| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2013 03:38:07 PM · #1126 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
It still amazes me how the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also places that have these high profile shootings....
The Brady scorecard goes from 0 to 100...100 being the most restrictive...OK so Mass is at 65 out of 100...Colorado...scored 15 ot of 100...New York 62 out of 100...California 81 out of 100.....Compare that to Louisiana 2 out of 100
here are the stats
So do you really thing more restrictions will make things better |
A couple of points. First, Colorado, with a score of 15 out of 100 may be more restrictive than something like 35 other states, but that's still not very restrictive. And mass shootings are so rare that any comparison of gun laws to mass shooting statistics is not going to produce any results that are statistically significant. Except....the US leads the world in mass shootings, with 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years. Finland is second, with 2.
Second, high profile mass shootings, while heinous, aren't where the biggest problem is. In the past 30 years, there have been 61 mass shootings in the US (at least 4 people killed), killing about 500 people total, or a generous average of about 20 people per year. Compare this to the 20,000 or so kids in the US that are killed by guns every year.
In general, though, more guns = more homicides, and states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths. That last article is particularly interesting, if you overlay the map that Cowboy linked to with the map at the beginning of the article. They look very similar. |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 03:53:06 PM · #1127 |
your right 15 out of 100 is lax compared to some. If you look at that map I would guess that they did not exclude deaths caused by hunting accidents. It looks like all the states that have a more hunting type of society have more deaths. I would like to see where they got their info
|
|
|
|
03/14/2013 05:55:50 PM · #1128 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
In order to purchase a firearm you must be a resident of that state....another option is it can be shipped to an FFL dealer n your state where your state laws apply...Ammo is a different story. |
Half the state of NJ has PA plates on their cars! (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but you get my point). They are obviously using PA addresses in order to do that. The people that live next door to me were there when I moved in. I've been here for 4 years. They still have PA plates on their cars. When I drop my son off at school everyday I'm behind people with VA, PA, DE, plates. So they must all be using those addresses for their cars. If they can use them for the cars, I'm sure they can also use them to buy guns and bypass the NJ system. |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 06:03:08 PM · #1129 |
Now that is true..If they are still registered in another state they can go to that state to purchase a weapon. However if your main residence is in a state I think (Im not sure about this one) you have 4 months to get transfered to the new state. There are a few exceptions...I.E. Military, contract workers, and I am sure a few others.
Oh another thing Military personel are authorised to purchase a firearm in any state with a valid military ID. So they are exempt. However, if they live on post it must be kept in the arms room.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2013 06:29:09 PM · #1130 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
trol1212%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive]here are the stats[/url]
So do you really thing more restrictions will make things better |
... keep your guns. Control the ammunition and eventually the problem will be solved.
It really amazes me that the machismo in the USA is seemingly dependent on having a really big gun.
Wake up pussies... a gun does not make a man.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 06:41:39 PM · #1131 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It really amazes me that the machismo in the USA is seemingly dependent on having a really big gun.
|
Last week I was down visiting a friend in Scottsdale, and we went out to the public range, about 150 stalls about 3/4 filled on an early Friday afternoon. We shot big guns and small guns, and I must admit shooting the Winchester 94 30-30 was just more fun than the 22 long; the 357 revolver was a kick. Not every shooter is concerned with macho, it is a real and very popular sport, even if your only goal is to make small holes in paper at various distances.
That said, the real challenge is how to lower the death rate on the street, without taking away the fun on the range. IMHO if one has to go, fun is less important than death. Reaching a rational middle ground is made all the harder by both sides demeaning the concerns of the viewpoints of the other. |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 06:47:34 PM · #1132 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Wake up pussies... a gun does not make a man.
Ray |
If I did not know and love ya Ray I might take offense to this...
;-P |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 06:50:01 PM · #1133 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It really amazes me that the machismo in the USA is seemingly dependent on having a really big gun.
|
Last week I was down visiting a friend in Scottsdale, and we went out to the public range, about 150 stalls about 3/4 filled on an early Friday afternoon. |
You were in my neck of the woods. Did you go to Rio Salado or Ben Avery? Ben Avery is one of the premier shooting ranges in the country. It used to be my home club but now Rio is as I am 5 minutes from there. Next time you are in town if you would like to go to a match and experience how the best shooters in the world do it I would love to show you.
