Gun law - two.

CHICAGO For the first time since 1999, serious crime took a holiday Monday in Chicago.

Police Superintendent Phil Cline says none of the city's nearly three million citizens got shot. And nobody was murdered.

Cline says he was amazed to wake up yesterday and find no news of any overnight shootings or killings. He attributes the success to the pressure the department's putting on gangs -- and a little bit of luck.

Last year, Chicago had 600 killings and just over three-thousand aggravated batteries by firearm.

Cline says the city's down 112 homicides and almost one-thousand shootings compared with last year.



http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=2393366

.................................................. ...............................................

It say a lot about a city and its gun laws that one day in 5 years is newsworthy for a lack of high-end crime.

I have tried to argue a case for New Zealand-style gun management in the forum, only to be shouted down by NRA hawks who see any changes as against their interests.

New Zealand as a whole has about 25% more population than the city of Chicago, yet the comparison in terms of crime still favours NZ by a country mile.The reason? Handguns in NZ are properly managed.We don't get all excitable about the 'what if's'[what if yer mother was bein' raped?What if yer kids were bein' abducted?]we'll leave that kind of hypothetical hype to the gun perverts and hillbillies.

Here are the statistics, and the methods used to achieve them

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/

The second ammendment doesn't work.It's time to remove handguns, and the less responsible lower layers of the gun owning community from the gun control equations.That way,nobody would need a gun under their bed to feel safe at night.

Comparing New Zealand to Chicago just doesn't wash. It is more than sheer numbers , you've got to look at the makeup of those people, the lifestyle, the races, etc. A sheep farmer isn't likely to bust a cap in your butt, but a crack dealer will do it just for fun.

tell me how,if he can't afford a black market weapon.

More things need to be looked at like ethnic diversity, per capita income, poverty. It isn't the faulty of anyone other than the unemployed either.

Your concern for our politics and our safety is touching Taranaki. (if I thought it was genuine)

Allow me to point out that right to carry laws, meaning that anyone who wants a concealed weapons permit can have one if they pass the class work and have no criminal record, have not caused an increase in crime http://www.equalccw.com/ccweffects.html (http://www.equalccw.com/ccweffects.html)

In other words, legal gun ownership is not causing the problem. Illegal gun ownership is the problem. So is the solution to take the guns away from the people who aren’t causing the problem or from the people who already own them illegally? Anyone who says take them all away is way past the throw the baby out with the bathwater stage. If the guns are already held illegally, those folks will just turn them in?

The old saying is that if gun ownership is illegal then only criminals will have the guns. While it sounds simplistic, it’s the truth. Taking my guns (handguns) will do nothing to lower the crime rate. Taking the guns from my wife will not lower the crime rate.

I am all for strict control of selling and distributing weapons. All purchasers should have a background check before they can own the gun. I’m also ok with registration of the weapon. That way someone can be held responsible for who they sell their guns to (private party sales). Get tough on the criminals – not their tools.














Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Tell me ,Yogs....how does one acquire an 'illegal' firearm?Take away the smorgasbord of legally held handguns,you starve the market of weapons to be used against yourself.Sometimes,even perfectly legal guns do more harm than good....

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/09/29/648542.html

I don't know how one aquired an illegal firearm. I buy mine legally. And to this point, I am still waiting for an explanation how giving up my guns will lower crime.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

you've jumped the gun again Yogs. :evillol: I'm only talking about making ownership a responsibility,rather than a right.Taking the guns away from those who do not understand and respect their capabilities if used recklessly or allowed to fall into the wrong hands would not affect you as far as I can tell,other than by making it harder for crooks to steal guns.

yogs you also have to look at other states. Here in Utah for example gun laws are practically inexistent. One of my roomates dragged me to a gun show, where BTW the law allows you to buy without a licence(not joking) pretty much any guns. What really sickened me was one thing, they were selling silencers(again not joking). And beside murder there is no much use for a silencer.

Also if medical history would've been required by law to buy guns we would not have had 10 people dead a few years ago in Salt lake when a schizophrenic missed one treatement and went on a shooting spree with his legally owned gun.

Anyway my point is that they either need to federalise or force local laws to be changed and enforced since in many states they are a joke. So what is to stop a criminal to just drive across state borders and buy stuff. Ar least if they buy guns ilegally they have to try, but this is serving them on a silver platter.

