Gunman opens fire at Calif. church, wounds 2 teens

[Blandocyte]

Source: AP

RICHMOND, Calif. – A man wearing a hooded sweatshirt walked into a San Francisco Bay area church and opened fire during a Sunday service, wounding two teenagers, police said.

Two other men — also wearing hooded sweatshirts — were with the gunman when the shooting took place at about 12:30 p.m. in front of about 100 people at New Gethsemane Church in Christ in Richmond, police Sgt. Bisa French said.

A 14-year-old boy was hit in the shoulder and a 19-year-old man was struck in the leg, she said. Both victims, whose name haven't been released, were hospitalized and were expected to survive. There were no other injuries.

The three men fled and no suspects have been arrested, French said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_re_us/us_church_service_shooting

---

What the hell, people? Total ban NOW.

[depakid]

1. Richmond... 'nuff said.

[winyanstaz]

5. Oh bullshit....you want to disarm people with nuts like this running loose?

You think these nuts will just hand over their guns?




You can all expect more of this stuff...there will be a BIG push to disarm the taxpayers now and they have to have reasons.

[depakid]

10. These are the inevitable consequences of gun proliferation- policies that you promote

and yes, thanks to irrational fear all around the nation- these and many other sorts of shootings are bound to spread.

Will Richmond become a more common model as state governments fail and the country experiences further economic decline and greater income inequality?

Anyone's guess.

[winyanstaz]

13. no, these are the inevitable consequences of people pushed too far....

Yes there will be a lot more...people are stressed to the max.

How can you ask people to give up the only way to protect themselves from killers?

You cant really think the criminals and killers will turn in their guns do you???

Again..I would love to hear exactly how you and any other unarmed person would stop a gunman in your church or home.

Please let us all know because if its something that actually might work we could all try that.

[depakid]

24. It must be very difficult to live with such an overwhelming amount of fear

thinking that everyone's out to hurt you...

[winyanstaz]

34. I certainly dont think "everyone" is out to get me...dont be silly...

I am also sure those people in church didnt think anyone was out to get them either...
shit happens.
I grew up in Wyoming where everyone has guns and knows how to use them so I am not afraid of guns..I am afraid of criminals with guns.
Why dont you try to disarm the criminals and leave the people that are being murdered alone?
Are you personnally going to be able to stop a gunman while you are unarmed? Go ahead and tell us all how.

[Techn0Girl]

47. If you are truly afraid of criminals with guns....

Then the sensible and intelligent thing to do is to make it extraordinarily difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

Do you know that the average policeman in Great Britain does not even carry a gun while on duty?
There's a reason for that.
They don't need to.
They don't need to because very few criminals overall have guns there.

[beevul]

60. Great Britain is not America.

"Then the sensible and intelligent thing to do is to make it extraordinarily difficult for criminals to obtain guns."

We've done that, with marijuana, cocaine, heroine, lsd, alcohol, and so on and so on...

Criminals in prisons get those things, which are illegal to possess generally outside of prisons without the extra filter that is prison security.

And in general society those things, all banned, are generally available.

How will you make it different...make it work...where guns are concerned?


And how will you get 80 million people that own them give to them up?

And what are you willing to do if/when they don't give them up?




Edited for clarity

[winyanstaz]

67. crimanls dont get guns legally already...and they already have guns....

And just so you know...they are now carrying guns more often in England.
And their death rate by knives is higher than ever....

[paulsby]

123. fear canard

take several

[TheWraith]

168. Who told you that?

The police in Great Britain are, for the most part, armed. With the exception of small towns ala Barney Fife.

[aliendroid]

191. You can't compare two separate populations. but you can

Compare New Hampshire and vermont to Massachusetts. Compare their gun laws and crime rates.

Remember that we can always talk about Switzerland. very low crime rate there, much lower than UK while everyone has guns.

[SteveM]

140. I got 9 hours sleep last night, why are you so concerned about fear?

It ain't me, babe.

You know, some of you cats are really obsessed with fear. Fear has its good side. It warns you of impending dangers, and hopefully guides you in actions to reduce that fear. But hear, the gun-controllers use "fear" as an insult, a moral condemnation, "bad style," or something. What the hell is your concern? I don't worry about fear, but you and others in this forum are always bring it up.

Kind of makes me wonder what's going on in your head.

[DissedByBush]

101. It is illegal to carry a gun in a Virginia church

Without "good and sufficient reason" which means, of course, no law-abiding citizen is going to risk jail having to prove "good and sufficient reason" for wanting to protect himself.

That anti-gun law worked really well here, didn't it?

I guess "I need to kill somebody" was this lunatic's "good and sufficient reason."

Don't you just love government policies rooted in racism?

[Techn0Girl]

107. What I find amazing is that 4 people account for 50% of the posts here....all pro-gun

I just put 4 on ignore and Wham-Bam a full 50% of the postings went with them.

It's almost as if they were organizing together or something.

[spin]

131. This is a liberal progressive web site...

To come here and post pro-gun statements is like the Pittsburgh Steelers playing football at Cleveland Browns Stadium.

The Dawg Pound actually hates you.



Find a pro-gun forum, sign up and post your views and watch what happens.

But I have found out that the pro-gun arguments still hold water here despite the emotional and futile attempts to discredit them.

By the way, I never put people on ignore. That would take all the fun out of posting here.

[rrneck]

139. I don't always agree with proponents of either side of the issue.

But I find that I have to devote much more careful consideration to the responses I give to the pro gunners. And that doesn't mean I always get it right.

It's more of a challenge to avoid using boilerplate in response to the anti gunners.

[spin]

151. I waste too much time here, but I enjoy it. (n/t)

[SteveM]

142. (Shhh. It's a conspiracy.) nt

[PavePusher]

163. Well.

That is certainly an adult debate tactic.

Or... not.

[aliendroid]

190. are you aware that violent crime rates have gone way down? not up.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

14. err...

might want to have a look at this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292031#292045

On another note, it's amusing to see how easily a sarcastic comment presses some people's emotional buttons.

[proteus_lives]

23. err..Melbourne...Nuff said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Another-Indian-student-attacked-in-Australia/articleshow/4589199.cms

How fun this is.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

31. No shit. Been there, done that.

[Euromutt]

135. Richmond, CALIFORNIA, not Richmond, Virginia

You know, the California that's rated as having the best firearm laws of any state in the Union, according to the Brady Campaign.

[-..__...]

2. "Total ban NOW".

Just one little problem with that... you're going to have 60-80 million law abiding gun owners (myself included),
standing in the way.

Good luck with that one. :rofl:

[winyanstaz]

8. exactly....

I also would like to hear exactly how one of these cowards so hot to give up everyone's guns will protect their own family when the nuts come to their homes or churches? What exactly will they do? I want to hear their plan....Whats exactly is going to stop those killers...can they just whine them to death?

[Techn0Girl]

12. You know - we have police to do that...

And darned if that doesn't work in every single other civilized western country that bans handguns and, h by the way, has humoungously lower death rates by handguns than we do.

The police would protect us - we don't need any NRA nut jobs to do that no thank you Sir.

[winyanstaz]

15. Name one time the police were there BEFORE the bodies start piling up?

sheesh...
The police come after the crime....they only come before the crime in the movies...

Tell us how you will be able to stop an armed intruder personnaly when they are in your house at night....we are all still waiting to hear.

