Gun Control and the Inner City

[The Hatter]

What equal rights the equal right of every decent person living in the city has a being killed by these kids that run around blasting away at each other. Someone is killed everynight in my city by gun fire, every single night

Someone is killed every night in my city by cars, every single night. Should we ban motor vehicles next?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Consitution is not written in stone. Stop living in the 18th century.

Your only option, then, is to amend it.
Until then, your idea violates the Constitution. No further case need be made against it.

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.

These type of firearms are only made to kill, that is it, no other reason then to kill people.

Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

 

[Megatron]

What equal rights the equal right of every decent person living in the city has a being killed by these kids that run around blasting away at each other. Someone is killed everynight in my city by gun fire, every single night

Someone is killed every night in my city by cars, every single night. Should we ban motor vehicles next?[/QUOTE

Cars will take care of themselves when gas is 30 dollars a gallon. Hey maybe you should be the first to give up your car so that you cannot travel very far with such ease and spread your dumbass genes with the rest of us you communist

 

[Megatron]

Your only option, then, is to amend it.
Until then, your idea violates the Constitution. No further case need be made against it.

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.

These type of firearms are only made to kill, that is it, no other reason then to kill people.

Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people presumably peple that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

Question for you, if someone you know and love was murdered on the street with a gun would you still advacate against gun control?

 

[The Hatter]

Question for you, if someone you know and love was murdered on the street with a gun would you still advacate against gun control?

I'll answer this, yes, I would still advocate against banning guns in the inner cities (which was your original premise).

Your simplistic logic is very shortsighted and has more holes in it than the swiss cheese in my fridge.

This would be like saying if someone I know and loved was murdered on the street with a knife, I should advocate to ban knives. Or if they were run over by a car, to advocate banning cars.

 

[Megatron]

Question for you, if someone you know and love was murdered on the street with a gun would you still advacate against gun control?

I'll answer this, yes, I would still advocate against banning guns in the inner cities (which was your original premise).

Your simplistic logic is very shortsighted and has more holes in it than the swiss cheese in my fridge.

This would be like saying if someone I know and loved was murdered on the street with a knife, I should advocate to ban knives. Or if they were run over by a car, to advocate banning cars.[/QUOTE

New question, you live in the city or a rual area

 

[daveman]

I also like to piss on it after i wipe my ass with it.

Kid, go be stupid somewhere else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.


Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people presumably peple that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

Question for you, if someone you know and love was murdered on the street with a gun would you still advacate against gun control?

Silly you, assuming this hasn't happened already.

Were you going to actually address what I said or continue to engage in the 'appeal to emotion' fallacy?

 

[Megatron]

I also like to piss on it after i wipe my ass with it.

Kid, go be stupid somewhere else.

Way to take obvious joke seriously, if you have nothing to add just click back to all those pics of ron regan you like to look at when your all alone

 

[Megatron]

Your only option, then, is to amend it.
Until then, your idea violates the Constitution. No further case need be made against it.

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.

These type of firearms are only made to kill, that is it, no other reason then to kill people.

Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

and you think the 2nd was designed to allow for the daily slaughter that currently goes on in this country

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not saying all guns need to be regulated, i am a hunter, i have shotguns that i use to hunt and i live in the city. My point is handguns and assult rifles need to banned from citys.

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.


Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

The constitution says nothing about what types of fire arms people are allowed to have.

The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

and you think the 2nd was designed to allow for the daily slaughter that currently goes on in this country

The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

 

[Megatron]

Again:
This violates the Constitution.
You will never get around that point.


Aside from this being factually incorrect...
The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.


The term "arms", as it is used in the 2nd, encompasses every class of firearm.

and you think the 2nd was designed to allow for the daily slaughter that currently goes on in this country

The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

Yes the 2nd was designed that way but you have to admit that it is currently not working that way. It is the criminal who is useing the 2nd to enable him to commit his crimes. Today the 2nd does not operate they way it designed and if something doesn't work then why not fix it

 

[daveman]

I also like to piss on it after i wipe my ass with it.

Kid, go be stupid somewhere else.

Way to take obvious joke seriously, if you have nothing to add just click back to all those pics of ron regan you like to look at when your all alone

That your posts are a joke in no way disputes that fact that are also indeed stupid.

Some people take the Constitution seriously. Stupid kids rarely do.

 

[Megatron]

Kid, go be stupid somewhere else.

Way to take obvious joke seriously, if you have nothing to add just click back to all those pics of ron regan you like to look at when your all alone

That your posts are a joke in no way disputes that fact that are also indeed stupid.

Some people take the Constitution seriously. Stupid kids rarely do.

Jesus would be against the constitution

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment is all about killing people, presumably people that are trying to kill you.
Thus, "firearms designed to kill" are exactly those that are intended to be protected by the 2nd.

Yes the 2nd was designed that way but you have to admit that it is currently not working that way.

