Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Danimal W]

Mr Craik,

It is irrelevant if there is a director or not of the ATF when it comes to enforcing those laws that I pointed out. Afterall it is not the ATF that acts as prosecutor, but the U.S. Attorney's office which falls under the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Currently Eric Holder is the AG and therefore has the role of directing the DOJ.

The laws that I pointed out do not require interdepartment cooperation, they do not require interaction from ATF.... If a person with a criminal record is in possession of a firearm is committing a new felony under federal law, therefore should be prosecuted and incarcerated. Pretty straight forward.

So your argument blaming the NRA and GOP is invalid.

So why aren't these simple laws enforced? And if these were enforced, wouldn't removing these violent criminals off the streets, wouldn't it make society safer?

 

[Larry L.]

Larry, Jim is saying that if someone waved a magic wand and made guns no-longer exist, then people would not be able to use guns in violence...Its hard to argue against that if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.

That wand would have to make ALL guns disappear everywhere around the world though, wouldn't it. Otherwise the black market gun import business would be booming.

But, even if that were possible, crooks and loons would just switch to knifes, bombs, bows & arrows, or what-have-you.................OR they'd just simply make their own guns.

 

[Jim Craik]

That wand would have to make ALL guns disappear everywhere around the world though, wouldn't it. Otherwise the black market gun import business would be booming.

But, even if that were possible, crooks and loons would just switch to knifes, bombs, bows & arrows, or what-have-you.................OR they'd just simply make their own guns.

Larry they certinally did not get all the guns in the UK, Japan and Australia, as there were still 120 gun murders in those countries in 2010. But they did get a majority of the guns and the gun murder rate by comparison dropped to almost nothing. You say gun bans do not work, you could not be more wrong.

You say that we cant compare other countries results, I say bullshit, with the excepton of Canada, Australia and the UK are both the most similar countries to the US in the world!

Gun Murders 2010:

United Kingdom...............14
Japan............................47
Australia........................59
USA..........................9,369

The UK, Japan and Australia baned guns, their gun bans certinally did more than "NOTHING" didn't they!

 

[Larry L.]

You say gun bans do not work, you could not be more wrong.

Really. Then your saying the gun bans in effect at Sandy Hook, et al , DID???

I say bullshit...

Well, of COURSE you do.

 

[Jim Craik]

Larry,

You say gun bans do not work, then explain this:

The UK, Japan and Australia, added together have a population of approximately 68% of the USA. If gun bans did not work, their gun murders should be approximately 68% of the US gun murders, which in 2010 were 9,369

Well 68% od 9,369 gun murders is approximately 6,370 gun murders.

Added together, in 2010 there were only 120 gun murders in those countries.

Gun bans work very very well.

I know you do not like the data, and I know you would love it if gun bans did not work, but the numbers are conclusive.

Now you can change the subject and give missleading data, I don't care, bun bans save thousands and thousands of live. Live with it!

 

[marc]

Jim
If you find it on the internet it must be true. You can manipulate anything to anything and post it.

The murder capital of the world is not here in USA. try Honduras, US isn't even in the top 100 countries (or there abouts) with any type of intentional cause of death. Guns or otherwise.

Agenda exposed. You hate guns. You live in a world that you think don't need them. And you are always right.

Pop over to Oakland see how its like on the other side of reality. Where people don't care if its yours, its theirs now. Where begging for money is a way of life. You have your safe little world right now. There are 47+million people out of work and when the govt cannot provide money to cover them you will see chaos. And more people are loosing their jobs every day. Do you know why the unemployment rate is going down. The math the government uses to calculate that is a lie too. Reality may never hit your little village in Eutopia, thats fine. But you worry bout your neck of the woods we'll worry about ours.

 

[Larry L.]

I know you do not like the data...but the numbers are conclusive.

Agreed. They are.

Columbine: 13 dead...21 injured/wounded
Sandy Hook: 26 dead...2 injured/wounded
V.T: 32 dead...17 injured/wounded

Yeeeeeep...those "gun-free"/"gun ban" zones really work. I know you don't like the data, but the numbers are conclusive.

 

[Jim Craik]

I give up.

Like I said, you can't refute the data, the data is overwhelming, so you change the subject and give missleading data.

The numbers are way more than conclusive, you go on living in your dream world clutching your guns, while thousands die very year.

 

[Larry L.]

