The science of gun crimes

[tecoyah]

The people will not be oppressed. Come and take it.

To me at least, the tone exposed in your statement is problematic, as it expresses an aggressive stance on a topic that certainly does not need more aggression. I am a gun owner, as I am comfortable with my skill and desire the ability to counter threats to my family.
I do not feel the need to gain the capability to fire more than the ten rounds my clip carries, as It is likely that the first two will remove what threats might present themselves in my home.

I have fired many weapons in my time, felt no thrill of power from any of them. I get more from my compound bow and broadheads than my Ruger.

No one is trying to take either...but if I owned a weapon capable of slaughtering a couple dozen kids in seconds, I would likely deserve to have it regulated or confiscated.

 

[bluefig]

It really doesn't matter too much if the assault weapons ban is reinstated. Anyone who wants to and is legally able to purchase those types of firearms has already bought them or is shopping for them right now. There won't be any confiscation of property in the US, I'm pretty sure. We aren't Australia, for example. I've heard they are having a major nightmare with many types of crimes since they disarmed their law abiding citizens. (More or less, disarmed: there may be one or two firearms that are still legal there.)

I don't understand why people think the assault weapons ban will have any effect on gun crime, though. No one has ever been able to show that gun crime went down under the assault weapons ban, and I have been asking for such confirmation since the Clinton years and none has ever been brought forth. Let the Leftists try to pass it for symbolic reasons, to make themselves feel like they are "doing something." It calms the Leftist mind to think that they are helping to make the collective safer, even if it flies in the face of reality.

The ban expired way back in 2004 and it seems like the Democrats can never seem to get a bill through to reinstate it, even when they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If they succeed this time, it's just a matter of time before the balance of power shifts in Government and those on the Right will let the ban expire again.

 

[myp]

clax are you or are you not going by the Constitution? You can't have it both ways to satisfy how you interpret the 2nd amendment because the Constitution says how to interpret itself when there is a disagreement- and that disagreement is settled by the SCOTUS and it has been in the past. If the SCOTUS says some gun regulation is not breaking the 2nd amendment, then the Constitution itself says that is the law of the land, not clax's obscure interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In other words, the SCOTUS determines the effect of the 2nd amendment, not you or me. But if you don't think the SCOTUS should be interpreting it, then your opinion doesn't abide by the Constitution. You can't have it both ways by saying you are going by the Constitution and that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is right even when it clashes with the SCOTUS interpretation.

 

[clax]

To me at least, the tone exposed in your statement is problematic, as it expresses an aggressive stance on a topic that certainly does not need more aggression. I am a gun owner, as I am comfortable with my skill and desire the ability to counter threats to my family.
I do not feel the need to gain the capability to fire more than the ten rounds my clip carries, as It is likely that the first two will remove what threats might present themselves in my home.

I have fired many weapons in my time, felt no thrill of power from any of them. I get more from my compound bow and broadheads than my Ruger.

No one is trying to take either...but if I owned a weapon capable of slaughtering a couple dozen kids in seconds, I would likely deserve to have it regulated or confiscated.

Every weapon is capable of slaughter of a couple dozen kids. You are saying things that are absurd. its almost as if you don't think massacres happened before guns. The gun didn't do it, I could use a deer rifle and do the same thing.

What is this nonsense about ten rounds? My duty pistol carrys 17 rounds, most pistols hold more than ten. its obvious you have never been in a fire fight otherwise you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

It isn't about being a big shot. If you take away peoples rights to arm themselves equally to someone who doesn't regard the law you haven't made anything better you have just limited your abilities. Why not just shot yourself I'm the foot.

The "tone" that I have is because this agreement is absolutely retarded. Of you make something illegal it just stops law abiding people from getting it. A mass murderer isn't going to say "shucks of only it was legal for me to have this ak47 I could go wipe out that elementary school" its completely absurd. The need is to limit criminals, you don't do that with law, they don't abide by law.

Sorry but this is just the silliest thing I have ever said it should be common sense.

 

[clax]

clax are you or are you not going by the Constitution? You can't have it both ways to satisfy how you interpret the 2nd amendment because the Constitution says how to interpret itself when there is a disagreement- and that disagreement is settled by the SCOTUS and it has been in the past. If the SCOTUS says some gun regulation is not breaking the 2nd amendment, then the Constitution itself says that is the law of the land, not clax's obscure interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In other words, the SCOTUS determines the effect of the 2nd amendment, not you or me. But if you don't think the SCOTUS should be interpreting it, then your opinion doesn't abide by the Constitution. You can't have it both ways by saying you are going by the Constitution and that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is right even when it clashes with the SCOTUS interpretation.

