E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
Two New York police officers were shot by an armed subway rider in Brooklyn and an off-duty officer was shot during an attempted robbery at a Bronx auto shop in the span of an hour Thursday, bringing the number of NYPD cops wounded by gunfire in the first three days of 2013 to a quarter of the total shot all of last year, authorities said.
In Brooklyn, a lieutenant and three officers assigned to the transit division were in plainclothes on patrol in two subway cars of a Manhattan-bound N train shortly after 7:30 p.m. when they noticed a man moving illegally between the cars. Officers Lukasz Kozicki and Michael Levay stopped the man as the train pulled up to the Fort Hamilton Parkway stop in Dyker Heights, intending to question him and pull him off the subway, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Thursday evening.
When asked for identification, the suspect appeared to reach for a wallet, but pulled out a 9-millimeter Taurus and opened fire on the officers, Kelly said. Kozicki, 32, was hit three times -- once in each thigh and once in the groin. Levay, 27, was hit once in the lower back but was able to return fire, fatally shooting the suspect.
One passenger was grazed in the gunfire exchange and wasn't seriously hurt, Kelly said. Other passengers on the train were able to flee onto the platform when the gunfire erupted. The station was not crowded at the time of the incident, Kelly said.
Kozicki and Levay were taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where they were listed in stable condition and are expected to make full recoveries. A witness told police the gunman appeared to notice the officers' bullet-resistant vests and aimed low before he fired.
The unidentified suspect had a past criminal record of five assaults, including one with a knife, officials said.
View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
Earlier Thursday, an off-duty officer was shot in the Bronx during an apparent robbery attempt. Officer Juan Pichardo was working at his family's dealership when two men, one of them armed with a handgun, walked into the store and, after pretending to be interested in a vehicle, brandished the weapon.
Pichardo was shot in the leg during the fracas that ensued; he was not armed. He and another employee managed to wrestle one of the suspects to the ground and disarm him. The second suspect who had entered the store fled to a getaway vehicle outside the building, while Pichardo held the other suspect until police arrived. Police caught up with the getaway car a short time later and arrested three occupants inside. Their identities are unknown.
Pichardo was taken to the hospital with a bullet wound to the leg, but is expected to be OK. He was the third NYPD officer to be shot on Thursday, the third day of the year. Only 12 police officers were shot in all of 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday.
“In recent weeks, we've heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But sometimes the good guys get shot – and sometimes, they are killed," the mayor said Thursday night from the hospital where the two officers wounded in the Brooklyn incident were recovering. "Tonight, thank God, three good guys – three New York City police officers, who acted heroically – are going to make it. But we owe it to the good guys to do whatever we can to protect them – just as they do whatever they can to protect us. Instead, Washington is letting the bad guys shoot our police officers, our children, our neighbors – and it just has to stop."
Bloomberg's "good guys with guns" remark was an apparent retort to the National Rifle Association'srecent statement that "the only thing that stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The mayor has been a vocal advocate for tighter gun control.
Leave a Comment:
You don't be come a cop unless you don't want to us your weapon ...so don't get upset if they us there's..
I see the New Journal in NY really helped/
Before the usual Blame the NRA First crowd wakes up and descends on this story, let me assure you the shooters were NOT NRA members and that the NRA does not promote or condone the use of firearms by criminals.
Thanks and have a safe day....
P.S....I wonder when that Uber-Liberal Newspaper will be publishing the interactive map of who and where all the registered handgun owners and more importantly the nearly impossible to get CCW Permit-holders in NYC live....You know, friends & relatives of the Mayor, City Council, Police Commissioner, Borough Presidents, Media Moguls...the Swells that think their lives are more important than yours and deserve to be able to defend themselves.....
It is bad that this perp will be counted as a gun fatality and used against the responsible gun owners. It won't be stated in the final count that he was a murderous criminal or how many of that total were criminals. He will just be a one more in the total number of deaths.
Well here is a number for you responsible gun owners. 225 that is the number of criminals killed by people defending their homes and/or self. Thats it millions of gun owners, tens of thousands killed with firearms, but yet only 225 in the entire nation.
We don't always shoot to kill Michael, I legally could have yet never pulled a weapon. Why?
They weren't armed and I took them both out by hand quicker than fumbling with a gun. When the disgruntled cop showed up he asked the same question, why didn't you just shoot them?
My hope is these fine brave officers recover quickly, America needs them.
What are your sources for this bogus number? Here's another number for you. 2,500,000. That's the number of lives saved by responsible gun owners every year without ever firing a shot. Here's my source.
Try reading before spouting off your bogus numbers. The criminals shoot quite often. We don't. As quoted by Spok, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 2,500,000 many--- 225 few. Oh, you didn't even put a timeline on your retoric. That could be tens of thousands in a decade and 225 in a day.
Too many guns in America. Sign this petition to 'clarify' gun ownership requirements:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-28th-amendment-gun-ownership-privilege/tRJtD6L7
Yes, the number of murders committed with hand guns is more than 20 times the total number of justifiable homicides. So, people who own hand guns for personal protection are playing a losing game.
Re: NRA, the NRA is just a manifistaion of the gun problem in America. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the NRA, but in some ways, they do come in for some criticism. For example, how cool would it be for there to be a national gun registry in the US? At least for hand guns? So, let's say that Joe Blow buys hisself a hand cannon. All nice and legal. Then, one year later, Joe Blow freaks out and commits a felony. Is he still legally entitled to his hand gun? Maybe not. If there was a national gun registry, the cops could get a search warrant and retrieve his hand gun(s). But the NRA is against gun registry. The NRA does seem to have a powerful voice in Congress. And they stop some common sense legislation. The NRA also lobbied congress to stop federal funding of research that **could** influence gun laws. Knowledge is not the NRA's friend.
Michael Mellnick...(#1.3)....Source please.....
Would it have been better if those 225 law abiding gun owners were killed instead ???....Do you think that man in Connecticut that was beaten and tied up in the basement while his Wife and 2 Daughters were raped and burned to death tied to their beds upstairs wished he had a gun when the home invasion occurred....A shootout is always better than a massacre....
Site won't post. www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/01/every-13-seconds-an-american-uses-a-gun-in-self-defense/
davey-526272...(#1.7)...You keep posting the link to that dopey amendment....
From the 28th Amendment proposal:
"Firearm ownership is a privilege granted to citizens who complete and maintain training for the handling of firearms and keep liability insurance up to date on their weapons cache."
Cache ???...... Is a "hiding place"....Who wrote that dopey amendment petition that so far only 1,852 people signed ?? Does that mean that guns that are not in a hiding place are exempt ???
Words have meaning, look it up......Sheesh.....
Up to 2,466 signatures of the 25,000 needed....
A Drivers Licence is a privilege.....The Right to keep and bear ams is one of those unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator...The 2nd.Amendment in The Bill of Rights, was to specifically highlight that right.....
I am so thankful that The Founders in their wisdom made amending The Constitution a difficult undertaking...
So are you ready to risk the chance of being one of those 225 whose house was entered and not being able to defend your family ? Maybe you would think different after your wife is raped in front of you or your kids cut up into little pieces before your eyes ( if you have any ) but you couldnt do nothing about it. Completely helpless because the guy breaking into your home sure had a gun.
You're probably gonna like planet Earth, once you get used to it.
Meanwhile, over in the world of hard numbers, the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010
it also tears up your 2.5 mil the nra like to throw around.
www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html
That's because 2,499,787 didn't have to shoot. They only had to draw or just show they were armed. More "HARD"numbers? And that's not NRA's numbers as you could see if you actually read the article. That is Florida State University criminologists studies. Oh and be sure to use anti gun biased CNN for your misinformation.
500-1000 are shot accidentally every year at the gun range. My odds are higher ill be shot practicing then actually defend myself. And no i am not for removing all weapons although i do think some do need to go. Sorry but some stuff is just ridiculous there is never a reason to own an ar-15 ever
@Michael Mellnick: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/05/justified-homicides-up-25-percent-since-states-passed-stand-your-ground-laws/
Between 2001 and 2005, there were 1,225 homicides classed as justifable, compared to 1,528 in the period 2006-2010. By contrast, violent crime overall has been falling.
It is likely that the real number of killings could be higher. The data provided on a state-by-state basis to the FBI on justifiable homicide tends to be low and there are gaps in data.
So: even by using this wonky statistic (one you cut down 600%!)... the number of violent crimes goes DOWN as gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens are struck down. Thanks for helping to prove that guns help reduce violent crime!
yeah and i agree with them its a study from what 95 and takes advantage a vauge wording to boost numbers. And do you have trouble reading i said the nra likes to throw that 2.5 mil number around not it came from the nra.
Geez i guess its shoot first get your facts later huh, it was only 2 sentences you could not finish it be4 jumping the gun and attacking me???
Speaking as a person in favor of more strict gun control laws, I will say that NYC has very tough gun laws. A new Yorker doesn't legally carry unless they are special. Another thing is that our gun violence here is not even close to as bad as it is in places like Miami, Houstan, Pheonix, Tampa, etc., etc. Another thing, NYPD seldom use their guns away from the firing range. The NYPD I know have never had to use their weapons in the line of duty despite years of service.
NYC is huge. We have lots of people, so there are lots of crimes, but proportionally not that much. When a cop gets shot, its a big deal espectially if they are killed. Thankfully that did not happen here.
Mark from Bridgeport 1,528 in the period 2006-2010 that comes out to 305 a year i said 225 and the quote i posted had said 213. As for i cut it 600% where did you learn math? I hope not from the same person who taught you how to shoot. And the 225 number i had was actually from the fbi site, but i can't find the link anymore it buried in that bs hammer stat articles now when i search.
@MM: Sorry, I missed the "per year" in your post. Still, it's at best a questionable statistic.
OBAMA Loves ILLEGALS
There is one thing all 6 millions Jews murdered by Hitler had in common.
They all followed Hitler's gun control laws
Hey, OLI, if the government wants your guns they are going to take them. See David Koresh and the branch davidians.
As for the more strict gun laws, they would be OK if done properly. Idiots in Illinois are introducing a law(HB1263) than would totally ban ownership of "All 50 caliber rifles". If it said "military" type 50 cal. rifles then that may be OK. But since they didn't say that and just panicked and said All 50 cal. They have now effectively banned my blackpowder muzzleloaders as all but 2 are 50 cal. I have one 45cal. flintlock and one 54 cal caplock. This same law has also banned all military style attachments. Now my Ruger 10-22 rifle in 22LR cal is now illegal there as it has a pistol grip stock. Do these laws do anything for the crime rate? NO, all they do is make it harder on law abiding citizens.
the UNIDENTIFIED suspect had a long history of violent attacks, how many convictions, do you think he got his gun legally, where did he work, was he a Swedish tourist or a gang-banger, political correct news reporting, he knew he was going to be patted down, he was a criminal in possession of a firearm, New York has the most strict handguns law in the nation, he was willing to kill police officers so not to be arrested; would banning guns from legal owners have made any difference with this person?
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian!" -Henry Ford
The last greaet democrat president was Kennedy. He was a lifetime NRA member. Enough said.
Heres where your statistics hit the skids Melnick.
500-1000 didnt die. They simply suffered relatively minor GSW wounds easily mitigated with a tourniquet and an Israeli bandage as well as an embarrassing hospital visit. On the other hand they were practicing somewhere relatively safe and probably sought proper instruction after the fact.
By the same token over 3000 people died from choking. 15,000 plus died from falling. Texting kills 6000 annually. Hippos killed 2900 internationally. And auto-erotic asphyxiation killed over 600. How come you are not up in arms about that?
Oh and your comment about AR-15s is moronic. Mostly because they are not combat weapons, just a single shot carbine with a 30 round magazine. The weapon is used by hunters, marksmen, target shooters and ranchers. Know how many of these dreaded AR15s were used to kill people in the year 2000 both intentionally and accidentally? 14.
While I agree with you in some part, there is no need at this time. However, in the distant future, there maybe a need for such weapons to defend against this government and how they are taking control of every thing.
The initial and one of the sole purposes of our government when it was founded, was to protect our borders. As time is passing, the government is slowly taking more and more control of our lives. So small, that people dont even see changes, they just get used to " this is the way it is " The government has its nose in everything, deep in the lives of people. Taxes are out of control, there is no sense in giving away 1/3 of your paycheck to the government to just have them waste it on stupid stuff and spend it foolishly, and over spending. You cant own anything with out permits, you can run anything with out permits, your cant buy , sell, with out tracking of some kind. Owning a small business is futile, and regulations are a mile high.
So yes in the future americans may rise up one day and say, we have had enough. Im not saying they take control with force by using guns, that is treason. How ever, I wish america would get its act together, and some real americans vote for , real americans to get in office and wipe out the corrupt trash in there now republicans and democrats.
Since you are so fond of FBI statistics, you must surely be aware that those same statistics show that more people are killed each year with hammers than with assault weapons.
davey,
Let me educate you on something. You say the number of murders are 20x's the number of justifiable homicides.
How many of those murders were Gang Bangin' murderers? On a scale of 100 murders, that's 5 justifiable homicides and 95 murders correct?! I'll bet 93 of those murders are Gang or Drug related.
