THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

maporsche wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Dave, I am not only unafraid of guns, I have considered getting one for home protection. I don't think I need a concealed handgun, but would seek a permit should I need one. I fired many types of guns in the past.

Saying this, I still believe in strict gun control. We should do all we can to keep Sat. nite specials away from the punks.

How do you limit the guns from punks without limiting the guns from citizens for self defense?

Easily! The country should strictly limit the sales of handguns, with none being sold to minors, ex-cons, and nut cases. Gun control should apply to gun shows. Require permanent records of those owning guns, and oversee resales. Etc.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
Dave, I am not only unafraid of guns,
I have considered getting one for home protection.

What r u thinking of getting ?

Quote:
I don't think I need a concealed handgun

Does this mean that u feel in greater danger
in your home than in the street ?

Quote:

Saying this, I still believe in strict gun control.
We should do all we can to keep Sat. nite specials away from the punks.

Y ??
What is your reasoning ?
Do u believe that because of gun control the punks are helplessly unarmed,
and that thay cannot arm themselves ?

For people who are not concerned with the law,
gun control is not even a minor inconvenience.

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Dave, I am not only unafraid of guns, I have considered getting one for home protection. I don't think I need a concealed handgun, but would seek a permit should I need one. I fired many types of guns in the past.

Saying this, I still believe in strict gun control. We should do all we can to keep Sat. nite specials away from the punks.

How do you limit the guns from punks without limiting the guns from citizens for self defense?

Easily! The country should strictly limit the sales of handguns, with none being sold to minors, ex-cons, and nut cases.

All these rules currently exist.

Quote:

Gun control should apply to gun shows.

I would agree somewhat with this, depending on the 'controls'.

Quote:

Require permanent records of those owning guns, and oversee resales. Etc.

I do NOT want the government to have a record of who owns what in this country, nor would any such records be possible.

The rules you laid out seem to imply that you don't think the handgun bans in DC, Chicago, New York, and LA are needed?

0 Replies

For home protection, I might get a handgun (but not a cheap revolver).

I have no problem with laws banning handguns. I, and others, could have a shotgun for home use.

Gun control would be much more effective were it not for people like Dave and some others on this thread. For instance, gun shows are unaffected by gun control, but should be affected.

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records. The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

For home protection, I might get a handgun (but not a cheap revolver).

I have no problem with laws banning handguns. I, and others, could have a shotgun for home use.

What about protection in your car? On the street? In a hotel room?

Quote:

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records. The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

It may be paranoid, but it's not like something like this has never happened in the history of the world.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

For home protection,
I might get a handgun (but not a cheap revolver).

For millennia, the very finest, cutting edge metalurgical technology
available was applied to making swords.
Thay knew that if it broke when in use,
it cut be very embarrassing.

Some years ago, while browsing in a gun store on Long Island,
I examined a .44 Bulldog, such as used by homicidal maniac David Berkowitz.
It was very cheap, very ugly, its operating parts moved crudely.
It was disgusting; he was a gross cheapskate.

It pays to get good guns.

Quote:

I have no problem with laws banning handguns.

I have never voted in a schoolboard election.
I guess its OK if I prevent my neighbors from gettting to the polls,
since I don 't wanna vote in those elections, right Ad ?

Thank u for throwing MY rights in the garbage, Ad.

Quote:

I, and others, could have a shotgun for home use.

What about safety in the streets ??

U ignored my earlier question
of whether u feel less safe in your home than in the streets.
Will u tell me ?

Quote:

Gun control would be much more effective were it not for people like Dave.

I do whatever I can to subvert gun control.

Quote:

and some others on this thread. For instance, gun shows are unaffected by gun control, but should be affected.

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records.
The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

Like its never HAPPENED b4 ?
The police in New Orleans robbed the citizens of their guns,
which thay desperately needed to fend off marauders,
and even after losing in Federal Court on that issue thay STILL
have not returned the stolen guns to their owners.

Krystalnacht came 2 nights after the nazis disarmed the Jews in Berlin.
The Turks used gun control on the Armenians b4 the genocide.

There is a fairly long historical list
of more examples of genocides preceded by gun control like that
that I don 't have immediately at hand.

