|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can we regulate guns ... ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
For want of a better name, let’s call a place with gun laws like this--Chicago. Or you can call that place Manhattan: Manhattan: New York Remains Safest Big City in the United States Record year for crime in New York City with fewer murders, shootings See, strict gun laws work when it's properly done. Chicago has to deal with it's location and being surrounded be other places with next to nothing for gun laws. Also, when you focus on CHicago, you're focusing on the low income and poor communities that bring Chicago's crime, shootings, and murder numbers so high. It's not rich folk shooting each other. The answer there is NOT to loosen up the gun laws and make it the wild west. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
that there is something in modern society that gives birth to a violent mindset. But there isn't. There is something in poor communities that gives rise to violence. We're not seeing the numbers of shootings and murder going up in rich, white neighboorhoods. It's an inner city problem. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
That may be true for the most part, but the CT shooting doesn't fall into that classification. Sure, but that's the extremely rare case. RAZD's "ways to regulate guns" that he's been positing are, some of them, is what is being used here in NY. Where you have an island of 8 million people from EVERY social economical position living together. Very strict gun laws. The results are clear, Manhattan remains the safest big city. So while cases like CT, where 29 died in one event, gets all of our attention. Cases like 29 dead in the span of a month in the inner cities should too. Because that is where the bigger gun problems are. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
So what kind of regulations work best? I think first ALL states need to have the same set of gun laws. And it doesn't have to be anything radical or that hasn't ever been done in the US and we don't need to infringe on people's rights. Just adopt the exact rules and laws that NY has and that has proven to work in Manhattan which is a perfect model for the entire country. It clearly works, being the safest big city in America. It's a good start. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Do you think gun massacres are more of a problem in the US than other comparable countries? The key word there is "comparable" countries. Africa is far more violent with guns than the US, but we are a close second. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
The US has a homicide rate completely out of kilter with it's status as a first world Western democracy. But it's important to note that it's only a high rate in low income neighborhoods which are predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods.
There are probably numerous reasons for this. There are two in my opinion. Poverty and the availability of guns to use in crimes.
But the bewildering attitude to guns as some sort of symbol of freedom is almost certainly part of the issue. Those who see it as a symbol of freedom are, for the most part, white citizens. Blacks and hispanics see it as a symbol of power. Neither one is right. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
That would seem to be the interpretation of the founding fathers I wonder given the last statement if the founding fathers, or at least James Madison, would agree that a civilian not in the armed forces, part of the national guard, or in law enforcement, needs a gun?
"Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it." - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
the necessity of being able to call the general citizenry up into an ordered and self-provisioned militia in a time of national defense. Haven't we already done this in the form of a standing military? No one is asked to bring their guns with them, our taxes already pay for our citizenry to own and operate the best weapons in the world. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
The point of the Second Amendment isn't to make it possible to arm the military. I've never quite understood this myself since so many decide to interpret it their own way. The first line seems to be suggesting having a military, although not an organized one. One made up of the people when necessary - thus requiring that the people bear arms in case they get called to defend the state. It was over 200 years ago mind you. But we've since done away with that and have a standing military equiped with the best weapons our money can buy necessary to the security of a free state. Makes it pointless to continue to refer to this "right to bear amrs" as some kind of freedom to walk around with a Glock. Here, just for reference:
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. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
There was a standing Federal army when they drafted the Constitution. Well no, the Federal army didn't come about until the Civil War. There was a Continental Army during the conception of the United States and the Constitution. As you can see:
quote: Which is why you get the need to write the Second Amendment. We have since done away with that, and the current military is funded by we the people through tax dollars. Well regulated militias are not relevant anymore. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Any restriction that is applied is infringing upon my rights to bear Arms. Well NY is not infringing on anyone's rights to bear arms. It would be legal to apply these laws to every state. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
nd one fact is I have many friends in Cuba and many friends who have left Cuba and live in the US. Castro never confiscated any guns, you made that up. There are no gun manufactures on the island, and people are too poor to afford it even if there was. But, there is no law in Cuba that says you can't own a gun, so if one would want to start a gun company there you technically could - however, you'd probably go bankrupt since people would rather buy food than a gun. I have actual family there who own guns - old Russian guns that a few metal workers can repair. Plus most farmers on the island have guns too.
Castro did relent and let them have Bibles he figured they would not hurt his soldiers. Bibles were never taken away from anyone either. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Here's further proof that even a state with the toughest gun laws can get tougher, yet still NOT infringe on anyone's rights.
NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre quote: The measure passed at the Senate 43-18. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Obama/Executive Order on gun control
quote: It seems like the gun nuts are losing the battle. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Im in favor of freedom to buy guns That sounds crazy just reading it. But ok...
A guy doesn't need a bazooka for civilian use. If "need" is the focus, then I can't see the need for a person to have any gun for civilian use. What possible need other than irrational fear would there be for any gun? - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024