The Obama effect

[EarnedStripes44]

...And now for the personal anecdote.

My step-brother was a good kid even if he was a little brat. He played basketball for Charlestown high and at 6'2 to 220lbs he was formiddable small forward. I don't know many high schools in this state that has sent more players to NCAA division 1 basketball teams than charlestown high. Anyway, For reasons unknown some guy's rage exploded into a hail of gunfire from his automatic pistol as my step brother sat on the front steps with a few of his boys one summer. My step brother was hit in the shin, which was instantaneously shattered. He was also hit in the thigh and he said before blacking out, he thought his leg was on fire. His friend, was hit in the pelvis. He has been s******* in a bag for 6 years now. Needless to say, neither of them will play much basketball in the future.

With that being said, you can keep your grandfathers muskets for quite frankly their lawful discharge is irrelevant to the experience that I know.

You can call me biased, but the city of Boston can ban handguns and I wouldn't give a rats ass. For one thing, my stepmothers neighborhood would be a lot safer.

[EarnedStripes44]

No offense taken playboy.... The cambridge jokes are amusing.

But seriously, I think Gary, Indiana has the highest murder rate in the country (Which just so happens to be right outside of Obama's hometown of Chicago). Indiana has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. You can buy a handgun and shottie without a permit and they do not have to be registered.

You see were I'm going with this.

[EarnedStripes44]

i'm checking the facts now...

[EarnedStripes44]

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

If the highest rate of homicide is 57.7 per 100,000, it is evident that an automatic weapon was either not used, or not needed to achieve that number. As far as comparing rates, it is significant if there are consistently large differences between types. It seems that half the cities you cite have restrictive gun laws, so there is no consistent difference. I don't know what the rate per 100,000 is in each city, but if it isn't consistently more than 5 points, or more, than the RANKING is not so notable. If the Ranking between N and XN is within a small point difference--big deal!

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the highest rate of homicide is 57.7 per 100,000, it is evident that an automatic weapon was either not used, or not needed to achieve that number. As far as comparing rates, it is significant if there are consistently large differences between types. It seems that half the cities you cite have restrictive gun laws, so there is no consistent difference. I don't know what the rate per 100,000 is in each city, but if it isn't consistently more than 5 points, or more, than the RANKING is not so notable. If the Ranking between N and XN is within a small point difference--big deal!

well I hope you noted Boston's compared to say Birmingham, ALABAMA.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

well I hope you noted Boston's compared to say Birmingham, ALABAMA.

The key is CONSISTENT. You can find invidious comparisons of given cities either way.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The key is CONSISTENT. You can find invidious comparisons of given cities either way.

Well Birmingham a city of only 250,000 has had a CONSISTENTLY higher homicide rate per 100,000 people than both Boston and New York City for the last decade, the latter being in states with stricter gun laws. Explain that for me pimp.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

Interesting statistic: 13th Century Europe had an estimated homicide rate of 60 per 100,000.

Japan, with strict gun control, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Homicide by gun in this country is much higher in the teen and young adult population than in the 25 and older set. In the latter, homicide by gun and by non-gun are much closer statiscally than in the younger set. If we MUST have stricter gun laws, maybe it should be age restrictive.

A year ago John Stossel did a 20/20 show that revealed violent crime and murder rates were similar in both strict gun control and laxer gun control states.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting statistic: 13th Century Europe had an estimated homicide rate of 60 per 100,000.

Japan, with strict gun control, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Homicide by gun in this country is much higher in the teen and young adult population than in the 25 and older set. In the latter, homicide by gun and by non-gun are much closer statiscally than in the younger set. If we MUST have stricter gun laws, maybe it should be age restrictive.

A year ago John Stossel did a 20/20 show that revealed violent crime and murder rates were similar in both strict gun control and laxer gun control states.

Suicide in Japan is of an entirely different nature, in some cases it is even ritualistic. Apples and Oranges on that one.

I'm sure if glock 9's were available to english serfs the homicide rate would have been much higher. Oh thats right, they only had stabbing weapons and arrows.

As far as 20/20 is concerned, I think its interesting that cities like Little Rock, AK and Shreveport, LA have higher incidences of homicide than Americas largest city. I do know that if you are caught unlawfully packing in NYC, your looking at serious time. Ask Plaxico Burress. Draconian measures....maybe.... a disincentive to carry an illegal firearm, without question.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Suicide in Japan is of an entirely different nature, in some cases it is even ritualistic. Apples and Oranges on that one.

I'm sure if glock 9's were available to english serfs the homicide rate would have been much higher. Oh thats right, they only had stabbing weapons and arrows.

As far as 20/20 is concerned, I think its interesting that cities like Little Rock, AK and Shreveport, LA have higher incidences of homicide than Americas largest city. I do know that if you are caught unlawfully packing in NYC, your looking at serious time. Ask Plaxico Burress. Draconian measures....maybe.... a disincentive to carry an illegal firearm, without question.

Wasn't comparing Japan to the U.S. Just demonstrating that high suicide rates don't need guns. Most aren't ritual. Just movin on out.

English serfs who were the victims of homicide were probably killed by someone stronger or better armed. Guns tend to equalize that strength thing. If all the serfs had glocks, the homicide rates might not, as you are sure of, gone up, but down. The "Wild West" was not as wild as we are told--mostly dime novel myth. Everyone was armed and it was actually more civil than some of the many mean streets of today. Probably why Plaxico was packing, in spite of NY laws.

What 20/20 demonstrated is that violent crime and homicide rates, OVERALL, were about the same between states with or without strict gun control. That makes it even MORE INTERESTING that some smaller lax gun control cities have a higher homicide rate than NY. It must mean there are a whole bunch of smaller cities with laxer gun control that have a LOWER HOMICIDE RATE THAN NY, thereby helping to equalize the homicide rates between strict and lax gun control states.

[EarnedStripes44]

Damn, my boys down in Shreveport, LA are killing folks like they are in North Philly.

[buckman]

The fact of the matter is. I own guns and I am no more a risk to anyone then you are. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. It is the total lack of respect and values and for life itself. I see people step in front of moving trains but you don't ban trains. I would be willing to bet the loser that shot your step brother was a thug with a record a mile long and losers for parents. So I should have my rights restricted because of him?

On a side note; very few killings in the U.S. are committed with"AK-47's. It's a scare tactic and catch phrase to scare people into banning guns.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

The fact of the matter is. I own guns and I am no more a risk to anyone then you are. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. It is the total lack of respect and values and for life itself. I see people step in front of moving trains but you don't ban trains. I would be willing to bet the loser that shot your step brother was a thug with a record a mile long and losers for parents. So I should have my rights restricted because of him?

Absolutet Not. You should not have your rights taken away. But if a city were to decide to band handguns, and provide reasonable justification for doing so, why not? I dont think you, as a law abiding citizen, are within the intended scope of anti-handgun legislation and any laws should be tailored to make sure your rights are not infringed upon.

I agree that sentences should be longer for unlawful possession and discharge.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

But if a city were to decide to band handguns, and provide reasonable justification for doing so, why not? I dont think you, as a law abiding citizen, are within the intended scope of anti-handgun legislation and any laws should be tailored to make sure your rights are not infringed upon.

Your statement contradicts itself

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

Your statement contradicts itself

I'm just trying to find compromise, between you the lawful gun owner and the thugs in the street. Its not trying to make this a black & white thing. I think you agree that more can be done to curb gun violence in the inner city without you feeling the pinch.

[sokinwet]

This is not an easy question..balancing our rights under the 2nd amendment and the right of the public to be free from gun violence and IMO it's an area where compromise can truly address everyones concerns. Lack of compromise is the reason that as a gun owner I support neither the NRA or the far left of Ms. Pelosi and others of the "more gun control" group. In the above posts there have been several mis-truths stated from both sides of this issue. 1st..nobody possesses an "automatic" weapon without some very serious ATF review and restrictions. You will not be buying an AK 47 at your local gun shop; you may be able to purchase a semi auto which is in fact no different than your standard Rem. 1100 shotgun in that it is an auto loader not an auto firing weapon. Blame the media (can't believe I said that!) for that mis-truth. 2nd- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. If someone tells you this they're lying..and they have some other felony issue in their past. That being said, my best hunting buddy no longer can own a gun in MA because of a pot bust @ 17...he's 57! Guns are aquired illegally every day and the number of guns on the street contributes to this as do many uncontrolled sales of firearms but before we start talking about new laws that restrict "legal" ownership how about some serious enforcement 1st.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. .