Bottom line, us "responsible" gun owners don't play games. This is why it's not a "losing" game as you put it.
People like you are extremely vulnerable to crime since you have no way to protect yourself. If you were a gun owner, you'd be a responsible one I am sure however, you're so against gun ownership that if you're ever confronted by a perp with a gun, then you're simply the next statistic on the list.
If you were in "my" shoes and confronted by a perp with a gun, "HE" would be the next statistic on the list.
As I mentioned many times before, good luck if a perp ever invades your home and points a gun at you while you're trying to protect you and your family with a roll of paper towels dude.
Try to fathomyou laying there with a hole in your head while your wife & or daughter is being raped on the couch next to you. Then when he's finished, puts a hole in her head too. Sorry to put it in such a discusting perspective, but this is the reality today that will never, ever go away.
Have a nice weekend...
I see the NRA bloggers were alerted and out in force. The holocaust reference is offensive and stupid.
Buy back all the guns you can and melt them down.
Make it so that all guns are registered and tagged and that guns can only be produced on special order to a registerd trained an licensed owner.
Any unregisterd gun means a jail sentence, uinless he/she''s turning it in for cash.
Make the NRA tell the truth
haha! mayor bloomberg fails to mention that gun control failed again as the NYPD shot another bystander in this subway shootout !
The holocaust reference is offensive and stupid.
Any unregisterd gun means a jail sentence, uinless he/she''s turning it in for cash.
Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
For all you people that like to use statistics to support your view that its not proper to have the means to protect yourself and your family or your fellow citizens from predatory violence, be sure to keep a copy of the stats on your person at all times so you can show them the ghoul who's about to kill your kids or rape your wife. Unquestionably, the fiend will quickly understand that what they're doing can't really be happening and then they'll magically vanish!
What I do not understand is if they were unable identify him how do they know that he had a criminial record .
Hey Creek Dog, How's things down at the creek? You old hound dog.
First thing I want to say to you, right off the bat is, have a nice weekend. At the creek.
You know Creek Dog, you have more personality in the tip of your little finger than I do in my whole body. You are oozing with charm. Good for you!
Would you rather live in a safe neighborhood without a gun, or in a bad neighborhood with a gun? I live in a very safe place. I don't need a gun. I have kids at home. I don't need a gun. I can handle myself in any situation, without a gun. I don't need a gun.
Hey Creek Dog, what on earth would you do if you left your gun at home one day, and you came face-to-face with a perp (you are just oozing with personality)? Are you defenseless without your gun? If the answer to that question is 'yes', then I pity you and you are not a man. You are merely a creek dog.
Dude, cops get killed all the time. They got guns and training. What made you so damn confident? You talk like a damn Creek Fool.
Actually, I am against hand guns. I'm OK with rifles and shotguns. Even assault rifles. I disagree with your prediction that someone will shoot me. You are more likely to be shot if you are confronted by an armed perp :-) and you also have a gun. That's right Creek Dog, the stats show that people with guns are more likely to be shot. You are playing a losing game. Forget the Great American Wet Dream, that you will kill a man with your hand gun. The stats show that justifiable homicide is very, very, very rare. Like, it happens once a day in the US. You have a better chance of buying a winning lottery ticket.
Have a nice weekend.
Or, maybe you will be like Nancy Lanza, who had her guns taken away and used to kill her? Hm?
Michael Mellnickvia Facebook
And out of those tens of thousands, how many were suicides? How many were accidents? How many were actual homicides? Out of those homicides, how many of them were committed with legally purchased firearms? You see, dumping every number into one big pool is nothing short of bull@!$%#. It makes the issue look worse than it really is.
I'm sure the people involved in killing those 255 criminals are very thankful they had the opportunity to defend themselves. Are you OK with killing people like the survivors of these attacks because you want to take away their ability to own a firearm? How many criminals were stopped but not killed due to a private citizen owning a firearm? Your post is lopsided and nothing but a biased, pro gun-control crock of @!$%#.
Obama best gun salesman ever, i have bought 3 more since December a draco 7.62.x 39 pistol, rossi ranch hand 45 long colt and a cobray m11 9mm
Davey, living in a "good neighborhood is no guarantee the bad person won't come to your area and do a violent home invasion. Nice homes make good targets for criminals. Better to be prepared than sorry.
John Nettles
What I do not understand is if they were unable identify him how do they know that he had a criminial record .
The criminal was probably later identified but the journalist failed to publish his name until family was notified or he/she just hasn't followed up on the shooting.
If these two officers were just civilians, they would be dead, unless they had a weapon.. If guns are abolished completely, which the Obama administration seems to be heading, you see in a scenario like this the criminal was armed, illegally as he was a felon and the civilians were not, a different outcome would have occurred. View the following youtube on what happened to the crime rate in Australia. The crime rate increased in all areas of crime:
JMJ...you don't live in NYC do you? And you probably do not watch the local news stations in NYC other than Faux News, right? Had these officers fired their weapons before the suspect(s) pulled out their weapons there is a 95% probability the dead perp's family would sue the NYC police department, the officers and everyone else and their brothers...AND WIN!!
The use of force is also up for debate since we have police officers who abuse their power (uniform & shield) while the good cops suffer the consequences from the protesters constantly roaming the streets in NYC...with police protection!! It is a no-win situation for the police on the streets until the perp fires his/her gun first!!
Half Cherokee All American: Something you may not know is laws in the US can't be retro-active unless it's to clarify a preexisting law so says the Supreme Court. So if you owned those weapons prior to the "ban" they are still legal to own and sell.
davey,
Coincidentally, "I do" live near a Creek and I will have a good time near the Creek on my quad with my children thank you.
Yes, my avatar name is Creek Dog (CD). But you can call me by my real name "Chris DeAngelis" (CD).
I have no problem with that.
Boy, you sure are a high strung dude. Extremely defensive aren't you?! Not me. I'm always relaxed, kicked back kinda low strung. Know why? Because I am a responsible gun owner not to mention, trained to be a responsible gun owner and feel safe all the time.
Listen, you have a nice weekend and can expect the paper towels by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. I got the Bounty 'cause they're "Quicker!" Yeah, I paid the extra for the overnight charge. Fugetaboutit. ;-)
Comment # 1 restored for clarity.
@ davey
Creek Dog might be a charming person but you're not.
A gun puts a:
1. 5'3" 105 lbs. woman on equal footing with a 6'4" 240 lbs. rapist
2. senior citizen on equal footing with a 20 yr. old punk high on meth who is trying to rob the senior
3. person who is by themselves on equal footing when confronted/attacked by a small group of punks
etc, etc, etc.....
Sorry Davey but not everyone is some 6'4" muscle bound freak, who can bench 600 lbs. who has a 5th degree black belt & who is a former member of military special forces.
Even some semi-superhero like I just described could easily be taken out at a distance by some small, skinny, weak, 130 lbs. gang banger/criminal/punk etc...who was armed with a gun.
I guess it's too bad that you weren't in the movie theater in Aurora or in the mall in Oregon or at Sandy Hook elementary. I suppose being a tough guy like you are you could have just walked up to the active shooters & taken them out with your bare hands, right?
If you ever find yourself face to face with an active shooter please don't just stand there. Walk directly up to them & take them out with your hands. Then report back to us on how that worked out for you.
Honest citizens only killed 213 criminals last year when the criminals left them no choice, but they also stopped 2,100,000 other felony crimes where they didn't have to kill the criminals. This also according to the FBI. THAT'S why we have the 2nd Amendment!
So the criminals in New York don't seem to care that they live in a city with some of the strictest handgun laws in the nation and they just simply ignore the laws. Shocker!
1TruthSpeaker, can you point me to the FBI stats that show "they also stopped 2,100,000 other felony crimes where they didn't have to kill the criminals." I need to see that. Just give me the 1, 2, 3 steps on which website I go to, which links I click on, to see this info. That would be a huge argument in favor of people having guns.
OneSlacker, you need to look at the data instead of fantasizing. When death is the result of a firearm discharge, a murder has most likely taken place. We USAmericans are very good at counting deaths. When someone dies and when the murder weapon was a gun, the bean counters spring into action. The FBI stats are where you can see the results. About 300 justifiable homicides a year, total, for all weapons. About 7,000 murders a year with hand guns.
We are not so good, we USAmericans, about counting when a gun is bransished and death is not the result. But why should the murder/justifiable homicide ratio be any different, when the result is an injury or an intimidation, when a gun is used?
Must be the only one on here that likes guns for eating deer sausage.
Yeah , defending my home and being safe in public , CHL holder. South Texas every one is packing.
Deer sausage, its delicious, really am I the only one.
Mike, compare our crime rates involving fire arms with those in other US cities. You will find New York is statistically one of the safest big cities in the United States. So no, the gun laws here are not ignored. But since we are an island surrounded by a giant ocean of guns, people do get illegal ones and those are the ones that get cops shot and little kids hit with stray bullets.
Hal
Are you an island surrounded by weed, cocaine, meth, and heroine ?? All those are being found there as well.
Nothing like picking and choosing what we care to see and talk about, because I'll bet there is 1million x more cases of illegal narcotics compared to illegal weapons of any kind. How about the Billions in dollars that ponzi cases Madof made of with, cause if were talking dollars NY is Billions ahead of any other crime.
JMJ
Does anyone think the criminals won't use that map, that New Journal newspaper provided, to find the houses that DON'T have guns to protect themselves with?
How stupid can a newspaper be?
but...but.. I thought the mayor banned all guns in New York? What happened?
It is good that the first suspect was fatally shot. At least there will not be some b.s. costly trial at public expense where the perp gets off because his Kindergarten teacher wasn't nice to him, or because he had a complex caused by his Grandfather referring to him as a worthless POS.
You seem smart enough to know that the FBI compiles crime statistics, not crime prevention statistics. The number so often cited comes from Kleck and Gurtz:
mike in delray, yes, to change the constitution is difficult. and with each and every outrageous shoot up, the idea of changing the 2nd is becoming closer and closer to reality.
we can and will 'white-out' the 2nd. if gun owners do not keep their pee shooters under lock and key in a much better way, to do away with the 2nd is all but a certainty. gun owners are only helping make that eventuality arrive sooner rather than later.
it is just a matter of 'when', not 'if'.
and having that screwball wayne from the nra as their spokesMAN certainly doesn't help their cause, does it? he was/is a joke. ''every inch a virile, rugged yet uber masculine man, he was truely.'' mr milk-toast just wasn't the person to present after the school shooting, do you think?
what was the nra thinking by paradaing that clown across the tv screens in america? he didn't look strong enough to even hold up a 38 in his hand for more than a minute or two. but he is going to save the day somehow? by being armed!!
yeah, right!
maybe only if he soaked up a few bullets flying around the room so they don't hit someone else. that would do some good. but him in a firefight? you can have him on your side. as i said, he would be so busy peeing in his pants he wouldn't be of much use for anything, other than as a bullet sponge to sop up loose fire.
GO WAYNE!!!
as you can tell i wasn't a big fan of wayno-draino! or the nra's idea of armed police in every school!
we need to pay for armed police in every school so he can continue to fantasize about himself getting heroic deeds done, all the while with gun in hand! spitting hot lead as he goes!!!
give me a f'ing break.
mr peepers has a stronger persona! or pee wee herman, even!
but we need to pay for armed police to guard every school just so wayno can play with his six shooter under the desk??? and fantasize???
sorry, but 'NO!!'
Yes, I am familiar with the famous 2.5 million / year DGU number. Are you certain that is what 1TruthSpeaker is referring to? Why would he say that this was FBI data?
Do you think there are 2.1 million DGUs per year?
How many times are guns used offensively (i.e. aggressively, to commit a crime)?
When a gun is used defensively, how many times is this done against an armed aggressor?
If guns are used defensively 2.1 million times a year, wouldn't we have more than 300 justifiable homicides a year?
davey,
No. You see, 300 times we had no choice but to shoot to kill. The rest of the stats are from just defense without having to kill.
Oh, you should be receiving your paper towels in a little less than an hour.
Your welcome.
I can't speak for him/her.
No. However, I think the real number is closer to 2 million than to 1 million.
Too many. Perhaps the better question would be "How many times are legal guns used offensively by their owners to commit a crime?" I suspect that number is miniscule.
I don't know. Do you?
Not necessarily, despite your desire that it be true.
OK, let's talk about the Kleck survey.
(Creek Dog, do you think you can behave yourself? Turn off the charm for a minute. Let's focus on substance and not style.)
It would have been nice if Kleck focused on the overall affect that guns have on our society, and not just focus on data that might support guns. So, Kleck's a little biased, if you ask me. For example, if his survey had asked, how many times did you use your gun in a DGU and how many times were you the victim of an armed assailant. Now that would have been a good survey.
The official gov't data on DGUs is about 100,000/year. But they have specific requirements before a DGU can be counted. Specifically, you had to have used your gun in defense while someone was committing a crime against you. The bar is lower for the Kleck survey.
Does anyone know where I can find the actual questions that were asked on the Kleck survey? I'd be real interested to see that. I want to make sure that Kleck is not counting "fantasy" DGUs (i.e., 'Someone knocked on my door in the middle of the night and grabbed my gun').