[Techn0Girl]

30. Straw Man argument....

The problem is not that the police do not arrive before the crime (wtf?? !) but rather that there are too many guns out there with which to commit gun crimes.

Eliminate the guns and you radically lower the gun crime rate. The proof of that is in the enormously lower per capita gun crime rates of Canada, Germany, Japan, England and France.

[beevul]

56. What do you propose?

And how do you propose to implement what you propose?


I mean...you have your opinion on this issue which I disagree with completely and thats fine...But how on earth do you think it could EVER be accomplished?


Guns are banned in many places in America, and yet somehow they still end up in those places. When someone decries/legislates/executive orders that all guns are banned (setting aside for the moment legalities involved since this is a constitutionally protected right), all those guns that are banned wont simply dematerialize. How do you propose to remove those material objects from the 80 million people give or take that possess them?

To what lengths are you willing to go?

What means are you willing to use to accomplish your chosen ends?


And in the end, will it be worth it?

[Techn0Girl]

57. What I propose is simple...

A handgun ban along the lines that the U.K. has along with the kind of severe penalties for using a gun in a crime as well as possession of a handgun.

As to the details - neither you nor I are experience in such legislation. I wouldn't presume to go there.

[beevul]

Details?

"A handgun ban along the lines that the U.K. has along with the kind of severe penalties for using a gun in a crime as well as possession of a handgun."

"As to the details - neither you nor I are experience in such legislation. I wouldn't presume to go there."

You are proposing bans, in a country where potentially 80 million plus people are going to be effected by it.

What happens when a portion of those 80 million people decide to say no and not turn in thier guns, and the shenanigans that leads to, is not a simple "detail".


Like it or not, its part of the discussion.

[Techn0Girl]

68. You keep asking the same question over and over again.

Same answer

[beevul]

81. And you keep not answering it.

To propose what you propose, without giving any thought what so ever to the consequences and ramifications involved in and because of doing so...well to be polite, its far less than anything that anyone could call a discussion.


What you want is to propose, without discussion - on a discussion board. :rofl:

[bossy22]

97. you do know that such a law would be found unconstitutional

not to mention gravely against public opinion.

P.S. do you know that in france any law abiding citizen can acquire a license at their local police station to posess a pistol and 50 rds of ammo for home defense? Also, in italy, possession of a firearm for self defense is considered a legitimate reason for issuance of a license.

[spin]

136. The firearms ban in the U.K. worked because there were few firearms...

in the U.K. to begin with. Britain had a long record of gun control measures dating back to the 1800s.

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger , cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created as a revenue raising measure; it required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his own property, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

NOTE: The above excerpt covers just the beginning of the many laws issued to control firearms in the U.K.

So it was possible to implement gun control in the U.K. Here in the U.S. we have an entirely different environment. I can guarantee that any attempt to confiscate all firearms would fail and the results would be very bloody. Some states would secede from the union. The local police and national guard in many areas would not cooperate with gun confiscation and might in fact join the resistance. It's questionable that the military which is predominately conservative would be willing to turn their weapons on fellow citizens to disarm them. The use of the military for such purposes is illegal to begin with. The commanding officers would probably refuse an order to begin with knowing that if there were a successful revolution, they would stand trial for following an illegal order.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Of course, even the rumor of a serious attempt to confiscate firearms will lead to the political destruction of the Democratic Party. There would not be another Democrat in the President's seat for at least 20 years and the party would be relegated to minority status in Congress for years to come.

[PavePusher]

167. Are you going to volunteer to help enforce such a ban?

Or are you going to hire surrogates (presumably... with guns) to do your dirty work for you?

For the record, please take into account that should such a "ban" be enacted, I will shoot people who try to enforce it.

Just so you can properly frame your decision...

[X_Digger]

64. The crime rates in those countries wasn't high before the ban..

.. so how you're ascribing some magic action when there was no 'pre-ban' high crime level to combat is ludicrous.

[Techn0Girl]

76. Show me your stats to support that ... but you are just making that all up aren't you ? :)

No stats ?
I call B.S.
Show me some non-biased stats.

[X_Digger]

93. Here ya go.. 30 seconds of googling..

UK..

"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

"As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

(The latest ban was 1997..)


CA..



(Gee, where's the rampant violent crime, and where's the drop?

AUS..





Again, where are the high crime levels, pre-any-ban, and where are the drops after?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. That's simply unfair to confront her with facts.

[rd_kent]

141. Look what you did! Your facts made her run away!

[cowman]

179. Trying to have

and intelligent converstation with her is fruitless. She is narrowminded and tolerates no other opinion or fact even undisputed fact, When she doesn't get her way she puts you on her ignore list. I have no idea why she is even here

[winyanstaz]

83. and they do not have our problems either.....

The gun crime rate goes down...murders, robberies and rape goes UP.
Criminals will still be criminals...

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World

Again I ask...how will YOU stop an armed killer in your house that is murdering your family if you are unarmed?

[krispos42]

149. Exactly.

And if we banned green-painted cars we'd have a much lower green-car-related deaths. But I would question the person that says that banning green-painted cars would make the highways safer because green-painted cars were no longer on them.

By the way, the UK's homicide rate is up about 40% in the past 25 years.




Our non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate of many Western European countries such as France. So even if a complete and total prohibition on guns prevented all gun murders AND not a single intended gun murder was performed by another weapon, we'd still be worse off than the countries you hold up as an example.

Our homicide rate dropped by 40% from 1993 to 2001 and it has stayed low since then, despite the "proliferation" of what some would call "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines.

Our problems are sociological. Papering over them with some kind of emotional and soundbite-friendly plan to ban hardware is not the way out of this situation.

[PavePusher]

166. How do the OVER ALL crime rates compare?

"Gun crime" is only a small sub-set of all crime.

[TheWraith]

171. So you're cool with murders by knife?

By the way, your analogy is completely crap. Canada has loads of guns, and a microscopic fraction of our gun death rate. Switzerland has 600,000 fully automatic machine guns stored in people's homes, each with a couple hundred rounds of ammunition, and their society hasn't collapsed yet. You know why? Because guns aren't magical objects that make every person who sees one turn into a killing machine. In fact, you can draw a pretty much direct line between the rate of gun deaths in the US--which is primarily from urban gang killings--and the continuation of our insane drug policy and the lack of any serious effort to address policy.

Do you ever wonder why it's places like Richmond, CA and Baltimore, MD that have gun crimes, while you don't hear about this shit in Vail, Colorado or Ithaca, NY? California has the tightest handgun laws in the country, and Chicago has a total ban on firearms, but they both have massive problems still. Meanwhile in Burlington Vermont you can legally carry a concealed weapon without a license of any kind, or carry it openly for that matter. Yet they don't have problems. Again, it comes down to social inequality. Canada, Switzerland, and Vermont don't have the millions of desperate, impoverished teenagers that the gangs prey on to recruit as soldiers.

[shadowrider]

137. When seconds count

The police are minutes away.

I'm going to the range this week and taking my Springfield XD with me.

[bossy22]

18. i hate to start into this again....but i guess i will

first off the police have no legal duty to protect an individual. Time and time again court cases have shown (Warren v. District of Columbia) this. Second, many civilized countries besides the U.S. allow handgun ownership (only a few actually ban it).