Like I said. I don't have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. I also don't have problems with laws making it sellers (private and public) responsible for who they sell it to. Forcing a call to the local sherrifs department to verify that someone doesn't have a felony conviction is not a difficult thing to do (as those records are public information).













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The only weapon that society shouldn't pocess is an automatic weapon. If the U.S. military's primary weapon the m-16a2 service rifle is not automatic then why should a civilian's weapon be? I can understand rifles for hunting and hand guns for sport. But who would actually need an Ak-47?

But who would actually need an Ak-47?

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

That is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates most of the problems in the US. Who gives a shit about other people, I want what I want, and I'm gonna have it, no matter the cost to anyone else.

It's simple. Less firearms means less deaths. It is WAY too easy to kill someone with a firearm. It's for the greater good of the people, not the person. And I don't think anyone would argue that the astronomical murder by firearms rate in the US (Compared to any other country) is a good thing.

That is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates most of the problems in the US. Who gives a shit about other people, I want what I want, and I'm gonna have it, no matter the cost to anyone else.

It's simple. Less firearms means less deaths. It is WAY too easy to kill someone with a firearm. It's for the greater good of the people, not the person. And I don't think anyone would argue that the astronomical murder by firearms rate in the US (Compared to any other country) is a good thing.

You have a misunderstanding. There is a distinct difference between not caring about someone else and legitimately asking who has a right to decide what you 'need'. There would never a collector of anything - cars to baseball cards because you don't 'need' them. How many women would be shocked to learn that they couldn't buy any more shoes because they don't 'need' them. Perhaps driving becomes restricted because you don't 'need' to drive to where you are going. Consider how much you rebelled against your parents when they essentially told you what to do because of 'need' and then think if some faceless unaccountable individual gets to decide what you 'need'.

Personal responsibility would solve many issues. However, instead of doing that we tolerate this scapegoat society. There is always someone or something else to blame. It was there upbringing. It was the cigarette company. It was the gun. It was the fast food restaurant. It's always something other then the person standing up and being held accountable for their actions.

Lastly,
Nobody said they were going to get something 'no matter what the cost'. However, the question still remains, what benefit is there to society by me or my wife giving up our guns?













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Like I said. I don't have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. I also don't have problems with laws making it sellers (private and public) responsible for who they sell it to. Forcing a call to the local sherrifs department to verify that someone doesn't have a felony conviction is not a difficult thing to do (as those records are public information).


That is my point they need to do something about that. but so far there is absolutelly not control whatsoever. And I think the situation in utah is repetead in many states.


Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

Then according to you, who has the right to decide if you can speed, or even murder someone. How dare they interfere with your needs or desires. You should be able to buy mustard gas and murder as many people as you want because you want it. Right? How dare they tell you not to do that?

:disappoin

However, the question still remains, what benefit is there to society by me or my wife giving up our guns?

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.And if enough legitimate gun owners raise the standard of care for their guns,the acquisition of weapons for illegal purposes becomes harder.Gun crime is only out of control because gun ownership is out of control.Flooding the market with guns until everyone has one has created a level playing field of mayhem.Squeezing out the gun supply to both the irresponsible gun owners and therefor also the opportunist firearms thief does not unbalance the equation,but removes a whole tier of unneccessary firearms problems.

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.
Do you have any evidence that illegal gun acquisistion is coming mainly from stealing guns? As far as I know most guns are gotten through dealers in some way or another.

Do you have any evidence that illegal gun acquisistion is coming mainly from stealing guns? As far as I know most guns are gotten through dealers in some way or another.

Please...read what I write before applying your prejudices.Nowhere have I argued the point that you are asking me to prove.The main thrust of this thread is to restrict ownership to those who can be relied upon to use them wisely,and that would obviously makre it harder for crims to steal OR to buy guns.

Then according to you, who has the right to decide if you can speed, or even murder someone. How dare they interfere with your needs or desires. You should be able to buy mustard gas and murder as many people as you want because you want it. Right? How dare they tell you not to do that?

Of course, because gun ownership is one step away from murdering people with mustard gas. Please keep your sarcasm to yourself, I'm attempting to have a serious discussion. I base most of my policital opinions around two basic rules.
1. Do all you that you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on others or their property.

Murdering as many people as I want(although I don't recall stating that I wanted to murder anyone) would encroach on the rights of others. However, my owning a gun would not.

Of course, because gun ownership is one step away from murdering people with mustard gas. Please keep your sarcasm to yourself, I'm attempting to have a serious discussion. I base most of my policital opinions around two basic rules.
1. Do all you that you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on others or their property.