No, I am not going by the constitution, I am going by the bill of rights

 

[misterveritis]

The right to have a gun, like all rights, exists only by law. In this, rights are defined by law; which, of necessity, is an expression of their limitations. To put it simply: there are no absolute rights.

I have the right to defend myself. It is absolute. Government does not give me that right. It is mine because I am.

Your interpretation always leads to tyranny.

 

[myp]

No, I am not going by the constitution, I am going by the bill of rights

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution...

 

[clax]

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution...

So if the courts interpret the law incorrectly in order to further an agenda they are following the constitution?

Sounds like they are gods in your eyes

 

[myp]

So if the courts interpret the law incorrectly in order to further an agenda they are following the constitution?

Sounds like they are gods in your eyes

The CONSTITUTION itself says that the courts are to interpret it. Not you or me. Now if you think the courts are following an alternative agenda then that becomes a conspiracy theory. Do you have proof of such a conspiracy?

Your viewpoints are hypocritical because you use the Constitution (specifically what you read of the 2nd amendment) as the basis for your argument when it supports your viewpoint, but then you go against that very Constitution when it is something that you don't agree with (namely what the SCOTUS interprets of the 2nd amendment). So don't pretend that the rest of us are ignoring the Constitution- you are the one that is using it as a political device. I don't know which 2nd amendment interpretation is correct, yours or the one that allows for gun regulation, but I understand the Constitution says it is up to the courts to decide and they have decided and I can accept that because I accept the Constitution above my personal interpretations.

 

[clax]

No one is trying to take either...but if I owned a weapon capable of slaughtering a couple dozen kids in seconds, I would likely deserve to have it regulated or confiscated.

Why? killing ten kids is not as bad?

This comment is about the dumbest thing I ever heard. You gab an object in your possession capable of killing hundreds. It really is about a state of mind. Not a weapon. If it is just sitting on a table and it scares you, you are ignorant. Guns don't get up and kill people. I would think an infant would understand that. Dogs do, the fact remains guns don't kill people.

The reason for that tone you referred to earlier is those for words destroy any argument against gun control. Yet dopes insist on battering against that profound statement with quizzical rantings.

Gun control of any kind will not work it never does, it never will. You need people control, of you take every right away from people to own guns people will still kill each other. The reason I know this as silly add it sounds there were massacres prior to guns existing.

Its apparent that having 11 bullets in your gun doesn't make you more likely to kill. Those thoughts have to be in your mind. And the mental state to make those thoughts into actions. So we really need action control. If you think further than the gun made him capable, I own the same exact gun that the killer used in Connecticut yet I haven't blown away a school, why is that? It isn't the gun well it must be the person. Your logic is completely irrational

 

[clax]

The CONSTITUTION itself says that the courts are to interpret it. Not you or me. Now if you think the courts are following an alternative agenda then that becomes a conspiracy theory. Do you have proof of such a conspiracy?

Your viewpoints are hypocritical because you use the Constitution (specifically what you read of the 2nd amendment) as the basis for your argument when it supports your viewpoint, but then you go against that very Constitution when it is something that you don't agree with (namely what the SCOTUS interprets of the 2nd amendment). So don't pretend that the rest of us are ignoring the Constitution- you are the one that is using it as a political device. I don't know which 2nd amendment interpretation is correct, yours or the one that allows for gun regulation, but I understand the Constitution says it is up to the courts to decide and they have decided and I can accept that because I accept the Constitution above my personal interpretations.

To interpret that no infringement means yes infringement is wrong, the courts would be wrong. Yes and no are not synonyms dogs understand this concept

 

[myp]

This comment is about the dumbest thing I ever heard.

That sort of comment is uncalled for.

 

[myp]

To interpret that no infringement means yes infringement is wrong, the courts would be wrong. Yes and no are not synonyms dogs understand this concept

Words can be interpreted differently. You are quite egotistical to think that you are always right in interpreting words. Well guess what? The people who wrote the Constitution knew that there isn't 1 definition for everything and like it or not, they left it up to the SCOTUS to decide. You can keep kicking and screaming about how your intuitive interpretation is right, but in practice, it just doesn't matter.

And I don't appreciate the disrespect. Knock it off.

 

[clax]

That sort of comment is uncalled for.

the comment I was reverting to was uncalled for also.

 

[clax]

Words can be interpreted differently. You are quite egotistical to think that you are always right in interpreting words. Well guess what? The people who wrote the Constitution knew that there isn't 1 definition for everything and like it or not, they left it up to the SCOTUS to decide. You can keep kicking and screaming about how your intuitive interpretation is right, but in practice, it just doesn't matter.

