PDA

View Full Version : New gun laws coming in weeks ?



INTIMADATOR2007
07-08-2011, 05:35 PM
They say they want to make gun laws safer , Uh how about starting with there own justice dept. and not send thousands of guns to mexican drug cartels that kill border agents and our own citizens . I do have a permit for conceal and carry here in Georgia , And I do what it says i can do carry in the open , I did go thru a background check and know what I am doing when my pistol is on my hip , They are using the Arizona shooting as a reason for this . I go to gun shows and pawn shops just browsing for my next piece and have never seen a dealer sell a gun Illeagly, But if you listen to whasington they are flying out the door to killers , I say the Killers are in the justice dept . And leave our guns out of it ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm

AUTaxMan
07-08-2011, 06:17 PM
Since most criminals get their guns on the black market, how is making it harder to purchase a gun legally helping matters? SMH

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 06:48 PM
Pointless.

Seahawks Fan
07-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Won't be long and they will probably quit having guns on hand at hunting/sports/gun shops and not even make your gun until you pass your background check etc... once you get your background check you will recieve a scannable firearms id like a credit card hard to counterfeit. Then have many fire arms on hand at firing ranges/target practices to test ones out so you know what you want to buy. As for collectible fire arms/gun shows they will have them limited to the masses and only be for people that have their fire arms cards that will be scanned at the door .. without it you cannot get in. All of this made up ofcourse but the way "America" has been heading since it was founded its only a matter of time.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 09:16 PM
I do kind of lean with some of the conservatives on this matter. We do have the right to bear arms per the second amendment and I am wholehartedely in favor of it. However I do think that there should be a level of common sense with our gun laws. Since you have to take a driving test to prove that you are worthy to drive a car why not take a shooting test and get a picture id like a driver's liscence in order to have a gun? That way we can the average working man can legally defend himself and his fam and the guns can be traced back to the owner if anything goes down.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-08-2011, 09:35 PM
I do kind of lean with some of the conservatives on this matter. We do have the right to bear arms per the second amendment and I am wholehartedely in favor of it. However I do think that there should be a level of common sense with our gun laws. Since you have to take a driving test to prove that you are worthy to drive a car why not take a shooting test and get a picture id like a driver's liscence in order to have a gun? That way we can the average working man can legally defend himself and his fam and the guns can be traced back to the owner if anything goes down.
Let me see if I understand ya' on this one .

You are saying we should have a picture ID like a drivers license in order to have a gun ?
However when we require someone have a picture id to prove they are legal citizens to vote or reside in this country there is a problem with that . :confused0024:

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 09:36 PM
If I had it my way, guns would be banned altogether. Possession would result in lengthy minimum sentences. Any crimes committed using a firearm would get a minimum 25 year sentence. Too many little punks think the are men when they are packing.

Let the bashing begin. lol

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 10:01 PM
If I had it my way, guns would be banned altogether. Possession would result in lengthy minimum sentences. Any crimes committed using a firearm would get a minimum 25 year sentence. Too many little punks think the are men when they are packing.

Let the bashing begin. lol

Bashy bash bash bashy bashy bash bash.

I'm going to go with the framers of the Constitution on this one.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 10:13 PM
Bashy bash bash bashy bashy bash bash.

I'm going to go with the framers of the Constitution on this one.

Forgive my lack of knowledge with the historical significance of the 2nd Amendment, but I always thought that it had something to do with having an able and ready militia. I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers had "everyone packing automatic weapons at the supermarket" in mind. But I could be wrong.:confused0024:

INTIMADATOR2007
07-08-2011, 10:19 PM
If I had it my way, guns would be banned altogether. Possession would result in lengthy minimum sentences. Any crimes committed using a firearm would get a minimum 25 year sentence. Too many little punks think the are men when they are packing.

Let the bashing begin. lol


So, If your at home on relaxing evening with your wife and kids and someone kicks in your door and takes your kid , would you just watch them leave with your child and hope they bring em' back . It may not happen in Canada but it happens alot in America , That's why we have the right to bear arms .

What is the laws concerning firearms in canada and protecting yourself against an armed intruder ?

pwaldo
07-08-2011, 10:21 PM
If I had it my way, guns would be banned altogether.

Banned like drugs or banned like illegal immigrants? In case you haven't noticed the United States can't keep out anything so saying something and doing something is totally different. You also have 200+ million guns in the country. How would you go about confiscating them?

People don't listen to the ban on killing people so why would they give two s about the ban on guns. Killers are going to kill. Yeah if you could push a button and make all guns disappear that would be great. Would be nice to push a button and get rid of killers, rapists, robbers, thieves, etc. but that isn't going to happen either.

