And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by nixie_nox


The problem with that source, is that it's based on a survey. Almost everyone I know who owns a firearm dont go around telling people that they own them. Only very close friends and relatives know. The number of people willing to respond to a survey, poll, or questionnaire is also at an all time low if you correlate that with the % of Americans who trust their government. The vast vast vast majority of firearms aren't registered, so there's no way to infer how many households actually have them that way either.

My understanding through an FBI friend is that the number of households is increasing, and he basically said it comes down to the number of people applying for CCW permits who don't have family who already do. Triple digit increase in CCW applications since 2007ish.

And no, it is not true that the states with strictest gun conrol have the least gun violence. Quite the opposite. The handful of states that have the strictest gun laws actually make up the lion's share of gun violence statistics.

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Oh, so he really committed no crime with it then. Yeah, sounds like a big problem that needs a new law.


As for threatening??? I have been threatened with a baseball bat, should we outlaw those as well for the "Mentally unstable"?

Nice try. Just shows how crazy the gun nuts are, with no concern for the rights of other people, just their ability to own weapons that kill.

Threatening someone with a gun is a felony. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a criminal offense.

I saw someone go to jail for hitting someone with a pepper shaker.

Using the baseball bat is nothing but a non sequitur of the desperate.

edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

How does owning an inanimate object violate the rights of anyone else?

Yes, threatening people with guns, salt shakers, and baseball bats are all criminal offenses, yet, criminals still commit crimes with all three, suggesting that even more laws wouldn't change things much.

reply to post by nixie_nox


How crazy who is again???

I'm not the one suggesting that a blanket law be laid out, since a percentage of a percentage of incidents occur.

SO, because several people have had their foot run over by a car, we must institute a law banned tires.

And let's not even touch upon the idea of this being your "ex" and just how feelings are held in those situations.


But, since you state your ex, who committed a crime, and seems to disregard the laws anyways, we should all be subjected to punishment.

Yeah, sounds about right.

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Oh, so he really committed no crime with it then. Yeah, sounds like a big problem that needs a new law.


As for threatening??? I have been threatened with a baseball bat, should we outlaw those as well for the "Mentally unstable"?

Nice try. Just shows how crazy the gun nuts are, with no concern for the rights of other people, just their ability to own weapons that kill.

Threatening someone with a gun is a felony. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a criminal offense.

I saw someone go to jail for hitting someone with a pepper shaker.

Using the baseball bat is nothing but a non sequitur of the desperate.

edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Actually It's out of the utmost concern for the rights of other people that 2nd amendment proponents take the stance that they do.

The baseball bat isn't a non sequitur. It's quite relevant, just like "hitting someone with a pepper shaker". Just because you don't see the relevance doesn't make it a naff argument. The 2nd amendment covers baseball bats, pepper shakers, they are both legally considered arms.

Define for me "weapons that kill". Please.

Explain to me what a gun nut is to you. Please.

With these two things answered, I think we can have a good discussion.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Too bad this study basically blows that crap out of the water.
www.fas.org...


So, what is the crime stats in NY again???????

reply to post by Galvatron



If the baseball bat is a non issue, as it doesn't affect everyone, then the instance of the ex husband applies to the non issue statement as well.

reply to post by macman


Don't get me started on that. The conveyance of bitterness was extremely apparent. Just like everything there probably wasn't any black or white in the scenarios she described with her ex, but rather somewhere in between. I'm sure she'll be happy to know that until the 2nd week of January I'm not on some container ship in the Indian ocean on the lookout to use my rifle to "threaten" Yemeni or Somali pirates away from my principal.

Galvatron
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

The problem with that source, is that it's based on a survey. Almost everyone I know who owns a firearm dont go around telling people that they own them. Only very close friends and relatives know. The number of people willing to respond to a survey, poll, or questionnaire is also at an all time low if you correlate that with the % of Americans who trust their government. The vast vast vast majority of firearms aren't registered, so there's no way to infer how many households actually have them that way either.