Sure it is - it keeps people like you from banning guns that are "designed to kill".
Thus, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

It is the criminal who is useing the 2nd to enable him to commit his crimes.

Rare is the criminal that can tell you what the 2nd says, much less sees it as an enabling device - never mind the fact that ~70% of violent crime doesn't involve a gun.

No, it is far more likely that the criminal sees the 2nd, and its protection of the private ownership of guns that are "designed to kill", as his biggest hurdle, given that crimnials will rarely if ever, go after someone that possesses the capacity to kill him in an instant, with no parole and no appeal.

By taking away the private ownership of "guns designed to kill", you only seek to make criminals' lives easier,. Why do you want to do that?

Today the 2nd does not operate they way it designed...

See above

and if something doesn't work then why not fix it

As I said:
Amend it. Until then your proposal violates the Constutition. No way around it.

 

[MikeK]

My post was in reply to a statement that gun control means that gun crime automatically goes up.

Don't you have any self control over there?

If you will casually compute the estimated number of guns in the hands of Americans vs the number of incidents of firearms misuse overall it will be clear to you that our level of self-control is exceptionally high.

I don't know much about New Zealand. What I've read and heard and have seen in various films tells me it is a very different place from the U.S., mainly in the extremely critical aspects of population density and cultural conditioning.

 

[BrianH]

I am not saying that all your rural folks need to have your guns pried from your cold dead hands, but it’s time to ban handguns within the city limits of the US’s major cities. Handguns serve no purpose but to kill other people, and don’t try that home protection crap, a shotgun works just as well if not better for home protection. Handguns are the number one killer of youth in our major cities and it’s time we stop this insanity, really how many more people have to die?

The problem is that if handguns are banned, the only people who will follow the ban are law-abiding citizens... This is proven all the time when some idiot does not abide by a "gun-free" zone and shoots up a school or college campus. It's been show that U.S. cities with handgun bans have had increased handgun violence. Actually, the purchasing age for a shotgun is 18 while a handgun is 21. So, if handguns were completely impossible to get, then our youth could more easily purchase a shotgun at a younger age and use that to kill each other. If you did away with shotguns then they would get their hands on other crap to kill each other with. I agree that something needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of kids and nutjobs, however, I don't think banning guns altogether is the answer.

 

[BrianH]

Banning guns in the inner city has not done much to lower the crime rate or keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. If anything, I would say it is a failure rather than something that needs to be emulated elsewhere.

Yes, there are lots of criminals with guns in Japan.

You are living in a fantasy world.

No, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Washingint D.C. had the highst gun crime rate in the U.S. during it's ban. Chicago's gun violence increased also. This is also true for the U.K. Like I've said, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who follow laws...

 

[BrianH]

I am not saying that all your rural folks need to have your guns pried from your cold dead hands, but it’s time to ban handguns within the city limits of the US’s major cities. Handguns serve no purpose but to kill other people, and don’t try that home protection crap, a shotgun works just as well if not better for home protection. Handguns are the number one killer of youth in our major cities and it’s time we stop this insanity, really how many more people have to die?

You're making the same fundamentally flawed argument every anti-gun person makes.

First you're essentially arguing they should be banned on the basis of need, or lack of need. By such an argument we should simply ban things that have any level of danger associated with them since no one really needs them. Would you be okay with me coming into your home and confiscating the things I deem dangerous that you don't really need? Freedom is not about need, freedom is about the ability to do what I want as long as it doens't infringe on anothers right to do the same.

Then there's your melodramatic 'how many people have to die?' argument. That is an unfinished sentence. What you're asking is how many people have to die as the result of a handgun. THAT is faulty premise, because someone didn't die as the result of a handgun. They died as a result of someone behaving irresponsibly with one. Simply banning a type of gun does not address or solve the person's irrespsonsible behavior and in the process takes freedom away from those that do handle them responsibly.

YES!!! Exactly!!! It's the same premise that irresponsible people that drive cars kill ALOT of other innocent people with their cars.

 

[idb]

Banning guns in the inner city has not done much to lower the crime rate or keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. If anything, I would say it is a failure rather than something that needs to be emulated elsewhere.

Yes, there are lots of criminals with guns in Japan.

You are living in a fantasy world.

No, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Washingint D.C. had the highst gun crime rate in the U.S. during it's ban. Chicago's gun violence increased also. This is also true for the U.K. Like I've said, law-abiding citizens are the only ones who follow laws...

What do the suicide rates have to do with gun control or crime?

UK gun crime rates are still among the lowest in the world.
Yes, as far as I can tell, gun crime rates did increase after the ban on handguns was enacted but is now on a downward trend.
Could this be because the existing illegal handguns are still being secured?
Maybe because the legislative powers given to the cops have finally started to take effect?

The question remains though...If having firearms freely available is so effective in preventing gun crime then why is the USA so high in gun-related crimes in comparison to the rest of the world?