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 10:23 PM
Forgive my lack of knowledge with the historical significance of the 2nd Amendment, but I always thought that it had something to do with having an able and ready militia. I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers had "everyone packing automatic weapons at the supermarket" in mind. But I could be wrong.:confused0024:

Certainly not, because automatic weapons hadn't been invented then. The "arms" that existed at the time were muskets.

The text of the amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There's debate over whether they meant for firearms to be available only to a state militia or to all law-abiding citizens, but in practice the courts have gone with the latter. The idea was discussed at length in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-08-2011, 10:25 PM
Guns don't kill people !


It's the husbands that come home early that kill people ...ha,ha,ha,...

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 10:30 PM
I would not do anything to aggravate the situation and call 911 after they left. Knowing my kids, they would return them to me anyway. <br />
<br />
Not exactly sure what the laws are considering I do not own...

OnePimpTiger
07-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Forgive my lack of knowledge with the historical significance of the 2nd Amendment, but I always thought that it had something to do with having an able and ready militia. I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers had "everyone packing automatic weapons at the supermarket" in mind. But I could be wrong.:confused0024:

Actually, that is all but banned. It is illegal for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. To own a fully auto weapon manufactured prior to 1986, "a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence. " (source (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)) So if that was to happen, it's either already illegal or someone who has gone through extremely rigorous permit processes and is well monitored.

It always astounds me how little the anti-gun folk actually know about firearms, their sale/ownership, gun crime statistics, etc. A little education could go a long way.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 10:40 PM
Banned like drugs or banned like illegal immigrants? In case you haven't noticed the United States can't keep out anything so saying something and doing something is totally different. You also have 200+ million guns in the country. How would you go about confiscating them?

People don't listen to the ban on killing people so why would they give two s about the ban on guns. Killers are going to kill. Yeah if you could push a button and make all guns disappear that would be great. Would be nice to push a button and get rid of killers, rapists, robbers, thieves, etc. but that isn't going to happen either.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was possible.:winking0071:

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 10:46 PM
Actually, that is all but banned. It is illegal for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. To own a fully auto weapon manufactured prior to 1986, "a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence. " (source (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)) So if that was to happen, it's either already illegal or someone who has gone through extremely rigorous permit processes and is well monitored.

It always astounds me how little the anti-gun folk actually know about firearms, their sale/ownership, gun crime statistics, etc. A little education could go a long way.

The "automatic weapons in the supermarket" was an exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. I have very little problem with law-abiding citizens owning firearms. But again, if I had it my way, no one other than law enforcement would be permitted to possess them.

lambeauleap87
07-08-2011, 11:25 PM
A bit of incredible irony...the ad at the top of this page right now for me is for Front Site Firearms Training School.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 11:39 PM
The "automatic weapons in the supermarket" was an exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. I have very little problem with law-abiding citizens owning firearms. But again, if I had it my way, no one other than law enforcement would be permitted to possess them.


I agree with you on a lot of things but you are way off on this one. No way would I want to live in a society where the police has al the power and I have no way to defend myself. Sounds a lot like nazi germany to me.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 11:43 PM
Let me see if I understand ya' on this one .

You are saying we should have a picture ID like a drivers license in order to have a gun ?
However when we require someone have a picture id to prove they are legal citizens to vote or reside in this country there is a problem with that . :confused0024:


I'm all for the right to self defense especially to protect oneself from people who don't respect the rights of others. I am very much against jim crow laws however.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 11:53 PM
I agree with you on a lot of things but you are way off on this one. No way would I want to live in a society where the police has al the power and I have no way to defend myself. Sounds a lot like nazi germany to me.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Law enforcement shouldn't have the power? You want to defend yourself against the police with a gun? If criminals didn't have guns you would not need one to defend yourself.

OnePimpTiger
07-09-2011, 01:58 AM
The "automatic weapons in the supermarket" was an exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. I have very little problem with law-abiding citizens owning firearms. But again, if I had it my way, no one other than law enforcement would be permitted to possess them.

That is the image the media paints all the time, thugs and trash running around w/full autos itching to shoot the first person that ticks them off...most libs buy it, I apologize for lumping you in. I wish I could assume something that outlandish is exaggeration, but I've made that mistake before.

mrveggieman
07-09-2011, 01:21 PM
Not sure what you are trying to say. Law enforcement shouldn't have the power? You want to defend yourself against the police with a gun? If criminals didn't have guns you would not need one to defend yourself.