Murdering as many people as I want(although I don't recall stating that I wanted to murder anyone) would encroach on the rights of others. However, my owning a gun would not.


ok the perhaps i took it a bit too far and said murder so lets take that out. But you did bring the argument: to be alowed a weapon because And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it? So if you want mustard gas should you be allowed to have it?

So if you want mustard gas should you be allowed to have it?
mustard gas is inherently dangerous so no you shouldnt be allowed to have it, however a gun is perfectly safe as long as it is kept unloaded.

mustard gas is inherently dangerous so no you shouldnt be allowed to have it, however a gun is perfectly safe as long as it is kept unloaded.


ok fine then a rocket launcher that is perfectly safe if you keep it unloaded too. Should that be allowed just bacause you want it?

Welcome to the slippery slope.

Its just as easy to argue the 'need' when you phrase the question in a way to get the answer you want. Do you need a semi-automatic weapon? Do you need to buy a car that can go over seventy miles per hour? (the fastest speed limit in the country) Do you need to drink one more beer? Add my favorite - ask the Chinese how nobody needs more then one kid.

Mr. T - the question about how society would be safer if I gave up my guns wasn't directed at you. Its directed at anyone that thinks nobody should have them.

After two decades, nobody has tried to steal my guns. I have not shot at anyone or use the gun in any crime. There were about eighty million other legal gun owners who did the same.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Thanks for clarifying in my absence Yogs. What I was getting at is
1.No one has the right to decide what I need or want and how to distinguish the two.
2.No one has the right to tell me I can't do/have something because it isn't necessary.
3.Ownership of an item that has uses other than killing human being in cold blood does not constitute an encroachment on other people.

I can shoot a gun for recreation/target practice, I can use it for self defense or I can add it to my collection. In my opinion this is reasonable. Owning mustard gas for target practice or nostalgic/sentimental value is not, in my opinion reasonable.

Thanks for clarifying in my absence Yogs. What I was getting at is
1.No one has the right to decide what I need or want and how to distinguish the two.
2.No one has the right to tell me I can't do/have something because it isn't necessary.
3.Ownership of an item that has uses other than killing human being in cold blood does not constitute an encroachment on other people.

I can shoot a gun for recreation/target practice, I can use it for self defense or I can add it to my collection. In my opinion this is reasonable. Owning mustard gas for target practice or nostalgic/sentimental value is not, in my opinion reasonable.


See but that is exactly the problem with your original argument. You think owning mustard gas or a rocket launcher is not reasonable, but someone can use your own argument:
Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?
So who are you to tell them that they don't need it? Maybe they just whant to have it for fun. Who are you to tell them what is reasonable and what is not?

So who are you to tell them that they don't need it? Maybe they just whant to have it for fun. Who are you to tell them what is reasonable and what is not?

Exactly! Who makes the determination is what society will settle for. As for guns - I'm from the side that need is not an issue. Some see it that way. But, if you ever want something out of others hans, there has to be other reasons then that they are not needed or it'll never happen.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

You're choosing to ignore the argument that I made that nobody asked you to give up your guns.However, if you chose to give up your guns ,the chance that somebody may someday steal them and use them against you or someone that you care about is eliminated.
Since you used an "if", I'll use one, too. If I choose to give up my guns, the chances that somebody breaks into my abode leaving me powerless to defend my family and property increases. Breakins are quite rampant throughout the world, i.e., not isolated to the US. There are less chances of my guns being stolen to be used against someone.


And if enough legitimate gun owners raise the standard of care for their guns,the acquisition of weapons for illegal purposes becomes harder.Gun crime is only out of control because gun ownership is out of control.

The standard of care for our legally acquired and owned guns are excellent and an envy to citizens of many countries that cannot afford or even dream of having anywhere near that standard. Gun crime is only out of control because ILLEGAL gun ownership is out of control.


Flooding the market with guns until everyone has one has created a level playing field of mayhem.
Check your facts first. FIRST, there has always been a large percentage of legally owned firearms, even before the Red Coats were sent back to England. SECOND, illegally owned guns are still on the increase because of gun control efforts that target the wrong populace. THIRD, restricting legal gun ownership will only level the playing field (from SECOND above) and create more mayhem.