Regarding the number of DGUs suggested by Kleck (remember, his 2.5 million DGU number is based on interviews with fewer than 5,000 people, in 1993) and the number of justifiable homicides that we know occur in the US each year (about 300), this is still a problem for me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but, you would not brandish a firearm unless you felt that your life was threatened. Yes? If you feel that your life is threatened, and you brandish a firearm, well, the trigger is going to have to get pulled in a certain number of those situations. Did Kleck's survey attempt to capture the number of times that a trigger got pulled? If not, well, that would leave us with a pretty important question unanswered.
FYI, have you seen https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf ? This is an interesting contibution to the conversation. Especially, if you look on page 8, you will see a discussion of DGUs.
Shooting? In NYC? With all that gun control? Immmmmmpossible.
Heavy gun control in one location does help, but unless the surrounding areas also have similar gun control... it doesn't help much.
However let's remember here! If the guy didn't have a gun, 3 cops (people / human beings) wouldn't have been injured and he would quite possibly still be alive... unless he pulled a knife on the cops. But even then the 3 cops wouldn't have been injured.
Stupid remark.
Nobody claims that tight gun laws will prevent all shootings, only that it will reduce the absolute number.
In 2010, New York City ranked 46th highest, among cities with 250,000 or more citizens in terms of the rof aggravated assaults per 100,000 people (327.5), far behind number 1, Cleveland OH(1,192.2), number 2, St Louis MO (1,055.3), and number 3 Memphis TN (985.2).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)
Guess how many of the top 3 cities are in "Shall Issue" States?
All of them!
Like I said, stupid remark.
I am surprized the cops weren't PUSHED in front of a subway! Seems to be the thing in NYC.
Gun control means being able to hit a man size target from 20 yards 10 out of 10 times.
How clever of you, Max. Did you think of that one all by yourself?
yes i thought the leader of his special army had it all figured out with the soda scandle
No, that is what my gunnery sgt used to say during rapid fire pistol drills.
The problem is not with guns, the problem is with people and the culture of violence in America. We spend more on 'defense' (it is actually all offense) than the rest of the world combined, we have the most aggressive foreign policy in the world, we have the most violent movies and games, we can't even fathom to address the Islamic terrorism problem through non violent means... we the People perpetuate this culture of violence... but morons like you only see the problems with guns being relatively easy to buy in America. You merely WISH the problems was guns, but the reality is far more ugly than that.
Hey Bloomberg, yeah but...
Sometimes the bad guys get shot, and sometimes they are killed.
And all legally registered too ;)
@ChrisWanker: Heavy gun control in one location does help, but unless the surrounding areas also have similar gun control... it doesn't help much.
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey have the strictest gun control laws in the country (along with California, Washington DC and Chicago). It doesn't mean a damn when I can buy an illegal handgun for as little as $100 down the street. Why? Because "gun control" only works on people that obey laws.
The 100 year old law banning machine-guns didn't stop these criminals: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-seizes-154-illegal-guns-article-1.1186777
Almost as stupid a remark as one that uses statistics for aggravated assault as though they were identical to firearm incidents.
@ChrisWanker
Heavy gun control in one location does help, but unless the surrounding areas also have similar gun control... it doesn't help much.
Murder is illegal in every single state in the union...it doesnt help much.
Bloombereg is a friggin idiot that has the luxury of being protected by dozens of "good guys with guns" on the taxpayers dole or via armed private security that his billions of dollars can afford. What if the guy on the train had incapacitated the two officers to the point they couldn't return fire? I am SURE they would THEN want another good guy, regardless of position, title, or job, armed on that train to intervene. People like Bloomberg do not give a crap about the rest of us and use themes like "gun control" to subdue people to their will or for political agendas. It was a BAD guy that shot the cops, and the BAD guys don't care about gun control and will ALWAYS prey on the weak or those that can't defend themselves. This is the way of human nature and WILL NOT CHANGE! If you don't want to have the means to protect yourself, family friends, and community from bad guys OR the potential of a BAD government - then don't. You have a right in this nation to do either, but when you start trying to exert your will on those that believe differently, don't be surprised when those that refuse to be part of what is basically participatory facism disguised as "public safety" refuse to kow-tow to slugs like Bloomberg. Those that think restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens will reduce shootings or violent crime in this nation are either stupid morons that cannot read or are functionally unable to do unbiased, intelligent research on the subject, or they are naive idealistic people that know nothing about the nature of crime or criminals or the use and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Many people have been so dumbed down by the liberal media or socialist style crap from Washington on the subject of owning firearms that they are incapable of intelligent, non-emotional thought. I invite these people to send their kids to schools that do not believe in armed security or to move to places like Chicago or New York City where the Emanuel's and the Bloombergs will protect you. Enough said.
Aggravated assualt can be stopped with a citizen that has a gun. What is a 120 pound woman going to do against multiple assailants breaking into her home? Without a gun-nothing! She'll be at the mercy of the assailants for rape and murder. Is that your alternative? Call the police? HA! RIGHT! Yeah that'll work! Why does Senator Feinstein want to confiscate all guns and yet have a concealed carry permit and walk around with a concealed gun? Talk about hypocrisy!
Good shooting Levay!
The two guys on the subway with firearms DID stop the bad guy. Had Pichardo a firearm, he most likely would have stopped the other bad guy from shooting him and saved the city some attorney time.
Note the bad guy in the subway was arrested many times before for assault. Maybe they should have kept him inside where he belongs. No need to anymore. He got what he started.
My biggest question is why this gentleman was still on the street and not being evaluated somewhere. Per the article above. "The unidentified suspect had a past criminal record of five assaults, including one with a knife, officials said." So this man has shown as history of anger management and shown that during his fits of rage(5 times) he has assualted someone. To me that is what needs to be fixed. Legally he should have never been able to carry a firearm.. however we know that laws don't stop criminals from getting guns..period. The current laws need to be enforced on all sides in my opinion.
Tex2c- Wake up! Yes, the 2nd amendment states a..."a well-regulated militia...read further and it also states people. Two different groups. The Supreme Court debated this already. Your comment shows you that you read the 2nd amendment now go study it and use your critical thinking skills to garnish some understanding.
This is another article brought to you by the "NWO" news without objectivity. Journalism agenda based. "JAB"
Bloomberg is arrogant. I can't believe New Yorkers believe the distorted information that he puts out. Him and Rahm E. from Chicago are both corrupt.
Another shooting in NYC?? How can that be, don't the bad guys know that shooting someone is illegal?? The good part is the bad guy won't do it again thanks to the officer. Too bad the third officer wasn't armed or he could have saved the state additional money.
Crimes commited on New York subways? Shut tha freaking door! In the last two years the state and city of New York have banned razor blade type utility knives and 32 oz Mountain Dew'yas in a heroic and selfless crusade to eliminate death from life in NY. Great job guys! One little problem though. More people get killed each week by the NY subway system than are murdered weekly in many major US cities. What New Yorkers really need are eyebolts sunk into the walls of subway platforms so they can carabiner themselves to a safehold in the very likely event that some muttering lunatic takes issue with...well, who knows what might set a mentally ill person off. Want to do something about random violence in America? Appropriate the funds to get the mentally ill the treatment they need. Bloomberg doesn't see a soundbyte for himself in that topic, unfortunately.
@mcdharma
While I agree with the rest of your comment, I feel it necessary to point out that the problem with crazies roaming the streets is not one of funding. The problem stems from 80's era court decisions stating that one cannot be forced to get treatment against one's will. So if a lunatic says "no thanks" to treatment, it's back on the streets. Thank the ACLU and the courts, where the blame truly belongs!
Comment # 2 restored for clarity.
@ dman
There are plenty of guns & gun owners in El Paso, TX. Yet in 2011 El Paso was ranked #1 safest city in the country (cities with populations of 500,000+). El Paso has also been listed in the top 3 safest cities (500,000+ population) every year since 1997. There were only 16 homicides in 2011 & not all of those were caused by guns.
El Paso is right across the Rio Grande river from Juarez, Mexico (you can throw a rock & hit Juarez from El Paso). Juarez is one of, if not the #1, deadliest city on the planet (2,086 murders in 2011). Civilians aren't allowed to own guns in Mexico, they are banned.
Guns aren't the problem. The problem is the people (criminals, mentally ill etc...). Figure out a better way to keep these kind of people from obtaining guns & leave the 85+ million law abiding gun owners alone.
Gun control , much like the narcotic control is a one way street. When legal law abiding citizens are disarmed then only criminals will be armed.
Cocaine needs to be processed, manufactured, yet it still is placed on the streets. What ignorant fools would believe guns would be any different.
just a typical day in new york .. at least this time the cops didn't shoot innocent bystanders or fire 50rds.
the cops you see in the news are very poor marksmen, they need better raining with their service weapons
There would be a lot more cops shooting wildly had this happened next to the donut shop and not in the subway.
Yea and I wish you would be standing right in the middle of it you PRICK !
Nailer 45 shut up, hell you can't even spell you Prick !
@scotish lad:
Oh? Are you saying that the 9 innocents shot by the NYPD in July at the Empire State Building while trying to apprehend Jeffrey Johnson was something to be proud of?
How about firing 41 bullets (at an unarmed) Amadou Diallo, hitting him 19 times? That's some great marksmanship there! Of course, Amadou was not the actual criminal they were looking for.
@Nailer45: Yeah, sometimes I suspect the NYPD and Imperial Stormtroopers have the same weapons instructors.
Mark from Bridgeport- MOVE TO AFGHANISTAN!!!! Imperial stormtroopers? oooh no way. OMG I am so, so scared.
Maybe some of you guys who are complaining about the cops should put YOURSELF in harms way a couple times and see how accurate YOU are.
“In recent weeks, we've heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But sometimes the good guys get shot – and sometimes, they are killed,"
The cops we're injured, had they not had guns they would have been killed. Get real and anyone who believes political drivel is a tard.
People need to be able to get a permit more easily, make education on the firearms more attainable so people can learn to respect and not fear them and then people would start to see their use. The subway shooter would have more than likely shot someone else without a weapon to defend themselves down the line.
@Super42: Thanks, but I've already lived under Communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
Scared? Of what? My point was that they are as bad shots as the storm troopers in Star Wars.
Since they know the suspect had a record, they can certainly identify him. And the suspect's past criminal history was in the state of California.
Look up "the impact of the sympathetic nervous system" on google. There is a six page document that can explain what occurs in your body in a critical incident. Toward the end of the first page you'll find a heading named "Survival stress, vision and the mis-identification of threats". I can give you an 8 hour period of instruction on this topic if you'd like.
Uh..pistol instructor - No thanks. I have lived it. It sucks.
No doubt. Shooting in self defense and target shooting at the range or in some sort of tournament have absolutely zero in common.
@Super42, then you understand it. :)
Lot's of folks like to "arm chair quarterback" use of force and critical incident responses. It's easy to do when removed from the situation altogether.
On a side note, sometimes after a critical incident (when the parasypathetic nervous systom kicks in) you remember the most absurd things. You also discover that you do some down right comical things because they seem to make sense at the time.
Bloomberg's obvious intention with this and his previous remarks were to mock the NRA but wasn't this exactly what happened? The good guy with a gun can just as easily be a police officer as an ordinary citizen.
Wet Willy, that's the way I see it. I also noticed that the bad guy, was truly a bad guy with a history of being a bad guy and was doing bad guy things at the time of he incident.
Pistol Instructor 3.19
You are absolutely correct, and I might add that despite any anti-gun laws enacted, this bad guy would still be armed.
Consider the greatest law enforcement in the history of mankind, the war on drugs, yet anyone can still easily buy these drugs on pretty much any street corner.
Who deleted my post? This is another article brought to you by the "NWO" news without objectivity.
Journalism agenda based. "JAB"
Obviously the way to reduce these kinds of shooting incidents in the subway is to make certain all passengers are fully armed before boarding - preferably with Bushmasters. Saturate the general population with weapons, that'll lower the cases of random gunfire in public places for sure - right, NRA?
scotish lad, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
fascisthater, what type of "bushmaster"? The population is already saturated with firearms. I'd like to see better firearms education. It's important to note that New York city is a "gun free zone" (whatever that means). You and I cannot have a firearm inside the city limits. We can own them, we just can't have them inside the city (not unlike Tombstone). Of course, I'd like to think you and I are law abiding citizens. The bad guy in the story was not a law abiding citizen.
Just another day in gun-crazy USA. Not really news anymore. It's a daily occurence.
Except there is no correlation, let alone causation, between gun ownership rates and crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates. But don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-gun/weapon phobia that leads you to want to limit the unalienable (which means literally "not subject to laws or borders") rights of others.
But don't listen to me, listen to Obama's own alma mater:
Oh, but I thought it was because of gun ownership rates? I guess guns are not causal to crime, violent crime, suicide, and murder afterall.
Meanwhile the Drug War is causal to 40-70% of annual murders and gun murders.
So do you want to save lives? Or do you want to limit my rights? Make up your mind. If it's the former, then end the Drug War amd leave my rigthts alone. You can stop most murder by expanding rights, not by limiting them.