Third- the police rarely stop a crime in progress. How many times have you read that a police officer stopped a home invasion in process; i can't even recall one. Frankly i don't want to leave my safety up to this "911 emergency line please hold". Real comforting.

I work in the emergency services and i can tell you your first and best line of defense will always be yourself

[Techn0Girl]

"first off the police have no legal duty to protect an individual"

That is simply absurd.

It is not even worth arguing and I won't. You might as well tell me that the sun is not obligated to rise in the East. Nonsense.

The first and best line of defense against handgun crimes is banning handguns as demonstrated by each and every single western nation (save our own) who all have drastically and enormously lower per capita handgun crime rates.

[bossy22]

53. absurd...i think not

its the truth...why don't you read the decision yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

and there are many more like it

[Techn0Girl]

55. Sorry but I am not going to get my legal education from Wikipedia....

and I would suggest that you do the same but that would fall on deaf ears.

You're not a lawyer , you're giving me a Wiki reference to support your claim which is patently nonsense - that police do not have a duty to protect the individual. No , an not going to waste my time debating that when day to day life shows that to be untrue.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Techn0Girl]

69. Same answer...

You keep saying :
"It is a fact that the police have no special duty nor obligation to protect the citizenry, except for people actually in their custody."

Maybe the police don't protect the citizenry on your planet but on mine they do so each and every day.

[gorfle]

84. READ THE CITATIONS PLEASE.

Technogirl, this conversation is reaching the point where it is obvious it is falling on deaf ears.

I have posted numerous examples of case law that clearly indicate that it is a matter of settled case law that the police have no obligation nor duty to protect citizens, except for people in their custody.

No one has claimed that they do NOT protect the citizenry, only that they have no obligation nor duty to do so.

What this means is that yes, if a police officer witnesses a crime they will probably intervene to protect the victim. But you are naive to believe that you are safe because you have police forces. The police are almost never present during the commission of a crime, and almost always show up after the crime has been reported to gather evidence and question witnesses to aid in the prosecution of the crime after the fact.

The likelihood of a police officer being on hand to protect you during the commission of an assault is virtually nil.

Please go back and read the citations provided.

Right now wou are screaming "IT'S NOT TRUE" at the top of your lungs while stamping your feet and covering your ears with your hands.

[cowman]

181. Be careful

she might put you on her ignore list because you are presenting her with facts and she just can't stand that

[bossy22]

86. because they do so doesnt mean they have a legal obligation

i dont have a legal obligation to help a stranded motorist- but whenever i see one i always ask if i can help.

and i don't know what world you come from but where i come from most police work is involved in investigating a crime after it happens- not stopping it while in progress.

I have a question for you- if they do such a good job- why was my father stabbed a few years ago while leaving his office? where were the police then? From what he told me they showed up when he was admitted to the hospitol. The truth is most of the time we are on our own.

[beevul]

89. Then the shooting that this thread is about never happened, right?

"Maybe the police don't protect the citizenry on your planet but on mine they do so each and every day."

Then the shooting that this thread is about never happened, right?

[SteveM]

146. Well, Techno0Girl, you come on as a fearless debater, but...

you don't have it. The court cases referenced will firmly instruct you in the truth of the matter: police are not charged with protecting you.

Hard fact which you cannot counter; and in your case, not even attempted. My goodness, such fighting trim about refusing to fight for your viewpoint?

[bossy22]

82. why don't you look at the wikipedia cited references

which cite the exact decision. You know clapping your hands over your ears and screaming doesnt make the truth go away.

the truth is the police are not legally bound to protect you. Show me some evidence otherwise.

P.S. here is the decision http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. In other words you are ignorant of the facts and wish to remain that way.

[Jackson1999]

132. From the Warren decision

I know I am wasting my time because you will not admit you are wrong, but here it is anyways.


"The Court, however, does not agree
that defendants owed a specific legal
duty to plaintiffs with respect to the
allegations made in the amended complaint
for the reason that the District
of Columbia appears to follow
the well established
rule that official
police personnel and the government
employing them are not generally
liable to victims of criminal acts for
failure to provide adequate police
protection."

Could it be any clearer?

[PavePusher]

169. Wiki, while not a definitive source...

Usually has links to original source documentation. Check it out, or use the copious hints to do a brief search yourself (used to be called "an exercise for the student"...).

You are doing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "la-la-la-la-la-la.....". Very third grade of you.

[SteveM]

144. You won't argue against this basic truth because you can't. nt

[gorfle]

32. "The police would protect us"

Technogirl, I highly recommend you watch/listen to the following two YouTube videos:

In this recording, a woman waits in her home, on the phone with police, while a criminal breaks in. When he starts to choke her, she shoots and kills him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

In this recording, a woman waits in her home, on the phone with police, while a criminal breaks in. He then proceeds to physically and sexually assault her before the police can arrive and arrest the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

Police are almost never available during the actual commission of a crime. They usually show up after the fact to gather evidence used in prosecuting the crime.

If you want to rely on others for your personal safety that is your right to do so. Hopefully you can respect the rights of those of us who wish to be more proactive in our personal safety.

[Techn0Girl]

40. Again the problem is not that police don;t arrive before the crime (wtf??)...

which is a ridiculous argument.

The problem is that there are too many guns out there.

The police DO protect us by going after criminals and turning them over to the court system.

[gorfle]

59. Again, watch and listen to the videos.

Again the problem is not that police don;t arrive before the crime (wtf??)...which is a ridiculous argument.

Um, it is most certainly not a ridiculous argument, in fact it's not an argument at all, it's a fact. Again, watch and listen to the two videos I linked for you. In both cases a criminal broke into a woman's home and attacked her before the police could arrive. Both women were on the phone with the 911 dispatcher while the break-in happened. One woman had a pistol and was able to stop her attacker, the other could do nothing but scream while her dogs barked and she was physically and sexually assaulted by her attacker.

The police DO protect us by going after criminals and turning them over to the court system.

This is completely after-the-fact of the commission of the crime, however. No doubt there is some deterrent effect in having the law prosecute offenders. But the fact is, people still offend, and it is unlikely that the police will be able to intervene to help you.

The problem is that there are too many guns out there.

The vast majority of firearm owners are not involved in violent crime. There are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. There are about 1.4 million violent crimes committed every year. Even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, it means that over 96% of firearm owners are not involved in violent crimes annually. I find it hard to be persuaded that there are too many guns out there when the vast majority of their owners are law-abiding.

The real problem is that most people who commit murder have extensive prior criminal records that preclude them from legally owning a firearm.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

We need to work to restrict access to firearms by criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

[DissedByBush]

108. When someone's breaks into a home bent on murder

The police will do only one thing for sure:

Draw a chalk outline.

The only question to you is, Techn0Girl,

Do you want that outline to be of you or your assailant?

Years ago, the police in my home town told my mom to shoot a certain dangerous person should he come around again because the police knew they wouldn't be able to get there in time to stop him from hurting her.

Response time was stated at 20 minutes.

The police know they can't protect you.

The best they can do for you is make sure the chalk outline is pretty, and maybe catch the bastard, who will live decades longer than you did.

[Techn0Girl]

110. Why is it so hard for people like yourself to understand....

that prohibiting guns severely lowers the gun crime rate?
It doesn't eliminate it - nothing does that.
It just severely lowers it to the point where it's not worth worrying about.
This isn't a difficult concept to actually understand.


No matter how many times you repeat that talking point you heard somewhere it still sounds silly to reasonable people - like most of us here in DU.