Message edited by author 2013-03-14 18:51:41. |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 07:24:57 PM · #1134 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
trol1212%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive]here are the stats[/url]
So do you really thing more restrictions will make things better |
... keep your guns. Control the ammunition and eventually the problem will be solved.
It really amazes me that the machismo in the USA is seemingly dependent on having a really big gun.
Wake up pussies... a gun does not make a man.
Ray |
bah.
This isn't at all the reason I like guns, and I think you know it. Removing an eye with your hands, that's proper machismo, a Chelsea grin without the blade, that sort of thing.
Guns aren't about being a badass, or a man, or anything of that sort - it's the combination of three factors: Freedoms, Defense, and Thrills. The simple fact is that being a man, or machismo just doesn't even enter the equation for me. |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 09:41:05 PM · #1135 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
trol1212%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive]here are the stats[/url]
So do you really thing more restrictions will make things better |
... keep your guns. Control the ammunition and eventually the problem will be solved.
It really amazes me that the machismo in the USA is seemingly dependent on having a really big gun.
Wake up pussies... a gun does not make a man.
Ray |
bah.
This isn't at all the reason I like guns, and I think you know it. Removing an eye with your hands, that's proper machismo, a Chelsea grin without the blade, that sort of thing.
Guns aren't about being a badass, or a man, or anything of that sort - it's the combination of three factors: Freedoms, Defense, and Thrills. The simple fact is that being a man, or machismo just doesn't even enter the equation for me. |
This is all based on a pretty limited view of what "machismo" really is. "Macho" was both an Aztec and a Spanish term,, with different meanings: "When Spain colonized Mexico, these two distinct meanings fused together to create a powerful new concept, that of masculine honor that was to be respected and imitated." |
|
|
|
03/14/2013 09:45:26 PM · #1136 |
| can we stop talking about Nachos? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 04:04:55 PM · #1137 |
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2013 07:42:59 PM · #1138 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
I tried to fan them with this and had no takers. //www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
As far as your link, I had read this before you posted, it is a tough one but since an order of protection is NOT a felony conviction I have to sadly agree that his right not be infringed. Anyone can get an order of protection and could be used surreptitiously to render one defenseless. I am glad that no harm came to her and she was smart in the way she got in a 911 call.
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 09:23:24 PM · #1139 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
Yes, it is. But should it be? Does society have an interest in keeping people who have been threatened alive, or only in punishing their killers after they are dead? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 09:27:26 PM · #1140 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
I tried to fan them with this and had no takers. //www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
As far as your link, I had read this before you posted, it is a tough one but since an order of protection is NOT a felony conviction I have to sadly agree that his right not be infringed. Anyone can get an order of protection and could be used surreptitiously to render one defenseless. I am glad that no harm came to her and she was smart in the way she got in a 911 call.
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
Where did you get the idea that "anyone can get an order of protection"? In fact, it can be quite difficult to get a protective order. You have to present to a judge proof of prior abuse or assault via witness testimony and/or hospital/police records. And, can you cite examples where a protective order has been "used surreptitiously" to deprive someone of their firearms? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 10:10:34 PM · #1141 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
You should have posted this one instead since it dispels several popular gun lobby myths.
Message edited by author 2013-03-18 22:58:33. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 10:47:12 PM · #1142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
You should have posted this one instead since it dispels several popular gun lobby myths. |
That's not showing me anything gun-related, it may be a link to a page that turns over regularly? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 11:00:06 PM · #1143 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's not showing me anything gun-related, it may be a link to a page that turns over regularly? |
Looks like it. I've changed the link to a YouTube version (the first 1:15 is unrelated). |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 12:22:07 PM · #1144 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
I tried to fan them with this and had no takers. //www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
As far as your link, I had read this before you posted, it is a tough one but since an order of protection is NOT a felony conviction I have to sadly agree that his right not be infringed. Anyone can get an order of protection and could be used surreptitiously to render one defenseless. I am glad that no harm came to her and she was smart in the way she got in a 911 call.
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
Where did you get the idea that "anyone can get an order of protection"? In fact, it can be quite difficult to get a protective order. You have to present to a judge proof of prior abuse or assault via witness testimony and/or hospital/police records. And, can you cite examples where a protective order has been "used surreptitiously" to deprive someone of their firearms? |
Got a good buddy that is a MCSO Detective and we have discussed process on many occasion and yes "Anyone can get an OP" if, of course, justified or at least convinced even if not justified and I don't have an example just posting a potential pitfall I am sure there are others.
