Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[JoeB131]

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.

And everyone involved in that grotesque fiasco should be fired and in some cases prosecuted. Not sure what your argument here is.

What was your point about loughner?

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

Here's a twist everybody should be armed if we have another jaread take him out.

Arizona is a concealed carry law. In fact, you don't even need a permit. One guy actually did rush out of his store with a gun.

And he almost shot one of the samaritans who wrestled the gun out of LOughner's hand.

Joe Zamudio and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

So no, the answer is not "more guns". It's only letting people who are responsible have them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lets touch on one other subject.

A WELL REGULATED A MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE.

The call to arms as not gone out, so no militia has been formed.

Thanks for playing.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'militia.'

Let me help:

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Totally changes your perspective, eh?

Thanks that was useful, Where would that put us non militia types above 45 and not in the guard?

It would allow you to decide for yourself whether or not to partake in the defense of the nation. There would not be a legal obligation....although you might see a moral one.

 

[JoeB131]

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

To lax? They are not even enforced.

So I will not support stricter laws. There are laws on the books that prevent those mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms. Your issue is not gun laws but with what constitutes being legally insane. Focus your efforts there and leave us alone.

Actually, given some of your comments here, I'm kind of doubting your sanity, but never mind.

I'm all for focusing it on limiting gun ownership to the responsible only.

Owning a gun should be like owning a car. You only get to do it after you've been trained, licensed and insured. You must undergo a complete background check, and have a ID card with your picture on it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And everyone involved in that grotesque fiasco should be fired and in some cases prosecuted. Not sure what your argument here is.



That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

Here's a twist everybody should be armed if we have another jaread take him out.

Arizona is a concealed carry law. In fact, you don't even need a permit. One guy actually did rush out of his store with a gun.

And he almost shot one of the samaritans who wrestled the gun out of LOughner's hand.

Joe Zamudio and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

So no, the answer is not "more guns". It's only letting people who are responsible have them.

Almost is not doing it. training is the key my RINO student.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ANY gun law flies in the face of the Second. /Story.

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.

Simple.

I would largely agree.

It seems to me that the same arguments could be made for and against drivers' licenses as carry permits.

But, in full disclosure, my opinion might be based on the same motivation as a dieter peering into the window of a bakery....NY being Nanny-central.

 

[Full-Auto]

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

To lax? They are not even enforced.

So I will not support stricter laws. There are laws on the books that prevent those mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms. Your issue is not gun laws but with what constitutes being legally insane. Focus your efforts there and leave us alone.

Actually, given some of your comments here, I'm kind of doubting your sanity, but never mind.

I'm all for focusing it on limiting gun ownership to the responsible only.

Owning a gun should be like owning a car. You only get to do it after you've been trained, licensed and insured. You must undergo a complete background check, and have a ID card with your picture on it.

I am doubting your understanding of what a right is.

Fair enough?

No where does it state in the second anything about back ground checks. You dont have to license your mouth, I dont have to license my guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

Joe you bypassed this post two pages back, needs your attention.

 

[Full-Auto]

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

Joe you bypassed this post two pages back, needs your attention.

Reb keep their heads down, back later today.

 

[hjmick]

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

To lax? They are not even enforced.

So I will not support stricter laws. There are laws on the books that prevent those mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms. Your issue is not gun laws but with what constitutes being legally insane. Focus your efforts there and leave us alone.

Actually, given some of your comments here, I'm kind of doubting your sanity, but never mind.

I'm all for focusing it on limiting gun ownership to the responsible only.

Owning a gun should be like owning a car. You only get to do it after you've been trained, licensed and insured. You must undergo a complete background check, and have a ID card with your picture on it.

One need not be trained, licensed, and insured to own a car. Only to drive a car are those three things required. And that's only if one chooses to drive legally...

One more thing, please do not confuse a "privilege" with a "right."

 

[PoliticalChic]

To lax? They are not even enforced.

So I will not support stricter laws. There are laws on the books that prevent those mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms. Your issue is not gun laws but with what constitutes being legally insane. Focus your efforts there and leave us alone.

Actually, given some of your comments here, I'm kind of doubting your sanity, but never mind.