[bossy22]

116. and guns are the only tools capable of being used to kill someone

i'd like you to explain to my father that he was in no danger when a man with a knife demanded his car keys; convince him that the scar on his shoulder/neck is all a figment of his imagination.

"No matter how many times you repeat that talking point you heard somewhere it still sounds silly to reasonable people - like most of us here in DU."
i think you would be surprised to find out how many here on DU do not support your position. There are many "pro-gun progressives" and even non-pro gun people who still beleive that an adult who has no criminal history should be allowed to possess a handgun for the purpose of home defense if he/she chooses

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. I'm not worried about it now. It's been declining in the US for quite some time.

[SteveM]

147. Because you don't want to understand your own arguments...

"that prohibiting guns severely lowers the gun crime rate?"

It doesn't. There is ample evidence to show that Great Britain has had a low crime rate involving guns for many decades. The gun bans put into place (starting with those in the early 1900s) came after-the-fact. It's a variation on the theme: "Harvard graduates the best because they only accept the best." Closer to home, Mexico has HIGHLY restrictive gun laws. And what do you see in Mexico? I think it stupendously ironic that a nation flooded with criminally-held "prohibited" guns is having a war over "prohibited" drugs. To paraphrase: "Why is it so hard for people like yourself to understand" that prohibition does not work?

"It (prohibition?) doesn't eliminate it -- nothing does that"

Yeah. Like, we agree.

"It just seveely lowers it to the point where it's not worth worrying about"

My goodness, what can we say of ganja, meth, crack, and a host of others? I guess, from what you have written your answer is: "Don't worry, be happy."

I'll just take your last quote "...like most of us here in DU" Since this is about guns, please be advised that most DU members, according to a poll taken here a few years back, own guns, and a sizeable portion of the rest were considering arming themselves. But, I'm sure you wouldn't be interested in that info either.

[krispos42]

153. What is the timeframe?

There would, naturally, be a lag between disarming the legal gun-owners and disarming the armed criminals. The lag could be years or even a couple of decades. Perhaps more.


What will happen between the voluntary or involuntary disarmament of the legal gun-owners and the forced disarmament of the criminals?


What will happen to the country when such heavy-handed actions by the government and the resultant spike in crime cause the electorate to reject Democrats and put in Republicans?

How much foreign war will be waged? How much will the rich rob from the poor? How completely will the middle class be destroyed? What other civil rights will be destroyed?

[Euromutt]

178. It's hard to understand things that aren't true

The United Kingdom has higher rates of violent crime than the US does. In the decade following the post-Dunblane handgun ban, the number of crimes committed using firearms almost doubled. Between 2000 and 2008, even though the number of homicides decreased slightly, the number of nonfatal stabbings doubled, and the number of nonfatal shootings almost tripled. Despite handguns being illegal, plenty are making their way into the country (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1).

Last year, there were 22 reported incidents of firearms discharge in Amsterdam Southeast, resulting in three fatalities (http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2367291.ece/Another_fatal_shooting_shocks_Amsterdams_Bijlmer_neighbourhood); the borough has a population of around 86,000.

From 1919 to 1928, Germany completely prohibited private firearms ownership, to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. Nonetheless, right- and left-wing paramilitaries (such as the proto-Nazi Freikorps and the communist Red Front Fighters' League) openly engaged in street battles, using firearms they weren't supposed to have, and from 1919 to 1922, there were some 35,600 politically motivated homicides. With a population of around 62 million, that puts the German homicide rate at the time at between 14 and 15/100,000, and that's not counting "ordinary" non-political homicides. To compare, the U.S. homicide rate for 2008 was 5.4/100,000.

And it's not like the German paramilitary groups were arming themselves from neighboring countries; most western European governments started seriously restricting private gun ownership in 1919, particularly on handguns and military-issue weapons (though it should be noted that the standard infantry weapon at the time was the bolt-action rifle). This was not to address major problems of gun crime--there weren't any--but to forestall possible left-wing attempts at revolution inspired by those in Russia (1917) and Germany (1918).

Your assertion that "prohibiting guns severely lowers the gun crime rate <...> to the point where it's not worth worrying about" simply does not conform to reality. The bulk of criminological research indicates (as does simply reading the newspapers for a couple of years) that prevalence of firearms in criminal use is demand-led, not supply-driven. The main factor that increases or reduces the gun crime rate is criminal willingness to use guns, or lack thereof; and when criminals feel they need guns, they will find a supply. It's the same story with illicit drugs, incidentally, which is why four decades of attacking the supply of illicit drugs has failed to make a dent in their use.

I acknowledge that is is evidently a difficult concept to grasp, because no staff member of any gun control organization seems to have ever got his or her head around this idea. But I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.

[cowman]

182. Just one little

problem with that, we have what is called the Bill of Rights, maybe you've heard of it, in it is something called the 2nd amend.. Also there is a 1st amend. giving you the right to spout your nonsense, now I don't want to ban your 1st amend. right so please leave my 2nd amend. right alone

[X_Digger]

61. You do know, right that the police can't be held responsible for not protecting you?

See Castle Rock v Gonzales, and DeShaney v Winnebago County

Both boil down to 'the police aren't responsible for your safety unless you're in custody.'

[Techn0Girl]

73. What IS it with you people and that specious argument?

I'm convinced it's some NRA talking point that some people chant like some sort of protective mantra.

I'd so much rather have a policeman protecting me (which they do) against criminals then ANY of the pro-gun keyboard warriors posting on this thread.

Less guns means less gun crimes.
Doesn't take a genius to see that.

[gorfle]

80. Look, you are just simply incorrect, Technogirl.

I'd so much rather have a policeman protecting me (which they do) against criminals then ANY of the pro-gun keyboard warriors posting on this thread.

Look, you are just simply wrong. Numerous case examples have been provided to you which are matters of public record. The police have NO DUTY NOR OBLIGATION to protect anyone EXCEPT PEOPLE IN THEIR CUSTODY.

Even if they did, the simple fact is the police cannot be everywhere all the time. They are almost never present during the commission of crimes, or else they would stop them! Instead, they show up after-the-fact, to collect evidence and question witnesses to aid in the prosecution of the crime. This is small consolation to the victim of crime.

Less guns means less gun crimes.
Doesn't take a genius to see that.

Except this isn't true, either.

The firearm crime rate and accident rate in the United States continues to fall, despite the fact that firearm sales have skyrocketed and the number of firearms in circulation continue to increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States


FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Annual numbers of NICS background checks usually executed as part of a firearm purchase:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_checks_total.pdf

[Techn0Girl]

88. Less guns means less gun crimes.

"Less guns means less gun crimes.
Doesn't take a genius to see that.

Except this isn't true, either."

But it is and this is backed up by every single Western Country that bans and/or severely restricts habdguns.

But I understand that trying to talk to a "pro-gunner" is like trying to talk to a "pro-lifer" .
You just aren't going to get through to them and they are going to continue to see reality in their own unique way.

This conversation is ended.

[beevul]

95. You have it backwards.

"But I understand that trying to talk to a "pro-gunner" is like trying to talk to a "pro-lifer"

Trying to talk sense to an anti-gunner, is like trying to talk sense to an anti-abortion proponent.

You just aren't going to get through to them and they are going to continue to see reality in their own unique way.

