Bloody weekend: 24 shot in 24 hours prompting Mayor Bloomberg to call for tougher gun laws

[B35 via Church]

.....When you got "security" too caught up with what's goin on in the parades, there's not much securing goin on.....

 

lmao.... like I said, too caught up in the events.....

 

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh119k832Gb7nAfp16

[SubwayGuy]

I accept I stand for a pretty radical position here, but it ain't gonna change. It's not an unknown fact that gun shows are a beacon of illegal gun purchasing.

 

More conjecture based on perception.

 

My point is that there is no perfect solution to eliminating guns from the hands of crazies, but the first way to start is to eliminate guns from the hands of any private citizen. In time, if guns were no longer available, the amount of functioning guns would decrease, and the amount of functioning guns in the hands of criminals would decrease too. It's far from a perfect solution to getting guns away from criminals, but this is why we can't have nice things, in this case guns, because people misuse them too frequently to justify legality.

 

Again...guns will always be available. I live in the real world, not in fantasy land. Ban guns and gun production and they will STILL get smuggled in, and distributed to ALL the gun grabbers who don't follow the rules. And used to kill people who have no access to any equal means to defend themselves.

 

That's a ridiculous argument, and indeed in multiple instances I gave you civilians (and officers) had guns, and used them in defense, but were killed. Sane gun user vs. crazed gun user. Who wins?

 

Sometimes the sane gun user, sometimes the crazed gun user. That's how it goes. Let me put it to you another way...sane, law abiding citizen armed with a screwdriver vs. crazed gun user...who wins? Not fair for the sane person so much now.

 

Plus many gunshot victims don't die instantly. There's a likelihood that even if the sane gun user is shot, they can fire a round into the crazed gun user...increasing the likelihood that the person is caught due to their wounds.

 

It's not highly biased, it's fact. If you wanna reject facts, be my guest. And I do not deny that hood slum frequently do the killings, but a ban of private individual gun ownership both makes it harder for those people to get their hands on weapons, and makes the instances I gave you near impossible.

 

What you posted was not statistics, it was a listing hand picked by someone with an agenda.

 

A ban of private individual gun ownership does not make it harder for criminals to acquire guns. They just go through the same black market channels they have BEEN using.

 

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the self-defense argument... Tell you what, I've been victim of an attempted robbery at gunpoint. I was in a back alley and some moron pulled a silver handgun on me. It ain't fun. But I got away, and wasn't crying to the NRA to let me carry an AK-47 afterwards... Life happens, but not every gun owner is a good samaritan (they won't be saving the day like some vigilante police will they?) and too many of them use their guns against the public good. Lastly, to claim that a world without the legalized carrying of killing instruments is a nanny state is nothing short of crazed.

 

Actually, most gun owners use their guns recreationally for sport or to feed themselves (ie hunting), or recreationally at ranges. Most keep the gun for self defense but never need to use it for that purpose. 30% of Americans own guns. The overwhelming majority never need to fire them at another person. But they have that right if their life or the lives of their family is threatened. And no nanny state ought to be able to take away that right. The cops will not always be there when you need them. Humans have the right to LIFE. Rights need to be protected. Courts don't stop murder. A gun might.

[Urbanfortitude]

Actually, most gun owners use their guns recreationally for sport or to feed themselves (ie hunting), or recreationally at ranges. Most keep the gun for self defense but never need to use it for that purpose. 30% of Americans own guns. The overwhelming majority never need to fire them at another person. But they have that right if their life or the lives of their family is threatened. And no nanny state ought to be able to take away that right. The cops will not always be there when you need them. Humans have the right to LIFE. Rights need to be protected. Courts don't stop murder. A gun might.

 

I can't even argue with that. My angst against guns is simply the fact I don't think I'd feel any safer with one vs without. I know plenty of people who own them and seem to be responsible enough.

[engineerboy6561]

On this, I agree with SubwayGuy; on a macro-level there are studies out there that do in fact point to a reduction (small in some cases, larger in others) in many types of crimes, including robbery, assault, and murder, when you have large numbers of citizens carrying firearms. Essentially, it's starting to appear that the case-by-case reasoning for gun rights (nobody rational wants to start something with an armed man) does seem to bear out on a macroscale. When conceal and carry permits are made more easily available there may well be a spate of violence, but before long people will adjust to the new reality and crime (especially violent crime) should drop fairly quickly.

 

On a more simple level, how many people here think that the shithead who punched a bus driver in the face the other day would have done so if he knew that at least half the people on the bus were armed? All that would have needed to happen was for one passenger to take umbrage and suddenly the assailant is staring down the business end of a handgun? How many people would try to hold up stores if they knew that other customers were most likely armed? How many people would be willing to take the risk of breaking into a house if the occupant may well be armed?

 

Now I'm not saying that guns should be available for purchase the same way appliances, electronics, etc. are because MHV is right; that is a recipe for trouble. What I would do is keep the current federal restrictions on who can own a gun (no felons, nobody with domestic violence convictions or protection orders against them, no history of mental illness) and add to that nobody with multiple convictions involving drunkenness. For everyone else, gun licensing would be handled like a driver's license (dependent on passing a pistol safety and training exam and a firing range qualification) and eligible for revocation/suspension/etc. in cases where the gun was used improperly (brandishing it in anger, shooting off rounds to intimidate, etc.) Once obtained, such licenses would be renewable every few years barring suspension/revocation/disqualification.

 

As far as administration would go, I'd set the above as a federal minimum licensing requirement that the states are free to add to as long as the additional rules are not deemed unnecessary and obstructive, licensing fees go no higher than fees for driver's licenses, and additional requirements such as safety and accuracy courses could be met through low- or no-cost avenues.