Squeezing out the gun supply to both the irresponsible gun owners and therefor also the opportunist firearms thief does not unbalance the equation,but removes a whole tier of unneccessary firearms problems.
Ahhhh, YES! We have no issues with this wonderfully new concept. This is a good train of thought. If only gun control advocates/fanatics can set their sights on the right target and leave law-abiding legal gun owners alone. In fact, the NRA has been offering free target shooting lessons for these types for decades. Perhaps, they can learn the most important lesson of all in target shooting: Identifying the bloody target FIRST.

<snip>
I have tried to argue a case for New Zealand-style gun management in the forum, only to be shouted down by NRA hawks who see any changes as against their interests.

New Zealand-style economics does not work in US-style economy. New Zealand-style gun management does not work in US-style gun business. You were not shouted down, simply debated down because your analogies and logic were flawed.

It's very easy for people to pontificate about subject matter they have little or no first hand knowledge about (oh, yeah, you have access to all the information that we do...) in the confines of the environment they are talking about. Unless you walk our shoes, it's only theory for you.


New Zealand as a whole has about 25% more population than the city of Chicago, yet the comparison in terms of crime still favours NZ by a country mile.The reason? Handguns in NZ are properly managed.We don't get all excitable about the 'what if's'[what if yer mother was bein' raped?What if yer kids were bein' abducted?]we'll leave that kind of hypothetical hype to the gun perverts and hillbillies.

See, this is why you keep getting swatted down,... I mean, debated down...

NZ has a population of just under 4 million humans in a land area of just over 100,000 square miles (i.e., 40 humans per square mile), working force of 2 million with an unemployement rate over just over 5% (i.e., 40,000 out of work), etc.

USA has a population of just over 293 million humans in a land area of just over 3.7 million square miles (i.e., 79 humans per square mile), working force of 142 million with an unemployment rate of just over 6% (i.e., 1,758,000 out of work), etc.

WHOA!

Why you would compare a country (NZ) to a city (Chicago), not even a state (Illinois) or another country (USA) just goes to show how flawed this and other gun-control analogies are to begin with. Handgun control in NZ does not interest us a wee bit. We would prefer that gun control freaks take their fluffy toys and play in the corner where they won't get hurt. And, Shush! Legal gun ownership is only for the adults...


The second ammendment doesn't work.It's time to remove handguns, and the less responsible lower layers of the gun owning community from the gun control equations.That way,nobody would need a gun under their bed to feel safe at night.
HAHAHAHA!!! I can understand why people who have no constitutions to amend in the first place are quick to discard one. That's pretty ironic criticizing an amendment to the US constitution from a country that isn't even totally free/independent (e.g., with an elected Prime Minister who can be fired by the Queen-appointed Governor General...) You can read as much as you want about our constitution and criticize it. See if you can come up with a better one, or better yet, get your own constitution so you can practice your amendments on it first. The second amendment to OUR consitution works quite well, thank you. ( ! )

Handgun control in NZ does not interest us a wee bit. We would prefer that gun control freaks take their fluffy toys and play in the corner where they won't get hurt. And, Shush! Legal gun ownership is only for the adults...


If you can't debate sensibly,please...no wait...NRA.

Obviously can't debate sensibly.

The second amendment to OUR consitution works quite well, thank you.

Obviously.That's why it's news when nobody gets shot for a change.

If you can't debate sensibly,please...no wait...NRA.

Obviously can't debate sensibly.



Obviously.That's why it's news when nobody gets shot for a change.
Flawed logic, flawed analogies. That's probably why you haven't attempted to respond because your arguments are so easy to tear apart...obviously... And for crying out loud, please stop sniveling like a little brat. Stand up like a hillbilly!

No news. We have a few days of the year like that in NYC.

Here we go again with all the anti-gun fanatics crying for their cause and not getting anywhere.

Most of the time people are looking at firearm deaths as a whole, not just homicide. A large majority of annual deaths from firearms are suicides. These people obviously wanted to die. Take away a gun they would use a knife, or pills, or jump, or whatever. The fact is that there really isn't any other country in the world, especially NZ, that you can compare to the US when it comes to guns.

Everyone keeps saying how it would be safer if you didn't have any guns, because people couldn't use them against you. The people you are reffering to are the law abiding citizens with a clean background check and proper permits as set by state and federal gov't. Obviously these people aren't morons. They in the greater majority I'm sure are responsible, they would have to be to be deemed ok to own a gun and follow the laws (just pointing out the blatantly obvious for the ignorant). Most of them have their guns as I do, in a safe and stored seperate from the ammunition.

