second amendment threatened!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

 

I said facts, not spin.

 

What you call spin I call facts, you really need to stop being so hostile to everyone you meet on here, you might get the runs.

 

I am hostile to your ideas, not you. It's a politics forum and somewhat adversarial in nature. I really don't see what my intestinal health has to do with it.

Facts are that which can be proven or disproven. You've provided a link for a partisan website you use as a substitute for critical thought. You don't really seem to able to synthesize those thoughts into a cohesive argument. Who do you expect to be able to convince with that?

Want a strong statistic on crime rates? Do a bit of research on the statistical link between police presence as officers per capita and crime rates. It's easy. More cops=less crime.

There is no magic link between having guns or not having guns and crime rates.

 

We are probably very similar. I also see constitutional rights being stripped away. We probably both are asking, what is going on here? Where is the tipping point between a government for the people and a government against the people?

We both see the same problem, but have radically different ideas about the true magnitude of the problem, and the solution. The question isn’t to fight or not. The question is, on what battleground, using what weapons?

At this point, words are the only weapon either of us are fighting with. I firmly believe you will never successfully fight the system using the examples you cite. You are in fact being counter-productive, and I wish you would switch tactics.

‘Fighting for your rights’ with a gun is, in my opinion, completely against what America is. Innocent until proven guilty applies not only to the person whose door is being busted down, but also to the people who bust down the door. Were the law enforcement officers who busted into the Davidian compound guilty of murder, punishable by death? Were the people inside the house the judge and jury? What law says if a police officer who has a search warrant breaks in your door, you have the right to shoot him?

See? That is what you are ultimately saying. It’s a ridiculous position, though a fairly common one. It leads nowhere that I want to go. I do own guns, and want to retain that right. I was taught from age 7 not only about the power of a firearm, but also, its weaknesses.

You need to temper your view with the fact that there is always some segment of the population that is having their rights actively suppressed. Should the gay right activists take up arms because their perceived idea of rights is being violated? Are lone gunmen who shoot doctors who perform abortions good Americans? Would the civil rights movement been more successful if it had been an armed revolt?

What is your compelling argument that your constitutional rights are being violated to such an extent that it is time to bear arms? I don’t see a compelling argument. I see a guy pointing a gun at the wrong thing, which I was warned not to do from the age of seven.

 

It is only a war crime if you lose the war.

 

Your right there is no correlation between gun availability and crime rates that has ever been shown.

However an interesting side note to this is the fact that in the UK began in earnest banning guns in 1997 after the Dunblane massacre. Now since 1997 many types of violent crime has recorded a steady increase. Many anti-gun attribute this to the fact the UK reworked their crime reporting techniques, the pro-gun point to the fact that as admitted by criminals this removed the fear of victims being armed, emboldening them to commit the crime.
Neither can be conclusively be proved.
HOWEVER
There is a verifiable fact that the number of murders committed by firearm has remained steady for decades in the UK. Slight variances from year to year yes but overall a steady amount. So what did the gun bans really accomplish?

I understand you want facts and figures posted and I have done so in the past here and they were completely censored and deleted. I would suggest you research these figures at homeoffice.gov.uk.

 

The very idea that a criminal will not target you because you are armed is ridiculous.

I would just wait until you aren't home, and steal your guns, if I were a criminal. Guns are very valuable.

look, I believe in the 2nd amendment, but we don't have to resort to stupidity to defend it, and we have to be reasonable. otherwise we may find ourselves with only the firearms available at the time the constitution was written.

black powder, anyone?

 

So iI guess all those criminals they interviewed that admitted they fear an armed victim more than they fear police is "ridiculous" also.

I think you would have a hard time getting to my guns even if I were not home.

I agree. Which is why there has been a run on firearm purchases in the last week or two. I spoke to one gun shop owner here last week when I picked up my new Kimber 1911 and he told me he has sold almost $20,000.00 worth of AR-15's alone in the last 7 days. This does not include a myriad of AK-47's and others.

The point of the post was to research the fact that even though the UK has been banning guns vigorously and has the most stringent gun laws now in the world, it has done nothing to lower gun murders. I don't think that is a "ridiculous" point.