In the United States after the civil war the first thing that the southern states did was make sure that blacks were not allowed to arm themselves. They were not only at the mercy of crooked cops but of the klan and other racists people and therefore had no way to defend themselves. Fast fowrard to nazi germany. When hitler and the nazis came into power one of the first things that he did was take away the right for the jews to arm themselves and we all know how that one turned out. Criminals don't follow gun or any other types of laws that is why they are criminals. Why don't you google the case parker vs the district of columbia so you can learn what the gov't position is when it comes to protecting it's citizens. I don't ever want the gov't to have that much power over me where I have no legal right to defend myself or my family.

habsheaven
07-09-2011, 01:29 PM
I guess I have it too good. Needing to defend myself against my government or anyone for that matter has never crossed my mind.

mrveggieman
07-09-2011, 01:33 PM
I guess I have it too good. Needing to defend myself against my government or anyone for that matter has never crossed my mind.


Yeah it must be nice up there where you are at. No crime, not having to ever worry about anyone trying to rob you. break into your home, come after you wife or kids or anyone hating you for the color of your skin. I need to move up there where you are at. :winking0071:

habsheaven
07-09-2011, 01:42 PM
Yeah it must be nice up there where you are at. No crime, not having to ever worry about anyone trying to rob you. break into your home, come after you wife or kids or anyone hating you for the color of your skin. I need to move up there where you are at. :winking0071:

Didn't say we don't have crime. We just don't have it on a scale that would warrant worrying about it.

gatorboymike
07-09-2011, 02:17 PM
Didn't say we don't have crime. We just don't have it on a scale that would warrant worrying about it.

And to think, Michael Moore basically said there was no crime in Canada! Lol.

duane1969
07-09-2011, 03:08 PM
I do kind of lean with some of the conservatives on this matter. We do have the right to bear arms per the second amendment and I am wholehartedely in favor of it. However I do think that there should be a level of common sense with our gun laws. Since you have to take a driving test to prove that you are worthy to drive a car why not take a shooting test and get a picture id like a driver's liscence in order to have a gun? That way we can the average working man can legally defend himself and his fam and the guns can be traced back to the owner if anything goes down.

My only problem with your position is that it requires government approval to exercise my Constitutional rights.


Forgive my lack of knowledge with the historical significance of the 2nd Amendment, but I always thought that it had something to do with having an able and ready militia. I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers had "everyone packing automatic weapons at the supermarket" in mind. But I could be wrong.:confused0024:

Clearly you know very little about American gun laws.

1) The right to keep and bear arms was so that the people can defend themselves against oppressors. Last I checked the world is not free of oppression.

2) It is illegal for the average citizen to OWN an automatic weapon, much less carry one, so there is nobody at the supermarket carrying automatic weapons.

I see this "automatic weapons" statement made by liberals a lot. It is one of the most factless and baseless statements made on the issue.

--------------------------

An intersting little statistic...

2009 deaths from DUI/DWI - 44,647 http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research#888

In spite of my best efforts I can only find generalized numbers of 30,000 deaths per year from guns and that includes suicides. If anybody finds hard numbers I would appreeciate it.

Assuming the 30k number is accurate, it appears we need to outlaw cars and alcohol before we outlaw guns.

duane1969
07-09-2011, 03:18 PM
I guess I have it too good. Needing to defend myself against my government or anyone for that matter has never crossed my mind.

Just because you have no fear of your government does not mean that government has the grounds to take away your rights. I do not fear my government at all but that doesn't make me gullible enough to give away my ability to protect myself.

The simple reality is that the idea that the government or the police will protect you is blissful ignorance. If someone breaks into you home there will be no government agents or police there to protect you. You are on your own. The police may eventually arrive but it will be to investigate how you died, not to protect you.

habsheaven
07-09-2011, 05:20 PM
Just because you have no fear of your government does not mean that government has the grounds to take away your rights. I do not fear my government at all but that doesn't make me gullible enough to give away my ability to protect myself.

The simple reality is that the idea that the government or the police will protect you is blissful ignorance. If someone breaks into you home there will be no government agents or police there to protect you. You are on your own. The police may eventually arrive but it will be to investigate how you died, not to protect you.

Are you saying you cannot protect yourself without the use of a gun? Apparently your government is already making restrictions on how you can protect yourself (current gun laws), so it appears your gullibility or your rights are not absolute.