You are such a TRUSTING person, Ad ( notice my polite restraint in avoiding use of " naive " ).

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I have no problem with laws banning handguns. I, and others, could have a shotgun for home use.

Simplest, most common and least expensive halfway decent shotgun in the world is probably the ordinary Remington Wingmaster pump action. One thing about them, barrels come off in five seconds and are interchangable.

Consider this:

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/SearchResults.asp

i.e. the 870 barrel section of Gunbroker. Easy enough to have the one gun, and an 18" cop style barrel on it for home protection and a 26" magnum rated anti-Canada-Goose barrel for reducing the population of Canadian geese around Thanksgiving/Christmas time.

0 Replies

Wow, wasn't paying attention and that didn't really work. Basically, get on gunbroker.com, go to the shotgun parts and accessories/barrels section, and search on 870 (i.e. wingmaster).

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records. The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

The 2'nd amendment exists precisely for the purpose of providing the people a final bulwark against the possibility of government ever going out of control and becoming tyrannical. That purpose is incompatible with the idea of this same government ever keeping records on who owns what guns, what knives, forks, hunting bows, gasoline cans etc. etc.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Advocate wrote:

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records. The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

The 2'nd amendment exists precisely for the purpose of providing the people a final bulwark against the possibility of government ever going out of control and becoming tyrannical. That purpose is incompatible with the idea of this same government ever keeping records on who owns what guns, what knives, forks, hunting bows, gasoline cans etc. etc.

That 's right.
This republic was founded on the concept
that the CITIZENS will keep the government in line.

Hence, not only did we retain the natural right of bearing arms,
but also the right to organize ourselves into militia.

Some of the States, including NY, explicitly retained the right to leave
the union, and tied this right to the right to keep and bear arms and SAID so.

David

0 Replies

Saving Lives by Taking Guns Out of Crime:
The Drop in Gun-Related Crime Deaths Since Enactment of the Brady Law

Executive Summary

In their book, Crime is Not the Problem (1997), Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins identified the "use of firearms in assault and robbery as the single environmental feature of American society that is most clearly linked to the extraordinary death rate from interpersonal violence in the United States." Their research led to the conclusion that, "without strategies for the reduction of firearm use in assaults, no policy can be accurately characterized as directed at the reduction of American lethal violence." This study, Saving Lives by Taking Guns Out of Crime, an analysis of FBI crime statistics, presents compelling evidence that implementation of the Brady Law has led to a reduction in the use of firearms in robberies and assaults, preventing thousands of deaths since the law took effect.

In November 1993, the Brady Bill was signed into law and took effect on February 28, 1994. Prior to its passage, 32 states had no system of background checks for gun purchasers easing the way for guns to be funneled into the illegal market. Before the law took effect, a felon could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating that he or she has never been convicted of a felony, and buy a gun. The criminal's felony record would not be discovered because the form would simply get filed away by the gun dealer. Brady closed the "lie and buy" loophole and research has shown the law had an immediate, disruptive impact on interstate gun trafficking affecting the supply of guns available in the criminal market. Initially applying only to handgun purchases, today the background check is conducted as part of all retail gun purchases.

For seven years, the National Rifle Association led the opposition to the Brady Bill and continues to dismiss the effectiveness of the Brady Law today. The background check and waiting period were deemed too "inconvenient" for gun owners. This report provides compelling evidence that this "inconvenience" has saved thousands of lives and would have saved thousands more had the National Rifle Association not fought passage of the Brady Bill - delaying implementation by several years.

It has long been known that assaults and robberies committed with guns result in a much higher death rate than similar crimes committed without firearms. Consequently, the greater the proportion of violent crimes committed with guns - the greater the number of deaths expected. By analyzing crime data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 1990 through 1998, the Center determined that the proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms rose steadily through 1993 suggesting that more crime victims were murdered than would have been predicted by changes in the crime rate. In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady, the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than the violent crime rate ever since. The Center used this information to estimate the number of lives saved since Brady took effect - not because the crime rate was falling, but because the percentage of violent crimes committed with guns was falling.