 

Nothing can not stop a determined thief, certainly not guns. Thieves may fear armed victims more than the police, but that's because the police are not as likely to hurt them. If someone is afraid of you, it's not a guarantee they will leave you or your possessions alone. Fear does not equal security. The best you can do is make it inconvenient to break in to avoid being chosen at random by a pro.

 

It's not the ban that matters, it is the enforcement of the ban. This is a plain old red herring. More cops = less crime. Less cops = more crime. We establish the crime, and then we reduce it based on our resources. The more resources we put into it, the more crime is prevented. There is no way around that, and it certainly can't be done by arming society to the teeth.

Somehow asserting that we can look at statutes and discount enforcement as a whole to determine the social effects of the statutes themselves is backwards and presumptuous. It's ridiculous.

Using the same logic, the author of Freakonomics came to the conclusion, well supported, that abortion is linked to crime rates, and that the overall decline in crime rates seen over the past 2 decades was due to increased availability of abortions.

 

My guns are locked in a vault built out of 6" thick steel reinforced concrete walls ceiling and floor. There are two steel doors to open to get to the guns. the inner door is equipped with a biometric lock. The whole house is secured by a monitored alarm with door sensors on both vault doors. Impossible to get to, no. Difficult and "inconvenient" yes.

 

I agree the enforcement of laws is the key. But i think you are missing my point of what the ban in the UK accomplished. Hundreds of guns were confiscated and destroyed at a cost of millions of pounds. These guns were taken from ordinary citizens who used them for sport shooting, hunting, and antique collections not criminals. However the gun murder rate has not decreased. So I have asked if this effort and cost would have not been better spent elsewhere on enforcement.

I am not discounting the enforcement of gun laws in fact i call for STRICT enforcement of the over 22,000 gun laws in effect now.

I don't see how abortion rates can be linked to crime rated directly. A far stretch would be to say that crime rates may be linked to overcrowding and poverty linked to such overcrowding, stretching the availability and resources of social programs.

 

Ditto, more or less. If somebody has the skill to get what is in my safe, they deserve it. It would be easier to steal the house around it.

 

do you keep your safe because you have to, or because you choose to?

 

At the time I built my house I had the safe built in. It is not as much of an issue now, but for a couple of years there were times when I would not be at home for quite a while, and I felt better knowing my valuables were not only safe from theft, but also fire. I do have an excellent security system which I have total confidence in, but it still relies on the human factor (police) to respond if there is a breach. As cool as it is to be able to look at live feed video of your living room on a Paravant while in the middle of f'n nowhere, it would be infuriating to watch a theif hauling your shit out the front door while you're half a world away. Now even if somebody could find the safe, the tools and skill level they would need to crack it would not justify their return. Somebody with that skill level would be far more likely to hit a higher profile target. Call me paranoid, but I feel safe.

 

no, no, that's not paranoid. I wouldn't mind something like that myself.

but I don't see how you, me, and only the people that choose to have safes are going to do anything about the problem of having readily available assault weapons.

 

Readily available assault weapons don't bother me one bit. Don't know about you, but I have never been affected by anyone with an assault weapon (in the US), nor has anyone that I know. I think fear tactics are used quite often when advocating for gun laws.

Do you think Obama will pass new gun laws? There is much speculation here, given his track record it is quite possible, but he also stands to lose a lot of votes if he does. Some say it will get pushed through right away, others say he wouldn't risk it in his first term. I think at minimum a version of an assault weapons ban will be passed. Which is why I have been stocking up on AR and AK components.

 

Its something I chose to do. Similar to Wacky I had mine designed into my house plans when I built it.

 

True the actual usage of an assault weapon (even using the new definition of assault weapon) in crime is very low.

The speculation that he will try is rampant across the country. Gun stores around the country are selling out of AR-15's, AR-10's, AK-47's etc. Also importers and manufacturers stocks are depleted now. Since the DC case is still fresh in peoples minds I think for him to rush into bringing new gun restrictions would be a big mistake for him.
I myself was going to buy a FNH PS90 just to play around with but have held off because I am wondering if the 5.7x28 ammo will become one of the first to go. I mean its already expensive enough now. So I settled for a new Kimber 1911 Custom Crimson Carry II