Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

According to you morons it doesn't matter what their size is.....since they have gun laws that allow people to carry guns.....and those laws aren't as stupid as California.....Vermont should be a bigger hell hole than Los Angeles...and it isn't.....guns don't cause crime.....something you twits can't get into your brains.....

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

 

[2aguy]

States with tougher gun laws have more gun crime, not less......cities that have strict gun laws that make it harder for law abiding people to own guns have more gun crime not less.....

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

According to you morons it doesn't matter what their size is.....since they have gun laws that allow people to carry guns.....and those laws aren't as stupid as California.....Vermont should be a bigger hell hole than Los Angeles...and it isn't.....guns don't cause crime.....something you twits can't get into your brains.....

Because Vermont is empty . No one even runs into each other .

 

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

According to you morons it doesn't matter what their size is.....since they have gun laws that allow people to carry guns.....and those laws aren't as stupid as California.....Vermont should be a bigger hell hole than Los Angeles...and it isn't.....guns don't cause crime.....something you twits can't get into your brains.....

Because Vermont is empty . No one even runs into each other .

Nope.....according to you guys it should be a hell hole......just because of their gun laws........and D.C., New York, Baltimore, Chicago should be the most peaceful places on earth........

 

[2aguy]

And here is a good point about why gun control does not lower the gun crime rate...

Look, Another Gun Law.. part 2- Why Gun Control Fails

Yes, criminals break the law. That means the laws regulating guns and honest gun owners are ineffective. Those laws don’t reduce crime. Said another way, we can get rid of the laws on gun registration and crime won’t increase. Criminals don’t take mandatory background checks either. That means we can eliminate the laws on regulating honest gun owners, and crime won’t go up. There is less here than meets the eye.

Read more: Look, Another Gun Law.. part 2- Why Gun Control Fails
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

[ChrisL]

I'm not necessarily against background checks because mentally ill people or people who are not supposed to have guns to begin with would then be able to easily obtain them. I am against STUPID laws that don't do anything, such as laws regarding ammo and types of weapons and gun bans. Things like that.

 

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

And of course you are wrong......


Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?



Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down.

New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies.

Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicidesin 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journalpost, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not necessarily against background checks because mentally ill people or people who are not supposed to have guns to begin with would then be able to easily obtain them. I am against STUPID laws that don't do anything, such as laws regarding ammo and types of weapons and gun bans. Things like that.

I am against universal background checks because their only purpose is to get anti gunners to gun registration...because you need universal gun registration to do universal background checks...that is the only reason.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

 

[2aguy]

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

 

[ChrisL]

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.

So you don't trust the government with background checks, but you trust them enough to allow them to execute citizens?

 

[ChrisL]

Makes zero sense to me. I do NOT trust the government to allow them to execute people using OUR taxpayer dollars. We are a civilized nation. We shouldn't allow the states to execute citizens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

The whole point of justice is that it is done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying.

 

[P@triot]

I'm against the death penalty, but I am for LWOP. I guess I'm a "libtard" now.

No you're not. You don't believe that banning guns will stop criminals from killing people with guns.

 

[P@triot]

The whole point of justice is that it is done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying.

Now that is some epic irony there. The entire liberal platform is built on sheer irrational emotion. It's why liberal policy always ends in failure. Because they ignore facts, data, and reality because of feelings.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The whole point of justice is that it is done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying.

Now that is some epic irony there. The entire liberal platform is built on sheer irrational emotion. It's why liberal policy always ends in failure. Because they ignore facts, data, and reality because of feelings.

You're partly right. Yes, a lot of liberals, like conservatives build their whole political view on something that isn't workable, is too ideological for it to work.

This is why I'm someone in the center of politics. I believe that politics should be about all people, and not just about one group trying to gain supremacy over all others, like left over right or right over left.

However, this has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about justice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

The whole point of justice is that it is done without emotion. It is based on the facts, not on how much someone is crying.

No, that's why we have different penalties for different violations. If what you wrote had any truth to it, we wouldn't need judges, we would just have a computer spit out the sentence after the defendant was found guilty.

But we have judges to take emotions into account. If somebody kills me, my pain is over, it's my family that has to suffer my loss. The defendant is the one who caused that suffering to my family, friends and even my employer. Therefore it's the defendant that has to pay.

That's why it's my belief that the family should make the decision on the death penalty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............