And more accurate - both the anti's are for preventing the exercise of rights by others.

[gorfle]

100. Again, please read the citations.

Clearly you are not bothering to read the factual data presented to you.

The firearm crime and accident rates continue to trend downward in the United States, in spite of the fact that the number of firearms in circulation continue to rise.

This is a fact.

This means that the meme "less guns means less gun crimes" is not necessarily true, and specifically is not true in the United States.

It may not even be true for other countries:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece

"Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily."

In any case, even if less guns meant less crime, it also means less people can fight back to defend themselves against crime, particularly the law-abiding. I don't think that's a fair trade-off.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Don't run off just because you are losing.

[SteveM]

150. The Energizer: It just keeps going, and going, and going, and going....nt

[slackmaster]

170. Yes, we all know that Mexico has much less crime than the USA does

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

98. Read the case yourself, fer chrissakes.

It's not rocket science, I'm sure if you read it, you'd understand it.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_154 (full text here- http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/189/case.html)

[SteveM]

148. "Less guns means less gun crimes" Sorry, even the Brady's don't say that much. Anymore nt

[winyanstaz]

90. What part of the fact that the police do not come until they are called dont you get?

So how will you keep that armed bandit off your family until they get there?

You going to stand around bitching that they didn't turn in their guns? Whine and wring your hands? Ask them pretty please to let you live?

If you think the police can protect you...if you think it is so safe not to have a gun...please...go ahead and post your address because I am sure there are a few rapists, burglars and sickos that would find it most interesting to know you are unarmed.

I am sure there are a number of thugs that would be interested in hearing that.

[SteveM]

143. More corrections...

Police are charged with apprehending criminals (AFTER the crime is committed), collecting evidence, and presenting the findings to a state's attorney for prosecution.

They are NOT charged with protecting you. If you were to sue the police for not showing up at your place for 5, 10, 30, 60 minutes while a thug beat the snot out of you and your's, the case would be thrown out of court. If the police didn't show up AT ALL, you could not recover.

The reason why the police are not charged with protecting you (though many forces try) is obvious: for the vast majority of crimes, they cannot be there in time to stop the crime OR protect you.

This is hard face. Please do not make an argument based: "we have police to do that." It doesn't follow.

[PavePusher]

165. Cite to proof, please?

It seems all countries have a measurable crime rate... and so your fail is obvious.

How do you propose the police "protect us" without haveing one officer per person?

[TheWraith]

173. Who told you that all other western countries ban handguns?

In fact, that's only true in the UK and Australia.

[Techn0Girl]

11. "Standing in the way..."

Oh Puleeeze....
Spare me the keyboard Macho bit.

Big Yawn.

[bossy22]

20. well you also have the constitution

plus a total handgun ban is not looked favorably upon by the american public

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[Techn0Girl]

33. You appear to be correct more or less regarding overall public opinion....

but times change and so does public opinion.

[X_Digger]

66. Notice the trend line.. going against you. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

71. Whatever Dude... times change ... people change....

I think more and more Progressive minded people realize that we don't need handguns.
I'm convinced I'll see far stricter prohibitions on them on the forseeable future.

[bossy22]

87. you may be right- i can't predict the future

but if current trends are anything to go by, you will be waiting a long time. 2 years ago federal handgun bans were found to be unconstitutional- support for gun control keeps dropping- and not many politicians want to touch it.

[X_Digger]

102. Well, first you have to reverse the trend.. and that trend line is 50 years old..

You go ahead and be convinced all you like. Have fun tilting at those windmills.

[SteveM]

152. We're waiting for you to change. It's not too late.

[Pavulon]

160. Yeah, work on getting jim crow back. That will happen first.

both concepts have been proven defunct. Find a new cause, this one is all done.

[-..__...]

22. Name one significante piece of gun control legislation...

that was passed in the last 10 years?

Take your time...












Times up.


Ohhhh... we've been standing in the way for quite some time now... which is why my question has no answer.

[beevul]

28. Not only that...

Were not going anywhere.

[-..__...]

41. Well, actually we ARE going somewhere...

that is, straight to the lower courts (and legislatures),with the intent of overturning as many gun control laws as possible once the McDonald v Chicago case is decided.

"Gun ban"!?!

The OP's post is DUzy worthy.

[Dappleganger]

72. +1

[bossy22]

3. sounds like a gang-related shooting

Luckily no one was killed.

[Wilms]

4. While I recognize the role churches play in fomenting violence...

...a total ban on them might be difficult to implement.

[MellowDem]

6. Seems like ignorance is the much bigger problem nt

[proteus_lives]

7. Total ban?

Sorry, peddle that authoritarian crap somewhere else.

[beevul]

16. "Total ban NOW"

Oh yeah...Lets take all the guns away from the people that DIDN'T do it, and aren't doing it. Great idea. :sarcasm:


In any case, you can't have them.

[sharesunited]

17. Such a tragedy. Now carry on bleeding y'all.

No amount of gun crime is too much to tolerate, as long as we can keep our guns and ammo.

[proteus_lives]

19. Such a tragedy. Now carry on driving y'all.

No amount of drunk driving is too much to tolerate, as long as we can keep our cars and keys.

[bossy22]

21. and our bottles!!!!!!!!

[winyanstaz]

25. again....I would love to hear one of you that are so eager to take away guns...

Tell us all exactly how you will stop an armed killer that is coming after you and your loved ones when you have no guns?
You obviously can't whine them to death or they would all be dead by now.
Maybe if you say pretty please they wont blow your brains out before you get off hold while your trying to call 911.

So go ahead..we are waiting to hear your great plan.

[Blandocyte]

27. There'll be fewer "armed killers"

when guns aren't as easy to get as they are now. It's inevitable. U.S. will move in the direction of other sane, civilized countries and will ban guns eventually. I just want it to be sooner instead of later.

[winyanstaz]

29. so you really think killers will just hand over their guns? hahahaa

and what sane, civilized country it is that you want us to be like?
Ah yes...and just how will you expect those countries to stay free if a Dictator comes along?

[Techn0Girl]

42. I would expect us to be like the sane and civilized countries of ...

Canada, England, Japan, Norway, France and Germany which all severely restrict the ownership of or actually prohibit handguns in their countries.

The "defense against a Dictator " argument is one a 12 year old might make and is unworthy even to respond back.

[beevul]

48. Those founders...

"The "defense against a Dictator " argument is one a 12 year old might make"


Those founders...bunch of 12 year olds they were... :sarcasm:

[Techn0Girl]

51. The founders lived in a time that was 230 years ago....

Almost quarter of a millennium ago.
Welcome to the 21st century Dude.

Now take your nice Star-Trek Gorn user picture and go out into the world and really look around.
Seriously.

[beevul]

79. So what?

"Almost quarter of a millennium ago. Welcome to the 21st century Dude."

Yeah, that freedom of speech...so outdated... :eyes:

That freedom from unreasonable search or seizure...so obsolete... :sarcasm:



Seriously though...The constitution and bill of rights still apply today as they did then.

Whats your point?



"Now take your nice Star-Trek Gorn user picture and go out into the world and really look around."

Actually, thats Godzilla. Created in 1955 as a metaphor for nuclear destruction amongst other things. Not that I dislike star trek...

[winyanstaz]

77. Tell that to the dead citizens of Europe who gave up their guns..

and less than a month later...Hitler marched in.