Honestly if someone can get into my 2" thick safe that is bolted down into the concrete, then they deserve to have my guns. The only gun not in that case is the one in the safe by my bed, which is for carry, so I know where it is at all times.

Now if we could have a valid argument where we don't bring out the ignorance in everyone, please let me know.

Here we go again with all the anti-gun fanatics crying for their cause and not getting anywhere.

Most of the time people are looking at firearm deaths as a whole, not just homicide. A large majority of annual deaths from firearms are suicides. These people obviously wanted to die. Take away a gun they would use a knife, or pills, or jump, or whatever. The fact is that there really isn't any other country in the world, especially NZ, that you can compare to the US when it comes to guns.

Everyone keeps saying how it would be safer if you didn't have any guns, because people couldn't use them against you. The people you are reffering to are the law abiding citizens with a clean background check and proper permits as set by state and federal gov't. Obviously these people aren't morons. They in the greater majority I'm sure are responsible, they would have to be to be deemed ok to own a gun and follow the laws (just pointing out the blatantly obvious for the ignorant). Most of them have their guns as I do, in a safe and stored seperate from the ammunition.



Honestly if someone can get into my 2" thick safe that is bolted down into the concrete, then they deserve to have my guns. The only gun not in that case is the one in the safe by my bed, which is for carry, so I know where it is at all times.

Now if we could have a valid argument where we don't bring out the ignorance in everyone, please let me know.

....Which seems to be exactly the kind of responsible behaviour that I am advocating.However, there is a massive 'blind spot' in the gun -owning psyche that seems to run along the lines of "Any attempt to regulate guns is bad".The NRA is a prime example of this,having made only token gestures towards making gun ownership safer for its members and their families.

That's probably why you haven't attempted to respond because ...

Wrong again pal.I have decided that you are a waste of my time,and Iw on't be responding to your ridiculous nonsense.The last thread got closed because you were losing badly and resorted to trolling, if you've got nothing intelligent to say,please say nothing further.

"NZ has a population of just under 4 million humans in a land area of just over 100,000 square miles (i.e., 40 humans per square mile), working force of 2 million with an unemployement rate over just over 5% (i.e., 40,000 out of work), etc.

Why you would compare a country (NZ) to a city (Chicago), not even a state (Illinois)"

To compare NZ to Chicago seems a bit unfair. 2.8 million people in just the city and over 9 million people in the metropolitan area (as of 2000 census bureau) all squeezed in an area of 227 square miles (city alone).

How about Colorado? 4.3 million humans and 104 thousand square miles. That should even out the field. Although gun crime rates are a bit sketchy, the general numbers seem to indicate about 172 gun crimes in 2003.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/guncontrol/a/guncrimes.htm

<snip>


Wrong again pal.I have decided that you are a waste of my time,and Iw on't be responding to your ridiculous nonsense.The last thread got closed because you were losing badly and resorted to trolling, if you've got nothing intelligent to say,please say nothing further.

HAHAHAHA!!! That's pretty good, pal. If you've just decided that now, that's 0-60 in three weeks, huh?

I've still got my guns, am planning to legally acquire more, and am enjoying exercising my Second Amendment right. It's all about envy, isn't it? (and I don't mean that I envy you not having guns and/or constitutional amendments either)

The last thread got closed because your arguments were dissected piece by piece. I was threatened with being banned but the threat was "withdrawn" because I reposted that someone's own quotes to support my arguments? Out of curiosity, who closed the thread? Someone who was for gun ownership who felt sorry for you, or someone who was for gun control who felt sorry for you?

If you have nothing intelligent to support your already-made-obvious-to-be-flawed arguments and logic, please propose nothing further about this topic which is obviously way beyond your grasp. I'll be happy to repost responses and quotes to support this statement. Go Ahead. Make My Day (again).

The last thread got closed because your arguments were dissected piece by piece. I was threatened with being banned but the threat was "withdrawn" because I reposted that someone's own quotes to support my arguments? Out of curiosity, who closed the thread? Someone who was for gun ownership who felt sorry for you, or someone who was for gun control who felt sorry for you?

The last thread got closed because you were trolling.This thread got closed because you were trolling.If you want to be banned for trolling,rerun your obnoxious attitude by me again.I've tried twice to have a serious debate on gun management with my friends in this forum only to be howled down by an idiot n00b with no manners. :rolleyes: