US Supreme Court upholds individual right to bear arms.

Norm'

Duke status
Jan 31, 2003
23,927
893
113
Lovetron
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005 in U.S.
More gun-related suicides than homicides and accidents in 20 of last 25 years
Research shows if gun in home, higher likelihood of suicide or homicide in home
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
Read up on Kennesaw, Georgia, and Morton Grove, Illinois.

Morton Grove banned guns in the early 80s, and Kennesaw passed a law requiring gun ownership in every home.

Since then, Kennesaw's population has quadrupled and the crime rate has fallen to become the lowest of any size town in the USA. Morton Grove saw an immediate increase in crime after the gun bill passed, and has maintained a higher crime rate, with a slight decrease in population.

Put a gun in every home. The fault lies with the jerk on the trigger, not the gun.
 

GWS

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
42,605
22
0
done
Another classic logical fallacy. How does "who's fault is it" help an innocent person who just got killed by a drunk driver? Our duty is to prevent it from happening, not just lay blame.

Not only that we are not preventing it, we are pouring oil on the fire by selling people liquor and serving them drinks.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />


Try walking in a school and killing a bunch of people with a pencil or a bathtub.
How about a knife? Did you know that there was a mass school killing in which 7 died and ten were wounded, accomplished with a knife?


Bring on prohibition and "knife control."
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
The REALITY is that there are somewhere around 300 MILLION guns in the hands of private citizens in the US. The cats out of the bag and it's never going back in.

That being said. Gun control laws have no effect on criminals and gun crime. Someone that wants a gun to use in a crime is not going down to the gun shop and filling out paperwork for a legal firearm. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Currently, where I live, I reckon it's more dangerous to have a gun in my home than to not have one. If law enforcement officers lost the ability to control my neighborhood, then I suppose the risk of being injured by a criminal would outweigh the risk of my being injured by my own gun in my own home. At that point I would get a gun. But the truth is, as stinkeye pointed out, we screwed up a long, long time ago in this country, allowing the production, importation, and possession of firearms by just about everybody.
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
The REALITY is that there are somewhere around 300 MILLION guns in the hands of private citizens in the US. The cat's out of the bag and it's never going back in.
Stinkeye wrote that. What do you think he meant by it? It seems he is stating, when he writes "The cat's out of the bag," that there are too many firearms available in the United States. Available to criminals and non-criminals alike. When he added, "and it's never going back in," he is implying that gun control laws will now be ineffective, and it would now be better for non-criminals to arm themselves against criminals and to have the right to protect themselves with a firearm as they go about their day to day lives, rather than to rely on any legal attempts to restricting a criminal's access to firearms. At some point the "cat" was "in the bag," i.e. there weren't too many firearms available in the United States, and now the "cat" is "out of the bag," and for whatever reason, there are too many firearms in the United States. For some reason the production, importation, and possession of firearms by individuals was not restricted, and now the "cat's out of the bag."
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
Bulletproof Backpack Model 5051
195.00 In Stock: 9
Finally there is a product that will help you take an active step towards safeguarding yourself and the people you care about from shooting incidents.

MJ Safety Solutions has developed, for the first time ever, a full size, lightweight ballistic protection back pack that is affordable and practical.

Now you can provide on the spot protection against guns and knife violence!

Independently tested to the standards set by the National Institute for Justice to provide Level II ballistic protection, as found in most police body armor, at almost 1/10 the weight. Since 1999 over 328 incidents have occurred, leaving 229 dead and 422 injured in school violence alone. That is an average of about 1 per week since the Columbine Tragedy. In almost 97% of these documented incidents, MJ Safety Solutions backpack could have provided the ballistic protection that could have saved lives.

This backpack can provide life saving defense for anyone: school children, educators, journalists and tourists to name a few. This is a full size, ultra leightweight backpack packed with features to make it practical for everyone.

Features:
- Level II Balistic Panel integrated into back panel (approx. 14" x 17")
- Rugged 420d Dobby Nylon
- High Tech style and colors for school, work, commute or travel.
- 2 Large main compartments plus a padded computer pocket.
- Zippered MP3 Player pocket w/ earphone outlet.
- Contoured padding for max. comfort.
- 1706 ci

PS: Don't forget to watch the videos on the left! They'll show you how they did the test on the bulletproof backpacks.




The cat is out of the bag.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
The REALITY is that there are somewhere around 300 MILLION guns in the hands of private citizens in the US. The cat's out of the bag and it's never going back in.
Stinkeye wrote that. What do you think he meant by it? It seems he is stating, when he writes "The cat's out of the bag," that there are too many firearms available in the United States. Available to criminals and non-criminals alike. When he added, "and it's never going back in," he is implying that gun control laws will now be ineffective, and it would now be better for non-criminals to arm themselves against criminals and to have the right to protect themselves with a firearm as they go about their day to day lives, rather than to rely on any legal attempts to restricting a criminal's access to firearms. At some point the "cat" was "in the bag," i.e. there weren't too many firearms available in the United States, and now the "cat" is "out of the bag," and for whatever reason, there are too many firearms in the United States. For some reason the production, importation, and possession of firearms by individuals was not restricted, and now the "cat's out of the bag."
"The cat's out of the bag" is a little misleading. It implies that gun ownership was, at some time, lower than it is today. I think the contrary is definitely true - that there are fewer guns per household in the USA than ever before, and that this number has been more or less decreasing for over 200 years.

There are societies with more guns than the USA and less crime, and societies with no guns and less crime. Face facts, the USA is a violent society in the context of high per capita income nations. This is as true of knife violence as it is of gun violence.

But attempts to restrict guns (ban them) result in more person-on-person crime, not less. And the US society has ALWAYS placed more value on the right to defend yourself than on the right to deprive the suicidal or homicidal of access to a gun. That's the fundamental crux here. You would have to believe

1) that a gun ban could be effectively carried out
2) that such a ban would be beneficial enough in terms of reduced homicide and suicide that it would be worth the loss in self-protection

Nearly everyone doubts point 1), and most of America doesn't believe in point 2) either.

Case closed.
 

geedee

Miki Dora status
Mar 3, 2008
4,593
0
0
behind the woodshed
Killing people with a gun is almost voyeuristic. The distance from the victim makes it seem like you are not really part of the action but are something more of an observer.

Now a knife on the other hand ...

Well, you really have to get close to your victim. You feel their warm sweaty chin in your hand. You can feel their breath on your cheek until you sink the blade deep into their bowels letting loose the demons that live inside there. The demons escape in a warm gush of red and the victim slumps in your arms ... heavy ... free.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
 

GWS

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
42,605
22
0
done
Another classic logical fallacy. How does "who's fault is it" help an innocent person who just got killed by a drunk driver? Our duty is to prevent it from happening, not just lay blame.

Not only that we are not preventing it, we are pouring oil on the fire by selling people liquor and serving them drinks.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Good argument there GWS. Try and make a point next time. Thanks in advance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Oh you got the point. That's whay you took the time and effort to change the quote back. I changed it back again. So you can not respond to it again. Because you can't.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

If you are so hot to ban things because you are so concerned about the deaths of innocent people, lets talk about how many people booze kills. Drunk drivers kill around 40 thousand + people a year. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. There’s all those people that drink themselves to death. Arguably, they are doing it to themselves. I wouldn’t include that. But since you like to ad in firearm suicides, why not? Same thing. Then we can talk about the link between violent crime and alcohol. Statistically that one is horrendous. Did you know that alcohol is responsible for more crime than all the illegal drugs combined?

Doesn’t all that death and destruction bother you? The deaths of innocents? The senseless slaughter of people who have done nothing wrong?

How come you don’t want to ban alcohol?

And the law against carrying knives in the UK hasn’t done much good has it? Lots of stabbings, aren’t there? Matter of fact, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher than it is in the US, isn’t it? There’s a success story for you.


 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
Face facts, the USA is a violent society in the context of high per capita income nations. This is as true of knife violence as it is of gun violence.

Another fact that needs to be faced is that almost 80% of people in the US identify themselves as Christians and 70% attend church regularly. ...
Do a little sociology research and come back when you figure out whether regular church attendance positively, or negatively, correlates with crime and gun use rates in a person by person sample. The answers are out there, and, surprise surprise, when people attend church regularly they are less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to use guns in criminal acts.

Atheists, OTOH, are well-known to be, on the whole, very stingy in their charitable donations. Coincidence?
 

Landloct

Kelly Slater status
Jul 18, 2002
9,381
16
38
Why have there been only TWO gun rampages (Hungerford, Dunblane) in the UK in decades?

I know, it's because everybody's carrying there so the shooter... oh, wait.
 

geedee

Miki Dora status
Mar 3, 2008
4,593
0
0
behind the woodshed
For the millionth time: ONLY guns, of all things that pro-gun retards keep bringing up over and over again, are designed and built specifically to kill and maim living things. They have NO other purpose, unlike pencils, bathtubs and alcohol.


We are doing all kinds of things to educate people on dangers of drinking and driving, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

We are doing NOTHING like that about guns. We are glorifying guns and perpetuate the myth that they are necessary. Until that changes, I agree, ban will not work. Gun control, education and people's change in attitude towards guns - yes.
Ban mousetraps. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cussing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
For the millionth time: ONLY guns, of all things that pro-gun retards keep bringing up over and over again, are designed and built specifically to kill and maim living things.
Hunting is a legitimate sport, and is even protected in some areas. It is also used as a cost-effective population control.

Guns are also used for self-defense, and for protection of ones possessions from people and animals. They are not designed only to kill PEOPLE, and their use in killing non-human animals has a lot of benefits.

Or are you anti-hunting too?!?!

We are doing all kinds of things to educate people on dangers of drinking and driving, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

We are doing NOTHING like that about guns. We are glorifying guns and perpetuate the myth that they are necessary. Until that changes, I agree, ban will not work. Gun control, education and people's change in attitude towards guns - yes.
Guns are not only, or even principally, used to kill people. They are used for defense and hunting, as they have been used for hundreds of years. Only criminals and armies buy guns to kill people. Most guns are bought for defense or hunting.
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
69,237
21,741
113
The Bar
For the millionth time: ONLY guns, of all things that pro-gun retards keep bringing up over and over again, are designed and built specifically to kill and maim living things. They have NO other purpose, unlike pencils, bathtubs and alcohol.


We are doing all kinds of things to educate people on dangers of drinking and driving, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

We are doing NOTHING like that about guns. We are glorifying guns and perpetuate the myth that they are necessary. Until that changes, I agree, ban will not work. Gun control, education and people's change in attitude towards guns - yes.
Ban mousetraps. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cussing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Don't forget insecticide. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shameonyou.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
69,237
21,741
113
The Bar
Another classic logical fallacy. How does "who's fault is it" help an innocent person who just got killed by a drunk driver? Our duty is to prevent it from happening, not just lay blame.

Not only that we are not preventing it, we are pouring oil on the fire by selling people liquor and serving them drinks.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Good argument there GWS. Try and make a point next time. Thanks in advance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Oh you got the point. That's whay you took the time and effort to change the quote back. I changed it back again. So you can not respond to it again. Because you can't.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

If you are so hot to ban things because you are so concerned about the deaths of innocent people, lets talk about how many people booze kills. Drunk drivers kill around 40 thousand + people a year. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. There’s all those people that drink themselves to death. Arguably, they are doing it to themselves. I wouldn’t include that. But since you like to ad in firearm suicides, why not? Same thing. Then we can talk about the link between violent crime and alcohol. Statistically that one is horrendous. Did you know that alcohol is responsible for more crime than all the illegal drugs combined?

Doesn’t all that death and destruction bother you? The deaths of innocents? The senseless slaughter of people who have done nothing wrong?

How come you don’t want to ban alcohol?

And the law against carrying knives in the UK hasn’t done much good has it? Lots of stabbings, aren’t there? Matter of fact, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher than it is in the US, isn’t it? There’s a success story for you.
The hole that everyone leaves out are stray bullets. YOu don't see a stray knife kill an innocent (well, aside from that one guy in the movie Desperado). WAY too many people completely out of the fray have been killed by stray bullets.

Is it possible to get guns completely out of this society? I doubt it.

However, for every proponent of the Wild West mentality, the blood of the innocent is partially on your hands. Imagine how you would all feel if it was someone close to you who walked out of a store or some such straight into a stray bullet. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
 

GWS

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
42,605
22
0
done
Another classic logical fallacy. How does "who's fault is it" help an innocent person who just got killed by a drunk driver? Our duty is to prevent it from happening, not just lay blame.

Not only that we are not preventing it, we are pouring oil on the fire by selling people liquor and serving them drinks.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Good argument there GWS. Try and make a point next time. Thanks in advance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Oh you got the point. That's whay you took the time and effort to change the quote back. I changed it back again. So you can not respond to it again. Because you can't.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

If you are so hot to ban things because you are so concerned about the deaths of innocent people, lets talk about how many people booze kills. Drunk drivers kill around 40 thousand + people a year. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. There’s all those people that drink themselves to death. Arguably, they are doing it to themselves. I wouldn’t include that. But since you like to ad in firearm suicides, why not? Same thing. Then we can talk about the link between violent crime and alcohol. Statistically that one is horrendous. Did you know that alcohol is responsible for more crime than all the illegal drugs combined?

Doesn’t all that death and destruction bother you? The deaths of innocents? The senseless slaughter of people who have done nothing wrong?

How come you don’t want to ban alcohol?

And the law against carrying knives in the UK hasn’t done much good has it? Lots of stabbings, aren’t there? Matter of fact, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher than it is in the US, isn’t it? There’s a success story for you.
The hole that everyone leaves out are stray bullets. YOu don't see a stray knife kill an innocent (well, aside from that one guy in the movie Desperado). WAY too many people completely out of the fray have been killed by stray bullets.

Is it possible to get guns completely out of this society? I doubt it.

However, for every proponent of the Wild West mentality, the blood of the innocent is partially on your hands. Imagine how you would all feel if it was someone close to you who walked out of a store or some such straight into a stray bullet. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Wouldn’t stray bullets killing innocent bystanders be a lot like drunk drivers mowing people down on the sidewalk? An out of control projectile is exactly what happens when someone gets behind the wheel drunk. Only in that case, the projectile weighs over a ton instead of a few grains and has the ability to take out a house or an entire family walking/driving down the street.

I just find it amusing that alcohol kills as many or more innocent people than guns, and yet there is little outcry. But I guess they are less dead because the alcohol wasn’t designed with killing intent.

Somebody should carve that on their tombstones.

BUT HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER THAT THE ANTI GUN PEOPLE WILL NEVER DISCUSS HERE, OR IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS SUBJECT.

(And, like every other single time I have posted this, with sources and links, they ignore it, don’t want to talk about it, and/or change the subject or just go away)

1. In EVERY single state/municipality that has instituted strict gun control, the rate of gun/violent crime has gone UP.


2. In EVERY single state/municipality that has instituted relaxed concealed carry laws (Meaning if you have no history of mental instability or drug use, are not a convicted felon and are able to pass the prescribed courses, you have a right to carry a handgun concealed on your person) the rate of gun/violent crime has gone DOWN.


Given the above, how do you rationalize banning guns in this country? How do you get past that? I would really love to hear SOMEONE… ANYONE from the anti gun contingent address the above points, one and two. How do you explain the above?

Why have strict gun laws always resulted in INCREASED gun crime in this country?
Why have liberalized concealed carry laws always resulted in DECREASED gun crime in this country?

Tell me how you rationalize that?

I’d really like to know.
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
69,237
21,741
113
The Bar
Another classic logical fallacy. How does "who's fault is it" help an innocent person who just got killed by a drunk driver? Our duty is to prevent it from happening, not just lay blame.

