• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

Goobieman said:
This really says it all -- 'people shoud be allowed to own guns, but with all kinds of restrictions'.

This IS an anti-gun position, in that it ignores the protections afforded to the right to arms by the 2nd amendment.

What is your interpretation of 'shall not be infringed', and how do the restrictions you support not fall within that interpretation?
Click to expand...

Infringe (from Webster's):
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break Date: 1513 transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
 
GottaHurt said:
It's best to just sort them out in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...

rooftops.jpg


????
 
Good for the armed, law abiding citizen. Multiple shots, multiple hits, = threat stopped, lives saved. This case is a prime example of why legal concealed carry is good for this nation.

Although some of you really do know how to cut off your own nose to spite your face. Seriously. Here is a good example of someone who goes over the top in making a very poor "black and white" case about "gun control."
GottaHurt said:
It doesn't matter who is advocating it, what matters is that people are trying to take guns out of the hands of our citizens through any means possible.

Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation

Chicago's gun turn-in program brings in weapons - Chicago Tribune

West Philadelphia "Gun Turn-In" and Anti-violence Weekend (UCD News)

Washington County Sheriff’s Office -- May 11th is Gun Turn-In Day

Want a rose for Valentine's Day? Turn in a gun - Weird news- msnbc.com

Dallasites turn in 147 guns in exchange for grocery cards | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas News on Yahoo! | The Dallas Morning News
Click to expand...

Programs offering to buy guns from citizens, no questions asked, are not "taking guns" from citizens "through any means possible." You are dishonestly misrepresenting these programs or you are just ignorant of what the program is about. They aren't taking anything from anyone.

Any citizen willing to sell his gun to someone else, regardless of who it is, is either engaging in fair trade or simply doesn't care about owning that gun. Gun owners who actually care about their weapons generally don't participate in gun turn-ins. If they have unwanted weapons they usually sell them for what they believe the value actually is, or trade them in on something they actually want. Sometimes they even give them to friends or family. These programs are aimed at "unwanted" guns. Get it? Guns the owners "don't want." Nobody drags these people in and forces this upon them, these folks do it voluntarily. Many of the guns turned in are stolen or possessed by people who aren't legally allowed to own them. That's why it's no questions asked. I have no problem with people turning in guns they don't want. Because it doesn't effect me in the least.

GottaHurt said:
It's best to just sort them out in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
Can I get a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" to go with that? Seriously, this isn't impressive. In fact it's quite ridiculous.

When people like you make statements like this it makes responsible gun advocates cringe. Do the rest of us a favor, when you come up with what I am sure you think are brilliant comments like this, just shut up and move away from your keyboard.
 
stevenb said:
My statement stands, gun registration in terms of governmental power.. has only ever led to confiscation.

Please re-read what I said.
Click to expand...

So its never been used to help the government solve crime? And what about all those states that have had registration on the books for years and have still not confiscated them? Hell, while we're no the subject, show me those confiscation cases you're so scared about.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So its never been used to help the government solve crime?
Click to expand...
How does some crime being solved by the government negate the validity of his argument?

And what about all those states that have had registration on the books for years and have still not confiscated them?
Click to expand...
Which states are those, and how does the fact that they have not yet moved to confiscate those guns mean that they wont?

Hell, while we're no the subject, show me those confiscation cases you're so scared about.
Click to expand...
Gun confiscation in California
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
This really says it all -- 'people shoud be allowed to own guns, but with all kinds of restrictions'.

This IS an anti-gun position, in that it ignores the protections afforded to the right to arms by the 2nd amendment.

What is your interpretation of 'shall not be infringed', and how do the restrictions you support not fall within that interpretation?
Click to expand...

How is having to register the serial code and ballistic fingerprint infringing on your right? How is making sure you need to know how to use a gun infringing on your right? No one's saying you can't own a gun, you just need to know what the heck you're doing with it.

And I've always believed that we have to look at the entire amendment: "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. "

We can't just ignore the first part of that, that the rule specifically applies to "well regulated militia". I believe that the point of the amendment is to make sure that the militias were well-armed and effective.
 
StandUpChuck said:
One group you don't want to mess with is a room full of recovering addicts. Cripes, the 2nd hand smoke alone would kill the theif.
Click to expand...
Second hand smoke doesn't kill anyone.

NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

FORCES International - The Evidence - Second Hand (Passive)Smoke
 
Goobieman said:
How does some crime being solved by the government negate the validity of his argument?
Click to expand...
He said that the only thing registration has been used for is confiscation, I'm simply showing he's wrong, that its been used for other things.