And no one wants to take away your guns, just certain ones. So where is the study on assault rifles and mass shootings? You gun guts love to do this don't like the picture just re-frame it as something else that might happen later. We had a ban on them before and no body came to take away your other guns.
michael: First the automatics. Then the "assault rifles". Then......................................
How is it going to help? The crime rates, violent crimes, suicide rates, murder rates, and gun murder rates have DECREASED while magazine sizes have increased, guns have gotten more accurate and jam less, as permits to carry guns have gotten more prevelant, and "assault rifles" have proliferated to historic levels....
...there is no causal relationship because there is no correlation.
So why are trying to limit rights that OBJECTIVELY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH the cause of crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, murder rates, and gun murder rates (which are tied directly proportionally to the murder rates...it's just a method among many)?
Because you don't want to save lives....you want to limit rights because that is your preconceived political ideology, even if it is based on irrational fear and illogic.
Mass shootings only account for less than 2% of gun murders annually. Mass murders hit their peak in 1929 and the rate has declined ever since. Meanwhile assault rifles have proliferated to historic highs. So there is no causation. But I don't expect you to face facts...that would require logic.
Fix the real issue...the Drug War.
BTW...the gun ban before had NO EFFECT on crime rates, murder rates, etc. When it ended the crime rates and murder rates, etc., all continued to fall.
NEXT!
Proindividual, first off, your link does not work. So we have only your assessment of the study, not the findings of the study itself.
Secondly, since you are impressed by facts, there is no independent nation called Holland. It is a region of the Netherlands. Sweden, which you present as in contrast to Norway, does not have particularly low gun-ownership rates. According to 2007 figures, it ranks 10th, world wide (31.6 per 100 people), just ahead of number 11, Norway (31.3 per 100 people). (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country).
But don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-gun
/weaponlaw phobia.So Michael, what part of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand. 1st, gun ownership is a God given right, not derived from man. 2nd, The Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". How many people are killed in mass shootings with an "assault rifle"? And, just what is an assault rifle? Suppose I hit you upside the head numerous with a baseball bat. Does that make it an "assault bat"? Suppose I stab you 30 times with a kitchen knife. Is it now an "assault knife"? The term assault rifle is a made up term by the left wing press to do what they do best; sensationalize stories and blame. An "assault rifle" never killed anyone by itself. Neither did a baseball bat, kitchen knife or any other weapon. The weapon is not to blame. It is the person intent on doing harm to others that is to blame. Maybe if you left wing, liberals would put blame where blame is due and punish the criminal instead of the object used in the crime we would have less crime.
Arizona Tumbleweed,
First the automatics. Then the "assault rifles". Then......................................Your rotten, hate filled, paranoid brain....
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
There's the updated link...it must have been moved.
Your second point cherry picks one stat out of a larger study....it's illogical or intellectually dishonest (you decide). Gun ownership rates are not correlated to murder rates. Cherry picking a few countries instead of looking at them all hardly establishes a correlation.
You made no rational or logical argument because cherry picking stats and ignoring the lack of correlation, let alone causation, is an illegitimate argument. Now go look at ALL nations and look for your correlation. You'll find it has NOTHING to do with gun ownership, magazine capacity, assault rifles, etc. It has to do with the Drug War.
Once again...you don't want to save lives, you want to limit rights because that is your political agenda. You can expand rights (end the Drug War) and save 40-70% of the lives killed off by murder every year.
So, J in TX-3820227, what part of the 2nd Amendment are you convenietly leaving out? It actually states: 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.
That means you can be part of a well regulated Militia (sometimes known as the National Guard) if you want to help secure our free state. Are you part of a Militia?
Arms in the 18th Century did not include automatics, semiautomatics, hand grenades, rocket launchers, helicopters, tanks, and a whole lot more stuff that has been invented since then. Get it?
My advice: drop your membership in the NRA before you get arrested for ignorance.
That's factually what happened. They banned automatics (not the same as semi-autos we have today for you gun illiterates) back in the 1930s, then they had a 10 year assault rifle ban, now they are attempting it again. It never lowers murder rate, but that fact doesn't seem to stop these emotionally driven mobs. History is all he is pointing out...and he I disagree on a lot (I don't think he wants to end the Drug War).
gun murder rates have DECREASED while magazine sizes have increased - not in states that have enacted the 'stand your ground' laws. Try to keep up with current studies, please.
J in TX- Gun ownership is a God given right? Not derived from man? Oh yeah, now I remember.."And the Lord God looking down on man and his perfect creation sayeth ' Bring forth your instruments of fire and spitting metal and attach those instruments to that perfect creation so that it may be of greater perfection. And let those instruments surpass My will and give to man the means and instruments to kill and destroy and relieve me, your Lord God, to surrender My power over life and death" Automaticus 9:11. Yeah, that's it. Bow down! Bow down to your God given right to render death upon your people. Thanks for reminding us about THAT God given right.
This is revisionist nonsense.
All the Founders and Framers were classical liberals...and in classical liberalism there are NO collective rights. Every right acknowledged by (not granted by) the Coonstitution are individual rights. And back then then private citizens could own canons because the military had them. The point of the 2nd Amendment was NOT self defense, hunting, or skeet shooting...it was to deter the government from becoming tyrannical through an armed populace, and to overthow it if it ignored that deterent.
All one has to do is get out of the liberal blogosphere and read the Founders and Framers directly. Take it from me...I'm no conservative. I'm a libertarian who reads a lot.
All the direct quotes you need ar there. The Founders and Framers would have wanted less gun restrictions than we already have, in the interests of overthrowing a tyrannical state. The only one who mildly agreed with you was the tyranny loving Adams (he hated free speech and wanted people to follw laws no matter how tyrannical they were)...and even he wanted ARMS (not just guns) onwership to be an individual right, not just the right of the militia.
ProIndividual-3906907.
So where do you suppose these guns in the hands of criminals come from?
Outer Space?
They come onto the streets of America as a direct result of NRA propaganda and lobby bribery to weaken America's ability to provide for the welfare of its citizens. You know, that inconvenient little mission statement at the beginning of the document you paranoid fools like to quote so often:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do you really think that assault rifles in the hands of untrained, immature, paranoid, gun fanatics or criminals meets these goals? They certainly meet the obvious goals of the NRA to sell more guns and get more money to pay themselves more salary. Sheep....
Yes it is, according to the Founders and Framers, and the State Ratifying Conventions. However, I understand your lack of faith in religious justifications, as I too am not a fan of deonotlogical ethics (Natural Rights/Law theory) in philosophy...but the same justification can be made using consequentialist ethics (Utilitarianism) or circumstantialist ethics (the Path of Least Coercion). The metaphsyics, epistemology, and ethics may be different, but logic is universal to all philosophies. Using logic regardless of the precepts you get to the same conclusion...it's an individual right that benefits society (hence the lack of correlations between gun ownership rates, crime rates, violent crime rates, murder rates, etc.).
You just have to be rational and use logic consistently.
Again one of you guys who irrationally fear guns are cherry picking stats again. Ohio had a fall in those rates, as did Michigan. I can cherry pick too....now try looking at the whole study for a correlation and stop rigging the numbers in favor of your argument like a sophist. Anyone can cherry pick stats and anecdotes from larger studies to fit their arguments....but look at the whole study and then see there is no such correlation.
The nations rates have fallen (including mass murders) while gun proliferation has increased, magazine sizes increased, and permits to carry increased. You can't deny that. They have fallen for about 30 straight years, and 50 years overall.
BTW...where a group has more guns crime rates and murder rates are lower. The richer you are the more guns you have per capita, and the lower the crime and murder rates. Non-white people have less guns per capita than white people, and their crime rates and murder rates are higher. Rural areas have more guns per capita than urban areas, and the crime rate and murder rate are lower in the rural areas. Anyway you slice and dice the stats, as long as you don't cherry pick them, more guns correlates with less crime and murder...and that applies to violent crime and suicide rates too.
You can't deny that.
tex2c: You call me "hate filled", but I'm not the one attacking others. Not have an intelligent answer to my question, you turned to a personal attack.
I'm not now, nor ever have been a member of the NRA, or any other gang.
who had the guns and was the mob in chicago and they get issued guns go figure
I don't think you understand logic.
Where the gun came from is irrelevant...because there is NO correlation, LET ALONE CAUSATION, between gun ownership rates and crime rates/murder rates. In fact, studies show a criminal with a gun is LESS likely to harm you physically than a criminal with a knife or when he is unarmed altogether. I don't have time to explain game theory mathematics, but rest asured it proves something called "a deterent". Intimidation is a huge deterent.
And you can look at the population of the USA with illegal and legal guns together...you still get no correlation!
Also, again, the nations with less guns actually have higher crime rates and murder/suicide rates. The UK for example has much higher crime rates than we do, but happen to be an exception to the negative correlation in murder/suicide. Meanwhile the top 9 gun ban/control nations have a 3 times higher murder/suicide rate as the top 9 gun ownership nations.
You can look county by county in the USA and get the same effect.
You keep ignoring the facts. They don't fit your preconceived beliefs. Your agenda fixes nothing because there is no causality. BUT THERE IS CAUSALITY WITH THE DRUG WAR. Where you have a more lenient drug law system, you have less murder and crime rates. AMAZING!
If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.
Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm
The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure
If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs.
I know you hate to be shown the truth, but the Founders and Framers, as my links prove, would have wanted LESS arms (not just gun) restrictions than we have now, not more. So yes, I think they totally intended us to have assault rifles (the fact they didn't exist at the time didn't matter...they let people own canons at the time privately outside the militias)....and since there is no correlation between them or any other gun and murder rates and crime rates, maybe you should use logic to change your political agenda.
ProIndividual-3906907,
'This is revisionist nonsense.'
Have you ever noticed that a revisionist always starts his rant with those words? Who do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about a tyrannical government? Themselves? LMAO...
They had just freed themselves from the tyranny of England that still had a major presence a few hundred miles to the north.
Your reading of the meaning of the Constitution is somewhat like saying: I demand to have a gun so I can shoot myself if I start to make myself less free! WE ARE the government of the USA. Except for that brief 8 years of Bush the Moron, who was chosen by the Supreme Court, we elect our leaders.
The Second Amendment was designed to make sure everyone could and would participate in the protection of our liberty against a tyranny from abroad. Protection from tyranny from within was a result of another concept in the document: representative democracy. Did you miss that concept in your readings?
If you think a bunch of untrained paranoids with handguns and assault rifles has anything to do with who is in Washington, you need to read some more...
Me either...I'm not member of, or supporter of, the NRA or GOA. I'm just a critical thinker who educates himself.
Did you notice I left links that prove my case by QUOTING the Founders, Framers, and their contemporaries....and you left NOTHING to support your case?
There is no proof the Founders and Framers didn't consider the 2nd Amendment an individual right for the purpose of combating tyranny of the state. You offered no retort. Do you want to match quote for quote? I'll be glad to beat you in a little quote contest.
No, and one doesn't have to be in order to own a gun. In 2008 , the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to a service in ANY type of militia whatsoever, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes (i.e. self defense).
Really, do you ever THINK before posting your nonsensical krap?
Welcome aboard, T. Neville.
pro: "Anyway you slice and dice the stats, as long as you don't cherry pick them,.." Must be careful with this - I too, have read the entire 'Harvard Injury Control Research Center' study of gun use.
For example: "We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid."
This, of course, is also "cherry picking". It is, in fact, included in this study.
By the way, our President isn't the only notable graduate of Harvard.
TEX2C Said;
Nice try but that's incorrect. The constitution was written long before the National Guard was formed. And nowhere in the 2nd amendment or the constitution for that matter does it in any way say, or imply. until such time as the National Guard is formed... Or when the government has a better idea, Or until such time as TEX2C "feels" that certain type of weapons should be banned, or tells the world how little he/she/it knows of the BOR. BTW The National Guard is run by the Federal Government meaning that, it can, and "WILL" be used against ''YOU''. (See Slaughter at Kent University.) Try You tube as well, they may have a video of it for you.
If you look up militia (DOJ) you will find that it includes ALL able bodied men,(Women too) both military/ (organized), and non military/ (UNORGANIZED), including from the citizenry from 17 up.
There is no confusion as to its meaning as you imply. It means what it has always meant.
Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each soldier/ volunteer was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service, the federal government is required by "REGULATIONS" to feed, supply (ammo), clothe and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated".
Irrelevent.....It says "Arms". Not Arms except/ discluding/ omitting......
Yes ........ You're not? Shame on you! All citizens are eligible to defend this country from all threats. Both foreign and domestic. "Get it"?
Try taking your own advice.
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson
How did that apply to what I said? I think that's an unintentional straw man. I said no matter how you slice and dice the stats the groups with the highest gun ownership rates will have the lowest crime and murder rates. That's true.
The self defenses weren't apart of what I said.
However, no study has ever been able to put lives saved annually below lives taken by gun murder. The FBI esitmate was 750,000 crimes stopped by private guns per year...and if only 2% of them saved 1 life, or 1% saved 2 lives, etc., you have 50% more lives saved than taken by guns via murder. They are a NET GAIN to life even though they were designed to kill. That's because of deterent factors created via game theory mathematics.
