somebody’s packing a gun; they know they are not going to leave there alive.”
At public events
Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, dubbed a gun-free zone as a “fun-for-criminals-only zone.”
Becker’s bill, House Bill 1366, passed through the House on a 58-35 vote.
Under the bill, a concealed weapons permit holder could legally carry a weapon to a public gathering, such as a political event, where law enforcement may be the only ones with weapons.
“If law enforcement’s not there to stop the perpetrator, we have one reasonable option: Wait for that person to empty their clip and try to take them down when they are reloading,” he said. “This would allow a trained law-abiding citizen to stop the act.”
He noted individuals that obtain a concealed weapons permit go through extensive training and a background check and should be allowed to carry at a public gathering.
Guns in churches
The full body of legislators also agreed that, with permission from a church leader, an individual with a concealed weapons permit would be able to carry their firearm into a church or place of worship.
Some pastors pushed the legislation while in committee to have an option “so places of worship would be less vulnerable to someone that wants to kill people,” said Rep. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck.
The bill, House Bill 1283, passed the floor by a 82-11 vote without discussion and would require law enforcement to be notified of who is carrying the weapon.
Federal laws
The House also passed a bill addressing the Second Amendment right to bear arms and federal gun laws enacted since Jan. 1.
Under House Bill 1183, residents could seek civil penalties against a law enforcement agency that enforces a gun-restricting law passed by Congress.
Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Streyle, R-Minot, the bill says North Dakota law enforcement should not be enforcing gun restrictions coming from the federal government.
“It says we have enough gun laws on the books,” Streyle said. “We as states have the right to regulate this.”
Rep. William Kretschmar, R-Venturia, called the bill “premature.”
“It’s going to affect bills passed by Congress,” he said. “It’s not good policy to put restrictions on law enforcement people.”
The bill was sent to the Senate with a 50-42 vote.
| | |
| | |
02-28-2013, 11:09 AM
|
#670 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrin Read SB3200 from Oregon, this is a proposed amendment. Bolded parts are what they want to add to an existing bill. Tell me how the bulk of these proposed changes will stop one criminal from getting an assault weapon. Then read it again with a critical eye to see how this will prevent lawful from getting guns for self defense. http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/mea...3200.intro.pdf
PS What would you consider a good gun for self defense? | These are all still in the proposal stages and will take a majority vote to pass but many polls are now coming out stronly in favour (Quinnipiac Uni 92%) of much improved background checks particularly where private gun sales are concerned. Surely these background checks will also give details of who owns what so would serve as a registry too?
I own a small handgun, its light and easy to manage and that makes it more accessible in an emergency situation though I see it mostly as something to deter the coyotes that we get around here at night and freak me out when I have do the late night barn check when DH is away
I don't live in a situation where I'm likely to get a visit from any hoards of automatic gun wealding bad guys
Until any law is put into force and made to work no one can say what effect its going to have but that one life that it saves could be mine or one of my family
If you have children or grandchildren at school or at college then I think you are willing to look at anything to prevent them from becoming the next Sandy Hook or Columbine victim. We have now experienced 5 separate 'lock down' incidents since we came here - all were fortunately just precautions as some idiot with a gun was close to the facilities but when you get the call you don't know that and I can tell you it makes your blood run cold.
I accept that I don't have any concerns for the loss of the assault type weapons because they arent part of my culture - in the shooting world of the UK that I belonged too they are considered to be the 'toys' of the 'chav' generation and those who want to play at being 'Action Man' - no offence intended its just how different backgrounds see things. No none would ream of turning up at a British Shoot with one of those!!! I guess we come from very different worlds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jdAsXCVes | |
| | | |
786Likes