Which states are those, and how does the fact that they have not yet moved to confiscate those guns mean that they wont?
Click to expand...
They might invite everyone who owns a gun in for tea and cookies. "But the MIGHT do something" is a silly argument.

Gun confiscation in California
Click to expand...

As I understood the law, the government was letting people sell their guns to the government voluntarily, correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, that definately wouldn't be illegal, since its voluntary.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I'm just saying that it surprises me who is advocating this. One would think that it would be some kind of idiotic anti-gun organization and not the LA county sheriff's office.
Click to expand...

I personally think these programs are great because they mostly target the poor and desperate populace that are most likely to use a gun irresponsibly anyway. Likewise they also target houses where perhaps there use to be someone who owned and took care of and responsibility for a gun but that person is now gone and the remaining folks in the home don't want the gun - which probably means it's unlikely to be looked after properly anyway.
 
Wessexman said:
Maybe not in the US right now but I've lived in Britain and Australia, I've seen where the anti-gun path can lead.

It has got to point in both those countries where the pro-gun people, the pro-constitution(ie the bill of rights.) in Britain, are a very small minority all because the anti-gun policies, the stare and the anti-gun mentality gained ground.
Click to expand...
What's the gun related death toll in your country?
Now compare that to the USA.

Thank you.
 
talloulou said:
I personally think these programs are great because they mostly target the poor and desperate populace that are most likely to use a gun irresponsibly anyway. Likewise they also target houses where perhaps there use to be someone who owned and took care of and responsibility for a gun but that person is now gone and the remaining folks in the home don't want the gun - which probably means it's unlikely to be looked after properly anyway.
Click to expand...
Really? Why don't you look up the last 10, "guys walks in and opens fire" shootings and see if the shooter was poor.
 
Slippery Slope said:
What's the gun related death toll in your country?
Now compare that to the USA.

Thank you.
Click to expand...


That would leave out cultural factors and relative population.

Instead, let's look at all violent crime before the UK instituted strict gun control, and all violent crime after. While we're doing that, lets not forget that there have been a number of scandals about police departments and gov't bureaus in the UK under-reporting crime to make themselves look better.

Then we can look at some studies about how often guns are used in the USA to stop a crime; for example the CNN study that put defensive firearm uses in America at the better part of a million per year.


G.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to find out that this guy was actually a guard for the building or something... remember the church shooting that turned out to be a hired guard instead of the "average citizen who happened to be at church with her gun".

First let me remind the lynch mob that I am a gun owner and gun advocate.
Most gun related robberies do not end in the robber shooting someone. The guy was probably an out of work republican who probably would have gotten caught by the cops if he'd been allowed to flee with the paulty sum he would have gotten from this robbery. I mean, he's robbing an AA meeting so he's obviously not thought out his plan to begin with. Now he is dead. If it was a bank robbery I'd be less sympathetic but the guy was robbing an AA meeting.

Regardless, the shooter had a permit to carry. I wonder if he had to go through the whole registration process to get it. :roll:

Someone said regulation ends in taking away our right to carry. Hyperbole and fantasy. Our history proves we will not go the route of England and remove all guns from the hands of private citizens. Gin up some more fear mongering why don't you... after all, it's all you've got.
 
UK violent crime, before and after gun control:

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. - Reason Magazine

“The Home Office figures — which exclude crimes involving air weapons — show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.”

Australia’s experience with gun control is similar to the U.K.’s.

“The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.” Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

“Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75.” — “Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls,” Illawarra Mercury, Oct. 28, 1998.

“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.” — “Gun crime soars,” Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

“Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started.” — “Killings rise in gun hunt,” Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

“Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.” — Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.“ — South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

After the ban, D.C.’s murder rate only once fell below what it was in 1976. From 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.’s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. After the ban, DC’s murder and violent rates rose relative to Maryland and Virginia as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people, according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency report.
Click to expand...

Right Face!: Gun Ownership Fights Crime

Evidence strongly suggests that gun control does little to deter crime, and probably encourages it by disarming law-abiding citizens.

G.
 
Slippery Slope said:
I can't wait to find out that this guy was actually a guard for the building or something... remember the church shooting that turned out to be a hired guard instead of the "average citizen who happened to be at church with her gun".

First let me remind the lynch mob that I am a gun owner and gun advocate.
Click to expand...

If you say so. You don't sound much like it in this thread.


Most gun related robberies do not end in the robber shooting someone
Click to expand...
.

Hm. And while he is pointing a gun at people, we are supposed to divine whether he is a mere robber or a mass-murderer-wannabe through telepathy?



Regardless, the shooter had a permit to carry. I wonder if he had to go through the whole registration process to get it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, in the vast majority of states, you don't have to register your guns to carry, merely obtain a carry permit. You may then carry whatever gun you wish.