I'm all for focusing it on limiting gun ownership to the responsible only.

Owning a gun should be like owning a car. You only get to do it after you've been trained, licensed and insured. You must undergo a complete background check, and have a ID card with your picture on it.

I am doubting your understanding of what a right is.

Fair enough?

No where does it state in the second anything about back ground checks. You dont have to license your mouth, I dont have to license my guns.

I asked a friend from Texas what he had to do to get a gun in Texas, he said 'just a fingerprint.'

I said, they have to take your fingerprints?

"No, just when you put your fingerprint on the display case pointing out which one you want."

Nice and simple.
In NY, you have to follow the yellow brick road...a million steps. At some point, the number of steps should indicate a bar to ownership, no?

 

[Missourian]

Actually, it was called the Kellerman Study, and it found that in Seattle Washington, for every case of an intruder being killed by a homeowner, there were 39 suicides, 3 accidents and 1 domestic murder. Kellerman moved his study to other cities and got similar results.

Even if we take the conclusions at face value...adding suicides is a glaring error.

How can we protect you from you?

The evidence concludes that countries without guns have the same or higher suicide rates and countries that had gun restrictions enacted like England and Canada didn't reduce the suicide rate, it only transferred the firearm suicides to other methods, like leaping and poison.

Remove the suicide statistics and you are safer as a gun owner.

Well, no you're not. First, compared to other industrialized countries, we have a much higher suicide rate.

We are at 11.1, per 100,000 people compared to 9.2 for the UK, 9.5 for Germany, and 5.2 for Italy. Canada is a little higher at 11.6, but their gun laws aren't as restrictive as the UK's. Japan is the leader in the G-7 countries with 24.6, but it's a non-Christian culture that is more accepting of suicide in general.

A gun in the house makes it easier for people to kill themselves.

Second, even taking out the suicides, there are more deaths from accidents and domestic murders than in home defense.

I've done the research.

From the American Journal of Psychiatry. 1990 Mar;147(3):342-6.

Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation.
​

Rich CL, Young JG, Fowler RC, Wagner J, Black NA.


Source

Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.

Abstract

The authors describe suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and methods used for suicide in Toronto for 5 years before and after enactment of Canadian gun control legislation in 1978. They also present data from San Diego, Calif., where state laws attempt to limit access to guns by certain psychiatric patients. Both sets of data indicate that gun control legislation may have led to decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by leaping. In the case of men using guns for suicide, these data support a hypothesis of substitution of suicide method.

Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specifi... [Am J Psychiatry. 1990] - PubMed result


​

Gun suicides were reduce, but the overall suicide rate was not reduced.

In other words, guns don't make it easier to commit suicide...Canadians and Californians found it just as easy to commit suicide without their guns.


The argument that you can save people from themselves by removing guns is bogus, unless you are also going to remove knives, rope, ladders, Tylenol and other pills, poison, razors, their garage, natural gas and propane, the car, access to tall buildings or bridges...the list goes on and on...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

Joe you bypassed this post two pages back, needs your attention.

Reb keep their heads down, back later today.

He really doesn't know who he's screwing with, I do not stop.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

Actually it wasn’t.

As noted in Heller, the Framers left no clear intent or context as to the meaning of the Amendment: was it an individual right or collective right?

Scalia used primary documents which predate the Foundation Era, Foundation Era documents themselves, and subsequent material – mostly from the Reconstruction Era – to cobble together a ‘reasonable understanding’ argument as to how the people at the time of the ratification of he Bill of Rights understood the Second Amendment to mean.

The majority of the Court agreed to the individual right argument (5-4), and the individual right to keep and bear arms is now the law of the land.

 

[MikeK]

Humans have a fundamental right of self protection.[...]

I agree. Unfortunately in most jurisdictions the Constitutional right to bear arms is forbidden without exceptional permission, which excludes the majority of ordinary citizens.

That s my view, in a thousand years the weapons we use today will be museum pieces at best.

Why is that relevant? Regardless of technological advances the contemporary pocket derringer will still afford a significant measure of personal defense against ordinary criminal threats.

What the issue is do you or dont you have the right to protect yourself.

I can't imagine a negative response to that question.

After that is answerd i could say the right to bear arms wont mean much when technology advances beyond the firearm.