Depends on the Chief of police.

[MotoXcowboy]

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

[MotoXcowboy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

I pretty sure the personal land-owning "militia members" owned cannons.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??

[MotoXcowboy]

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??
the rules are set. Some are defined as un-changeable (as in unalienable or inalienable, which ever the case may be). We post them in the Bill of Rights. Some can be changed, but only by a lengthy and cumbersome process; a good idea when it comes to the rules of the game of Liberty.

When some try to trivialize Liberty, the Second Amendment or the Citizen role in the American Militia, take notice of this. Take it as a warning too. What do they fear? They may just want to secure their hold on power and control of the civilian masses by disabling the Citizen ability to speak with force to correct tyranny. I guess you would call that Second Amendment First Amendment Rights, free speech and a petition to redress grievances backed by force.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

[sokinwet]

Originally Posted by buckman

Depends on the Chief of police.

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

I believe you. He's just not up for the fight. I bring his gun up for him and he's good to go. It's just kind of sad. He took the course with me back when the state passed the new laws then got denied . Dedham's the town.

[buckman]

Ya, lock them up

[buckman]

I just watched Dobbs on CNN and he was talking about the Democrats trying to register all handguns right now. Well, that didn't take long. Pay-up

[sokinwet]

Johnny D - Define what you feel an assault weapon is? The reality is an "assault" weapon is nothing more than your average semi auto used by many waterfowl hunters or deer hunters dressed up in fancy clothes. Many of todays turkey hunting guns meet the definition of assault weapon..pistol grip, etc. I frankly don't see why anyone would want one unless they're into a particular type of target shooting. I'll take my SxS and O/U thanks but if you want to shoot some plastic stocked ugly weapon so be it.
I'm also a firm believer that to take away a constitutional right from millions of your fellow citizens is a dangerous practice. What right will become "unpopular" later...maybe one that you cherish. The constitutional law question was recently answered by the Supreme court..Bush court or not ..like it or not...it's your court too. For every scholar that says militia doesn't mean your average citizen I can show you one who says it does. Most scholars of the bill of rights will remind you that every other right is a personal right...ever wonder why some interpret the 2nd amendement as a "collective" or state right? My guess is they interpret it that way for their own narrow purpose.
Here's a question..if we suddenly fall into a huge national crisis... riots resulting from no jobs, a bird flu epidemic, etc. and someone decides to kick in your door and the doors of all your neighbors who are you going to call...the police? They're across town stopping the riot over there...911's on hold. I'll bet you'll be glad you're my neighbor at that point. Now I'm far from a right wing gun nut and I do believe compromise is required but you have to recognize that there are MANY people who would take every gun if they could and that is a problem recognized by the legal gun owning community. There is no compromising with those folks just as there is no compromising with a "gun nut". Neither is going to come out a winner.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

Johnny D - Define what you feel an assault weapon is? The reality is an "assault" weapon is nothing more than your average semi auto used by many waterfowl hunters or deer hunters dressed up in fancy clothes.

I've already answered this question, quite explicitly actually. However, all the "Pro-assault weapons" folks here still continue to dance around my question of "what is the need for the average citizen to own an assault weapon?"

Restricting possession is not an infringement on a Constitutional right. You will be arrested for walking into a movie theater or busy restaurant and yelling "Fire!!!!" Does that arrest impeded on your Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech??

Tomatoes to tomatoes.

Also, there is very little Case Law based on the right to bare arms. The Supreme Court, Bush's Court as you put it, has refused to hear numerous cases brought on by the NRA about this topic because it is not an infringement.