It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Gun Ban's Effect Questioned

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

D.C. Gun Ban's Effect Questioned


news.yahoo.com

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," the city wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court last year.

To gun rights advocates, the numbers prove a different point: Violence continues unchecked despite the ban. And while criminals seem to be able to get guns with ease, law-abiding people are being denied the means to protect themselves, they say.

"I should be able to live in the district and protect myself," said Shelly Parker, who said she was harassed and threatened in her former Capitol Hill home by a drug dealer who once tried to break down her door. Parker was a plaintiff in the original case against the city.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
LOL. This is a no-brainer.

When gun laws / bans are granted, the only people who now don't carry these guns ARE THOSE WHO OBEY THE LAW.

The criminals and murderers couldn't care less about these stupid bans! GUN LAWS DON'T WORK-PERIOD.

Except to keep the good little obedient sheeples unarmed.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This should be apparent to everyone.

The US government estimates that over 200,000 firearms are used by private persons every year to defend themselves against violence without a shot being fired.

Weigh that against 10,000 gun deaths and we see that those politicians who would deny citizens their first amendment protection have blood on their hands.

If having guns saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Ok... I am finally going to weigh in on this topic... is it sooooooo bad to not have guns? Or strictly enforced gun laws?

We here in the Great White have one of the lowest crime rates, one of the lowest homicide rates... and it's all because we have sensible gun control laws...
But that's what I was born into... I am used to it, If I found it necessary, I would go and purchase a gun/license. But that's just it... I don't find it necessary...

Gun control doesn't mean "No Guns"... it just means, enforcement with the regulations that come with owning that gun... ie. Registration and licensing are tightly controlled... America does have "Gun Control" in place already, don't you? There are weapons that a person can't have, and you have to register the ones you do have, correct?

I agree with the point that criminals don't care about the gun laws. And if someone doesn't register their weapon, (if caught) they are criminally charged, right? I don't agree however, with the point that gun laws don't work. I'm sorry, but if every person carried a gun just because they could, violence will continue to increase.

Now... Outlawing guns???? That's a different story...
Over My Dead Body!!!!

I hope this doesn't make me a "Sheeple"... lol



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by StoneGarden

We here in the Great White have one of the lowest crime rates, one of the lowest homicide rates... and it's all because we have sensible gun control laws...


i disagree, i think its a difference in culture. every Canadian i've ever met have been alot more easy going than Americans. Canadians have a more "take it easy eh" attitude
while americans have a "wanna fight" attitude.
the reason why i disagree with your assuming that "its all because we have sensible gun control laws" is the fact that just below the canadian border in vermont they have the least restrictive gun control laws in the US and guess what, they rank 49th in violence and 47th in murder. and places like D.C and maryland have extremely restrctive gun laws and their crime rates are worse than all the surrounding areas. (sometimes with higher populations)


But that's what I was born into... I am used to it, If I found it necessary, I would go and purchase a gun/license. But that's just it... I don't find it necessary...

i wish it were the same here, but since i have no control over what criminals do, i choose to carry a weapon.


Gun control doesn't mean "No Guns"... it just means, enforcement with the regulations that come with owning that gun... ie. Registration and licensing are tightly controlled... America does have "Gun Control" in place already, don't you? There are weapons that a person can't have, and you have to register the ones you do have, correct?


depends on the state, some are much worse than others.
also registration and licensing only work for folks buying guns legally, who incedentally are law abiding and are willing to jump through the hoops of gun ownership. On the other hand, a convicted felon gangbanger could cruise downtown and pickup a handgun for a 100 bucks and be on his way without a "waiting period" or licensing or registration. i know its a cliche by now but its true, gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.


I don't agree however, with the point that gun laws don't work. I'm sorry, but if every person carried a gun just because they could, violence will continue to increase.


unfortunatly that has been proven wrong every time i can think of, for example, UK cracked down on guns and crime blew up


A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Australia enacted restrictive gun laws... and crime blew up


Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

www.worldnetdaily.com...

and perhaps the least well known example, Jamaica where even the possession of a single bullet is a mandatory life sentance, is #3 in the world for murder rates, and was #1 in 2005


n 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation,(to carry a weapon) critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average.
...

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime


Laws affect mainly those willing to obey them.

if you were choosing between two people to rob, one with a pistol on his hip and the other without one, which would you choose?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
This Constitutionality of this ban will be examined beginning the 18th:


The Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller may be the most important decision on gun control in U.S. history.

The stage is set for a historic showdown this month between gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates. The United States Supreme Court will hear a case on March 18th that should determine the meaning of the Second Amendment -- the hotly contested and fiercely debated part of the Constitution that guarantees "a right to keep and bear arms."
Source | www.alternet.org | The Coming Showdown on Gun Control



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Gun control is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution.

It also has no effect on crime rates - a fact that has been demonstrated again and again.

The fundamental logic - that the best way to control criminals is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens - is unsound.

For anyone on the "left" side of the equation who reflexively supports gun control because the Second Amendment has been framed as a "right-wing" issue, ask yourself this: if you support gun control, you should support wireless wiretapping and all the other abuses of our civil rights we've seen over the last few years - because they are based on fundamentally the same premise - that restricting the rights of individual citizens is the only way to make us safer.

The urban groups that support gun control should also take another look at
the racist roots of gun control. Funny how modern urban gun control only became a reality around the same time groups like the Black Panthers started making a point of exercising their Second Amendment rights...


[edit on 3/15/08 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
this happend in my town just yesterday... BTW Utah is considered the easiest places to get a concealed weapon, and even out of staters come here to get their permit because utah's permit is recognized in 32 other states.
heres what happens in utah when you break into someones house..



SOUTH SALT LAKE - After a man was shot and killed at his apartment complex last summer, Phillip Reinhardt bought a 9 mm handgun and began keeping it loaded under his bed.
The purchase paid off early Saturday. Reinhardt used the gun to stop an attack on his girlfriend inside their apartment, shooting the teenage intruder. The intruder kicked in the couple's deadbolted door around 5:45 a.m., rousing Patricia Knepper from bed in their ground-floor unit of Mountain Shadow Apartments, 3897 S. 700 West. The intruder grabbed Knepper and fondled her. Reinhardt then fired one shot from about five feet away, hitting the intruder.
The intruder tried to escape, but Knepper stood between him and the front door.
The intruder - whose erratic action convinced Knepper he was high on drugs - had other plans, breaking a window and jumping through.


www.sltrib.com...
www.ksl.com...

just thought id share since this just happend.



[edit on 16-3-2008 by turbokid]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Lol, while that story is scary turbokid... it's also hilarious.




The intruder's bizarre behavior continued after his hasty escape, Knepper said. He went up an exterior staircase in the complex and banged on a second-story apartment door and then fell over a railing. He tried to re-enter Knepper's apartment, she said.


I don't know about you, but I get an image in my head of a schizophrenic monkey.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
This issue is near and dear to my heart, but Turbokid has effectively echo'd all my responses so effectively that I don't have to bother. Thanks, Turbo!



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
OK heres my analysis on the percieved negatives of having guns in society and how to offset the problems:

1. Increased sucide rate using firearms. Rebuttal- this doesnt mean overall suicide rate increases, it just means suicidal people use guns to take their own lives because its the most efficient way to end it. Banning guns will only lead to more slit wrists, pill overdoses etc.

2. Children find the gun and shoot someone accidentally. Rebuttal- Teach kids from a very young age to respect guns and learn how to use them safely. I cannot tell you how much it makes my blood boil when i hear of liberals saying that introducing kids to guns at a young age is a bad idea. The fact is that any NRA-safety trained young kid is a million times less likely to kill someone using a firearm. Training is the only solution in my opinion. Stashing a gun in a safe is not really feasible as there isnt enough time to take it out when an intruder is in your house.

3. A more violent society. Rebuttal- No. Just no. Violence is an intrinsic part of some societies and as much as it pains me to say it, is a demographic issue rather than anything else. Switzerland has the highest concentration of guns anywhere in the world. Every man and woman are issued a sig/ steyr assault rifle with 50rounds of munitions. This means every house has a lethal military grade weapon, yet do you ever hear about gun massacres in Switzerland?
Another example is the UK, where guns were banned and knife crime went up exponentially. Gun crime also doubled after the ban. The fact is that guns dont cause violence! Its statistically proven - read "Freakonomics" by Levitt et al.