The results of this analysis provide compelling evidence that the Brady Law is saving lives by taking guns out of crime: from 1994 through 1998, an estimated 9,368 fewer people died than expected because the percentage of robberies and assaults committed with firearms fell each year after reaching a peak of 42.4% of robberies and 25.1% of aggravated assaults in 1993. Furthermore, from 1991 through 1993, an estimated 3,105 more people lost their lives in gun-related crime than expected because the proportion of assaults and robberies that involved guns increased each year from 1990 through 1993.

At a news conference on March 2, 2000, President Bill Clinton said, "The Brady Bill is saving people's lives and keeping guns out of the wrong hands." Since the Brady Law was enacted, the U.S. Department of Justice periodically releases the number of prohibited purchasers who have been denied a gun thanks to background checks. In the five years of Brady covered by this study, that number was estimated to be 320,000 and has since grown to 500,000 denials. Clearly the Brady Law is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This report presents for the first time powerful evidence that the Law is actually saving lives.

--bradycampaign.org

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The ONLY way anybody can even think about trying to make a case for gun control is via convoluted interpretations of the dependent clause, which is so meaningless that anybody who does it can legitimately be charged with having a problem with the English language.

The first half of the Second Amendment descended from the sixth right of the English Bill of Rights:

"That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law."

The Framers were a bit concerned that the government would neglect the militia, so Mason added militia protections when he proposed the American version:

"that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

This was all boiled down to: "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" when Madison got his hands on it.

And Congress only tweaked it slightly from that point on.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

BTW, federal gun control, each year, keeps about 200,000 people from obtaining guns. Only god knows how many lives are saved by this.

About three?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I have no problem with laws banning handguns. I, and others, could have a shotgun for home use.

That would prove difficult for concealed carry however.

Advocate wrote:

Gun control would be much more effective were it not for people like Dave and some others on this thread. For instance, gun shows are unaffected by gun control, but should be affected.

The NRA fully supported a measure to have gun checks at gun shows a few years back.

The measure was torpedoed by gun control advocates due to the fact that it wasn't sufficiently onerous to law abiding citizens (making things onerous to law-abiding citizens is the main goal of gun control advocates).

Advocate wrote:

It is silly and paranoid to say that the govt. must not keep gun records. The chance that the govt. would somehow use this to confiscate is nil.

History shows you are wrong.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Dave, I am not only unafraid of guns, I have considered getting one for home protection. I don't think I need a concealed handgun, but would seek a permit should I need one. I fired many types of guns in the past.

Saying this, I still believe in strict gun control. We should do all we can to keep Sat. nite specials away from the punks.

How do you limit the guns from punks without limiting the guns from citizens for self defense?

Easily! The country should strictly limit the sales of handguns, with none being sold to minors, ex-cons, and nut cases.

It is already illegal to sell guns to minors and ex-cons.

"Nut case" is a rather imprecise term, but it is also illegal to sell guns to people adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others.

So I gather you want no changes in the law here?

Advocate wrote:

Gun control should apply to gun shows.

The NRA is fine with that, so long as the process is not deliberately made onerous to law abiding citizens.

Advocate wrote:

Require permanent records of those owning guns, and oversee resales. Etc.

No. The government would abuse such powers were they granted.

0 Replies

Oral, there are so many things wrong about your posts that it would take too much of my time to respond. So, you are welcome to revel in your ignorance.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The Drop in Gun-Related Crime Deaths Since Enactment of the Brady Law

Organizations like Brady are not to be trusted.

For instance, they always trumpet drops in "gun-related deaths" instead of "total deaths". That way, when they trade gunshot deaths for stabbing deaths, they can fool people into believing that fewer people are being killed.

A good rule of thumb is that if the Brady organization says it, the opposite is true.

There are exceptions. Sometimes they will print a falsehood, but the opposite of the falsehood is also false. But in general it is a safe assumption to make when dealing with them.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Oral, there are so many things wrong about your posts that it would take too much of my time to respond. So, you are welcome to revel in your ignorance.

No ignorance on my part. I know more about this one subject than you know about everything.

But feel free to try to show where I am wrong on just one thing, if you can.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I know more about this one subject than you know about everything.

Fascinating.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
BTW, federal gun control, each year, keeps about 200,000 people from obtaining guns. Only god knows how many lives are saved by this.

About three?

Yeah, about 3 violent, criminal predators
rescued from the clutches of their victims.
David

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know