I have survived 45 years on this planet without the need of a GUN to protect me. I am certain, with good health, I can survive another 45 years. If someone breaks into my home, they better be armed; it will get my compliance, otherwise they will have bitten off more than they can chew.

gatorboymike
07-09-2011, 11:41 PM
If somebody breaks into your house, the odds are very good that they are in fact armed. I had that happen to me once. Hence, this is my boom stick:

http://www.355nation.net/forum/attachments/contests-puzzles-word-games/15783d1265816499-zombies-taking-over-80592301.jpg

Well, not that particular one of course. But mine is the same model.

duane1969
07-10-2011, 12:17 AM
Are you saying you cannot protect yourself without the use of a gun? Apparently your government is already making restrictions on how you can protect yourself (current gun laws), so it appears your gullibility or your rights are not absolute.

I have survived 45 years on this planet without the need of a GUN to protect me. I am certain, with good health, I can survive another 45 years. If someone breaks into my home, they better be armed; it will get my compliance, otherwise they will have bitten off more than they can chew.

I have survived 41 years without having to pull my gun but that doesn't mean I want to find myself in year 42 or 43 and need it and not have it.

The simple reality is that 99.9&#37; of gun owners never have to brandish their firearm in self-defense, but I can guarantee you that the .01% that had to are glad they had the right to do so.

Odds are that anyone who breaks into your house will not be unarmed. If they are armed then it is my guess that while you are being compliant, watching them take your belongings or doing worse, you will be sitting there promising yourself that if you survive this you will be buying yourself a gun.

Guns are like motorcycle helmets, you might never need it, but if you do, you better have it.

mrveggieman
07-10-2011, 03:12 AM
If somebody breaks into your house, the odds are very good that they are in fact armed. I had that happen to me once. Hence, this is my boom stick:

http://www.355nation.net/forum/attachments/contests-puzzles-word-games/15783d1265816499-zombies-taking-over-80592301.jpg

Well, not that particular one of course. But mine is the same model.


Can I get an amen!! Preach it brother!!

duwal
07-10-2011, 05:07 AM
Guns are like motorcycle helmets, you might never need it, but if you do, you better have it.


its kind of funny that last statement was by someone who has Ben Roethlisberger in his signature :sign0020:


on the subject I'm all fine for people having them at home to defend themselves but think those that are walking around with them on their hip are just looking ridiculous

INTIMADATOR2007
07-10-2011, 12:00 PM
its kind of funny that last statement was by someone who has Ben Roethlisberger in his signature :sign0020:


on the subject I'm all fine for people having them at home to defend themselves but think those that are walking around with them on their hip are just looking ridiculous
If your working on the southside of Atlanta and don't have one you look like a target for crime if you have one then they leave you alone ...

mrveggieman
07-10-2011, 01:26 PM
If your working on the southside of Atlanta and don't have one you look like a target for crime if you have one then they leave you alone ...


Or anywhere in Georgia for that matter. :winking0071:

habsheaven
07-10-2011, 02:19 PM
I have survived 41 years without having to pull my gun but that doesn't mean I want to find myself in year 42 or 43 and need it and not have it.

The simple reality is that 99.9&#37; of gun owners never have to brandish their firearm in self-defense, but I can guarantee you that the .01% that had to are glad they had the right to do so.

Odds are that anyone who breaks into your house will not be unarmed. If they are armed then it is my guess that while you are being compliant, watching them take your belongings or doing worse, you will be sitting there promising yourself that if you survive this you will be buying yourself a gun.

Guns are like motorcycle helmets, you might never need it, but if you do, you better have it.

I guess you skipped over the link I posted earlier in this thread.

Do you have any stats to back that up?

duane1969
07-10-2011, 08:48 PM
I can't back up the 99.9&#37; statement because there is no way to know what is in people's hearts and minds. I do however have an uncle that killed an intruder while the intruder was trying to kill a visitor at his house, and while he regrets taking a life he does not regret that his wife, himself and a family friend are alive because of his actions. After the incident he purchased a handgun for his wife in case he was ever not home.

As for the "Odds are" statement, that is just logic. The idea that the majority of those breaking into houses will not be armed is neither commonly accepted nor logical.

And yes, I read the article. My guess is that the father does not regret using his gun, he regrets killing his son. Had the bullet killed the intruder then I am sure he would be fine with it.

habsheaven
07-10-2011, 10:16 PM
I can't back up the 99.9% statement because there is no way to know what is in people's hearts and minds. I do however have an uncle that killed an intruder while the intruder was trying to kill a visitor at his house, and while he regrets taking a life he does not regret that his wife, himself and a family friend are alive because of his actions. After the incident he purchased a handgun for his wife in case he was ever not home.

As for the "Odds are" statement, that is just logic. The idea that the majority of those breaking into houses will not be armed is neither commonly accepted nor logical.

And yes, I read the article. My guess is that the father does not regret using his gun, he regrets killing his son. Had the bullet killed the intruder then I am sure he would be fine with it.

To the first bolded part. The "majority" of break-ins are perpetrated by addicts and teenagers (at least in my neck of the woods, based on those that are caught) and they do not have weapons on them.

To the second bolded part. You are not very good at guessing. To think anyone, after shooting their own son, would be "okay" with the choice to introduce a gun into the equation is assinine.

sanfran22
07-10-2011, 10:55 PM
To the first bolded part. The "majority" of break-ins are perpetrated by addicts and teenagers (at least in my neck of the woods, based on those that are caught) and they do not have weapons on them.

To the second bolded part. You are not very good at guessing. To think anyone, after shooting their own son, would be "okay" with the choice to introduce a gun into the equation is assinine.
I thought Michael Moore said there were no guns in Canada.....:winking0071::sign0020:

habsheaven
07-10-2011, 11:11 PM
I thought Michael Moore said there were no guns in Canada.....:winking0071::sign0020:
No guns is a stretch, but if you are comparing the two countries I can see how someone would think there are none.

duane1969
07-11-2011, 12:09 AM
To the first bolded part. The "majority" of break-ins are perpetrated by addicts and teenagers (at least in my neck of the woods, based on those that are caught) and they do not have weapons on them.

To the second bolded part. You are not very good at guessing. To think anyone, after shooting their own son, would be "okay" with the choice to introduce a gun into the equation is assinine.

I don't care if it is a teenager with a pocket knife or an addict with a stick, I do not want to find myself in nothing but my underwear when I meet up with them in my house. My underwear and a Glock sounds a lot nicer.

And as for the second part, you misconstrued what I said.


I thought Michael Moore said there were no guns in Canada.....:winking0071::sign0020:

Now there is joke...not the guns part...caring what Michael Moore says LOL

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 10:42 AM
States with the weakest gun laws have some of the most gun violence
Stop crying because they want you to get a background check to own a weapon. If you don't have a criminal background why are you worried about it. It takes less time and less hassle to get it done then getting a drivers license. I live in one of the hardest states to get a Class A permit to carry large capacity, and I had no problems getting it.




Murders - Type of weapon used (Bold is firearms)

Total 100.0 67.1 13.4 13.7 5.9
Northeast 100.0 64.8 16.7 14.3 4.1
Midwest 100.0 69.4 10.5 14.4 5.8
South 100.0 68.2 12.1 13.5 6.1
West 100.0 64.6 15.9 12.9 6.6


Murders 2009
Firearms - 9146

Justifiable homicide 2009 Law enforcement
Firearms - 403

Justifiable homicide 2009 - Civilian
Firearms - 215

Vermont 0
North Dakota 3
New Hampshire 4
South Dakota 4
Wyoming 5
Hawaii 8
Alaska 8
Idaho 11
Maine 11
Montana 13
Rhode Island 18
Iowa 19
Utah 23
Nebraska 25
Delaware 31
Minnesota 38
West Virginia 38
Oregon 41
Connecticut 70
Kansas 78
District c 85
New Mexico 91
Wisconsin 93
Mississippi 94
Nevada 95
Colorado 101
Massachusetts 105
Washington 107
Kentucky 112
Arkansas 113
Oklahoma 125
South Carolina 197
Indiana 197
Alabama 209
New Jersey 220
Arizona 229
Virginia 229
Missouri 276
Maryland 295
Tennessee 305
Illinois 311
North Carolina 335
Louisiana 378
Ohio 386
Georgia 402
Michigan 437
Pennsylvania 468
New York 481
Texas 862
California 1,360

Brady grades -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/americas-gun-laws-how-did_b_165825.html

duane1969
07-11-2011, 11:32 AM
Let's look at those numbers with a more realistic perspective.

California - most state gun laws in USA - #1 on your list
New York - reputation for strictest gun laws in USA - #3 on your list
New Jersey - ranked by the Brady website as being #2 in the country for the most gun laws yet they are still 16th on the list
Connecticut - ranked 5th by the Brady website for their guns laws yet that tiny little state still manages no better than 32nd
Massacheusetts - ranked by the Brady site as #3 for their gun laws yet there they are at #24 on your list

Proof enough that strict gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 11:34 AM
Let's look at those numbers with a more realistic perspective.

California - most state gun laws in USA - #1 on your list
New York - reputation for strictest gun laws in USA - #3 on your list
New Jersey - ranked by the Brady website as being #2 in the country for the most gun laws yet they are still 16th on the list
Connecticut - ranked 5th by the Brady website for their guns laws yet that tiny little state still manages no better than 32nd
Massacheusetts - ranked by the Brady site as #3 for their gun laws yet there they are at #24 on your list

Proof enough that strict gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And then look at them again by population and persons per capita and CA< MA, NJ, NY triple the populations of the other states

duane1969
07-11-2011, 11:38 AM
And then look at them again by population and persons per capita and CA< MA, NJ, NY triple the populations of the other states

If gun laws work then they work regardless of the population.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 11:41 AM
Texas 1:29002
CA 1:27205

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 11:42 AM
If gun laws work then they work regardless of the population.

Except in the majority of states with almost no gun laws there is still a higher rate of gun violence

duane1969
07-11-2011, 11:43 AM
Texas 1:29002
CA 1:27205

What is your point? One state has strict laws and one has loose laws yet they have an almost identical rate. All that does is prove that the strict gun laws are not preventing murders/crimes.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 11:48 AM
It proves the assertion that some how letting people go wild west carrying guns around on thier hip and never getting background checks or being registered does nothing to prevent violence like some of you like to think. At least I know everyone in my state carrying a gun has had a course on how to use it and has had a backgound check. 209 justifiable homicides nationwide almost doesn't even warrent anyone having a gun. You could probably split that in 1/2 if more people had tasers and pepper spray. So all the posturing that poeple need free access without restriction to defned themselves doesn't add up to the numbers.

duane1969
07-11-2011, 11:56 AM
Except in the majority of states with almost no gun laws there is still a higher rate of gun violence

I don't have the time to crunch the numbers but I am sure that the pendulum would swing both ways.

Also, comparing Texas to California is a bit off. Texas has issues with drug/gun trafficing across the border that California does not have to deal with. I imagine that if California shared as much border with Mexico that Texas does then their violent gun crimes would be significantly higher. I read a report (can't find it right now) that said there are 8 murders per day on the Mexican side of the border. It would be silly to think that there are not some happening on our side of the border too by the same people.

duane1969
07-11-2011, 11:59 AM
It proves the assertion that some how letting people go wild west carrying guns around on thier hip and never getting background checks or being registered does nothing to prevent violence like some of you like to think. At least I know everyone in my state carrying a gun has had a course on how to use it and has had a backgound check. 209 justifiable homicides nationwide almost doesn't even warrent anyone having a gun. You could probably split that in 1/2 if more people had tasers and pepper spray. So all the posturing that poeple need free access without restriction to defned themselves doesn't add up to the numbers.

It also proves that the strictest gun laws in the country don't prevent firearm crimes either, so let's concede that.

Perhaps less people would die if there were less guns. I however, do not want to be the guy holding pepper spray when a guy holding a .38 Special comes after me. I don't think you would either.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 12:10 PM
I don't have the time to crunch the numbers but I am sure that the pendulum would swing both ways.

Also, comparing Texas to California is a bit off. Texas has issues with drug/gun trafficing across the border that California does not have to deal with. I imagine that if California shared as much border with Mexico that Texas does then their violent gun crimes would be significantly higher. I read a report (can't find it right now) that said there are 8 murders per day on the Mexican side of the border. It would be silly to think that there are not some happening on our side of the border too by the same people.

# of illegal immigrants

California

2,930,000



Texas

1,640,000

duane1969
07-11-2011, 12:25 PM
# of illegal immigrants

California

2,930,000



Texas

1,640,000

And your point is???....

Number of miles of border shared with Mexico

California - 30
Texas - 1254

My post clearly stated that it was a border issue, not a population issue.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 12:30 PM
And your point is???....

Number of miles of border shared with Mexico

California - 30
Texas - 1254

My post clearly stated that it was a border issue, not a population issue.

But you don't have facts to back up your statement that there is gun violence in TX based on border issues. Just becasue 10 people are shot in Juarez does't mean it happens in El-Paso for the same reason. And wouldn't it stand to reason if there is an issue with drugs from Mexico, that there would be more drugs in an area with more Mexicans?

duane1969
07-11-2011, 12:51 PM
But you don't have facts to back up your statement that there is gun violence in TX based on border issues. Just becasue 10 people are shot in Juarez does't mean it happens in El-Paso for the same reason. And wouldn't it stand to reason if there is an issue with drugs from Mexico, that there would be more drugs in an area with more Mexicans?

Do you ever watch the news?

Look up the crime rates for Texas border towns like Laredo and McAllen...you will find a murder rate higher than the national average. Infact, Laredo has a general crime index nearly 1.5 times that of the national average.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 05:14 PM
Do you ever watch the news?