4. An increase in armed crime. Rebuttal- absolutely not. over 90% of crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. Additionally, 90% of crimes are comitted by 9% of criminals (repeat or double offenders). Want to cut crime? Give those 9% of idiots incredibly harsh sentences for repeat offences.


Thus in the case of Washington DC, i conclude that it is not necessary for there to be a gun ban. The problems of DC are the result of its demographics. Why are the population of DC more disposed to violence as compared to those living in Idaho or Montana? Why do american cities breed an underclass of criminal who murder, rape and pillage using illegally obtained firearms? Tackling those issues is much harder and politically sensitive, which is why the lawmakers just take on the only target they can : guns. This is nothing short of intellectual and moral surrender.


Sorry for a wordy post, but i had to address some of the issues i believed are commonly misconcieved by the general public at times.

I wish we in the UK had a second amendment! And I wish you across the pond the best of luck in protecting your constitutional right!



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well said, a star for you. But I'd like to chime in on one or two small issues:

Every man and woman are issued a sig/ steyr assault rifle with 50rounds of munitions.

No Steyrs, either the SG550, which isn't really made by SIG but rather by SAN Swiss Arms or the Sauer&Sohn P220 pistol. And in regard to some recent incidents, the issuing of the rifles/pistols is under some heavy scrutiny.
Additionally, as of this year, the 50 rounds of ammo are not given home after service anymore, thanks to the whining of some of our goody-goody politicians with nothing but our best interests at heart.

This is a classical case of "Whats the opposite of well? -Well meant!"

Until recently, I was living under the impression that Switzerland was one of the last truly free countries in Europe because the state trusted us with our personal weapons at home. I now realize that I was dead wrong and our pretty well balanced gun laws are now in severe danger by EU laws and the anti-gun lobby.
I predict that we will have to give up our issued rifles in 5 years at the latest and that we will need them about a year later.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   


Another example is the UK, where guns were banned and knife crime went up exponentially. Gun crime also doubled after the ban. The fact is that guns dont cause violence! Its statistically proven - read "Freakonomics" by Levitt et al.


The reason why UK gun deaths increased was due to the collapse of the soviet union and UK's pourus borders with Europe. Prior to the break up of USSR gun murder was not endemic like in the States.

In countries without guns people still commit murders with knives, bats, strangulation etc.

When you take a culture without guns and start arming everybody you get runaway violence and two bunches of crazys. The crims and the public.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
In related news, an article from reuters. This is definitely a subject that EVERY american better be paying close attention to IMO...


Right to bear arms at height of Court Case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the first time in 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court will take on the question of whether individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms or whether it a collective right of the people for service in a state militia.

That question is at the heart of a long, impassioned debate about how much power the government has to keep people from owning guns and it could soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case about one of the nation's strictest gun control laws.

Set for arguments on March 18 and with a decision expected by late June, the nation's highest court could resolve once and for all the much-disputed meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Written 219 years ago, the amendment says, "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."

Full Story:
www.reuters.com...




[edit on 16-3-2008 by DimensionalDetective]


Mod note: Please Review New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources


[edit on 17/3/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
"The People" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th Amendments means the people, but "The People" in the 2nd Amendment means the National Guard?


they better do the right thing.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swordbeast
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well said, a star for you. But I'd like to chime in on one or two small issues:

Every man and woman are issued a sig/ steyr assault rifle with 50rounds of munitions.

No Steyrs, either the SG550, which isn't really made by SIG but rather by SAN Swiss Arms or the Sauer&Sohn P220 pistol. And in regard to some recent incidents, the issuing of the rifles/pistols is under some heavy scrutiny.
Additionally, as of this year, the 50 rounds of ammo are not given home after service anymore, thanks to the whining of some of our goody-goody politicians with nothing but our best interests at heart.

This is a classical case of "Whats the opposite of well? -Well meant!"

