House Votes To Repeal D.C. Gun Control Laws.

I would agree with you if everybody in the society carried a gun. The town of Kennesaw, Ga. has a local ordinance requiring every home to have a firearm. Criminals know that every home in that town is a potential death trap for them so they leave the town alone.

Not everybody is going to carry a gun period. When Criminals do not know who is packing and who is not it elevates the level of risk for them thus creating a deterrent.

If you're a criminal who makes his living mugging people. And everybody who wants to carry a gun carries one in plain sight. Who would you rob?
You'd obviously rob folks not packing and leave the armed citizens alone.

It's a matter of Common Sense.

 

Great theory. Now prove it using facts.

Then why not command that all people be required to carry a gun, then? Your position is an untenable one.

 

Because it's a right to be able to own a gun. It's not a law that we have to.

Some people have real religious or personally moral qualms about owning weapons. I can understand that and I have no intention of forcing someone own one if they don't want to.

There are no facts to back up Hardsheller's theory. People just do not carry weapons in public, visible, on their person anymore. However, I bet if you took a look at how many on-duty, visibly-packing, police officers are robbed each year, you might answer your own question. Do you think criminals don't rob them because of the pepper spray? Sorry to disappoint you, but it's because they have guns.

I'm not in disagreement about what you said earlier. As with driver's licenses, if you misuse your gun(car) in a way that does or could harm someone else, you have your gun(car) and/or you license taken away. Can you see that we're on the same page with that?

The mentally ill should not have guns, ex-Cons should not have guns, people under the age of 21 should not own guns (but it is safe if they use them under the care of an adult supervisor). I also believe that the draft should not apply to men under 21, but that's for another thread.

I'm all for instant background checks at gun shows, and for short waiting periods/background checks at any store that sells guns.

I'm all for people to be able to carry a concealed handgun, if as you say they complete a proficiency training course.

I'm all for registering any new guns that come to the market, but I think there should be a grandfather clause for older weapons.

I'm also for the tamper-resistant serial #'s, even though I just don't think they would work all that well.(Really what could they possibly do to keep people from getting those #'s off?)

If everyone of these was implemented across the country, I think you would see a fall in gun crimes. Plus, it would keep our right to gun ownership intact. Appease both sides. This is a good solution. If only Washington would listen to me for a change.

 

Great theory. Now prove it using facts.

Then why not command that all people be required to carry a gun, then? Your position is an untenable one. </font>[/QUOTE]Well here are those facts from the horse's mouth the Kennesaw, GA Police Department.

Kennesaw Police Dept Crime Statistics

 

Not too bad. Unfortunately, Japan has half the crime rate as Kennesaw, where there is gun control. And you do know that a sample of 19,000 people when we are talking about nations here is not statistically significant. I imagine we could find a great number of cities with lower violent crime rates that did not have a requirement for everyone to have a gun.

 

Notice anything interesting about where the cities are for best and worst crime rates for cities?

http://houseandhome.msn.com/Move/BestandWorstCitiesforCrime.aspx

 

Are you into stereotyping now? Or Racial Discrimination? Or class discrimination?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My aim is for you see the states these cities are located and examine their gun control laws on the books and how they are being enforced.

So, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

 

According to Open Society Institute's Center on Crime and the Funders' Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, Massachusetts and Hawaii had the strongest gun control laws by a large margin. The next six highest were California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and New York. Every single one of the top large and medium cities against crime were in these states except for one in Pennsylvania. Without fail, the cities with the highest crime rates came in states with the most lax gun control laws.

 

Scott, do you have some numbers? I think I could get them out of the Statistical Abstract, but if you have them, I'd sure like to see them.

You could be right; Dallas, for example has a problem with that. But I'd like to see.

And this is a different issue than having a right to bear arms. You have the right to do a lot of stupid things. The fact that it's stupid to do them doesn't mean you lose your right.

 

Scott,

Per capita income, racial demographics, unemployment figures, tax base, all these statistics tell a story. I don't think any of us on this list have the time to analyze why Danbury, CT is safer than Montgomery, Alabama but I would venture to say it has a lot to do with all of the above.

 

Then why not say the same thing about the city in Georgia? Is it merely coincidence that 9 of the top 10 safest cities in America are from states with the highest gun control laws?

 

I do say the same thing about the city in Georgia.

In fact I did a comparision of Danbury, CT and Kennesaw, GA and saw that the violent crime rate and the property crime rate in Kennesaw is less than in Danbury, CT.

And Remember Kennesaw is the city that requires every household to own a gun.

 

No registration.
No licensing.
No permits.
No restrictions.
No special taxes.
No required training.
No special safety features.
No explanation or apology required.
Full capability to defend one's person, family, and property.
A inherent right not one granted by government but one illegally taken away.
Full responsibility for proper conduct.
Punishment for misuse.
Loss of inherent rights for misuse.
Otherwise leave us alone.

Patrick

 

No safety features? Even the NRA agrees that there should be at least the most basic safety features.

 

The "safety" features to which I object are those that would be government mandated and would prevent the effective and timely use of the weapon for its intended purpose. Guns are equalizers to give all persons the ability to defend themselves, their families, and their property against others who have no regard for them or it. Time is a very important factor in these situations. These safety features aren't about the safety of the weapon itself - such as sufficient strength of the barrel and camber - but are merely designed to restrict the user by requiring some additional steps to be taken before use. We don't need to be asking an attacker to wait while we disengage these "safety" features. The government knows these devices are a potential problem which is why they so carefully exclude any such requirements from weapons used by law enforcement. The user is the one responsible and accountable for safe use of the weapon. He or she must make the decision when and how to use it. The government, on behalf of the people, can prosecute the improper actions if that's the route that was taken. Regulating the use in advance will be like all other such regulations. They'll only be a problem for those who aren't a problem.