Be a Supporter!

New York's Gun Ban

  • 6,019 Views
  • 286 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 18:21:04 Reply

At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No it's not.

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.

There it is. Security and defense of the country.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 19:04:07 Reply

At 1/17/13 06:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No it's not.
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.

There it is. Security and defense of the country.

How is this evidence of a lawful need for a high round magazine? Do you think the founders honestly had any idea high round magazines would even exist?

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 19:10:06 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:04 PM, Feoric wrote: How is this evidence of a lawful need for a high round magazine? Do you think the founders honestly had any idea high round magazines would even exist?

There is a lawful need. Riots/Looters after disasters, multiple assailants, one guy just not staying down after 5 shots to the face, that regulation is an arbitrary infringement that serves no real purpose besides making people feel all fuzzy without really changing anything for the better, etc.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 19:10:18 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:04 PM, Feoric wrote: How is this evidence of a lawful need for a high round magazine? Do you think the founders honestly had any idea high round magazines would even exist?

It was pretty obvious that the founders knew technology would change with the times. That's why they didn't restrict the 2nd amendment to flintlock rifles.

Is there actually a reason to ban high capacity mags? It doesn't make a gun any more or less dangerous.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 19:16:33 Reply

Okay some people need to understand the difference between

"Right" and "Need"

Stop using the word need. When something is an established right you don't need to justify need. The founding fathers went ahead and told us why anyway though.

Pro gun people don't need to argue need when it is a right. And in NY with how many guns have been effectivley made invalid with the ban. That right is certainly being infringed. Because even the low end of handguns start at 8 rounds.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 19:49:33 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:10 PM, RacistBassist wrote: There is a lawful need. Riots/Looters after disasters,

The National Guard, SWAT tactics, tear gas, bean bag rounds/rubber bullets aren't good enough?

multiple assailants,

Why does this require a 30 round mag? Honest question. I thought law enforcement and responsible gun owners train regularly at ranges or shooting targets in their backyard recreationally. Wouldn't you agree that the point of this is to train to be professional with high marksmanship? Wouldn't you need just a few shots?

one guy just not staying down after 5 shots to the face,

Whoa, what the hell? Who takes 5 shots to the face and is somehow still up and posing a threat?

that regulation is an arbitrary infringement that serves no real purpose besides making people feel all fuzzy without really changing anything for the better, etc.

I wouldn't be so broad about regulation in general, but I think you're correct in the instance of banning hicap mags, considering they're rarely used in crime and are easily obtainable. I just don't see why they're necessary other than "well, it's fun to shoot shit with them at the range," as opposed to something that is absolutely essential for self defense.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:31:20 Reply

At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In other words: all lawful needs for firearms remain even after the proprosed restrictions.

How many times do I and Mason have to spell it out for you? Exercising a right has nothing to do with need or justification.

This is not comparable to the freedom of speech either. The freedom of speech exists on the presumption that all speech has a use and that the speech must be exraordinary to be restricted.

No, the presumption is that no one should have the authority to decide what is and is not acceptable speech so it's better to simply allow nearly everything. It is exactly comparable to the 2nd amendment because it does not stipulate that a person's speech have any specific purpose or constructive use, only that a person's freedom to express nearly anything and everything cannot be infringed upon by the government. No one has to provide an explanation for why he chooses to exercise that right, and likewise, no one has to provide a good reason why he owns a semi-automatic AR-15.

Think about this. Right now, there's nothing legally stopping me from setting up a trust in my own name and buying an M60 or MG42 machine gun. The only problem is that machine guns like that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Obviously, there's no practical need for an M60, but that's not the point. It's perfectly legal to own one because of the 2nd Amendment and because there's never been any reason to restrict them. If you think the Newtown shooting is reason enough to restrict semi-automatic assault rifles, then you need to show that only those rifles could be used to produce that sort of carnage. As Mason's been pointing out, that's simply not true.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:36:00 Reply

At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/17/13 01:21 PM, TheMason wrote: How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one.
Better argument, but still, hardly convincing.

No...it establishes that an AWB is an infringement. You have not established that it is NOT. The most you have done is establish that it is not a TOTAL infringement that takes away the right COMPLETELY.

Furthermore, you still have not really established how or why such an infringement is necessary, or that the guns fall into an unusual or uncommon category per Justic Scalia's majority opinion in Heller vs. DC.


But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?
... So let's go with lawful need. That is a very good place to draw the line between what should be allowed and what should be an overstepping of a very vague Amendment. So let;s take a peek, now should we.

First of all...the idea that the amendment is vague is a modern contrivance created by people with an agenda. If you have an understanding of history, the Constitution, and the political thought of the Founders...it is not vague at all.