My understanding through an FBI friend is that the number of households is increasing, and he basically said it comes down to the number of people applying for CCW permits who don't have family who already do. Triple digit increase in CCW applications since 2007ish.

And no, it is not true that the states with strictest gun conrol have the least gun violence. Quite the opposite. The handful of states that have the strictest gun laws actually make up the lion's share of gun violence statistics.

Sorry, FOAF statements is not evidence.

And Four decades of information is a lot to try to dismiss by claiming that many people don't report. If that is the case, the people who won't report will remain consistent, while the people who do report are changing.

Besides, this discrepancy has already been addressed with a study on those who have concealed permit carries and then were polled by a phone survey to see how honestly they would respond with gun ownership, and 94% answered truthfully.

A pilot study using a seeded sample finds that gun-carrying and permit holding are accurately reported by concealed-carry permit holders. This is consistent with the findings of past validation studies of gun ownership. Moreover, the similarity in gun uses across the seeded and cross-section samples indicates that both collect consistent data.

abstract

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

USA Today

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates
(incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model
indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm
homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

study publication

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Oh, so he really committed no crime with it then. Yeah, sounds like a big problem that needs a new law.


As for threatening??? I have been threatened with a baseball bat, should we outlaw those as well for the "Mentally unstable"?

Nice try. Just shows how crazy the gun nuts are, with no concern for the rights of other people, just their ability to own weapons that kill.

Threatening someone with a gun is a felony. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a criminal offense.

I saw someone go to jail for hitting someone with a pepper shaker.

Using the baseball bat is nothing but a non sequitur of the desperate.

edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

How does owning an inanimate object violate the rights of anyone else?

Yes, threatening people with guns, salt shakers, and baseball bats are all criminal offenses, yet, criminals still commit crimes with all three, suggesting that even more laws wouldn't change things much.

Because what gun lobbyists fail to understand is that there is a difference between violence conducted with a weapon designed to kill, and violence conducted by an everyday item.

It is a silly argument to say that "well someone could kill me with a bat, why don't we ban those?" Because bats are not designed to kill people, they are designed to play a game. It is equivalent of a creationist saying that evolution isn't true because the bible says so. It is the most rudimentary of arguments.

That is also why there is a separate law for threatening bodily harm, to handle all the no-gun threats.

Also, bats don't kill 30,000 people each year. Not to mention, it is hard to commit suicide by bat or pepper shaker.

By 2015, gun deaths will exceed traffic deaths. Now what does that tell you?

It is because of laws requiring vehicles to have safer standards, safety equipment, seat belt laws, speed limit laws, that death by vehicle continues to drop. While gun violence hasn't.

Take a deep breath ... open your mind ... and watch this.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I heard of a new E.O. that prevents the gun powder from being made, they are shutting down the supply for ammo to be manufactured in the USA. Did you read/hear about it?

reply to post by nixie_nox


And yet guns are able to be used for other things, not just "killing". Just like bats.

It is all in the hands of the user.

Also, since you like to think falsely that more gun laws equal less crime, care to offer an explaination as to the stats in places like NY, Chicago and LA?

reply to post by Iwannaknow2


I know that one of the largest and only US based lead smelting companies is closing their doors this year. This is due to a long battle over EPA regulations. Not heard of any EO pertaining to Gun Powder.

reply to post by Snarl


I am writing to you because your view in very unifocal, Have you considered the media is controlled for brainwashing? Do you realize all people coming back from war are trained killers, with some PTSD. Sorry no disrespect intended to our servicemen. Also we have CIA,NSA and other branches that do false flags ops, like sandyhook among others this year. School shootings have been the mark of trained and blk op activities for decades. It's all in the ploy for confiscating the guns. How many other nations still have their weapons? None! How many had a major Genocide within the boarders after the confiscation of weapons?
Do you know how many people have a gun to feed their families? Many I know of personally would of starved a few months without that rabbit,squirrel or deer. It's not all black and white issues is what I am saying. It has many facets to include and the constitution is the only document that can't be revoked by a tryanical society for control. We have our weapons to prevent tryranny first and foremost.

macman
reply to post by Iwannaknow2

 

I know that one of the largest and only US based lead smelting companies is closing their doors this year.

