Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[knapplc]

If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people.

So of course the best solution is to create more unarmed people.

 

And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go.

Using ALL CAPS does not make your inaccurate statement any less inaccurate.

 

Statistics within our own society dispute your claim...fewer restrictions & higher firearm ownership has indeed correlated with less violent crimes.

 

Putting my quote in italics doesn't make your statement any more accurate, either. And our society is one of, if not the most, violent in the world. Germany and Great Britain have major restrictions on guns. Guess what their incidence rates of gun-related crimes are?

[sd'sker]

also, as for the 2nd amendment, it only says that the people have a right to bear arms, but it does not limit the government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. i would argue as long as you can bear at least a 9mm, you have the right to bear arms. but hey, i suppose your hypothetical right to own assault weapons is a more important freedom than my right and freedom to not have to live in a world where a maniac can easily shoot-up a crowded area. freedom, right?

[Muck]

Putting my quote in italics doesn't make your statement any more accurate, either.

 

No but it is something that is done automatically by most BBC software to help differentiate a quoted statement.

 

And our society is one of, if not the most, violent in the world.

 

And within our society the states with the highest firearm ownership rates typically have the lowest crime rates while those with the fewest per capita suffer the highest rates of violent crime.

 

Germany and Great Britain have major restrictions on guns. Guess what their incidence rates of gun-related crimes are?

 

The US also has major restrictions on guns. Violent crime rates did not drop at a faster rate after the 1994 Brady Bill was ratified nor did they begin to climb after it sunset in 2004.

 

The violent crime rate in the UK was low prior to the most restrictive firearm laws and has generally risen (slightly) since their enactment.

 

Germany has a comparatively high firearm ownership rate (in the top 15 IIRC).

 

Switzerland, Finland & Sweden all have high firearm ownership rates coupled with low violent crime rates.

[sd'sker]

i have one question and i am serious. this is the last thing i will say in this thread as well. why does anyone need to own assault rifles or extended mags?

 

(not so serious, but since this is my last post in this thread i should get it out here; the government should outlaw metal bullets and only allow rubber/plastic. you only have the right to bear arms, not bullets).

[knapplc]

The fact of the matter is, US states with more gun control restrictions have fewer gun-related deaths. It's very simple. Further, the U.S. has five percent of the world's population but 50% of the world's guns. Pretending that doesn't correlate to more gun deaths is pollyannish.

 

Some stats:

Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green – those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

 

 

 

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

 

But the sheer number of guns isn’t an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

 

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don’t flatter America.

 

Link to above info

 

 

 

That was a look globally. Let's look at American stats;

 

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

 

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

 

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

 

LINK

 

I included the bolded paragraph so it doesn't appear that I'm trying to provide skewed information. Certainly there are many, many factors related to gun violence. Guns just happen to be the most common factor.

[Yossarian]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/travel/us-traffic-fatalities/index.html

[sker_echo]

also, as for the 2nd amendment, it only says that the people have a right to bear arms, but it does not limit the government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. i would argue as long as you can bear at least a 9mm, you have the right to bear arms. but hey, i suppose your hypothetical right to own assault weapons is a more important freedom than my right and freedom to not have to live in a world where a maniac can easily shoot-up a crowded area. freedom, right?

 

The constitution does limit the federal government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. The tenth amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So theoretically the the states can regulate what guns you can own but not the federal government.

[lo country]

also, as for the 2nd amendment, it only says that the people have a right to bear arms, but it does not limit the government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. i would argue as long as you can bear at least a 9mm, you have the right to bear arms. but hey, i suppose your hypothetical right to own assault weapons is a more important freedom than my right and freedom to not have to live in a world where a maniac can easily shoot-up a crowded area. freedom, right?

 

The constitution does limit the federal government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. The tenth amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So theoretically the the states can regulate what guns you can own but not the federal government.

 

The Constitution had the catch all "necessary and proper clause" that seems to allow the federal govt to do what it wants.

 

Looked at Patrick Henry, he seemed to be strongly opposed to much of what the others wanted. Ironically, his speech really started the Revolution, but his "ideas" for the new Republic were not fully recognized. He wanted states rights, limited Federal govt etc.....

 

Prior to Roberts flip flop, I would say for now, the 2nd amendment and its prior challenges would stand, but now I am unsure what would happen if a law actually passed and was challenged, how the court would rule ie total ban, "Commerce Clause" to tax the pi$$ out of guns and ammo, control type of guns, allow states to regulate etc....

 

I really thought also that we had a true separation of powers, but with the amnesty, defense of marriage act and the new welfare reform I figure Obama could enact a ban and no one would say a word...........

[bshirt]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

Exactly! The tree-huggers should be whining & sobbing endlessly about those evil cars that kill wayyyyyyyy more people than guns do. They'll never be happy until we're all in straight-jackets residing in padded cells. Of course, the outstanding results of making liquor and drugs illegal (excepting our cash cow drug manufacturers) clearly points to the need for even more bureaucracy, jails and lawyers that outlawing cars would surely bring. Heck, we have more people in jail than Russia or China combined so more regulation is definitely in order.

[Lil' Red]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

I don't believe anyone is advocating an outright ban on guns, just more laws and regulations to curb the amount of gun violence. It is comparable to the laws and regulations we have set up to limit traffic fatalities.

[HeyBurke]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

[Yossarian]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

 

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Car ownership, on the other hand, is not. And dying by accident in a head-on collision with a drunk driver is probably no more acceptable to the victim than dying as a result of a drive-by shooting.

[bshirt]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

 

Regardless, far more people are killed and disabled in cars than by guns in the USA and it's not even close, Mr. Handwringer.

[lo country]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

 

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

 

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

 

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Car ownership, on the other hand, is not. And dying by accident in a head-on collision with a drunk driver is probably no more acceptable to the victim than dying as a result of a drive-by shooting.

 

And to follow the whole car thing, it is much easier to drive without a license or insurance than it is to illegally buy a gun. While these offenses will not "kill" you, they are problematic issues. Most drunk drivers do not even know they are drunk or have the potential to kill someone making cars even "harder" to protect the general public from. ( I still stand by my previous statement that is a person wanted to buy a gun illegally it can and is done)

[knapplc]

So... because people are killed in transportation accidents, we should allow Joe on the Street to carry assault weapons?

 

We're really proposing this as a viable argument in favor of guns? SMH