- Rifles meant to look like military rifles: the lawful need is not clear at all. The mere want is not a lawful need.
- high capacity magazines: No reasonable self defense or hunting scenario nessecitates the quick firing of more than 7 roundsin such a short period.

The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.

- Forward grip: I am inclined to believe that there is no reasonable scenario where a vertical forward grip is needed for hunting or self defense.

A forward grip allows for greater shooting stability and control of the firearm. Yes it does help control high rates of fire...but it also increases accuracy in hunting and self-defense. It is reasonable.


In other words: all lawful needs for firearms remain even after the proprosed restrictions.

I'm going to assume for a moment that you are right about that military clones have no lawful purpose...

You still have not established a justification for why should be banned. Sports cars, SUVs and trucks with engines bigger than V-6s serve no lawful purpose for people who are not police, farmers, or tradesmen. But people who use them irresponsibly kill more people than guns per year. Then they cause pollution and secondary & tertiary public health effects. There are far more plausible reasons to ban certain types of vehicles than Assault Rifles.


I would also say, in response to the anti-tyrrany point, that the difference between 7 rounds and 10 rounds, or a rifle that looks like an M1 and one that looks like and M-16, makes little to no difference in fighting a mobilized military force, so that argument holds very little water.

Actually, speaking as a veteran...it carries a helluva lot of water. In Afghanistan the Mujahideen were able to hold off a much stronger army than ours (the USSR) with WWII era bolt action rifles. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan our forces faced serious challenges from an irregular force that was pathetically equipped compared to ours.

In Iraq the US military, it is worth mentioning, had the advantage of the terrain. The desert terrain allows us to employ our technological advantage to max effect.

We don't have this in the US, our mountainous and rugged terrain would impede armor and mobile infantry as well as our airpower. Furthermore, the military would fracture with enough equipment falling into 'rebel' hands to put them on par with government forces.

The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms. Including firearms that are common to the military.


This is not comparable to the freedom of speech either. The freedom of speech exists on the presumption that all speech has a use and that the speech must be exraordinary to be restricted. The presumption here is that all guns are dangerous and there must be a specific lawful need to subject the entirety of the nation to that danger. Even then, speech is restricted all the time, and it's much more protectable than guns are.

True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.

Where as our journalists have shown that maybe they are not capable of responsibly handling their first amendment rights.

:)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:38:43 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:04 PM, Feoric wrote: How is this evidence of a lawful need for a high round magazine? Do you think the founders honestly had any idea high round magazines would even exist?

Can you establish evidence that we need to ban/restrict high-capacity magazines?

(BTW: thank you for not using the terms 'clips', 'assault clips', 'assault magazines', and/or 'magazine-clips'. People who use those terms only betray a higher than normal degree of ignorance of firearms!) :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:44:33 Reply

At 1/17/13 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote: Can you establish evidence that we need to ban/restrict high-capacity magazines?

No, of course not. If anything, the evidence shows that banning them does effectively nothing. I just think the reasons why they shouldn't be banned are bogus; I think hicap mags are more for hobbyists than anything else. And that's fine! Just say so.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:45:58 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:49 PM, Feoric wrote: The National Guard, SWAT tactics, tear gas, bean bag rounds/rubber bullets aren't good enough?

They did such a good job during Katrina and the LA Riots didn't they? Besides, those things all take time to respond. One of my favorite quotes that I'm sure you've heard before is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Not only talking about the whole abandonment issue that happened during the riots and natural disasters, there just isn't enough manpower to effectively curb those sort of scenarios in a timely fashion when you need it now.

Why does this require a 30 round mag? Honest question. I thought law enforcement and responsible gun owners train regularly at ranges or shooting targets in their backyard recreationally. Wouldn't you agree that the point of this is to train to be professional with high marksmanship? Wouldn't you need just a few shots?

High marksmanship doesn't mean a thing when people survive multiple gunshot wounds all of the time. Amplify that by multiple people and you have a recipe for disaster.

Whoa, what the hell? Who takes 5 shots to the face and is somehow still up and posing a threat?

Tupac is an example, although granted, he didn't take all 5 to the dome like that one guy who was shot when breaking into that ladies home.

I wouldn't be so broad about regulation in general, but I think you're correct in the instance of banning hicap mags, considering they're rarely used in crime and are easily obtainable. I just don't see why they're necessary other than "well, it's fun to shoot shit with them at the range," as opposed to something that is absolutely essential for self defense.