I agree, the controversial numbers often quoted from Lott that put lives saved at 2.5 million a year is way too high. His methodology wasn't dishonest, but it was too generous. I think that was a Florida study (some University down there). But I believe the number is in the tens of thousands per year easily. I saved a woman myself...she was being beaten to death in front my home on a Saturday morning by her drug dealer boyfriend. I pulled my Mac-11 with a 30 round clip and he almost crapped his pants. He ran so fast he should have been an Olympian. She almost died. She was in a coma for like a week, and she ended up with lost vision and hearing on one side of her head, a broken orbital bone and 6 missing teeth. she's okay now, no brain damage, but there was so much blood loss she went comatose. I've never to this day seen so much blood.
But enough of my anecdote...the numbers, even in self defenses, are in my favor here. Guns save more lives than they take (and definately more than they take via murder).
And none of what you mentioned was cherry picking. That's invalidating a stat by questioning the methodology. Cherry picking is ignoring the results of an entire study but picking out stats from it that fit a case contrary to its conclusions (or to embelish its conclusions more than should be). I did no cherry picking, my opponents have done nothing but cherry pick.
You, I think, only straw manned by accident. I think you made a good point I actually agree with thoutght...he self defense stats in the millions are too generous.
ProIndividual has so many facts and figures ready to roll....he's the cherry-picker deluxe throwing so many "facts" at you, you can't possibly factcheck them all so you're intimidated into semi-believing every one of them. Or ProIndividual is actually LePeeeuuuw working under a pseudonym!
PRO,
'Where the gun came from is irrelevant...because there is NO correlation, LET ALONE CAUSATION, between gun ownership rates and crime rates/murder rates.'
'I'm just a critical thinker who educates himself.'
Where the guns are coming from DOES make a difference. Nice try but you claim to use LOGIC and cannot see the correlation between a gun in the hands of a criminal and where he got it?
If your kid comes home with a baggie of cocaine, would you not be interested in who gave it to him? LMAO
If you see yourself as a critical thinker, I would advise you to seek information outside the NRA propaganda links...
T.Neville,
All we can assume is that you are an NRA sheep...
Questions:
Please do not quote NRA BS, it has already been shown to be the work of paid representatives of the gun and ammo industry. Their fearless, paranoid, greedy, con-man leader admitted, publicly that he is crazy, remember?
Since 1994 there has been a precipitous drop in crime in NYC. Gun control was not the only tactic used. They use a variety of tactics. Something they are doing is working. A review of the tactics MAY be useful in determining which ones work or it may be the mix is what works. Idk, I don't have the skill to break them down, but I'm betting someone does.
ya'll do what you want...it's cold out side...glad i got a heater...
Negative. Washington, Jefferson and a dozen others saw the writing on the wall. The government they installed could turn tyrannical at any time, say with the installation of the Patriot Act that lets them read your emails, wiretap your phone or conduct a warrantless search of your home all based on a hunch. Have you read it? It was renewed by the Obama administration. Irony is I work for the DOJ and Im more scared of my own government than the occupy idiots down at the park in front of city hall.
So what would you rather do when a tyrannical government rears its head, go down swinging or capitulate and roll over on your neighbors like they did when Germany's Weimar Republic (that had a similar constitution to ours since it was drafted by us) was legislatively written over to the National Socialist Party all in the guise of protecting the people from themselves. You liberals are so quick to give up your rights all based on what the government recommends you do with your lives I swear.
ProIndividual just makes cr*p up. Especially on the history and basis of the 2nd Amendment. And the revisionists accuse everyone else of being revisionists..."Pro" try to do some real studying on the Founders, their diestic view of religion, and why they established a secular social contract. Your god is not my god, thankfully. Turn off the faux news bs, the right wing thumper bs, put down the Bob Jones University book of American "history", and get a clue.
Tumbleweed, 'I'm not now, nor ever have been a member of the NRA,'
ProIndividual-3906907. 'I'm not member of, or supporter of, the NRA'
It is hard to believe that given the NRA sponsored talking point lies and distortions you guys continue to spew...Notice how the gun fanatics have been jumping ship since their fearless leader admitted that he is crazy?
Before joining the Union (United States of America) the Original States wanted the Bill of Rights to protect themselves against the Federal Gov't. The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights was for legally owning firearms of the same nature as the Federal Gov't. The original states feared a powerful central gov't.
All States have a Militia and a National Guard. The Militia falls under the Posse Comitatus where local or State law enforcement can form a Posse to help keep the peace in the event of some major disaster.
The 2nd Amendment protects all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
ProIndividual-3906907.
Logic?!? LMAO, tell me without looking it up on Wiki what a 2nd order predicate calculus is, or how the logical law of modus ponens is applied.
You know nothing about logic except how to use the word to make others think you are intelligent and unbiased.
Where are the guns coming from if not from NRA weakened gun regulations? Forget the stupidity in the NRA argument about what the 2nd Amendment means, you obviously do not have the brains to understand what land owners in the 18th Century were thinking and it does not matter anyway. We are living in the 21st Century with 21st Century problems, get it?
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
-Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-John F. Kennedy
"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle Association and extend to your organization every good wish for continued success."
-John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961
Tex2c- Boo....Boo...Boo I am the ghost of the big, bad NRA. I am will haunt you forever and ever. ha ha ha ha.
pro: #4.27. I see.
Wow. Lib in Oak! Lahoma... I've never, ever heard anyone criticize another for actually being prepared for what is always a debate on these threads.
Its one thing to dispute facts with other facts. Or even opinion with facts. But essentially you just called someone out for actually knowing AND using his facts effectively and intelligently without insulting anyone when they countered (or tried to) what he put out there.
Kinda makes you look too unprepared and uninformed to really be an intelligent part of this discussion. Especially since your rebuttal of him (or her. sorry for the supposition on my part) was that there were too many facts (and you had none yourself) and an unfounded accusation.
And frankly, if Pro Individual WAS in fact LaPierre his arguments and supportive information would still make you look unprepared / uninformed and Wayne LaPierre to be much your intellectual superior.
Pro Individual - I have to say that your "arguments" have been the most well thought out and presented as any ever posted on Newsvine. I don't necessarily agree with your Lott assessment, only because I believe in that instance 1: you may have not studied Lott's data enough, 2: That data is over a decade old so it mat very well be irreleveant anyway. 3: It was not a part of the point you were trying to make anyway but your rebuttal was very good.
However you make a very good case and on your other points and you should have sat across ffrom David Gregory instead of laPierre.
Having read ProIndividual's and other very informative well written posts I think we can keep it simple and just say "More Guns Equal Less Crime". How about the anti gun crowd start looking at the REAL problems instead of the "ban guns" chant they are so fond of.
It's not cherry picking (at all) to provide facts that support your viewpoint. That's called debating from a factual basis. It's not my fault you guys can't combat these facts...we both have the same internet.
What does it say about you that you are arguing for a point of view without being informed? It means you're arguing from ignorance, and forming opinions on subjects you know nothing about. Sad.
And calling met some NRA guy's name (sort of) is an ad hominem attack...an informal logical fallacy. Didn't you take Logic or Debate in school?
No, logically there is no reason to throw it into the equation where the criminal's gun comes from for the sake of this debate, because it has no relevance to the crime. Murder rates, crime rates, and violent crime rates are not CAUSED by gun ownership rates...so all you're doing is pointing out an erroneous thing that won't prevent any crime, murder, or violent crime.
If gun ownership levels being high in a society is not causal (or in this case, even correlated) to murder, crime, and violent crime rates, then LOGICALLY there is no reason to attack gun ownership rates.
I feel like I'm debating people who never took a Logic or Debate class.
Nationwide more permits were issued...and crime fell, including the RATE of gun murder. The gun murders have held steady for years at about 10,000 a year nationwide....but since the population has been growing the RATE is lower. Just saying there are more murders, homocides, etc. is not giving me a RATE (the only relevant stat).
I'd point out that JUSTIFIED HOMOCIDES are up 25% in SYG States. That might be what you mean...that more victim's lives or (bodily safety) are being saved (preserved) by guns in these States.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/05/justified-homicides-up-25-percent-since-states-passed-stand-your-ground-laws/
Would you rather avoid these justifiable homocides and instead let rapes, robberies, and assaults occur? How about the victim of crime being killed instead of the perpetrator? I personally don't care if a robber or rapist is killed in the act of a crime instead of succeeding. The life you weep for is the life of a total sociopathic victimizer. The exception is the controversial case like Trayvon or the kids shot at that gas station.
99.974% of gun owners never murder anyone with a gun. Only .026% of gun owners, legal or not, murder someone with a gun. As an American you have a .0041% chance of being murdered by a gun owner...illegal or legal. That's 4 in 100,000! The flu kills almost 3 times that, and cars kill almost 4 times that. Swimming pools and bicycles kill more kids by accident than guns. All of your reservations and opinions appear to come from a lack of facts and an irrational fear blown out of proportion by the media.
Learn all thefacts and then form an opinion...that's my suggestion. And start linking me to studies you claim exist. I did.
Violence has to be curbed, I couldn't agree more. I don't really understand what people think is going to happen if guns are banned. What do you think happens to the guns? Do you suppose the police and military will go door to door and collect them? That seems to be getting pretty flexible with the 4th amendment, don't you think? Legal gun owners being required to relinquish personal property without compensation? That doesn't even fall under the criteria for imminent domain. It just isn't that simple.
Since firearms aren't going to just disappear, the role I try to take is one of education. We are a "gun culture" like it or not. Look at the shows that entertain us. Look at the video games our children play. The idea of citizens owning firearms was obviously pretty important to our founding fathers, it came in at #2 on the bill of rights. We need to stop being educated by Hollywood. FOX news, CNN and MSNBC or horrible educators too.
...if you think the Founding Fathers favored gun control, why did they GIVE the arms to those who served in the Continental Army instead of rounding them up after the war?
Michael Mellnick, with those numbers it is clear that a person has a lesser chance of being struck by lightning than killed with a gun. Only 225 people out of millions of gun owners yet with 310,000,000 people in the US the odds of being struck in a lifetime (average 80 yrs) is 1:10,000 which amounts to 39 deaths per year. (You can find these numbers on the National Weather Service website, click on lightning safety.)
For everyone else, if you can do the basic math in your head, you will see that you have a greater chance of being killed by a gun than you do a lightning strike.
This gun debate is not about taking away anyone's 2nd Amendment Right. This about what kind of guns people in the general population are allowed to own; how guns are sold/transferred to ownership of other individuals and their background checks including psychological evaluations. If you feel that unsafe in your neighborhood then move. If you feel that unsafe in this country then hire the national guard to stand guard or better yet...move to a country that allows ownership of military-style rifles...Israel, Eqypt, Pakistan and other Middle East countries come to mind. Perhaps you suffer from Paranoid schizophrenia?
ProIndividual-3906907, a little more research by you would also net the information that a person shot by a gun is typically by a gun that is legally owned and in the home of that legal gun owner. The owner is also a responsible party for it being accessed by someone without the license for that gun.
Let's do a thorough job on research instead of just the information you want to report. I would bet that out of all the homes with guns (including permits and necessary licensing) you would find at least one violation pertaining to the gun in each home or at least 90% of the homes.
I don't think looking at one city is a good idea whether they have tons of guns or none. There are too many simply regional/demographic factors that can be at play.It's best to look at many locations and look for a common correlation. That way you can look at common factyors and factors that only exist in one place or a few places. You need to draw together A) what is corollary and what is not - and eliminate as a possible cause anything non-corollary, and B) look at those things that are corollary, and then determine what is causal basedo n what is the highest corollary.
One causal factor to murder is drug Prohibition. It (murder rate) increased highly in high number of places, transnationally and county by county in the USA, where there were strict drug laws and a Drug War. Where the Drug War was lax the stats show a much smaller murder rate.
For example, Honduras and Mexico both have high murder rates...Mexico has strong gun control and Honduras has more lenient gun laws that we do. So clearly the high murder rates in both places isn't correlated to gun ownership rates or gun laws...it's corollary in both cases to drug smuggling, drug cartels, and the Drug War. On the other side you can look at any number of the many low murder rate nations...one with lax gun laws and one with strong gun control. You'll find if they have a low murder rate they are VERY likely to have lax drug laws.
Let me let eveyone in on a little secret:
Just as gun ownership rates are not causal to HIGH murder rates, it is also not causal to LOW murder rates. True, whewre there are more guns there is less crime and murder...but it isn't causal...it's just a big correlation. For example, whites have more guns and lower crime/murder rates than non-whites, same for richer vs poorer, same for rural vs urban....but you'll notice, even though it appears "more guns causes lower crime/murder rates", that it isn't the case (anymore than it is the opposite case). The truth is the Drug War targets non-whites, poorer people, and urban areas...where they HAPPEN TO have less guns per capita...but the lack of guns isn't causing the higher murder rates and crime rates; the Drug War is.
Where you have a tough drug law, you have high crime and murder rates. Where you have more lax or decriminalized/legalized drugs, you have lower crime and murder rates. The guns are incidental to both.