Fortunately, that has nothing to do with the production of ammunition. Lead for bullets mostly comes from recycled car batteries.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Uh no.

www.cdc.gov...

www.bjs.gov...

www.fbi.gov...

www.fbi.gov...

So not even close to traffic deaths, which are in the 100s of thousands per year. 2012 had over 300,000. Are you kidding? About ~11000 homicides by firearm if you remove suicide. ~8900 of which are associated with organized crime or gangs. 300 of which are legal defense by citizens. 400 of which are by police officer.

Which cities have the highest gun crime? Baltimore? Detroit? Chicago? New York? LA? Washington DC?
The access to firearms is probably one of the weakest drivers of gun crime. I'm not going over this again and I implore you to read most of this thread.

Don't ever give me an op-ed

reply to post by macman


I must of got that mixed up with the importing of goods for weapons he signed in the spring. I read about gun powder but it may have been the presumption it would be next, or something to that effort

reply to post by ketsuko


ROFLMAO.... Conservative gun owners and activists always go after Dems and anything the administration has nothing to do with and preach tyranny. Guns have been required for registration in many place and have been reported at point of purchase for years. Requiring some unlicensed home manufacturer doesn't equate the argument. But I do think it is cute that you think that. While background checks may not be a root problem, it is still a problem. Despite proposals that have been going nowhere for a long time President Obama has been the best friend lovers of all things firearm related have ever had. Reading and research is key. Knee jerk reactions to single website or some small regulatory change fuels the idea that your inner crazy is leaking, not that a constitutional ammendment will be changed.

reply to post by Galvatron




Some will never learn.

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Oh, so he really committed no crime with it then. Yeah, sounds like a big problem that needs a new law.


As for threatening??? I have been threatened with a baseball bat, should we outlaw those as well for the "Mentally unstable"?

Nice try. Just shows how crazy the gun nuts are, with no concern for the rights of other people, just their ability to own weapons that kill.

Threatening someone with a gun is a felony. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a criminal offense.

I saw someone go to jail for hitting someone with a pepper shaker.

Using the baseball bat is nothing but a non sequitur of the desperate.

edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

How does owning an inanimate object violate the rights of anyone else?

Yes, threatening people with guns, salt shakers, and baseball bats are all criminal offenses, yet, criminals still commit crimes with all three, suggesting that even more laws wouldn't change things much.

Because what gun lobbyists fail to understand is that there is a difference between violence conducted with a weapon designed to kill, and violence conducted by an everyday item.

It is a silly argument to say that "well someone could kill me with a bat, why don't we ban those?" Because bats are not designed to kill people, they are designed to play a game. It is equivalent of a creationist saying that evolution isn't true because the bible says so. It is the most rudimentary of arguments.

That is also why there is a separate law for threatening bodily harm, to handle all the no-gun threats.

Also, bats don't kill 30,000 people each year. Not to mention, it is hard to commit suicide by bat or pepper shaker.

By 2015, gun deaths will exceed traffic deaths. Now what does that tell you?

It is because of laws requiring vehicles to have safer standards, safety equipment, seat belt laws, speed limit laws, that death by vehicle continues to drop. While gun violence hasn't.

And what anti-freedom lobbyists fail to understand that violence is violence. They seem to think rape, robbery, murder are all fine as long as it does not involve a gun.

More people were killed with feet and fists last year than long arms of all types: this includes everything from deer rifles to Ar-15's. Shall we ban feet?

You are wrong. firearms of all types accounted for about 9,000 murders last year and this number ahs actually been declining over the last few decades even as private gun ownership has been expanding. When anti-gun people toss in suicide statistics to "gun deaths" to inflate the numbers, they are being very disingenuous because we all can see that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have the strictest gun control (such as Japan) and gun bans will do nothing for suicide prevention.

You didn't answer my second question: how is simply owning an inanimate object an infringement on anyone else's rights?