The only possible justification for the banning of them is that it adds a second or two if someone is just unloading into a crowd. There are more mass shootings where the shooter just carried a bunch of magazines instead of just using a "high" capacity magazine. The last time someone used a high capacity magazine was Holmes, and it jammed on him.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 20:58:37 Reply

At 1/17/13 08:45 PM, RacistBassist wrote: The only possible justification for the banning of them is that it adds a second or two if someone is just unloading into a crowd. There are more mass shootings where the shooter just carried a bunch of magazines instead of just using a "high" capacity magazine. The last time someone used a high capacity magazine was Holmes, and it jammed on him.

See, that's the interesting thing. I saw you give examples where high capacity magazines are useful, but here you give an example of why they're an obstruction. So which is it? Unless I'm mistaken, aren't high capacity magazines more likely to jam? Wouldn't that mean using them in a hypothetical disaster situation isn't as reliable as a "normal capacity" magazine? When seconds count, like you said, why would I be more inclined to use something unreliable?

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 21:05:40 Reply

At 1/17/13 08:58 PM, Feoric wrote: See, that's the interesting thing. I saw you give examples where high capacity magazines are useful, but here you give an example of why they're an obstruction. So which is it? Unless I'm mistaken, aren't high capacity magazines more likely to jam? Wouldn't that mean using them in a hypothetical disaster situation isn't as reliable as a "normal capacity" magazine? When seconds count, like you said, why would I be more inclined to use something unreliable?

Yes, high capacity magazines are more likely to jam. Your run of the mill of the mill 20-30 round magazine, not so much. If you're unloading into a crowd, the time it takes to reload does not really count for much. If someone breaks into your home and you happen to need to reload, that time is critical.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 21:15:36 Reply

At 1/17/13 09:05 PM, RacistBassist wrote: If you're unloading into a crowd, the time it takes to reload does not really count for much.

I disagree. Just one example is Colin Ferguson, who was subdued while reloading.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 21:20:36 Reply

At 1/17/13 09:15 PM, Feoric wrote: I disagree. Just one example is Colin Ferguson, who was subdued while reloading.

The third reload. He still got off 30 shots, from a handgun.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 21:26:06 Reply

At 1/17/13 09:20 PM, RacistBassist wrote: The third reload. He still got off 30 shots, from a handgun.

Okay, but that doesn't really do anything to refute my point that reloading doesn't present any opportunities to save lives.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 21:26:31 Reply

At 1/16/13 06:32 PM, adrshepard wrote:
The 45 may be larger, but its not going anywhere near as fast as a rifle round. I'm not big on the nuts and bolts of guns, but I haven't found anything on the internet through a little research that says a standard pistol round has more stopping power than a .223.

it might be traveling slower, but it's also much heavier and hits with more force than a .223. a 45, being wider will have less penetration and transfer more kinetic energy to the person/thing being shot. it won't dig in as deep, but it will send the person reeling, especially if it's a hollow point. though it moves slower, a 45 hollow point is going to do a LOT more damage than a .223 full metal jacket round.

it's like a sledgehammer vs normal carpenter's hammer. sledgehammer moves a lot slower, but the impact is a lot greater in higher caliber bullets.

also,


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-17 23:40:41 Reply

At 1/17/13 08:36 PM, TheMason wrote: No...it establishes that an AWB is an infringement. You have not established that it is NOT. The most you have done is establish that it is not a TOTAL infringement that takes away the right COMPLETELY.

Furthermore, you still have not really established how or why such an infringement is necessary, or that the guns fall into an unusual or uncommon category per Justic Scalia's majority opinion in Heller vs. DC.

I'm going off of Scalia's contrived rule. I'm saying what should be the rule based on the rights of Americans to live safely balanced against the plain text of the Amendment.

First of all...the idea that the amendment is vague is a modern contrivance created by people with an agenda. If you have an understanding of history, the Constitution, and the political thought of the Founders...it is not vague at all.

I apologize, I used the wrong term (they have specific terms of art in the legal sense). I meant ambiguous. The legal term of art for ambiguos means that it written in such a manner that two people can honestly read into it it two different meanings. You read "bear Arms" as to read "bear as many of any type of arms" and I read "the right to posses arms" in its strictest sense meaning the right to bear a firearm.

The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.

You get into the feasibility but missed the point I was getting at.

A forward grip allows for greater shooting stability and control of the firearm. Yes it does help control high rates of fire...but it also increases accuracy in hunting and self-defense. It is reasonable.

I used more nocommittal language here because I wasn't sure.

You still have not established a justification for why should be banned. Sports cars, SUVs and trucks with engines bigger than V-6s serve no lawful purpose for people who are not police, farmers, or tradesmen. But people who use them irresponsibly kill more people than guns per year. Then they cause pollution and secondary & tertiary public health effects. There are far more plausible reasons to ban certain types of vehicles than Assault Rifles.