...so you change the subject and give missleading data.

"Missleading data?! MISSLEADING DATA?!?!?!?!?!?!? (And how do you 'figger' I "changed the subject"?)

The stats I just quoted are 100% G-O-S-P-E-L!!! Look 'em up!!!

I give up.

I hope you mean that...

 

[Stephen Ducker]

The UK has not 'banned guns' that is untrue, or at best a massive over simplification of the facts.

Following a couple of tragic events years ago our firearms laws were made much stricter though.

In very brief summary,

1) Private ownership of any pistol above an air pistol of 6ft/lbs muzzle energy is not permitted. A deactivated 6 shooter etc would have to have an approved deactivation certificate & still then would not be allowed in public or to be carried in your car.
2) A hunting/target rifle or shotgun can only have a two shot magazine. So the max. we can have now is three shots, (if your gun takes one in the spout plus the other two).
3) The choice for the above two was either hand you gun in for destruction or have it modified & recertificated at your own expense.
4) The licence application for section 1 (rifle) & section 2 (shotgun) was made much more involved & harder, changing the emphasis from the Police saying why they think it should be refused to the applicant having to prove why they should be allowed one.
5) A gun on the approved obsolete list can be kept unlicensed. (ie a 90 year old 8 bore) but it would be an offence to own or obtain any ammo that could be used in it, let alone actually fire it !.
6) Your gun cabinet must be the right specification, a home alarm, approved window & door locks are likely to be insisted upon before a new licence is issued.
7) Requirement to show licence to buy shot gun cartridges.

That's the main changes I remember.

It is not accurate to compare any two countries. You can only compare the UK with the UK, year on year.

There are too many differences between our situations for such comparisions.
We in the UK have not in living memory carried or owned guns for self defence. Our legal system is totally biased against self defence anyway, (sadly).
We have the vast majority of our (legally held) guns in rural areas.
We have never had many military/machine guns etc in public ownership.
Our Police are not usually armed.
etc.

The worst problem we face is open borders with europe, thus the ease of smuggling guns, drugs & the kind of people that are happy to sell & use them.......

Keep safe, Steve.

ps: Northern Ireland has had some of, if not the, strictest firearms laws in the world for decades. They are not even allowed rifling in an air gun. They seem to have a fair amount of 'gun crime' though........ ( Yes that's part of the UK too )

 

[Larry L.]

It is not accurate to compare any two countries. You can only compare the UK with the UK, year on year.

There are too many differences between our situations for such comparisions.

Exactly...not that facts like those will matter to some...

 

[Jim Craik]

It is not accurate to compare any two countries. You can only compare the UK with the UK, year on year.
There are too many differences between our situations for such comparisions. /QUOTE]Posted by Steve



Well of course, they are not an exact match and making a comparison requires a certin amount sepeculation.

But that said, in the absence of an exact "paired analysis" you need to use the available data.

In this case, we actually have two fairly similar comparable situations. We have two fairly large, English speaking, first world countries, with a population that is used to a reasonal amount of personal freedom.

In fact, when it comes to the US, with the exception of Canada, you would be hard pressed to come up with any other two countries with a more similar population, in terms of lifestyle, personal freedoms and personal responsibilities.

Now as you say Australia and the UK never had anywhere near the "gun culture" that we have in the US. Additionally it would be hard to find three Countries that are further apart geographically.

But that said, two of these Countries have recently made a large attempt to severely limit the number and types of guns that are available to the population.

And although this is not an exact paired analysis, the data can not be discounted out of hand. After all it is real data, concerning the real removal of guns from a real Engligh speaking, western style population.

This "real world data" has to be given much greater weight than the "I know" or "I'm sure" or the "you cant say that" that we get here from the gun proponants. Now I know the US has a much larger population, but..........................

What the "real world data" shows is this:

Gun Murders 2010:

United Kingdom...............14
Australia........................59
USA..........................9,369

The data is conclusive, the severe restriction of the number and the type of guns, saves lives!

 

[Larry L.]

Like I said, reality won't matter to some...

 

[Grady]

There is no longer a civil war, the Indians are no longer attacking the settlers.
Is the right to bear arms outdated?

I think these statements of the facts (US and Europe) answer your question.

 

[Tom P]

This speaks for itself.