Not only that we are not preventing it, we are pouring oil on the fire by selling people liquor and serving them drinks.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Good argument there GWS. Try and make a point next time. Thanks in advance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Oh you got the point. That's whay you took the time and effort to change the quote back. I changed it back again. So you can not respond to it again. Because you can't.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

If you are so hot to ban things because you are so concerned about the deaths of innocent people, lets talk about how many people booze kills. Drunk drivers kill around 40 thousand + people a year. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. There’s all those people that drink themselves to death. Arguably, they are doing it to themselves. I wouldn’t include that. But since you like to ad in firearm suicides, why not? Same thing. Then we can talk about the link between violent crime and alcohol. Statistically that one is horrendous. Did you know that alcohol is responsible for more crime than all the illegal drugs combined?

Doesn’t all that death and destruction bother you? The deaths of innocents? The senseless slaughter of people who have done nothing wrong?

How come you don’t want to ban alcohol?

And the law against carrying knives in the UK hasn’t done much good has it? Lots of stabbings, aren’t there? Matter of fact, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher than it is in the US, isn’t it? There’s a success story for you.
The hole that everyone leaves out are stray bullets. YOu don't see a stray knife kill an innocent (well, aside from that one guy in the movie Desperado). WAY too many people completely out of the fray have been killed by stray bullets.

Is it possible to get guns completely out of this society? I doubt it.

However, for every proponent of the Wild West mentality, the blood of the innocent is partially on your hands. Imagine how you would all feel if it was someone close to you who walked out of a store or some such straight into a stray bullet. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
Wouldn’t stray bullets killing innocent bystanders be a lot like drunk drivers mowing people down on the sidewalk? An out of control projectile is exactly what happens when someone gets behind the wheel drunk. Only in that case, the projectile weighs over a ton instead of a few grains and has the ability to take out a house or an entire family walking/driving down the street.

I just find it amusing that alcohol kills as many or more innocent people than guns, and yet there is little outcry. But I guess they are less dead because the alcohol wasn’t designed with killing intent.

Somebody should carve that on their tombstones.

BUT HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER THAT THE ANTI GUN PEOPLE WILL NEVER DISCUSS HERE, OR IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS SUBJECT.

(And, like every other single time I have posted this, with sources and links, they ignore it, don’t want to talk about it, and/or change the subject or just go away)

1. In EVERY single state/municipality that has instituted strict gun control, the rate of gun/violent crime has gone UP.


2. In EVERY single state/municipality that has instituted relaxed concealed carry laws (Meaning if you have no history of mental instability or drug use, are not a convicted felon and are able to pass the prescribed courses, you have a right to carry a handgun concealed on your person) the rate of gun/violent crime has gone DOWN.


Given the above, how do you rationalize banning guns in this country? How do you get past that? I would really love to hear SOMEONE… ANYONE from the anti gun contingent address the above points, one and two. How do you explain the above?

Why have strict gun laws always resulted in INCREASED gun crime in this country?
Why have liberalized concealed carry laws always resulted in DECREASED gun crime in this country?

Tell me how you rationalize that?

I’d really like to know.
Hey, I'm with you on a lot of what you're saying.

I definitely agree about the comparison between drunk driving and stray bullets - both are unforgiveable and should be punished in a draconian fashion. Semi-auto and auto weapons also have the ability to take out more than just one.

I also agree about the rates of violence going down if everyone is packing. You will definitely see less street crime. How often do you hear about pickpockets in Israel?

Also, GWS, bear in mind that I'm a big fan of cops setting up a locked car with a wallet on the dash with a police sniper across the street picking off the people trying to slimjim/break the windows - would be a great way to purge the thieves out of society. I'm not against what you are saying. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Even if you ban guns (or anything for that matter), I don't know how you stop the black market. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? If you have a record and are found in possession of a gun, you get life in prison? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
I just think that giving arms to bears is a dumb idea. After all, they are godless killing machines. This Supreme Court decision is really dumb, there should be no right to arm bears.