You'll need to be more specific about why. While technological advances have predated the bow and the sword both continue to be lethal weapons the relative size of which has made them impractical for ordinary personal defense purposes. But there are firearms today which are no bigger than a cigarette package but are absolutely lethal at close range.

What good is a right to bear arms when nukes can be the size of a grapefruit.

We cannot allow extraordinary potential to override ordinary concerns. The best answer to your question is personal defense arms and military arms are separate issues. The two categories do not inhabit the same universe.

To be honest i put more faith in my Point Blank vest than any weapon i have.

An armored vest will not protect you against an aggressor who is physically capable of beating you senseless or slashing your face or hands with a knife.

My chances of shooting someone before they shoot me out in the streets isnt that good.

That depends entirely on your alertness, responsive capabilities and awareness of existing circumstances (where, when, who, etc).

 

[sparky]

What's most interesting here is this overwhelming need for the right to protect itself from the gub'mit , or gauge freedom by firearms. Some might even say it's a RW conspiracy to think that way

The references to Stalin, Hitler or '33 jews' are endless, and so yeah, it's come by honestly

But niether Stalin or Hitler depended on the inability of the populace to fight back, as much as the manipulation of their general gestalt .

They knew revolution was all about hearts and minds, which is all they required at the end of any firearm

They knew that through insidious legislation and scare tactics to motivate them they could achieve power

Of course, that would be a lefty conspiracy, were i to insist it happening in America now
think about it

~S~

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

Actually it wasn’t.

As noted in Heller, the Framers left no clear intent or context as to the meaning of the Amendment: was it an individual right or collective right?

Scalia used primary documents which predate the Foundation Era, Foundation Era documents themselves, and subsequent material – mostly from the Reconstruction Era – to cobble together a ‘reasonable understanding’ argument as to how the people at the time of the ratification of he Bill of Rights understood the Second Amendment to mean.

The majority of the Court agreed to the individual right argument (5-4), and the individual right to keep and bear arms is now the law of the land.

As noted in Heller, the Framers left no clear intent or context as to the meaning of the Amendment: was it an individual right or collective right?

The intent was for the individual to own and process, keep, train with, and maintain a firearm of military grade, for use in defense of the individual's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Missourian]

one small part of the equation southpaw, you're leaving out the 'idiots with guns' part

~S~

That doesn't mean anything to me Sparky...Show Me.

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington CeaseFire

I did one of these myself, 100% my own research...my conclusions were somewhat different.

This post is from 2009:

Gun Control Doesn't Work...Here's the Proof.
​

[FONT=arial,arial]These are the 13 states with the most pro-Second Amendment laws according to the Brady Center (Oklahoma being the most pro-Second Amendment in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:[/FONT]​

----------State-----------------------------# of Firearm Homicides-----------Population​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

• Arkansas ----------------------130 ------------2,810,872
• [FONT=arial,arial]Idaho -------------------------------------------------25 ---------------------1,466,465[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]New Mexico ---------------------------------------81 ---------------------1,954,599[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]South Dakota ---------------------------------------4 -----------------------781,919[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]West Virginia --------------------------------------37 --------------------1,818,470[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Mississippi ---------------------------------------119 ---------------------2,910,540[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Alaska -----------------------------------------------21 --------------------- 670,053[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Louisiana ------------------------------------------455----------------------4,287,768[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Missouri -------------------------------------------247 ---------------------5,842,713[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]North Dakota ----------------------------------------3 -----------------------635,867[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Utah ---------------------------------------------------38 --------------------2,550,063[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Kentucky ------------------------------------------131 --------------------4,206,074[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Oklahoma -------------------------------- --------132 --------------------3,579,212[/FONT]

And the 13 strictest gun control states according to the Brady Center (California being the strictest in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:

• California -----------------------1,605-----36,457,549
• New Jersey ----------------------260-------8,724,560
• Connecticut ----------------------57 -------3,504,809
• Massachusetts ------------------114 -------6,437,193
• Maryland ------------------------414------- 5,615,727
• New York ------------------------500 -----19,306,183
• Rhode Island -------------------- --9 ------ 1,067,610
• Hawaii -----------------------------3 -------1,285,498
• Illinois ---------------------------343* -----12,831,970
• Pennsylvania ---------------------527 ------12,440,621
• Michigan -------------------------444 ------10,095,643
• Delaware--------------------------22 ---------853,476
• North Carolina--------------------369 --------8,856,505