Tell that to the people in South africa that are being murdered today that it is good they have no guns.

Tell that to the people of England...who now have garbage cops in their garbage, camera's up their asses on every single street corner and even cops that can now come walking into their homes for any reason.

If you want to live like a slave to the state...I suggest you move to a country that has stripped its citizens of any way to resist their own governments.

"Gun laws
theory: stops all bad people from getting a gun
fact: it doesn't"

"Now onto why I believe everybody should own a gun. In today's world guns are completely demonized rather than the real perpetrator i.e. the person holding it.

Thus you get the criminal walking into a gas station knowing with about 100% certainty that he is the only one within at least a several mile radius who has a gun thus leading to its robbery.

Now if the same criminal would walk into a gas station knowing that every single other person in there had a gun, then he would think twice about pulling his out and trying to rob them.

This also brings up the debate gun-law activists like to say which is if you don't show yourself a threat to the criminal then he will most likely leave you alone. I'm not going to take the time to research the %'s on that but I believe the real argument is, "Do you have a right to protect yourself and your property?"

Well according to gun-law activists, "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just report it to the police and maybe let them find him and maybe get some of your stuff back because the police need most of your stuff that he stole for evidence to convict him and let you the taxpayer pay for him in prison."

Also with the argument that most of the time he will leave you alone if you don't pose a threat. Well I would like to argue, "What about the time that he DOESN'T just leave you alone?"

http://arguewitheveryone.com/content.php?r=31-Everybody-should-own-a-gun&commentid=2387793

No one is still able to answer my question..

Just how the hell will you stop an armed intruder in YOUR home that is killing your family when you have no gun?

[PavePusher]

172. England's gun crime rate...

went... UP... after their handgun ban.

Oops.



And the over-all crime rate... soared.

Oops, again.

[beevul]

38. There were fewer "armed killers" when guns were available through mailorder.

Explain that.

"U.S. will move in the direction of other sane, civilized countries and will ban guns eventually."

Do you really think so?

Would you support the kicking in of 80 million-ish doors to do it?

Perhaps convince half of the gun owners in America that they should turn them in (I doubt any words spoken in any order by any person would do such a thing, but for sake of discussion well grant 40 million), and then kick in 40 million-ish doors to get them?

Would you support such a thing, and the carnage guuaranteed to go with it?


Would you be willing to be directly involved in that effort yourself?




The phrase "pipe dream" comes to mind...

[kurtzapril4]

62. I'd be willing to bet

That none of these pro-gun folks live in bad neighborhoods, where guns are going off all the time!

C'mon, gun lovers! Move to the West Side of Chicago! Move yourselves and your kids to a bad neighborhood where guns are all around you all the time...it's what you want, right? Guns everywhere? Time to put up, or shut up. You'll be in love with the amount of concealed and not so concealed carry there! And you and the kids would soon be able to tell which gun was which, just by the sound! oooh...someone got a new .45 for Christmas! 4th of July? Time to shoot those guns in the air! New Year's, too! A place where you can pick up shell casings from your children's playgrounds on Monday morning before school! It's a wonderful life in your ideal heavily armed world!

And y'all happily and conveniently forget the "in a well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment.

[bossy22]

113. i lived and currently live

on the upper east side of manhattan- in the 120's...if you don't know what that neighborhood is called, ill give you a hint; starts with an H ends with an M.....can't get it...okay i'll give it to you- HARLEM.

[SteveM]

154. Wruff! Wruff! I'm King of the forest!...

I used to live in an area, not too bad as I remember: lower-middle class. Some folks were worried about the blacks living on either side and behind us. I asked "why?" He said: "you might get broken into." I said: "It hasn't happened (it never did), and besides we all know we all have guns. Not everyone in town, mind you, but around that area people took reasonable steps, and the more crime-ridden areas never "advanced" to our neighborhood.

I will tell you now that I would NOT want to move to Chicago, for many reasons. One of the big ones is that I would NOT have a gun, nor would my law-abiding neighbors to defend. But the thugs would. That's what you get with prohibitionism.

"...guns are all around you all the time... it's what you want right?" Well, actually bud, no. But if that were the case, I would want to be armed as well. But there is that prohibition thing, y'know? Like, only thugs can have guns? You really ought to get a new straw man argument to replace Scarecrow: "that's you all over."

No one forgot about the "militia" clause, esp. the Supreme Court. Clear on that, now?

[cowman]

183. Yeah and

Chicago has a total gun ban thanks to Mayor Daly who has armed protection around him at all times. The only people who are affected by the gun ban are the law abiding people. Criminals will always get their guns. But soon it will be all over when the Mcdonald case is heard next month and law abiding citizens will once again be able to defend themselves

[Pavulon]

161. Finish your weed ban first. Name a ban that works.

The g code to make an AK variant is in the free and clear. I can set up a shop to make thousands a day, so can thousands of other people. I respect the law, many others respect money. Ban or take weapons and they will be replaced with newly manufactured weapons flooding in. Not replica semi autos, but real deal machine guns.

Finish up a weed ban first, then move on to something harder.

[sharesunited]

35. Don't describe a scenario in which they are coming at me with a gun.

It doesn't help your claim that guns should be available.

[winyanstaz]

85. Why not? Because you think criminals will give up their guns?

You think it will "never happen to you" so its ok to make sure your neighbor can't protect their family either?

Ok..just to humor you....say they are coming at you with a butcher knife having been such a good citizen that they gave up their gun and have just chopped up your family...how will you stop them then?

[Techn0Girl]

Your argument is specious....

The rationale behind gun prohibition is not to eliminate gun crime which would be impossible of course. The rationale is to severely lower it so that your chances of some nutball with a gun coming into your home are not enough to worry about.

[gorfle]

36. As Thomas Jefferson said:

No amount of gun crime is too much to tolerate, as long as we can keep our guns and ammo.

As Thomas Jefferson said in 1791, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

[sharesunited]

37. He said that before the invention of the revolver.

[beevul]

44. Do you assert his attitude would have been different ...

Do you assert his attitude would have been different if the revolveer had been invented in 1790?


If so, make your case.


If not, whats your point?

[gorfle]

54. The revolver was invented in 1590.

The revolver was invented circa 1590. Nearly 200 years before Thomas Jefferson lived.

[proteus_lives]

45. Dude, give it up.

You've never actually made a point during one your authoritarian ramblings.

[gorfle]

49. Not true.

The first revolver was made in 1590, nearly 200 years before Thomas Jefferson's famous quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver#History

And of course by the time he said that firearms had been in regular use for nearly 500 years.

In any case I believe our founders were men of great foresight and their ability to set up a government of checks and balances to protect the people from tyranny is testament to that.

[sharesunited]

65. Any rampage shooter is a tyrant. Our protection is supposedly how rarely that happens.

Just once every few weeks or so.

[gorfle]

74. Firearms protect against that kind of tyrant also.

First of all, I note you don't acknowledge your error in your incorrect assertion about the history of revolvers.

Second of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that any murderer is a tyrant. I suppose I can see the logic in saying that anyone who deprives someone of life, and consequently their liberty, is a "tyrant", but not the sort of tyranny that our founders had in mind when they enshrined our decentralized military system in our Constitution.

But the fact is, the right to keep and bear arms protects us from your example of a tyrant just as well, if not more easily.

Our protection is supposedly how rarely that happens. Just once every few weeks or so.