Look up the crime rates for Texas border towns like Laredo and McAllen...you will find a murder rate higher than the national average. Infact, Laredo has a general crime index nearly 1.5 times that of the national average.

Waco has a higher violent crime rate than Larado..There are lots of towns that push above the national average. You can try and minipulate the data anyway you want, but making people have to reigster & get a background check change the numbers.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 05:23 PM
Best part of this thread...

"So far the president has done nothing and administration officials have signaled that no major steps should be expected, given the climate in Congress against gun legislation of any kind."

I guess none of you got that far into the article.. you saw GUN + LAW and lost your minds. LOLZ

INTIMADATOR2007
07-11-2011, 06:07 PM
Best part of this thread...

"So far the president has done nothing and administration officials have signaled that no major steps should be expected, given the climate in Congress against gun legislation of any kind."

I guess none of you got that far into the article.. you saw GUN + LAW and lost your minds. LOLZ
How many pieces of legislation has been passed by executive order with Obama , He has already proved congress is irrelivent .

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 06:19 PM
How many pieces of legislation has been passed by executive order with Obama , He has already proved congress is irrelivent .

So now your argument is he MIGHT use an EO... LOL

Most of Obama's EO's were done to reverse GWB's EO

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 06:24 PM
So now your argument is he MIGHT use an EO... LOL

Most of Obama's EO's were done to reverse GWB's EO

Seriously? I just read a post of yours in another thread where your only argument is that a POSSIBLE political CANDIDATE MIGHT INTRODUCE a bill that would POSSIBLY push a Christian agenda...and now you're mocking someone for suggesting an ELECTED PRESIDENT might push through his agenda via executive order, which he has been known to do on many occasions?

Consistency.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 06:27 PM
Heres a good Bush one

Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."


Why does Homeland Security need to be involved in faith based initatives ?

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 06:28 PM
Seriously? I just read a post of yours in another thread where your only argument is that a POSSIBLE political CANDIDATE MIGHT INTRODUCE a bill that would POSSIBLY push a Christian agenda...and now you're mocking someone for suggesting an ELECTED PRESIDENT might push through his agenda via executive order, which he has been known to do on many occasions?

Consistency.

No I'm mocking you for failing to provide any evidence rebuting my claim, and instead just launching in on a unsubstantiated attack on the President. Even after I provided a quote from the adminirtation showing they were less then enthusiatic about making any changes to current gun laws.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 06:30 PM
Seriously? I just read a post of yours in another thread where your only argument is that a POSSIBLE political CANDIDATE MIGHT INTRODUCE a bill that would POSSIBLY push a Christian agenda...and now you're mocking someone for suggesting an ELECTED PRESIDENT might push through his agenda via executive order, which he has been known to do on many occasions?

Consistency.

+ I don't see the President signing any "christian values pledges" that push a fundementalist christian agenda.

duane1969
07-11-2011, 08:07 PM
Heres a good Bush one

Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."


Why does Homeland Security need to be involved in faith based initatives ?

Because they perform charitable acts in the midst of crisis and catastrophic situations. It is common practice for law enforcement agencies to work hand-in-hand with groups like the Salvation Army and the Christian Relief Fund.

They have to put stuff in like that because if they don't then some idiot comes along and complains when they work with a faith-based charity and the next thing you know somebody is suing the government for not abiding by seperation of church and state.

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 11:33 PM
Because they perform charitable acts in the midst of crisis and catastrophic situations. It is common practice for law enforcement agencies to work hand-in-hand with groups like the Salvation Army and the Christian Relief Fund.

They have to put stuff in like that because if they don't then some idiot comes along and complains when they work with a faith-based charity and the next thing you know somebody is suing the government for not abiding by seperation of church and state.
Lol, now who would do that??

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:41 AM
Because they perform charitable acts in the midst of crisis and catastrophic situations. It is common practice for law enforcement agencies to work hand-in-hand with groups like the Salvation Army and the Christian Relief Fund.

They have to put stuff in like that because if they don't then some idiot comes along and complains when they work with a faith-based charity and the next thing you know somebody is suing the government for not abiding by seperation of church and state.

There isn't one single mention of any type of disaster assistance in this EO

http://cryptome.org/eo13397.htm

INTIMADATOR2007
07-12-2011, 05:46 PM
Looks like congress is illrelenvent !
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-executive-orders-impose-new-gun-rules/

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 05:58 PM
Looks like congress is illrelenvent !
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-executive-orders-impose-new-gun-rules/

If they actually wanted to stop the flow of weapons into the Mexican drug wars, why have they been sitting aside watching them be bought and smuggled across the border for months now?

Agenda.