But all cars have a primary usage that is positive whereas guns do not. Guns primary usage is to cause harm to flesh. Whereas a car has to be used improperly to be dangerous, a gun has to be used properly to not be dangerous. (sounds the same but to use a gun properly requires affirmative effort, wheras using a car improperly requires affirmative effort, and not the other way around for both.)

Even then, even if you're right. We already have MASSIVE systems in place to register automobiles and their drivers, and one has to pass a test to drive one of these, unlike guns where all one has to do is go to a gun show and put down cash. There are lots of conditions that would disqualify someone from using a car, not nearly as many for using a gun which has little other use than to harm.

Actually, speaking as a veteran...it carries a helluva lot of water. In Afghanistan the Mujahideen were able to hold off a much stronger army than ours (the USSR) with WWII era bolt action rifles.

You completely miss the point here. The point isn't that single shot rifles can't do the job. The point ins't that small clips can't do the job. The point is that the difference between currently legal weaponry and that which would still be legal (clips smaller by a whopping 3 rounds, and the same exact weapons but clad like a hunter's weapon) provide no real difference for national defense than the other. They both pale heavily in the face of the weapons they would go up against.

Your examples show that it;s the people behind the guns, not the extra 3 bullets or the 100% functionless (by several admissions here) military chic cladding, that make the defense.

The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms.

If this is your argument,why are you comfortable with people not having M-60s or rocket launchers or tacticals driving down the streets? Those are definitely weapons common to the military.

True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.

10,000 annual gun deaths seems to indicate otherwise.

Where as our journalists have shown that maybe they are not capable of responsibly handling their first amendment rights.

But, then again, speech, even bad, useless, and offensive speech, is not harmful unless it is harmful speech. ALL guns are harmful except when not used at all.

TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 45
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 01:03:15 Reply

New York is filled with small **** Liberals, so it's not a shock. Seriously, if people have a problem with people having guns to protect their family, than why don't those individuals get the hell out of this beautiful Country? It's really that simple.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 02:19:47 Reply

Umm Camarohusky please stop talking until you find weapons that hold that capacity. Then compare them to weapons now being banned. by the way it is pretty absurd people keep bringing up high capacity here. This has nothing to do with high capacity.

JoSilver
JoSilver
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 10:33:33 Reply

I live in New York City, Here it's illegal to carry around a gun. It's difficult to buy I gun and I have no idea where anyone could actually buy one and I don't know anyone who knows. As far as I know, people here don't own guns but what I do know people here don't need guns.

Nothing about my life will change.

I honestly believe people are overacting, Who in the hell even needs assault rifles. I believe that our second amendment right is base on self defense so why have guns that kill rather than wound. Sure I don't know a lot about guns or the mentality of the people who are in fear of the rise of tyrannical dictator but as long as not all the guns are gone I don't see what the problem is.

It's simply not an issue that directly effects me in anyway.

Unless of course your counter-argument would be that Obama/Hitler is plotting against us all, WHICH WOULD TOTALLY MAKES A SHIT TON OF SENSE!

I'm gonna be laughing when I see a tank rolling down my street.
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 13:04:56 Reply

At 1/18/13 02:19 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Umm Camarohusky please stop talking until you find weapons that hold that capacity. Then compare them to weapons now being banned. by the way it is pretty absurd people keep bringing up high capacity here. This has nothing to do with high capacity.

So those three bullets actually make a difference in any reasonable lawful situation? Really? Please do explain a REASONABLE and lawful scenario where a 7 round clip = failure, but a 10 round = success.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 15:07:13 Reply

At 1/18/13 01:52 PM, Austerity wrote: No guns allowed + lazy police = rapidly deteriorating neighborhoods.

Really? Cause deteriorated neighborhoods are flush with guns, not free of them...

Also, the recipe for deteriorating neighborhoods is a hell of a lot more complex than what you put on. Your recipe is equivalent to baking chocolate chip cookies with only a teaspoon of baking soda (the lazy police) and a carrot (lack of guns - get it? carrots don't go in chocolate chip cookies). You forget the actual ingredients that make up most of the cookie, like eggs, flour, sugar, chocolate, more akin to poverty, lazy residents, high amount of drugs, and a general bad atitude from the outside world (nothing fuels crime like an 'us against them' attitude).