Your protection is being able to defend yourself from those who would do you harm. Or you can rely on others to for your protection, as you choose.

[sharesunited]

78. Decentralized military system? We've got standing armies and crazies in the woods.

Get with the times.

:spank:

[gorfle]

91. What's your point?

Please do us all a favor and put forth some actual effort into your responses other than trite little put-downs and cute GIF animations.

Otherwise all you do is highlight the fact that you have nothing with which to form an intelligent rebuttal.

[sharesunited]

106. My point is that this decentralized military system to which you refer doesn't exit.

People who get together with a political agenda and guns are shunned as insurrectionists, no matter how patriotic they feel about themselves or claim to be.

Your entire premise of citizen soldiery is like whale blubber in the age of electric light.

[gorfle]

115. Of couse it doesn't exist. It hasn't existed in over 100 years.

My point is that this decentralized military system to which you refer doesn't exit.

Of course not. As has been explained to you many, many times before, the decentralized military system our founders intended to exist - the state militia system - ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. At that point, the state militia systems were federalized, making them adjuncts to, rather than a counter to, federal military power.

However, the founders no doubt anticipated this eventuality, and consequently worded the second amendment so that ultimately it protects the right of the people, and not militias, to keep and bear arms:

"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."

If the founders intended for the militia to keep and bear arms, they had ample opportunity to do so. But they did not. They no doubt knew that a government-sanctioned entity could be usurped to serve a corrupt cause and consequently they enumerated the right to keep and bear arms of the people.

People who get together with a political agenda and guns are shunned as insurrectionists, no matter how patriotic they feel about themselves or claim to be.

And sometimes insurrection is necessary, and sometimes insurrectionists succeed. You continue to refuse to acknowledge either of these facts.

Your entire premise of citizen soldiery is like whale blubber in the age of electric light.

Your entire premise that armed rebellion will never again be necessary nor successful is unsubstantiated. It is happening today.

[cowman]

184. You still

didn't acknowledge your mistake about revolvers. Maybe if you anti-2nd amend. people would do your research first you might be taken a little bit more seriously

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. We are all for prosecuting the criminals. If you do that well enough everyone can be happy.

No more criminal shootings and we'll still have all of our firearms.

[gorfle]

39. Why a total ban now?

Why would you advocate such a ban when over 95% of all firearm owners are never involved in violent crime each year?

The simple fact is that most people who commit murder with firearms have extensive prior criminal backgrounds.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The issue here is not firearms, it is people with criminal backgrounds having access to them.

What we need is a Firearm Owner ID program, similar to that of Illinois, but make it opt-out instead of opt-in, so as to preserve anonymous firearm ownership. This would force it so that no firearm sales can be conducted without a FOID, which means that the possesser of the FOID has passed a background check, including a criminal background check.

There is simply no reason to penalize the 95%+ of firearm owners who are not involved in violent crimes each year for the sake of those less-than-5% who do.

[Blandocyte]

43. Why advocate a ban? Because fewer guns available=

less gun crime. If the guns aren't available, people can't get them. If people don't have them, they won't shoot up churches and schools.

Might as well start now. Mr. and Ms. America, turn 'em in!

[gorfle]

52. But most of Mr. And Ms. America don't commit crimes!

There are some 40-80 million firearm owners in America. But only about 1.4 million violent crimes each year in the United States. Even if every violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, that means that only 3.5% - 1.7% of firearm owners are involved in violent crimes each year.

This means that over 96% of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crime every year.

Sure, less guns might mean less crime, assuming you could get them out of the hands of criminals.

But is it really fair to undermine our Constitution and penalize the vast majority of lawful firearm owners in this quest?

[bossy22]

94. even if you did manage to get us to turn them in

we would have to be compensated- so the government would probably need close to $100 billion dollars on hand to cover it

[beevul]

99. Interesting perspective...

Current estimates on the number of privately owned firearms that I have seen are around 300 million.

At ten dollars a piece (no pun intended), thats 3 billion.

At a hundred, thats 30 billion.

At a thousand, thats 300 billion.


I wonder what the amount spent to cover it would really work out to be.


A tax to cover it would never fly...


"Were going to take your guns...and tax you so we have money to compensate you for it..." :rofl:

[bossy22]

105. exactly- no one who proposes a total ban understands how its almost impossible to implement

it can be done in other countries because they arent as big, as populated, or have as high a percentage of gun ownership then we have. when the UK banned handguns less than 200,000 handguns were licensed and turned in. When australia banned semi-autos about the same amount was turned in. These countries have populations of about 60 million and 20 million respectively. Now lets look at the U.S.. Handguns in possesion by civilians are close to 100 million. We have a population of 300+ million. Just thing of the logistics nightmare...many towns only have a handful of police officers; who would not be able to handle such an event and still perform their regular duties. Also, just think about that, what if a handful of the 80 million gun owners- lets say 100,000 decide to take up arms against the government. Thats a 100,000 well armed army that local police departments are going to have to deal with; it would be a blood shed. I could see many smaller departments finding themselves outgunned and requiring military assistence. You would probably see tanks on many country roads.

The truth is that such a ban and turn em in would destroy american life as it is.

[DissedByBush]

114. If they buy my guns

They should have to buy the scopes and other accessories too, since they are useless without the guns.

My hunting scope is worth more than the rifle it's on.

Ammo too. That would be a big price tag.

[beevul]

126. I hadn't even considered ammo or accessories...

How many hundred billion dollars do you suppose guns ammunition and accessories would all add up to, when the hypothetical compensation for the confiscation was paid?


250 billion?

[rrneck]

134. Not to mention all the people

who work in those industries that will lose jobs.

[slackmaster]

158. There's the "guns distribute themselves and behave randomly like gas molecules" fallacy

The problem isn't the number of guns, the problem is that there are too many violent criminals running around loose.

[cowman]

186. Didn't work when Dianne Feinstein

said it and it won't work now. Anti-gunners seem to forget that we have a right to keep and bear arms.

[cowman]

187. Sure they

can have my guns and bullets although they will get the bullets at a high velocity one by one

[Randall Flagg]

46. So glad no one ws killed.

This time.

[EFerrari]

112. I know. Thank god.

Who are these assholes. I hope they catch them. Someone in that congregation knows who they are.

[Techn0Girl]

118. Yeah but when you live in a neighborhood like that ....

You keep your mouth shut or you're next :(

Richmond is high crime and low police protection.
Big gang area.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. That's impossible. According to you the police have a legal responsibility to stop crime.

[bossy22]

124. high crime usually leads to low police patrols

the police usually try their best to avoid such places....hey just look at the queensboro projects- there are gun shots every night but officers won't go in unless ESU and Mounted units back them up. I had a good friend who was in that precinct and used to patrol that area in a car- he told me that they were told to never leave the car unless extreme circumstances were to occur; such as someone getting shot right in front of them. They were told to stay put even if they heard gun shots.

[EFerrari]

125. I remember back in the 80s, maybe, when the women of East Palo Alto

took to the streets night after night to take their community back. Something like that has to happen in Richmond. I used to live near there. It's a very depressed area that needs tlc.

[PavePusher]

174. And that, too, is part of the problem.

But you would like to see those witnesses rendered less capable of defending themselves, and thus less likely to come forward to help the prosecution of criminals...

Nice Catch 22 there....

[Katya Mullethov]

180. The odds are incredibly good that they have already been caught

At least a dozen times .