In the case of the pro-gun crowd we have one thing going for us the anti-gun crowd does not: we have a correlation of gun ownership rates with low crime and murder rates...whereas they have no correlation to gun ownership rates to high crime and murder rates. Where it is painfully obvious that you cannot have a causal relationship without a corollary, it is less obvious that where there is a corollary you do not necessarily have causation. I'm honest; there is no causation to crime and murder rates, either way, to gun ownership rates...but there is certainly a causal relationship for the Drug War.
Point being: The anti-gun folks have no argument at all here, while the pro-gun folks only can decrease crime rates or murder rates by ending the Drug War, not by increasing the guns in society. You can increase or decrease guns...it won't affect the crime rate or murder rate.
Looking at just one city is just too narrow to get good answers. Look at every county in the USA, or every nation in the world, so you can cover variables like urban vs rural, race variables, income variables, etc.
Not one stat I gave came from the NRA or GOA...in fact, the major study I linked to was from Obama's alma mater (Harvard)...not exactly a conservative think tank.
I'm not a fan of the NRA because they have a bad history with people of color...and i'm not white.
But this is just another ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter if the NRA says it or not...it's illogical to combat a point of debate by attacking the source. Hitler can say the grass is green and the sky is blue...it's not untrue because Hitler said it.
By asking this you are proving you don't understand basic logic. IT'S OFF-TOPIC. I called you correctly on several logical failures...try NOT changing the subject. You are beaten on the facts...just concede (or continue to make arguments without sources linked, based on informal logical fallacies).
Link me to the studies that back your claims about increased crime rates/ increased murder rates in SYG States, and your claim that the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in the Founders' and Framers' own words what you say it means. I linked you sources...and challenged you to a contest of each of giving quotes to back our claims. But you have provided nothing because you have nothing. I have the Founders and Framers to back my claims, you have MSNBC and Current TV, and maybe DailyKos and HuffPo.
You lose.
Ummm, except for all those links I provided to the studies and words of the Founders and Framers themselves.
I'm drowning in a sea of willful ignorance and closed mindedness here.
Thanks a lot. I mean that. And you may be right about Lott....I am no expert on his work. I hadn't considered how old his stats are. Perhaps I should read him more in depth. I know he wrote a rebuttal book after being criticized for "More Guns, Less Crime" (which I skimmed, to be honest).
I already knew that. The number one cause of gun murder (and murder generally) is the Drug War (40-70% of all murder and gun murder in the USA). The 2nd leading cause is domestic violence. That's where those stats you are talking about come from. People need to stop hitting women, men (it happens), and their kids. We also need to stop going to war unprovoked...it leads to a lot of veterans, and they have WAY higher domestic violence rates than regaular citizens. Almost 50% of the prisoners in our prisons at any given time are veterans. That's not a knock on them, it's a knock on all these world empire, police the world, wars.
But again, only .026% of gun owners murder anyone with a gun, and Americans only have a .0041% chance of being murdered by a gun. It's not like people try to make it out to be...that having a gun in your home makes you very likely to be killed by it. It's still highly unlikely. And we already have laws to keep people charged with domestic violence (not even just convicted) from having guns (or to confiscate their guns).
We need to end the Drug War first (it's the bulk of the murder/gun murder problem), and second teach people to have ZERO tolerance for spanking kids, intimidating women (and men) physically, etc. If you nip that in the bud culturally you can really save some lives. To further decrease this problem we should stand pat against wars not in direct self defense. Combat vets not only commit more crimes and abuse their loved ones, but they also produce kids far more likely to be criminals in the next generation. Many people have pointed out that 'one generation's war is the next generation's crime wave'. Fortunately for us we've had less crime than most because our country is so rich...but imagine how much less crime we'd have withtout those wars.
tex2c, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Mark from Bridgeport, somehow I cannot imagine that the Founding Fathers believed there would be high-powered rifles and ammunition available at some point in the future. The gun my father has from his grandfather that was used in the Civil War (began April 12, 1861, ended by Declaration by President Johnson May 9, 1865 but the last shot fired was June 22, 1865 by a Confederate general Cherokee leader Stand Watie) was about 12 feet long and you had to literally be standing on top of the enemy for it to strike its target. That's not even 148 years ago when the war ended.
Another words, as time goes on, society changes and so does technology. It is necessary to amend contracts...including the Constitutional Amendments. You may as well be in the Middle East if you believe things should remain "as is" rather than evolve as time evolves.
This has nothing to do with the debate, but I thought I'd mention it:
I'M A DEIST. I don't believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ, miracles, etc. Hence, like all Desits, I'm a sitckler for reason and logic. Clockmaker Creator or bust!...lol.
So yet another fail for you there.
ProIndividual-3906907 - That stat's bunk, too. They include suicides in that.
A round of applause, everybody?
They allowed privately owned canons back then...so they would of wanted less gun control, not even what we already have. The point of the 2nd Amend was to deter the govt from becoming tyrannical, and if it did to overthrow it. They thought whatever the military had, literally, we should have. I linked to quotes supporting that claim (Hamilton in the Federalist Papers for one). I can also quote Jefferson supporting open armed rioting and rebellion (Shay's Rebellion - the rebellion was over essentially the first bank bailout and major tax scheme at the expense of unpaid veterans of the revolution), and saying if the rebellion failed that the rebels should be PARDONED. BTW...in Shay's Rebellion the rebels fought the militia.
You mean his claim that SYG States have more homocides? If so, I didn't know that.
@Julieann: Mark from Bridgeport, somehow I cannot imagine that the Founding Fathers believed there would be high-powered rifles and ammunition available at some point in the future. ... Another words, as time goes on, society changes and so does technology. It is necessary to amend contracts...including the Constitutional Amendments. You may as well be in the Middle East if you believe things should remain "as is" rather than evolve as time evolves.
First, thank you for your well thought out post.
My counterpoint: Saying that because the weapons of old are less deadly it makes them okay by comparison means that by logical extention you need to stop posting on the Internet and start cranking up hand-bills on a printing press because the First Amendment was not written with the Internet in mind!
Let's take it a step further: when an economical hand-held laser gun in invented, will you say it is suddenly be okay to own a submachine gun because it's not as dangerous as a laser?
While we're at it, please explain how we could possibly limit any other Amendments with technological restrictions. Explain to me why we cannot restrict the 19th Amendment so that instead of granting Women's Suffrage so that someone who has a sex change is disenfranchised? After all, they didn't have sex change operations in 1920.
So, in a nutshell: if you're going to restrict an Amendment, the same restriction will be able to be applied to pretty much every other Amendment.
ProIndividual-3906907 - No, the one about guns most likely to be used on someone within the household. Julieann didn't really even cite it correctly at #4.48. My last post was rather unclear--I was referring to her post.
Oh. I thought she was just refering to murders....which would be domestic violence...thanks for the heads up.
Carry mine wherever I go. It's getting really stupid out there.
I hope the holster is pointing in rather than out. I would hate to hear that you accidentally shot someone else in a drunken stupor...
Just think, it wouldn't be necessary to carry if you anti gun types were keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
@ Tex2C,
Always loaded, never cocked. Fits in a very small pocket. Ruger LCP 380. I don't drink. Ever. Ex-military.
357 mag ...i deer hunt with it...so far i ain't had one walk off...
If the gun isn't loaded, what good is it for - throwing it at the criminal? Stupid comment tex2c. I'm not a "gun nut", I carry, legally. Loaded - 9mm XD. I'm not going to get into any gunfights, or go crazy, and am not a criminal. Most holsters used in conceal carry cover the trigger so it can't fire randomly like you anti-gun dips think they do.
The reason I carry? Because a cop is too heavy.
tex2c "Accidental shooting" is a poor term, "Negligent discharge" is the term I use, and it happens when an uneducated person is careless. I get the feeling that Rustboy-FL is neither.
Tex2c
I have a simple solution for you. If you don't like guns, as is evidenced by your lengthy and rambling posts, simply don't have one, period. Don't keep one in your house, on your person, nowhere. Leave people, like myself and other responsible gun owners, out of your silly arguments. Just make sure to wear an "I am unarmed" label on your clothing to better identify you to the armed criminal element who have no respect for laws and the CCW holders out there who won't come to your sorry a$$ defense.
I would hate to be shot in the Bronx. That has to really hurt.
You've never experienced pain til you've been shot in your Airyzona.
Talk about gun on gun violence!
New York city has permit system that makes it hard for gun owners to own handguns, rifles and shotguns. No doubt that this was a criminal who broke the gun laws in NYC. It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books because criminals will still do this to cops and inocent people.
I hardly see how that has anything to do with it. The people they started shooting with were cops and allowed to carry, hell even with the gun and badge they got shot at. As for the criminal being armed yes the city is strict so he had to travel what an hour to get a gun easier???
It's relevant only in the sense that the more restrictive the gun ownership laws the more likely crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates will be higher. It isn't universal, but it is the correlation. Despite popular myth, lower gun ownership do not equal lower crime rates, lower violent crime rates, lower suicide rates, or lower murder rates. Refer to post #4.1 for a Harvard study (not exactly a conservative think tank...lol) that proves that.
So if that proves that then why does new york have lower crime rates then other cities?
Do you know what cherry picking stats means? You just did it. Reread what I wrote. I said "It's relevant only in the sense that the more restrictive the gun ownership laws the more likely crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates will be higher. It isn't universal, but it is the correlation."
Logic...it's a helluva drug.
By your (il)logic Chicago should have a low murder rate...but it doesn't, does it? That's why cherry picking stats out of larger studies is worthless.
Pro,
Not much with the statistics are we? Take a look at England, Canada, Germany - more restrictive gun ownership laws AND less crime. Get it?
The tired old argument coming out of the NRA is not holding up very well to scrutiny. For instance, the states that have 'stand your ground' laws (you know, the law that the NRA said would suppress gun violence) have seen a 9% rise in gun deaths with no fall in crime rates. Hmmm, wonder how the NRA missed that one?
Could it be, and I am just guessing here, that the NRA is not really supporting gun related safety of its members but only supporting gun purchases for its bosses in the gun and ammo industry that give it MILLIONS of DOLLARS every year?
What a bunch of sheep. The NRA argument does not hold up to any rational scrutiny and the NRA membership cannot figure that out.
We are NOT safer with MORE guns on the streets of America. Period...
Tex2c you must be from Austin. Maybe you should take a closer look at the crime rates in England.
So your study is valid when saying the gun laws have no effect? But the fact that ny has less crime then other cities does not is not valid?
talk about fuzzy logic a study on other places=valid, stats on the place being discussed = invalid
Ya and life expectancy is going up NOT, the food the government lets the rich companies feed you with there chemicals kills more than guns
J in TX-3820227;
You must be from Waco.
Gun related deaths in the US are 40 times as high per thousand than in England!
Again, you're cherry picking instead of looking for an overall correlation (that isn't there) by looking at all nations. I think you a problem with critical thinking and logic.
BTW...England leads the EU in violent crime rates, and it far outpaces ours. All Pietrs Morgan can do is point to gun murders...because everything else favors us.
Canada is a nation with ah igh gun ownership rate...so what's your point there?
Germany isn't gong to help you much either.
All you did was cherry pick stats instead of showing a correlation. And yet, illogically, you draw a causal realtionship as a conclusion in your mind. Sad. This is the public school system at work folks.
But why? Because they don't have a drug war on drug use, just selling of drugs. Again, look at all nations and you'll find no correlation between high gun ownership rates and high murder rates. Plus, England has 4 times the violent crime the USA does. Is that "better"? Not in my book. It's just a trade off. ANd gun murder kills almost 3 times less people in the uSA a year than the flu, and almost 4 times less than cars. It's a tiny threat to life.
High murder rates are correlated to low gun ownership, when you don't cherry pick stats and instead look at all nations. Your argument is bunk.
Oh...and England is on an island in the middle of water. How do you think we'd keep guns from being smuggled in here since we aren't that geographically gifted (in terms of imposing tyranny)? We can't keep drugs out of this country, or people...hell, we can't even keep drugs out of prison!
Stop cherry picking stats to fit your ideals, and start explaining to yourself why there is no correlation let alone causation between gun ownership rates being high and high murder rates. Explain why it's the opposite of your assertion transnationally, and county by county in the USA.
What is consistently causal to high murder rates is the Drug War's laws. The more strict, the more murder. That's the problem, not inanimate objects found predominately in lower murder rate nations.
You can buy long guns in any gun shop in NYS including Walmart with the instant back ground check. NYC has an unenforced and unenforceable long gun registration regulation. Hand guns different story. Pretty easy to get a premises permit in NYC. You have to pass a background check at 1 Police Plaza. The $300 every 3 years licensing fee is a nuisance though. Concealed, carry permits are practically impossible to get in NYC unless you're a celebrity, politician or handle large sums of money and have been held up in the past.
Yes, and who's there to respond to criminals? Police. Trained police who are accountable to the public. I don't want just anybody with a gun.
This situation worked exactly as it is supposed to.
pro: "It's relevant only in the sense that the more restrictive the gun ownership laws the more likely crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates will be higher. It isn't universal, but it is the correlation."
Would that correlation extend to a country with no guns? How many gun deaths would be expected in a country with no guns. I've already heard the "yeah, but's". Simple, valid question.