Let me be perfectly clear on this I ABHOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!!!! It has touched my life. My own Mother has been a victim.
@Brennan - That is the question with no easy answer. I guess that if there was substantial proof that previous abuse with whiteness and prior arrests then one might make case that the system has already failed to remove the threat and the offender should already be in custody and if such prior domestic abuse is already proven, current threats exist and prior arrests have been made then in that circumstance I think it is reasonable and prudent to confiscate any firearms possessed by the perp. If it is a he said she said then I would not be so quick to suspend ones rights.
I will say that when doing the background check if there is any record of Domestic Violence is found or that an OP has already been issued then the approval to purchase a firearm will be denied.
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 12:24:24. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 12:49:42 PM · #1145 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
I tried to fan them with this and had no takers. //www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
As far as your link, I had read this before you posted, it is a tough one but since an order of protection is NOT a felony conviction I have to sadly agree that his right not be infringed. Anyone can get an order of protection and could be used surreptitiously to render one defenseless. I am glad that no harm came to her and she was smart in the way she got in a 911 call.
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
She was incredibly lucky. When I worked for Legal Aid in the 80's, we had a client who was not so lucky. Despite being in hiding, her husband, a policeman with a long history of violence, both against her and in his police career, used his police connections to hunt her down and kill her with his service weapon.
Yes, in most jurisdictions, anyone can get a temporary restraining order by filling out a form. But a temporary restraining order is *temporary*, usually just a couple of weeks, to protect the person until a judge can review the case and issue or deny a more permanent restraining order.
If the rule of law is so clear (I would argue that it isn't), then I would suggest that the law needs to be changed. A person with a history of violence and a restraining order against them should not have a gun. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:39:26 PM · #1146 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
I must post this. Because, like the Mythbusters, I can't stop myself from throwing gasoline on a fire. |
I tried to fan them with this and had no takers. //www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out
As far as your link, I had read this before you posted, it is a tough one but since an order of protection is NOT a felony conviction I have to sadly agree that his right not be infringed. Anyone can get an order of protection and could be used surreptitiously to render one defenseless. I am glad that no harm came to her and she was smart in the way she got in a 911 call.
The rule of law is clear on this one. |
Where did you get the idea that "anyone can get an order of protection"? In fact, it can be quite difficult to get a protective order. You have to present to a judge proof of prior abuse or assault via witness testimony and/or hospital/police records. And, can you cite examples where a protective order has been "used surreptitiously" to deprive someone of their firearms? |
Got a good buddy that is a MCSO Detective and we have discussed process on many occasion and yes "Anyone can get an OP" if, of course, justified or at least convinced even if not justified and I don't have an example just posting a potential pitfall I am sure there are others.
Let me be perfectly clear on this I ABHOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!!!! It has touched my life. My own Mother has been a victim.
@Brennan - That is the question with no easy answer. I guess that if there was substantial proof that previous abuse with whiteness and prior arrests then one might make case that the system has already failed to remove the threat and the offender should already be in custody and if such prior domestic abuse is already proven, current threats exist and prior arrests have been made then in that circumstance I think it is reasonable and prudent to confiscate any firearms possessed by the perp. If it is a he said she said then I would not be so quick to suspend ones rights.
I will say that when doing the background check if there is any record of Domestic Violence is found or that an OP has already been issued then the approval to purchase a firearm will be denied. |
Yes, one can get a restraining order temporarily, but within a short timeframe one must present evidence that it is justified, and that evidence usually consists of prior abuse and/or credible threats of violence in the present. And one can always conjure up "pitfalls" for any scenario, but I don't think it serves any useful purpose.
ETA: Ann beat me to it. :-)
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 13:41:29. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:11:00 PM · #1147 |
Assault weappons ban has been removed from the gun control bill. This means that Feinstein's plan has little or no chance of passing.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:12:37 PM · #1148 |
Now it's time to worry about the rest of the garbage in the bill
|
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:33:43 PM · #1149 |
This pretty much sums thing up.
Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.
These guys only care about getting elected, not what their constituents put them in office for. If the voters want guns, then vote that way, if they want them banned, vote that way. Quit flipping to stay in office.
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 14:34:13. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:39:57 PM · #1150 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
If the voters want guns, then vote that way, if they want them banned, vote that way. Quit flipping to stay in office. |
Now you want to ban politics?
If they are supposed to represent their constituents, shouldn't they change their votes if the voters change their minds? |
|