[onehandle]

58. Too bad they weren't all armed...

...said the local undertaker.

[gorfle]

75. A chance is better than no chance...

Said the CCW permit holder.

[SteveM]

155. Just the thugs were armed. But that's prohibition.

[Bill McBlueState]

70. it's a good thing Americans are free to own guns

so they can prevent gun-based tragedies like this one.

[Techn0Girl]

104. How'd that work out in that Church today Bill?

[SteveM]

157. Didn't you hear? Not supposed to bring guns in church...

Them HyperPunk got a whiff of that policy & decided to get some easy juice. HyperPunks aren't very skilled, that's why they love their "gun-free zones." And prohibitionists.

[struggle4progress]

92. ... The two victims, a 14-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man, were hospitalized and were expected to

survive. However, French said, they were not willing to help investigators try to track down their assailants ...
2 teens shot during church service in Richmond
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 14, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/14/MNDK1C1O68.DTL

[bossy22]

96. as i said before

this smells gang related

[Techn0Girl]

103. The Truth about Handgun Ownership vs. Crime.

I realize that arguing with an avowed "pro-gunner" is like arguing with a "pro-lifer" - an exercise in futility.

For the 90% of people here with open minds and who can reason I would like to present a link from a study that plots international rates of gun deaths (homicide & suicide) versus the percentage of households that own guns in a given country.

The data is self evident to anyone with an open mind that , without a single exception, gun death rates are directly correlated to gun availability (ohh...big surprise there). The chart also shows that the United States leads the number of both gun related deaths AND gun ownership - in some cases by 10 X other Western countries.

See for yourself:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm


We're Number One ! We're Number One !

I'm not going to respond to any pro-gunners that reply. It's futile.

I only hope and pray for an America where Progressives get their act together and we go on to create a more sane and sensible America where these things are severely restricted and/or prohibited just as in every other Western first world nation out there today.

(health care would be nice too by the way )

[bossy22]

109. oy vay

first off a website called gun control network is hardly a non-biased sight.

second of all are you ignoring much of our posts? i guess so because you would realize that many countries allow handgun ownership- even in western europe. France allows anybody with a clean record to have a handgun and 50 rounds of ammo in their home for defense. Italy allows you to possess a shotgun in ur home for such a reason; if you are a business owner in italy you can even apply for a license to possess a pistol for business purposes (and they are routinely granted). Finland allows handgun ownership, switzerland lets their citizens possess their military automatic weapons in their home. In Germany it isnt too difficult to get a handgun legally either- just pass a safety test and go through a criminal check and boom- you got ur license.

"I only hope and pray for an America where Progressives get their act together and we go on to create a more sane and sensible America where these things are severely restricted and/or prohibited just as in every other Western first world nation out there today."

That will take a lot more than just praying. You will need to vastly change the course of public opinion, change the constitution, and learn to deal with a "war on guns" that makes the war on drugs look like a childs game of cops and robbers

on Edit: you keep comparing us to the UK; do you really want us to go that way. I was in London and i can tell you Orwell was only 25 years off. I dont know about you, but cameras in public rest rooms "for my safety" just give me the creeps. Sorry, ill take my chances with the .003% chance of being killed with a handgun rather than living my life on candid camera.

[Randall Flagg]

119. Bingo.

Keep on keeping on! You aren't alone.

[SteveM]

159. Yeah, the GOP is cheering you on: You're No. 1! Your No. 1! yeah, baby. nt

[cowman]

188. maybe not alone

but in the minority.

[gorfle]

120. Your own link debunks itself.

From the link you cited:

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
""Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate"."

The problem is that everything else is not equal.

Gun death rates are actually directly correlated to prior criminal history.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

"In 2009 Clayton Cramer and I published an article21 describing some of the studies subsequent to those Professor Elliott summarized. Like the prior studies, the later ones continue to demonstrate his point that “virtually all” murderers have prior criminal records. A few examples:

MASSACHUSETTS: “Some 95% of homicide offenders . . . arraigned at least once in Massachusetts courts before they . . . . On average . . . homicide offenders had been arraigned for 9 prior offenses.22

ATLANTA: Eighty percent of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; and 70% had three or more prior drug arrests—in addition to all their arrests for other crimes.23

DELAWARE: Reporting on shootings, including many in which victims had only been wounded rather than killed, 80% of shooters had arrest records going all the way back to their juvenile years; 57% had been charged at least twice with drug offenses.24

NEW YORK CITY: A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city over the years 2003-2005 found “ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records . . . .”25

ILLINOIS: Over the years 1991-2000, the great majority of murderers had prior felony records.26"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. The bury your head in the stand tactic. That always makes everything better. LOL.

[rd_kent]

145. You are a real piece of hypocritical work.

I realize that arguing with an avowed "pro-gunner" is like arguing with a "pro-lifer" - an exercise in futility.


Uh, have you read your own posts? You are about as close minded as they come.


For the 90% of people here with open minds and who can reason I would like to present a link....


Seriously? Many posters have provided you with ACTUAL data, from much better sources than the "Gun Control Network" and you completely ignore it. Tell me again about those with open minds who can reason? I assume you do not include yourself in that group.



The data is self evident to anyone with an open mind that...

Again, why is YOUR mind not open to the data that has been given to you?

I'm not going to respond to any pro-gunners that reply. It's futile.

Then why are you here? All up and down this thread you have shouted that YOU have the answer and that YOU know whats really going on, yet when presented with ACTUAL evidence and ACTUAL facts, you ignore it like a child with your fingers in your ears yelling "Lalalalala I'm not listening!"


You really are something, accusing EVERYONE here of being close minded and ignoring data, yet here you are, the BIGGEST hypocrite in this thread doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of doing.

WTF?

[Pavulon]

162. Zurich and Vancouver are safe, and their populations have access to weapons

pretty much guts that point you make. You have a better chance of Jesus coming back with the Grateful Dead, Hendrix, and playing the Garden than seeing a gun ban. Move on, find an issue that needs people to move it forward. Like health care.

[cowman]

189. I would

love to see that concert

[PavePusher]

175. Your link shows that after Englands hand-gun "ban"...

Firearm crime went.... UP.

Oops.


Admittedly, it seems to be trending downwards again, but all other crime is skyrocketing, and knife-related deaths are soaring.

Oops, again.


Face it, you are... ahem... "shooting yourself in the foot".

Oops....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Please avoid trampling the Constitution as you run and hide! Thanks in advance.

[virginia mountainman]

133. Total Ban?

In a word "NO"....

I refuse to support, or comply with any more "gun bans" and will actively work against ANY politician who supports such legislation, irregardless of political affiliation...

[SteveM]

138. Get this: prohibition doesn't work. Got it? nt

[slackmaster]

156. I'm willing to bet that Blandocyte would exempt government employees from the "total ban"

K&U

:kick:

[PavePusher]

164. "Total ban NOW."

Just how do you propose to do that, without furthar shredding the Constitution and while providing security for legal Citizens?


Hmmmm.....?

[rd_kent]

176. I think the OP has run away! Too scared of the facts. No answer for the ignorance of the post.

[PavePusher]

177. Yeah, that question always gets ignored... Very telling. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

185. If they ever catch them

It might just get them a probation violation .

[aliendroid]

192. why? Anecdotal evidence is useless, violent crime is down and gun sales at record high