* incomplete data received by the FBI


The District of Columbia is not listed on the Brady Center ranking list but it did have the strictest gun control in the nation in 2007:

• District of Columbia-----------------181--------581,530

So here is the break down for firearm homicides per number of citizens per state plus the District of Columbia with Washington D.C. being the most dangerous place to live with 1 out of every 3,212 residents murdered by firearms and Hawaii being the safest with 1 out of every 428,499 residents murdered by firearms.


The number listed is the population divided by the total firearm homicides to render 1 homicide per (X) number of residents. (Blue are Strict Gun Control, Red are Pro-gun)

1. District of Columbia -----------1 / 3,212
2. Louisiana ---------------------1 / 9,423
3. Maryland ---------------------1 / 13,564
4. Arkansas ---------------------1 / 21,622
5. California ---------------------1 / 22,714
6. Michigan ---------------------1 / 22,737
7. Pennsylvania -----------------1 / 23,606
8. Missouri ----------------------1 / 23,654
9. North Carolina ----------------1 / 24,001
10. New Mexico ------------------1 / 24,130
11. Mississippi --------------------1 / 24,458
12. Oklahoma --------------------1 / 25,115
13. Alaska -----------------------1 / 31,907
14. Kentucky ---------------------1 / 32,107
15. New Jersey -------------------1 / 33,556
16. Illinois ------------------------1 / 37,410
17. New York ---------------------1 / 38,612
18. Delaware ---------------------1 / 38,794
19. West Virgina ------------------1 / 49,147
20. Massachusetts ----------------1 / 56,466
21. Idaho -------------------------1 / 58,658
22. Connecticut -------------------1 / 61,487
23. Utah --------------------------1 / 67,106
24. Rhode Island -------------------1 / 118,623
25. South Dakota ------------------1 / 195,479
26. North Dakota -------------------1 / 211,955
27. Hawaii -------------------------1 / 428,499

Bottom line, stricter firearm laws have no effect on firearm homicides.


That is why the Brady Center uses violent crime or firearm deaths instead of actual firearm homicides even though the firearm homicides are provided by the FBI online every year.






Link to FBI Stats Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007

Link to Brady Center state rankings list http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/p...d_rankings.pdf

Population from the U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts

Wikipedia Firearm Homicides for the District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That doesn't mean anything to me Sparky...Show Me.

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington CeaseFire

I did one of these myself, 100% my own research...my conclusions were somewhat different.

This post is from 2009:

Gun Control Doesn't Work...Here's the Proof.
​

[FONT=arial,arial]These are the 13 states with the most pro-Second Amendment laws according to the Brady Center (Oklahoma being the most pro-Second Amendment in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:[/FONT]​

----------State-----------------------------# of Firearm Homicides-----------Population​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

• Arkansas ----------------------130 ------------2,810,872
• [FONT=arial,arial]Idaho -------------------------------------------------25 ---------------------1,466,465[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]New Mexico ---------------------------------------81 ---------------------1,954,599[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]South Dakota ---------------------------------------4 -----------------------781,919[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]West Virginia --------------------------------------37 --------------------1,818,470[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Mississippi ---------------------------------------119 ---------------------2,910,540[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Alaska -----------------------------------------------21 --------------------- 670,053[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Louisiana ------------------------------------------455----------------------4,287,768[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Missouri -------------------------------------------247 ---------------------5,842,713[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]North Dakota ----------------------------------------3 -----------------------635,867[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Utah ---------------------------------------------------38 --------------------2,550,063[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Kentucky ------------------------------------------131 --------------------4,206,074[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Oklahoma -------------------------------- --------132 --------------------3,579,212[/FONT]

And the 13 strictest gun control states according to the Brady Center (California being the strictest in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:

• California -----------------------1,605-----36,457,549
• New Jersey ----------------------260-------8,724,560
• Connecticut ----------------------57 -------3,504,809
• Massachusetts ------------------114 -------6,437,193
• Maryland ------------------------414------- 5,615,727
• New York ------------------------500 -----19,306,183
• Rhode Island -------------------- --9 ------ 1,067,610
• Hawaii -----------------------------3 -------1,285,498
• Illinois ---------------------------343* -----12,831,970
• Pennsylvania ---------------------527 ------12,440,621
• Michigan -------------------------444 ------10,095,643
• Delaware--------------------------22 ---------853,476
• North Carolina--------------------369 --------8,856,505

* incomplete data received by the FBI


The District of Columbia is not listed on the Brady Center ranking list but it did have the strictest gun control in the nation in 2007:

• District of Columbia-----------------181--------581,530

So here is the break down for firearm homicides per number of citizens per state plus the District of Columbia with Washington D.C. being the most dangerous place to live with 1 out of every 3,212 residents murdered by firearms and Hawaii being the safest with 1 out of every 428,499 residents murdered by firearms.


The number listed is the population divided by the total firearm homicides to render 1 homicide per (X) number of residents. (Blue are Strict Gun Control, Red are Pro-gun)

1. District of Columbia -----------1 / 3,212
2. Louisiana ---------------------1 / 9,423
3. Maryland ---------------------1 / 13,564
4. Arkansas ---------------------1 / 21,622
5. California ---------------------1 / 22,714
6. Michigan ---------------------1 / 22,737
7. Pennsylvania -----------------1 / 23,606
8. Missouri ----------------------1 / 23,654
9. North Carolina ----------------1 / 24,001
10. New Mexico ------------------1 / 24,130
11. Mississippi --------------------1 / 24,458
12. Oklahoma --------------------1 / 25,115
13. Alaska -----------------------1 / 31,907
14. Kentucky ---------------------1 / 32,107
15. New Jersey -------------------1 / 33,556
16. Illinois ------------------------1 / 37,410
17. New York ---------------------1 / 38,612
18. Delaware ---------------------1 / 38,794
19. West Virgina ------------------1 / 49,147
20. Massachusetts ----------------1 / 56,466
21. Idaho -------------------------1 / 58,658
22. Connecticut -------------------1 / 61,487
23. Utah --------------------------1 / 67,106
24. Rhode Island -------------------1 / 118,623
25. South Dakota ------------------1 / 195,479
26. North Dakota -------------------1 / 211,955
27. Hawaii -------------------------1 / 428,499

Bottom line, stricter firearm laws have no effect on firearm homicides.


That is why the Brady Center uses violent crime or firearm deaths instead of actual firearm homicides even though the firearm homicides are provided by the FBI online every year.






Link to FBI Stats Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007

Link to Brady Center state rankings list http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/p...d_rankings.pdf

Population from the U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts

Wikipedia Firearm Homicides for the District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.

I wouldn't say North Carolina is a strict gun control state, Now that we have Republican control at the state level they are makinbg changes, and when Purdue is gone things will hopefully change.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why is there a debate? the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear.

You're right it is.

Well Regulated Militia.

As in regulated by the government.

I'm reasonably sure that they did not mean, Jared Loughner can walk into a store despite being certifiably insane, and purchase a gun with an extra large clip of ammo.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't mean the Virginia Tech shooter could walk in and buy two guns and then proceed to shoot up forty of his classmates.

Somewhere between the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers and the NRA "let's arm the kids, too!" Gun huggers, there are sensible people who think that guns should be treated like any other potentially dangerous device- something that should be licensed and regulated.

The term Well Regulate does not mean today what it meant to the founders. Well Regulated to the founders meant in working order.


The founders did not say
A militia well regulated by Congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

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.

Well regulated did not mean government over sight

Still waiting Joe

 

[sparky]

That doesn't mean anything to me Sparky...Show Me.

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington CeaseFire

I did one of these myself, 100% my own research...my conclusions were somewhat different.