And I don't appreciate the disrespect. Knock it off.

You can't interpret yes to mean no. Just like hot doesn't mean cold. They are antonyms.

What disrespect?

 

[myp]

You can't interpret yes to mean no. Just like hot doesn't mean cold. They are antonyms.

" 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."

You can interpret that a lot of ways. For one, it doesn't say for the right of the people to keep and bear all types of arms... I really don't know why you think everything is so black and white. If it were, we wouldn't have these national debates. Sorry, but it is much more complicated than you think it is. It isn't hot or cold.

 

[clax]

" 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."

You can interpret that a lot of ways. For one, it doesn't say for the right of the people to keep and bear all types of arms... I really don't know why you think everything is so black and white. If it were, we wouldn't have these national debates. Sorry, but it is much more complicated than you think it is. It isn't hot or cold.

You can't interpret it to mean "make guns illegal" no matter the silly verbal gymnastics that people come up with to explain a statement that is absolutely clear. It isn't poetry, it isn't ambiguous.

If the court has the power to give and take rights away then they are gods. In the constitution it says that our rights are endowed by our creator. Not courts, unless you think courts created people.

 

[myp]

You can't interpret it to mean "make guns illegal" no matter the silly verbal gymnastics that people come up with to explain a statement that is absolutely clear. It isn't poetry, it isn't ambiguous.

Um, no one in this thread is arguing that... We are saying make some guns illegal [possibly].

If the court has the power to give and take rights away then they are gods. In the constitution it says that our rights are endowed by our creator. Not courts, unless you think courts created people.

The court DOES have the power to give and take away rights. Rights are defined by humans and protected by governments. And while the Constitution says rights are endowed by the creator (something a lot of the founding fathers probably didn't even believe considering many were deists, but they had to say it for the population's sake and for the effective policy), it also says that when there is disagreement over the interpretation of law the SCOTUS decides what is and isn't Constitutional. And there is disagreement over what the 2nd amendment means- so the SCOTUS decides whether a particular law is Constitutional or not- not you.

 

[clax]

" 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."

You can interpret that a lot of ways. For one, it doesn't say for the right of the people to keep and bear all types of arms... I really don't know why you think everything is so black and white. If it were, we wouldn't have these national debates. Sorry, but it is much more complicated than you think it is. It isn't hot or cold.

You can require license, verification of mental health, age restrictions, crimes and conditions that don't allow you to capably handle guns safely.

That is regulation being that it regulates ownership.

banning ownership, that is infringement. there is no way around it. No matter what bs jargon you make up to describe certain firearms that (sarcasm) look scary.

I am for banning assault weapons, weapons that fly around and assault people should be destroyed.

Assault is typically banned in the united states be it with a weapon or other form of assault.

What are these assault weapons? Are they terminators? Do they have those? If they do we should get rid of them.

My sarcasm is to illustrate the utter fallacy of the phrase assault weapon. Only if it was used in assault can it be called an assault weapon. This includes screw drivers stake knives automobiles, pistols, golf clubs, rocks, and so on. What good would banning them do, they just sit in evidence storage.

 

[clax]

Um, no one in this thread is arguing that... We are saying make some guns illegal [possibly].

Why? A single shot musket can kill you just as dead as any other gun. banning any gun only keeps them away from people who don't go and commit Mass murder. Do the purpose is just to attack the rights of the citizens. Banning any only takes your rights away. Most legal gun owners will not purchase a gun on the black market, criminals do, all the time.

Sandy hook shooting wasn't a case of legally aquired guns. The killer had his mother circumvent the law, he illegally possessed them.

What is really funny is that these things only really occur in states that are strongly against gun ownership.

yo
The court DOES have the power to give and take away rights. Rights are defined by humans and protected by governments. And while the Constitution says rights are endowed by the creator (something a lot of the founding fathers probably didn't even believe considering many were deists, but they had to say it for the population's sake and for the effective policy), it also says that when there is disagreement over the interpretation of law the SCOTUS decides what is and isn't Constitutional. And there is disagreement over what the 2nd amendment means- so the SCOTUS decides whether a particular law is Constitutional or not- not you.

What the founding fathers believed or didn't believe is frankly its irrational for you to pretend to know what they believed.

It only matters what is written in the constitution.

The courts didn't create us so they are not endowed with any power to decide what rights we have and don't have.

If this is your religion that is fine, I don't worship men.

There can't be a disagreement over the second amendment, its clear. There is disagreement over weather it should our shouldn't be, but add to its meaning, the right to bear arms must not be infringed, that means must not be infringed, nothing else infringement can't happen, because it clear add day states that it must not