So now your argument is he MIGHT use an EO... LOL

Most of Obama's EO's were done to reverse GWB's EO

Yesterday at 5:19p...wow, didn't take long to have to eat those words, huh?

theonedru
07-12-2011, 07:12 PM
Those illegal weapons that criminals use were once owned by someone legal whoever it was. And since the criminal element keeps getting their hands on weapons then a tighter grip on gun laws are justified as the ones we have are not working.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 07:34 PM
Those illegal weapons that criminals use were once owned by someone legal whoever it was. And since the criminal element keeps getting their hands on weapons then a tighter grip on gun laws are justified as the ones we have are not working.

It doesn't matter what the government does, criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They are just making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 07:41 PM
It doesn't matter what the government does, criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They are just making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

How is that difficult? Do you need to buy more then 2 rifles a week to protect your self?

theonedru
07-12-2011, 09:12 PM
It doesn't matter what the government does, criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They are just making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

A guns purpose is to kill things, not protect. You do not need a gun to protect yourself. People are too afraid to just say if someone does something to me I will kill them, instead of dribbling i will defend myself.

duane1969
07-12-2011, 09:17 PM
A guns purpose is to kill things, not protect. You do not need a gun to protect yourself. People are too afraid to just say if someone does something to me I will kill them, instead of dribbling i will defend myself.

How would you suggest defending yourself against an armed person...or just bigger, stronger person for that matter? Just curious.

Bssed on the way you are phrasing it, the difference between defend and kill is minimal, but defense in the face of danger is justifiable, just killing someone is not.

theonedru
07-12-2011, 09:24 PM
How would you suggest defending yourself against an armed person...or just bigger, stronger person for that matter? Just curious.

BAsed on the way you are phrasing it difference between defend and kill is minimal, but defense is justifiable, just killing someone is not.

Guns were made for one purpose to kill things that cannot be disputed

There are non lethal forms of defense, pepper spray, stun guns, defense classes running. As for criminals with guns well like I said before Those illegal weapons that criminals use were once owned by someone legal whoever it was. And since the criminal element keeps getting their hands on weapons then a tighter grip on gun laws are justified as the ones we have are not working.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-12-2011, 09:37 PM
What I find interesting is are they deflecting from the fact that the justice dept. let drug cartels obtain thousands of american guns that killed an american border agent and several mexican citizens and have shown up at crime scenes in mexico and america , And puttng the blame on our gun laws which are fine but do need to be followed . IMO this is an attempt to deflect the heat on the Justice dept. Our left leaning friends need to look into The fast and furiuos and operation gunrunner that has lead to the death of many innocent people courtesy of our justice dept. not our gun laws .

MadMan1978
07-12-2011, 09:43 PM
Guns don't kill people !


It's the husbands that come home early that kill people ...ha,ha,ha,...
Best Comment you have ever posted...

theonedru
07-12-2011, 09:44 PM
What I find interesting is are they deflecting from the fact that the justice dept. let drug cartels obtain thousands of american guns that killed an american border agent and several mexican citizens and have shown up at crime scenes in mexico and america , And puttng the blame on our gun laws which are fine but do need to be followed . IMO this is an attempt to deflect the heat on the Justice dept. Our left leaning friends need to look into The fast and furiuos and operation gunrunner that has lead to the death of many innocent people courtesy of our justice dept. not our gun laws .

true, various government organizations have been supplying terrorist organizations and other shady organizations/groups for decades. They need to start prosecuting them.

duane1969
07-12-2011, 09:53 PM
Since criminals don't get their guns from legal sources how will stricter gun laws change that? The problem here is not the gun, it is the criminal that steals the gun. Stricter gun laws do not stop...

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 10:36 PM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q43/SANFRAN25/guns-dont-kill-happy-gilmore-costume-shirt-screengrab-1.jpg

MadMan1978
07-12-2011, 10:40 PM
Let's look at those numbers with a more realistic perspective.

California - most state gun laws in USA - #1 on your list
New York - reputation for strictest gun laws in USA - #3 on your list
New Jersey - ranked by the Brady website as being #2 in the country for the most gun laws yet they are still 16th on the list
Connecticut - ranked 5th by the Brady website for their guns laws yet that tiny little state still manages no better than 32nd
Massachusetts- ranked by the Brady site as #3 for their gun laws yet there they are at #24 on your list

Proof enough that strict gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/

Well in some defense of my home state Massachusetts- Now that Whitey Bulger has been captured those numbers should go down.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 10:55 PM
Well in some defense of my home state Massachusetts- Now that Whitey Bulger has been captured those numbers should go down.
:sign0020: He was a bad dude......