 

[Danimal W]

Mr. Craik,

If guns are 100% banned and magically disappear even from criminals... What are law abiding people (especially thosed who used to exercise their right to gun ownership) going to do to immediately stop crimes against them??? Unless you have some pixie dust that you haven't told us about that will automatically turn evil people into alter boys.

911 is only to report a crime, just by calling 911 won't magically stop all crimes, in fact the act of calling may only thwart a small amout of crime. Then factor in the response time, it pretty much ensures that the police will be INVESTIGATING the crime against you, not stopping it. Then for the biggest kicker of them all....PER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, you do NOT have the right to police protection nor do they have the obligation to protect you.

So currently, when thugs decide on a violent home invasion, they are rolling the dice if the homeowner is armed or not. And with roughly 90 million gun owners, there's a good chance it could go either way for the thugs. So as in the case in Georgia, the thugs broke in and with a crow bar threatened the woman an her kids. I believe she even took herself and kids into the attic trying to escape. He followed her where she finally was forced to protect herself by shooting him. Who knows exactly what was planning to do to her and her kids, but one thing is crystal clear, it wasn't to wash her hair and do her nails for her.

Now under your plan, we know that he would be alive, but we do not know if she or her kids would be... So you are willing to trade the lives of an innocent(s) victim for an evil person's.

Under your plan, not a single gun is in the public, thereby making the entire country a gun free zone. So now that thug is guaranteed to win when he rolls the dice.

Now this thug decides he wants P2264 for himself after seeing you cruising around in it. He follows you home and waits... He knows now 100% that there are no guns in your house (before he didn't know if you did or not, because you had the right and the choice). So now armed with a baseball bat, he breaks in. He surprises you and hits a homerun on your head. Then has fancy for your wife. Finally leaving in a new car.

I hope this does not happen, I do not wish this on anyone.

With the first case, there's almost a 50/50 chance that the house he targets is armed. Even non gun owners benefit from the uncertainty of who is or isn't a gun owner. In the second case, there is a 100% chance the home is not armed.

A Navy SEAL taught me this phrase... "If you plan on a fair fight, your tactics SUCK!! Always stack the odds in your favor."

So in the first case, it could AT BEST be a fair fight for the victim... In the second case, it is almost guaranteed to be stacked 100% in the favor of the criminal and therefore stacked 100% AGAINST the victim.

Sorry, I do not like being a helpless person to be victimized. If you feel comfortable being helpless, that is your choice...YOUR CHOICE.

 

[Danimal W]

This speaks for itself.

Amen!!!!

 

[Larry L.]

"Maryland and D.C., however, have been disarmed for your convenience."

LOVE it!

 

[Jack]

More Stolen Guns in New York


Another home robbed of firearms, thanks to the handy map of targets provided by the Journal News. How can these people claim, with a straight face, the anti-gun cause is really about gun violence prevention? It has never been about that. It’s about shaming people out of gun ownership and hating on people who refuse to take cues from hacks pretending to be their cultural betters. If this was about gun violence prevention, something like this never would have been published.
Of course, I guess there’s nothing to worry about since Governor Cuomo made it a crime to fill the magazine. Surely that was complied with, and criminals, of course, have no idea how to top off a magazine.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mr. Craik,

If guns are 100% banned and magically disappear even from criminals... What are law abiding people (especially thosed who used to exercise their right to gun ownership) going to do to immediately stop crimes against them??? Unless you have some pixie dust that you haven't told us about that will automatically turn evil people into alter boys.


Danimal,

I have never been robbed, I have never been assaulted, I have never had my car stolen.
I have had two people very close to me shot by angry people with a gun!

You are willing to shoot someone over a car?
You are willing to open fire in a residential neighborhood over a car?
You are willing to open fire in your home over stuff?
You are willing to open fire on a an unidentified figure in the dark?
You are willing to put up with a much higher chance of killing a relative?
You are willing to put up with a much high chance that a family member will kill you?
You are willing to put up with the much higher chance of of a suicide in your home?
You are willing to put up with the chance of an accidental killing in your home?

You want a neighbor to open fire over a car?
You want a neighbor to open fire over stuff?
You want a neighbor to open fire at an unidentified person in the dark?

You are crazy!

My car is insured
My home is insured
My stuff is insured

None of those things are worth dying for,
None of those things are worth killing for.
None of those thing is worth the accidental death of a family member.

Stuff can be replaced, dead is forever!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?