That, and the fact that the laws that already exist aren't enforced! Once it comes time to prosecute these scumbags, the first crime that gets dealt away in order to get them to plead guilty and save the cost of a trial is the gun charge. That has got to stop. Bloomburg & his fellow mayors would do more to impact violent crime in this country if they would insist on criminals facing prosecution for their applicable gun charges than they will ever accomplish by trying to ban "assault" weapons. Pistol grips, menacing looks and bayonet lugs never killed anybody!
Over 50 MILLION. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, And Hitler to name a few. All guns were banned in their respective countries "for the safety of the public".
mtucrt....
I whole heartedly agree!
To all those who say let make guns illegal....
CAN YOU NAME ONE THING, AGAIN I SAY " ONE THING" THAT IS ILLEGAL THAT I CANNOT GET (OR HAVE DEIIVERED) IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IN AMERICA?
The only thing I can think of woud be something like plutonium, everthing else you could possibly name I could obtain right here, without even leaving my neighborhood and in most cases without even leaving my couch! Making guns illegal wont work either! And doing so will ensure that the gov't will be able to take anything they want from you.
If you grant the gov't the right to revoke the 2nd ammendment, how long will it be before they say they need to take away the first or the fifth as a precaution to protect you from yourself? How long will it be before we have state sponsered religion? How long wil it be before meat or alcohol is illegal?If we let them take away our constitutional rights granted by one ammendment I gaurantee you it wont be long before all other rights become questioned and revoked! The gov't would like nothing more than to be in total control of everthing and leave nothing to personal choice.
If you give a mouse a cookie he's gonna want a glass of milk! Give the gov't an inch and they will take 10 miles.
Once you give up your guns it wil be too late to get them back after the gov't starts taking advantage of the unarmed populace. DONT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! WE WILL ALL REGRET IT SOONER OR LATER!!!
@tex2c : Not much with the statistics are we? Take a look at England, Canada, Germany - more restrictive gun ownership laws AND less crime.
What the heck are you talking about?
Since totally banning handguns in 1997, handgun crime in the UK has DOUBLED.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Also, how do you account for the current "knife violence" issue they're debating?
Canada's citizenry is the third most highly armed developed nation according to the UN, behind the US & Norway.
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html
There are about 10 million guns and 35 million Canadians. Basically there is 1 gun for every 4 Canadians. By any mesaurement, Canada is in the top 15 nations or better for private firearms ownership on Earth.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
... I could also go on about each of these countries being much more compact (UK is the size of Oregon), so they're easier to police. Especially since they have no borders that are NEARLY as pourous as the US-Mexican or US-Carribean ones.
Is gun murder the only kind of murder? I'd rather have less gun murders than more total murders, or a higher gun murder rate and a lower total murder rate. That's the choice. Again...the 9 nations with the LOWEST gun ownership rates (the least guns per person) have a 3 times higher murder rate (and suicide rate too) than the 9 nations with the HIGHEST gun ownership rate.
Your question presupposes that gun murder is the only murder worth worrying about...it's not. In fact, the total murder rate is far more important...the gun is just a method of murder, NOT a cause (it isn't even correlated to murder rates).
Give up. Tex2c is obviously a free range idiot and no logical argument you give him is going to work. You can't make someone see the light when they choose not to. Might as well pi$$ up a rope as try to convince him he's wrong.
Right in the idiot Bloombergs back yard. How dare this criminal break the Sultans Rules?
A little off key this morning are we?
I'm going to step away from the all too predictable gun control debate to simply laud the police officers for their effective response and bravery in action. Both were shot, yet they returned fire and killed this obviously dangerous individual.
Well done.
AGree on that point they got a bad guy off the street.. Gun control will not has not worked but lets look at it this way Criminal Control say instead of third strike rule we just excute them. Hey I know it is drastic but I am for the killing of all repeat criminals starting at robbery and up just get rid of them. Fro the most part they will never be productive people and have no use to humanity. So lets try criminal control and get rid of them then look at gun control ok.
How about more emphasis on "scumbag criminal" control? violent criminals need to serve real time with hard labor.
Slufoot, I agree. The vast majority of these scumbags are a waste of perfectly good air.
To hell with the "it's not a deterrent" argument, it's one less, every time we terminate one of them.
Newspapers should not advetise registered gun owners locations. This action gives criminals another chance to go rob guns from law abiding people and puts families at risk.
Joannie, I thought criminals avoid robbing armed citizens. That's what you gun-rights advocates keep telling me.
Now you're telling me that guns ownership could actually spur crime. How confusing.
Joanie is telling you that printing a list of people who have valuable (particularly on the street) items in their homes will spur criminals. It's giving them a list of targets.
Joanie...that applies until they know where 100s of gun owners live and can case their homes until they find one that is empty during the day because both people work. Then those homes become valuable targets. BTW...so do all their unarmed neighbors. Listing their names just created more guns in criminal hands, and they will be used against unarmed people that live in the same areas. Is it so hard to figure out how sociopathic criminals think? It shouldn't be...they are all about risk vs reward with no regard to morality.
Scubasteve, again, aren't these the citizens which criminals don't want to target, because they are armed (especially on the street), and can respond with deadly force???
Or are they now especially inviting victims because of the street value of their glock semi-automatic pistol?
I thought gun ownership prevented crime.
Well, turnabout is fair play. Here's the list of the paper's employee's.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=201650905593228814533.0004d1c39ceef0f9f292a&gl=us&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=m&source=embed&ll=40.96953,-73.855591&spn=0.379541,0.222049
Joanie, you miss the point. Here in the South, you don't have to have a list of who has guns in their closet and who does not. Any trailer house has several guns to protect the beer can collection. It is easy.
Of course you're confused. Can't say I'm suprised at that either, given your reading comprehension skills. Lolz!
*eyes roll*
dman:
Some criminals are looking for guns to steal. They will come into your home ARMED.
Some criminals will look for homes without guns, because they are scared of being shot
And if your parent did not teach you 2 wrongs don't make a right, then you are definitely not a responsible gun owner.
dman does that stand for dumbman. they will come to the house when nobody is home DUH!!!. god you anti gun people are so effinstupid.
For all who think newspapers have the right to print peoples possessions and their addresses because it's "public information," how about we have a list of everyone's valuables and see who gets targeted?
Fair is fair.
It is the law in NY that gun ownship is part of the public record. And I should be able to know if the family down the street is stocking up guns. Then I can make a informed decision if I want to live near them, or have my kids visiting them.
Why are you letting your kids play at a house when you don't know the people who live there well enough to just ask them if they have guns? If you can't trust them to tell the truth then you shouldn't let your kids go there. I think you have bigger issues than guns...it's your parenting.
And if you want to live where there are no guns you need to pick another nation. We have more guns than people in America. And I guess you think all laws make sense...like when we sterilized people by law, by force, and sometimes without letting them know what was being done, in half the States in the Union. How about slavery? It was legal too. Maybe woman having no rights?
Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.
glock: The "f'n stupid" is there for all to see. If these are responsible gun owners, they lock the weapons in a safe when they aren't at home.
One of questions that I always asked with play dates was do you have guns in the house. If the answer was yes, then no play date at their house. My parenting skills are fine; 2 kids with good grades, no drugs (TG) and one accepted to 4 colleges so far. However they are teens and now friends with people who's families I do not know, that is a fact of life for most teen parents.
What if the guy down the street does not talk about how he is buying every type of gun, then I have no idea what he has in his house. How many people after an incident say "I had no idea that he had that in his house".
There are a lot of laws that don't make sense, like being allowed to carry a gun in bars. But it is still the law.
Texsc: What you don't use the N..... word no more? Just the trailer trash innuendos are sufficient to acknowledge you as someone who degrades people because you think you are superior? A little information about England; if you add in all their satelite countries their gun crimes are double ours.
REX: Tania is a Photographer and look at what she has for a picture of herself. No wonder the Newspaper is going out of business. A ten year old could have a better picture of themselves than this professed photographer.
I just hope that nobody, after this terrorizing incident, ran to a convenience store and purchased a large soda.....that would be a travesty.
Enough of the gun control debate. Let's just be glad for the moment that the good guys won. The cops did their job. The shooter, regrettably but unavoidable, was shot dead. Nobody else was seriously injured.
So, you are OK with the FACT that the gun the perp used came into society as a direct result of NRA lobby efforts? Hmmmm....
tex how do you figure that did the nra buy the weapon for the criminal. did they say here have a gun go shoot a cop please. your so ignorant. its almost laughable.
You're all confused tex2c. He got it because of the 2nd Amendment, which is what you would like to do away with. You're a gun grabber at heart, right?
tex2c: And that big auto accident is the fault of the AAA.
glock: Do you have a carry permit? If so, please let us know in what state you live.
"your so ignorant"? It's almost laughable - if it wasn't so troubling.
Tex2c and Rex : He was arrested numerous times before for assault. He could not purchase a firearm legally if he has a record. He would have to fill out a form that asks if he was ever convicted of a felony. Had he answered YES, that is an automatic NO to the purchase by the store. If he answers NO he would be caught and denied by the FBI Instant Background Check and could be arrested for trying to purchase a firearm fraudulently, depending on the owner of the shop calling the police. He most likely got it from either stealing it or getting it from a drug dealer.
CBS news says gun sales has soared in Cali. the past year, but gun violence is down.
hmmm, could this be because people are to damn scared to mess with someone now because he may have a gun. i say yes.
buy your guns now before the ban.
hmmm, could this be because people are to damn scared to mess with someone now because he may have a gun. i say yes.
Pathetically weak and old propaganda BS from the NRA...Recent studies show that in states that have enacted 'stand your ground' laws, deaths by guns has gone up 9% and crime has not gone down. Get it?
buy your guns now before the ban.
and make the NRA quota before the deadline so they can get their annual payoff from the gun and ammo industry. Pierre LaRoach is having trouble getting by with his 1M+ salary. LMAO...
Get a new rant if you want to be seriously considered in any discussion about gun control.
perhaps its the stand your ground law is the problem and not the guns.
cali dont have such law, but yet their numbers are down.
Past year or since sandy hook? Gun sales all over the us went up wince sandy hook, mostly because of you gun nuts. As usual since some people want to take assault rifles away, so you gun nuts translated that into " the government is going to take all your guns". Despite the fact the rest were not mention, you all jump up and yell it will be all or nothing. I pray that this is not the level headed and calm response you have when deciding to use your gun.
michael; You've already banned automatics, telling us you only wanted to ban those. Now you're working on semi- automatics. NEXT??????????????
You think we are so stupid we don't know what you're doing.
To bad he would not ban pollution
No in fact I think you are so stupid you think I am doing something I am not. Personally I don't have a problem with most gun. I understand hunting and even self defense. But some of the guns out there are just over the top ridiculous and the only reason i can think for owning them is the zombie Apocalypse lol
Who cares if they aren't criminals or dangerously mentally ill? Afterall, there is also no correlation between mental illness and murder rates...very few people who are mentally ill are violent, and very few violently mentally ill people murder someone. If people want to prepare for another Hurricane Katrina, zombie Apocalypse, L.A. riot, or 2nd Revolution (the actual reason for the 2nd Amendment) so what?
You can laugh, but it's their right and you have no good argument to disarm them. (BTW, I'm laughing at the preppers for a zombie apocalypse too...lol.)
Thanks, NRA, you guys have made us so much safer....
Read post #4.1
tex2c - rearrange this comment for me.....jump a lake in go. Then do what is says.
Tex2c- I did buy a few more guns. They are awesome!!! Going to buy another one soon. A Kimber 45 ACP. Cool, right? I know...gun crazy America, right? Here is a little secret....you dont live in a utopia.
And you want to make us weaker. No logic from a lib
tex2c = troll
Tex2c- What the heck is a 2nd order blah blah calculus or ponens or whatever the heck you wrote? A sign of feeble intellect.
ProIndividual-3906907
You have still avoided answering my dad's question: 'Where did all the guns used by the insane and criminals come from originally?' If not from NRA generated paranoia, then where?
Don't use the old, 'it is irrelevant' line, the is simply not true. We know for instance where the drugs used on the streets of America come from and we know where the violent terrorists in the 9/11 attacks came from. These were important facts in developing an understanding of how to deal with these problems. Violence on the streets of America is directly affected by access to guns. Or, are you saying that there is no gun violence on the streets of America?
Super42, my Dad's response was as a direct challenge to ProIndividual-3906907 who said Dad did not know logic. If you are unfamiliar with these terms and you want to use logic in a meaningful way to make a point, you should look them up and pass the info on to ProIndividual-3906907.
It seems that the moderator on this vine has been hoodwinked into removing anyone who cannot be handled by the NRA, gun-fanatics who threaten her. Some of you call this vine liberal, that is a laugh. To call it liberal is tantamount to admitting that you are crazy, like the leader of the NRA recently did.
You were avoiding the debate by trying to quiz me off-topic (and so I wouldn't dignify it with an answer, and still won't). Your questions didn't make what you were saying or asking logical.
And again, it doesn't matter where their guns come from. Since crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates are not corollary to gun ownertship rates, there is no causation, and therefore it makes no difference. If you understood logic you'd get that.