This post is from 2009:

Gun Control Doesn't Work...Here's the Proof.
​

[FONT=arial,arial]These are the 13 states with the most pro-Second Amendment laws according to the Brady Center (Oklahoma being the most pro-Second Amendment in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:[/FONT]​

----------State-----------------------------# of Firearm Homicides-----------Population​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

• Arkansas ----------------------130 ------------2,810,872
• [FONT=arial,arial]Idaho -------------------------------------------------25 ---------------------1,466,465[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]New Mexico ---------------------------------------81 ---------------------1,954,599[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]South Dakota ---------------------------------------4 -----------------------781,919[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]West Virginia --------------------------------------37 --------------------1,818,470[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Mississippi ---------------------------------------119 ---------------------2,910,540[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Alaska -----------------------------------------------21 --------------------- 670,053[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Louisiana ------------------------------------------455----------------------4,287,768[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Missouri -------------------------------------------247 ---------------------5,842,713[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]North Dakota ----------------------------------------3 -----------------------635,867[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Utah ---------------------------------------------------38 --------------------2,550,063[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Kentucky ------------------------------------------131 --------------------4,206,074[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Oklahoma -------------------------------- --------132 --------------------3,579,212[/FONT]

And the 13 strictest gun control states according to the Brady Center (California being the strictest in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:

• California -----------------------1,605-----36,457,549
• New Jersey ----------------------260-------8,724,560
• Connecticut ----------------------57 -------3,504,809
• Massachusetts ------------------114 -------6,437,193
• Maryland ------------------------414------- 5,615,727
• New York ------------------------500 -----19,306,183
• Rhode Island -------------------- --9 ------ 1,067,610
• Hawaii -----------------------------3 -------1,285,498
• Illinois ---------------------------343* -----12,831,970
• Pennsylvania ---------------------527 ------12,440,621
• Michigan -------------------------444 ------10,095,643
• Delaware--------------------------22 ---------853,476
• North Carolina--------------------369 --------8,856,505

* incomplete data received by the FBI


The District of Columbia is not listed on the Brady Center ranking list but it did have the strictest gun control in the nation in 2007:

• District of Columbia-----------------181--------581,530

So here is the break down for firearm homicides per number of citizens per state plus the District of Columbia with Washington D.C. being the most dangerous place to live with 1 out of every 3,212 residents murdered by firearms and Hawaii being the safest with 1 out of every 428,499 residents murdered by firearms.


The number listed is the population divided by the total firearm homicides to render 1 homicide per (X) number of residents. (Blue are Strict Gun Control, Red are Pro-gun)

1. District of Columbia -----------1 / 3,212
2. Louisiana ---------------------1 / 9,423
3. Maryland ---------------------1 / 13,564
4. Arkansas ---------------------1 / 21,622
5. California ---------------------1 / 22,714
6. Michigan ---------------------1 / 22,737
7. Pennsylvania -----------------1 / 23,606
8. Missouri ----------------------1 / 23,654
9. North Carolina ----------------1 / 24,001
10. New Mexico ------------------1 / 24,130
11. Mississippi --------------------1 / 24,458
12. Oklahoma --------------------1 / 25,115
13. Alaska -----------------------1 / 31,907
14. Kentucky ---------------------1 / 32,107
15. New Jersey -------------------1 / 33,556
16. Illinois ------------------------1 / 37,410
17. New York ---------------------1 / 38,612
18. Delaware ---------------------1 / 38,794
19. West Virgina ------------------1 / 49,147
20. Massachusetts ----------------1 / 56,466
21. Idaho -------------------------1 / 58,658
22. Connecticut -------------------1 / 61,487
23. Utah --------------------------1 / 67,106
24. Rhode Island -------------------1 / 118,623
25. South Dakota ------------------1 / 195,479
26. North Dakota -------------------1 / 211,955
27. Hawaii -------------------------1 / 428,499

Bottom line, stricter firearm laws have no effect on firearm homicides.


That is why the Brady Center uses violent crime or firearm deaths instead of actual firearm homicides even though the firearm homicides are provided by the FBI online every year.






Link to FBI Stats Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007

Link to Brady Center state rankings list http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/p...d_rankings.pdf

Population from the U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts

Wikipedia Firearm Homicides for the District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.

good shootin' southpaw.

i could further the sentiment by insisting that , as a Vermonter, i live in a state with one of the highest gun/citizen ratio's , and one of the lowest gun incident per capita stats

i just have no attachment of that to some constitutional fundamentalism

~S~