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 15:49:01 Reply

why is nobody talking about the fact that MOST OF THE GUN CRIME is committed by minority gang members

gangs responsible for80% of crimes
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page =

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/01/5-us-
cities-worst-gang-violence/1095/

heres some info

- Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
- ChicagoâEUTMs murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the IllinoisâEUTM 5.6 rates
- To achieve ChicagoâEUTMs murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.
- New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average.
- New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.
- Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.
-Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won DetroitâEUTMs Wayne County 73 to 26.
- Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, itâEUTMs 75%. In -Milwaukee itâEUTMs 77% percent. In New Orleans, itâEUTMs 64%. In Baltimore, itâEUTMs 91%.
- Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.

add to this the violent crime trend which has been dropping

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c rime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

Keep in mind Chicago and most of these other towns have some of the strictest gun control you can imagine...hmm...doesnt seem to matter much

The fact that chicago alone has an equivalent murder rate to the ENTIRE NATION OF JAPAN while simultaneously having some of the strictest gun control measures and a HUGE population of minority gang members should tell you

....gun control arguments and bans are full of derp and fail and the only leg they have to stand on is moaning from moralizing tards that refuse to look at actual data, statistic, and fact

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 15:55:05 Reply

And so people will complain- lets ban all guns and confiscate them

From who?

Police and LEOs will still have them. There are something like 300 million

As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5]
* Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general

Nevermind the unfeasablitly of turning law abiding gun owners into criminals overnight nor the unlikely hood of marching into ghettos to "disarm minorities"

If you really believe this is possible just look at the outcome on the war on drugs and the war on poverty. Both stunning results in inefficiency and failure

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 16:40:56 Reply

At 1/18/13 01:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/18/13 02:19 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Umm Camarohusky please stop talking until you find weapons that hold that capacity. Then compare them to weapons now being banned. by the way it is pretty absurd people keep bringing up high capacity here. This has nothing to do with high capacity.
So those three bullets actually make a difference in any reasonable lawful situation? Really? Please do explain a REASONABLE and lawful scenario where a 7 round clip = failure, but a 10 round = success.

Reasonable? Do the fucking research and see how many guns are no longer LEGAL. It isn't about rounds its about how many guns are no longer acceptable because of the small amount. Just about every handgun, 95% of handguns are now illegal, Most of them being the kind that people use for self defense. Why is that acceptable tell me why that is reasonable?

How about a 5 round max. Why do you need 7 if you have 5? Because you don't have anything then. They specifically made it 7 because they knew it made 95% of handguns illegal. That is effectively banning guns for most people.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 19:27:50 Reply

At 1/18/13 03:49 PM, Kellz5460 wrote: why is nobody talking about the fact that MOST OF THE GUN CRIME is committed by minority gang members

They get their guns illegally, Adam Lanza's guns were mostly acquired legally.

- To achieve ChicagoâEUTMs murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.

I'm going to guess this is one of those statistics that don't mean anything until your interpret it. For example the Crude Death rate is higher in Denmark than in Mongolia mostly because Denmark has more elderly people.

- Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.

Right that's why you need Federal intervention if you want effective gun control.

Keep in mind Chicago and most of these other towns have some of the strictest gun control you can imagine...hmm...doesnt seem to matter much

The fact that chicago alone has an equivalent murder rate to the ENTIRE NATION OF JAPAN while simultaneously having some of the strictest gun control measures and a HUGE population of minority gang members should tell you

....gun control arguments and bans are full of derp and fail and the only leg they have to stand on is moaning from moralizing tards that refuse to look at actual data, statistic, and fact

Not necessarily, pro-Gun Control activists would point to Europe and their low rates of gun violence especially in comparison to America. I don't care that much about the subject to form an opinion on it because it's not that important to me, but jesus christ pro-gun rights people can't make an adequate solution for shit.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 19:28:45 Reply

At 1/18/13 04:40 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Just about every handgun, 95% of handguns are now illegal, Most of them being the kind that people use for self defense.

That's not a reason why 7 is needed and 10 is not. Either way, making those current guns now illegal is ex post facto. The restrictions would likely ban the further purchase of those, first or second hand, in the future.

Tell me why a 7 round clip is insufficient in a reasonably lawful scenario and a 10 round clip is sufficient.

How about a 5 round max. Why do you need 7 if you have 5? Because you don't have anything then. They specifically made it 7 because they knew it made 95% of handguns illegal. That is effectively banning guns for most people.

I'm not arguing their reason for 7, I am arguing that their rule fits well within the 2nd Amendment.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 20:51:05 Reply

No it wouldn't owners have a year to turn theirs in.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-18 21:00:13 Reply

At 1/18/13 08:51 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No it wouldn't owners have a year to turn theirs in.

violating their 2nd amendment rights and not being compensated for their firearms or magazines.

yeah no thanks I will rather take the chance.