I think you want to change the whole debate because you can't win this one. "Less guns equals less crime and murder" is a falsehood, just as much as saying "throw more guns in a room and you'll get less crime and murder". Neither is causal to crime and murder because gun ownership is not correlated to high crime and murder rates, and although it is correlated to low crime and murder rates it is not causal. What is highly correlated, and I argue causal, is the Drug War.
I'll give you an answer to your illogical and rhetorical question: They come from being stolen from legal gun owners. But so what? Again...it's not logically relevant to the gun control debate.
Here's something you should review if you want to debate people using logic:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
To suggest "guns get stolen and used in crimes means we need gun control because guns merely existing are what cause gun murder" is a combination of non sequitur, tu quoque, and petitio principii.
You also keep using ad hominem by refering to anyone kicking your rear in debate as "NRA, gun fanattics". I am not now nor have I ever been in the NRA. I don't even support them. I already said that above (in a different comment set) as well.
BTW...liberals gave us the 2nd Amendment. The founders and framers were all liberals. Liberalism has strayed so far from its roots it is now synonymous with statism in gun and economic isssues. The original liberals (classical liberals) that founded this nation and framed the Constitution were pro-free markets, and considered govermment a necessary evil at best (with emphasis on the EVIL). Conservatives cheer for tyranny in social issues, and you "liberals" today cover the rest. Only libertarians seem to resemble the founders and framers...because they prize individual rights and liberty above all else.
ProIndividual-3906907
'You were avoiding the debate by trying to quiz me off-topic (and so I wouldn't dignify it with an answer, and still won't). Your questions didn't make what you were saying or asking logical.'
The article is labeled:
'Gunbattle on New York subway leaves 2 cops injured; 3rd cop shot elsewhere'
Off topic?!?!? So who gave you the right to decide what is or is not 'off-topic.' The question posed to you that you cannot or refuse to answer is very instructive about your argumentative capabilities. Let me phase it again so it meets your level of understanding. Where do the guns that are being used on the streets of America by criminals and the insane come from?
How criminals and mentally unstable people get access to guns goes directly to the issue at hand (even if you have no counter argument and dont want that to be disclosed) and falls directly on the responsibility of the NRA lobby efforts and their mindless supporters over the last few decades. Deny that if you want to look more foolish.
You do not get to decide what is logical and what is not, your bias is showing too much. You pick and choose what is supposed to be discussed without the slightest ability to justify your claims of authority. You might be fooling those who have already been fooled by the NRA but you do not fool intelligent people who are interested in stopping the killing of children and innocents.
Don't flatter yourself with thinking you could dignify or take away from the dignity of anything I say, you clearly do not have the credentials to do anything of the sort.
BTW, have you figured out what second order predicate calculus is yet?
Or even more important, have you been introduced to formal model theory? That is where you learn to understand that your 'logical' outcomes are dependent on the assumptions you make to begin with. You have a little way to go before you should try to lecture anyone on 'logic'. LMAO
I guess it take a little more courage than you can muster to let go of outmoded 18th Century models of society's needs and see what the problem really is TODAY- That would obviously be TOO MANY ASSAULT WEAPONS available to the insane and the criminals as the NRA continues to whip up paranoia as a major part of its marketing strategy.
LOGIC? LMAO...
Gun laws are a waste of time the bad guys don't care about the laws if you take the weapons away from the people you will have a lot more people get hurt. Bad people don't care and good people don't want to be felons.
Wow Bloomberg, gun control really works. When I lived in NYC, I moved in with 6 firearms, when I left, I took 7, the extra was given to me by a bailiff of the New York Supreme Court. That's right given!
Mayor Bloomberg, how is that gun control working in your city?
Not as good as the soda ban what a joke i will take 2 large
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
Read more: #ixzz2H0edbJGj
Yeah you copied this and it is tech. correct. But if you notice you are comparing all blunt objects to one type of firearm. That is like saying cars are more deadly then trucks, because more people died in all types of cars then ford trucks last year.
And yet again ill tell you, no one wants all your guns. What exactly is the use for the assault rifles though other then mass murder???
This is proof, by the FBI that they are not used like the media would lead you to believe. Therefore, banning them will do nothing to prevent crime. I am not a maniac or a criminal. My owning one does not affect your life positively or negatively. I do competition and contests with one. Why would you care what I own?
No like i said that is picking numbers. No crap not many people get killed with rifles, they are not very concealable. Kinda hard to walk around with a hunting rifle and not get noticed.
Hunting rifle, assualt rifle. Both are hard not get noticed. What's the difference? If not many people get killed with them, what is the sense of banning them?
Michael M.- Think about what you wrote? Seriously, read it again. Not trying to insult you. Here: "What exactly is the use for the assault rifles though other than mass murder???" Do you really know the INTENT? Intent is brought to the rifle by the owner or handler. Murder is unjustified homocide. People who wish to exercise lethal violence on others are shot throughout America and the world by police and soldiers or even civilians. Your thoughts (not your logic) appear to have been tainted by the recent events involving rifles and/or guns. Leaving out your emotions step back and gather more information, identify the nodes of semi-truth in the information and then develop good opinions.
I read this article yesterday thought I'd share!
One U.S. Marine was more than a little displeased with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control proposal, which includes an assault weapons ban and provisions on handguns and even “grandfathered weapons.”
The letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston, was titled “No ma’am” and was first posted on CNN iReport on Dec. 27. The letter has since gone viral and has been shared extensively on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, as it seemingly has resonated with a segment of the American population.
Read Boston’s entire “No ma’am” letter below and then share it with others:
So now we are back to trying to say you need an ar-15 to defend yourself?? from what the zombies?
When did I say I need one to defend myself? I'm sure you own or do things that I would disagree with, but they don't affect my life so why should I care what you do or own? Nothing I do affects you. If you would like to give up your rights, go ahead, but don't try to take mine away because you disagree!
Well hell by that logic why not let you build bombs or rockets too
Building bombs is illegal, owning an ar-15 is not. I don't break the law.
Some Woman? Who the F*** does the idiot think he is? I don't care how many years he served, no one should have the right to have these types of guns. And from reading his letter, I would think he needs to be watch. He sounds on edge. No one should admire this kind of extremism.
We as Americans have owned these types of weapons and more since the founding of this country. If you fear Americans it is time to look for another place to live. China has the type of gun laws you want, and so does a lot of other communist countries and aristocratic societies.
Founding Fathers with a AR-15? Don't think so.
nomoretax: I doubt my guitars, my golf clubs, my telescope or my cameras will injure or kill while being fired intentionally, or unintentionally. Is logic dead?
Zannie.....for some reason I picture you as the woman driving down the road putting on her make-up or reading a text on your 'device' and look up at the road to see a man passing you who's upset that you swerved into his lane while he passed you and blew his horn to get your attention and then gave you the bird. You, being ever sensitive to road rage call 911 and report him as harassing you and driving with road rage.
Apparently you are not too good at picturing people.
Zannie....maybe it might be because you're not so good at portraying yourself.
Zann: Maybe you could look up chain shot or watch some movies about pirate's where they load pellets in cannons for massive one shot damage to numerous targets. Which was also possible with hand held devices long before the pilgrims set foot on pilgrim rock. Pilgrim!
Yes bob, because the average citizen or guy next door was running around with a cannon, yeah right.
Blunderbuss Zann OK! Handheld device dragon or dragoon. I am trying to help you from being illiterate about ancient firearms, no reason to get belligerent. I am here to enlighten you. P.S. early 1700's before US.
The Nock gun, or volley gun, was a firearm with seven barrels. Fired by individual from shoulder. 1779
By the way in a number of games a blunderbuss is the weapon of choice for mass casualties. Red Dead Redemption, and known as the enforcer in the Fable series. P.S. If a guy had two Nock guns that would be more than the 10 round clip right?
Bob, please, Hollywood has very little to add to the discussion...
Tex2: I deal in facts not fantasy as you are enamored with. Read, understand what is said before commenting about something not brought up. I gave video games as an example, which are no different than Popeye cartoons and others of a hundred years ago. Look elsewhere.
Make sure Diane doesn't get in White House. Knee jerk reactions might get some button pushed , if you piss her off. Or worse, she might drop her gun and surrender the country.
Given 24 hours, I could purchase a gun (illegally, of course) in either Chicago or New York City. It may be more expensive but doable. And, no background check required. I can also buy Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, etc. Banning something just increases demand and price, not accessability. In states where concealed carry permits are issued they at least are accompanied by a background check, possibly on a recurring basis. Still doesn't stop the illegal guns getting to criminals but does provide a lot more protection from those same criminals to the one carrying.
Here in Colorado the waiting time for background checks is close to two weeks, instead of just a few minutes. All this talk of gun restrictions and the taking away of rights has made people not trust the government. These people are not "gun nuts" or Rambo types, but just ordinary citizens who want to protect themselves.
There is a law here in Colorado that allows homeowners to protect themselves that has been dubbed the "Make My Day" law by the gun grabbers, that has not been abused and saved quite a few lives. The state also allows concealed carry with sufficient background clearance.
Make no mistake, all the anti-gun crowd really want to do is to take (confiscate) the weapons of law abiding citizens.
actually, illegal guns are far cheaper than legal
Well said Rex!
rex: "Make no mistake, all the anti-gun crowd really want to do is to take (confiscate) the weapons of law abiding citizens."
Good grief man. I'm opposed to guns being used to slaughter movie-goers, shoppers and children - among thousands of other victims.
Could it be that the "anti-gun crowd" is as diverse as the "pro-gun crowd"?
Rex....I'm not convinced that 'all the anti-gun crowd really want to do is to take (confiscate) the weapons of law abiding citizens.'
I'm fairly certain that for most of them their intentions are well meaning, but they are frustrated with the violence and instead of realistically dealing with the problem, they think that outright prohibition of all firearms will solve all their problems.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that some people would have it as goal to dis-arm America for completely other reasons.
There's been mention of the War on Drugs, I know that in Mexico that there have been more than 70,000 killed due to drugs.......and it's illegal to have guns there, yet many of those deaths were due to guns. I'd like to see the number of gun deaths AND injuries from guns that are linked to Drug Gang violence.
It's somewhere between 40% - 70%...but numbers vary widely because i've never seen a study done specifically on it. Why? Because most of these studies are done on govt grants, and govts don't like their Drug policies challenged...and the public also don't seem to like the Drug Policies being challenged...the "you aren't tough on crime" thing pops up when people try.
I too would like a definitive answer. What we do know through the CDC and DOJ is that about 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals or people commiting another crime along with the gun crime itself. About 70% of those crimes are drug crimes. It seems almost half (.70 times .70 = 49%) of gun murders At MINIMUM are drug related.
I say 40-70% because when Prohibition of alcohol ended the murder rate fell 40% in one year. I say 70% as the high end because 49% shows up via CDC and DOJ stats, but if you count gang members who commit murders for other reasons you get about 70% of all gun murder (contrary to popular belief, most drug related murders aren't by drug gang members...they kill each other over retaliation and turf...but that isn't counted as "drug realted", although I disagree with the classifications)....and w/o the War on Drugs you wouldn't have most of those drug gangs, so those guys might not be armed. It's a stretch, but that's why I say 40-70%...it's probably closer to 50-60%, but I want to give a wide estimate without a real specific study to quote.
We do know, however, that violent crime rates, property crime rates, and murder rates do increase a lot under Prohibitions of alcohol or drugs.
This site is full of tons of studies on the Drug War:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/
This page relates to USA crime and such:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime
It contains links to over 50 studies or academic journals.
Jazz, how can a criminal get a gun if they are not allowed to be sold in the first place? Do you really thing these guns came down on a space ship from outer space? They came onto the streets of America as a result of weakened social demand to act responsibly marshaled by the NRA over the last few decades. So, should we just ignore the problems to be dealt with in the future and let these marketing greed mongers in the NRA sell MORE of these weapons that are NOT worth the money spent on them unless you use them to kill lots of people in public places?
If you think an assault weapon protects you at home from criminals or if you think a bunch of untrained traitors have a chance against the US Army and Marines using those weapons, please turn in your drivers license today.
Thanks, your rationality instructor...
another proud day for gun-lovers.
I detect sarcasm John, why so?
well, it does blow a hole the size of a Mack truck in the "gun control works" argument
Actually, it adds to the gun control argument if you are not brainwashed by the NRA propaganda. Where do you think high capacity assault weapons come from? Hint: NRA paranoia mind control over immature members of a weak minded public who think they are safer with a really cool looking gun.
the perpetrator is dead, that's what matters. one less to house & feed for life. Will the next idiot please stand up for his/her lead poisoning.
Well Said !!!!!! Please try and rob this cop !
Please? some people why you want to shoot someone figures
With an old car antennae, a block of wood, nail and rubber band, I can make a gun in less that an hour. I learned how in grammar school.
It was called a "zip" gun, and most of the kids in my neighborhood, (watts), had them. We shot cans and bottles.
Yep, and that nail can kill if it hits the wrong spot.
Or the right spot if you are defending yourself. hurah
If you want to advertise, you should pay for it, like most HONEST folks do. When you refuse to pay, it's makes you a thief.
To all of the haters of police. These guys face uncertainty daily, and their families never know when they're not coming home.
The police deserve all the support the community around them can provide.