Until recently, I was living under the impression that Switzerland was one of the last truly free countries in Europe because the state trusted us with our personal weapons at home. I now realize that I was dead wrong and our pretty well balanced gun laws are now in severe danger by EU laws and the anti-gun lobby.
I predict that we will have to give up our issued rifles in 5 years at the latest and that we will need them about a year later.


It saddens me to hear that your rights are under threat, swordbeast.

Thanks for the clarification on the Swiss gun issue, I seem to be a bit out of date!

If Switzerland disarms its citizens it will be a great shame! Switzerland was of great strategic importance in every world war. In WW2 the Germans didnt invade Switzerland for one reason... it wasnt because the Swiss were neutral, but rather because they were all military trained and armed to the teeth! For Germany to take Switzerland by force would have been suicide.

Its sad to see the swiss lawmakers forget the immense good that guns brought about in WW2. Hopefully they will reconsider.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson



Another example is the UK, where guns were banned and knife crime went up exponentially. Gun crime also doubled after the ban. The fact is that guns dont cause violence! Its statistically proven - read "Freakonomics" by Levitt et al.


The reason why UK gun deaths increased was due to the collapse of the soviet union and UK's pourus borders with Europe. Prior to the break up of USSR gun murder was not endemic like in the States.

In countries without guns people still commit murders with knives, bats, strangulation etc.

When you take a culture without guns and start arming everybody you get runaway violence and two bunches of crazys. The crims and the public.




Actually i totally (yet respectfully) disagree with your comment. The USSR's collapse was at the turn of the decade, yet our gun crime problems only started in 1997 once the Labour government got into power and banned handgun ownership.

The fact is that it wouldnt have taken 7 years for the guns to trickle in from the former USSR. I would wager that there are fewer guns on our streets today than ten years ago, but far more gun crime. The reasons are endemic im afraid... our cities are a toxic environment where gangster culture predominates. Take out the gangster culture, take out the problem of gun crime.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbokid
"The People" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th Amendments means the people, but "The People" in the 2nd Amendment means the National Guard?

they better do the right thing.


This is probably the best answer to the "question" yet... And they need a bunch of SCJ's and lawyers arguing this? Turbokid just answered it for us in plain language the avrage Joe can understand. Maybe the elites don't get it but then they don't need to. They don't live in the jungle where the guns are really needed....



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
heres a little fuel to the fire..




Since September, 20 Chicago Public Schools students have been killed, 18 by gunfire. Last school year, 24 of the more than 30 students killed were shot to death, compared with between 10 and 15 fatal shootings in the years before.

"The loss of life that we've seen among our young people is ... devastating," said school district spokesman Michael Vaughn. "This gun nonsense has reached a crisis level."


news.aol.com...

and add that to this i found on wikipedia..



Illinois has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the country.

To possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the state police. Generally an FOID will be granted unless the applicant has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, has been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, or is the subject of an order of protection. There are additional requirements for applicants under the age of 21
...
Illinois is one of two remaining states that have no provision for the concealed carry of firearms by citizens. Open carry is also illegal


en.wikipedia.org...(by_state)#Illinois



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I cannot tell you how much it makes my blood boil when i hear of liberals saying that introducing kids to guns at a young age is a bad idea. The fact is that any NRA-safety trained young kid is a million times less likely to kill someone using a firearm. Training is the only solution in my opinion. Stashing a gun in a safe is not really feasible as there isnt enough time to take it out when an intruder is in your house.


The kicker for me is the same paranoid folks who wanted so badly to get the rifle teams out of the schools and fight now to convince us that firearms education will somehow not only not work but backfire and send hordes of 12 year olds out to massacre their peers are pushing to get sex-ed for kindergarteners and pass out condoms to elementary students saying "early education is the way."

Let's pass out guns to the school kids and get the rifle teams back then.

They're chocking to death on their own contradiction but rather than notice the asphyxiated corpses of idiocy and learn we're all standing in a room full of the dead bodies and eating more and more of the nonsense until we ourselves choke to death.

The intense lack of logic and the absolute certainty of the ignorant and their policies astounds me.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join