Someone said regulation ends in taking away our right to carry. Hyperbole and fantasy. Our history proves we will not go the route of England and remove all guns from the hands of private citizens. Gin up some more fear mongering why don't you... after all, it's all you've got.
Click to expand...

While the case may be overstated sometimes, there is nonetheless considerable truth in registration as a prequel to confiscation, thus:

RU|Once again, registration leads to confiscation

Irons in the Fire: Once, more, "Registration leads to confiscation",

(Gun) Registration: The Nazi Paradigm

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Nazi Germany's registration-to-confiscation-to-genocide is particularly instructive.

I think it is more than mere hyperbole.

Kleck's study on defensive gun useage vastly exceeding homicides:

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study (gunsandcrime)

G.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
So its never been used to help the government solve crime? And what about all those states that have had registration on the books for years and have still not confiscated them? Hell, while we're no the subject, show me those confiscation cases you're so scared about.
Click to expand...

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina | Red County

That was just recently... btw.

How about this, you show me where gun registration and ballistics registration have helped solve crime.. or prevent it.

Then we'll talk about how well registration would work.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
I can't wait to find out that this guy was actually a guard for the building or something... remember the church shooting that turned out to be a hired guard instead of the "average citizen who happened to be at church with her gun".

First let me remind the lynch mob that I am a gun owner and gun advocate.
Most gun related robberies do not end in the robber shooting someone. The guy was probably an out of work republican who probably would have gotten caught by the cops if he'd been allowed to flee with the paulty sum he would have gotten from this robbery. I mean, he's robbing an AA meeting so he's obviously not thought out his plan to begin with. Now he is dead. If it was a bank robbery I'd be less sympathetic but the guy was robbing an AA meeting.

Regardless, the shooter had a permit to carry. I wonder if he had to go through the whole registration process to get it. :roll:

Someone said regulation ends in taking away our right to carry. Hyperbole and fantasy. Our history proves we will not go the route of England and remove all guns from the hands of private citizens. Gin up some more fear mongering why don't you... after all, it's all you've got.
Click to expand...



GUN CONTROL - What its done to the world In 1929, the Soviet Union
established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established
gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Go ahead and fact check all of that...

Then take a look at cali confiscating sks's that they decided all of a sudden were illegal... then look at the government and how it disarmed people that were survivors of katrina. :roll:

Then remove your foot from your mouth.
 
Slippery Slope said:
What's the gun related death toll in your country?
Now compare that to the USA.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, Britain and America have different histories and cultures. But if you look at the figures for Britain the gun violence rises with every restriction. Now there are certainly other vfactiors in play, specifically social tension and a rise increased immigration but to simply compare the US and UK is silly if you ignore the stats which relate directly to Britain. Gun violence spiked dramatically in the five years after handguns were banned, it is still quite a bit above the pre-ban levels.

And anyway even if it hadn't that is no excuse to take away our constitution, historical rights(as set out in the 1689 bill of rights.).
 
As a former cop of many years I am absolutely opposed to gun registration. I was tickled to death when gun laws in my state changed and buyers were no longer required to get a permit to purchase. There are ways of tracking a gun without requiring an owner to report possession of his gun to the authorities. Databases already exist. While it might make some investigations flow more quickly, it's really not worth the trade off. As pointed out in this thread already, gun registration historically leads to gun confiscation (in many cases anyway).

Knowing who it is that legally owns a gun and isn't committing crime doesn't really mean much to me in an investigation. They guys I'm worrying about don't register their guns and no law requiring them to would matter to them.

I like the idea of my government not really knowing if I'm armed to the teeth, gives pause to tyranny.
 
Slippery Slope said:
What's the gun related death toll in your country?
Now compare that to the USA.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Not a valid comparison. There are many social/environmental conditions that have a criminogenic affect and influence violent crime rate. Firearms are not one of them. The adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is absolutely true. Guns are a tool. Just look at how many people were put to the sword. Those who choose to victimize will use the tool that is readily available to them, the tool itself doesn't drive them to victimize. It's a means to an end. If we had no guns we would still have violent crime. Just because a guy can kill ten people with a gun in the time it takes him to kill two with a knife doesn't make the case against guns. It just reaffirms that there are bad people in the world.
 
the makeout hobo said:
How is having to register the serial code and ballistic fingerprint infringing on your right?
Click to expand...
It is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same.
Thus, an infringement.

How is making sure you need to know how to use a gun infringing on your right?
Click to expand...
See above.

No one's saying you can't own a gun, you just need to know what the heck you're doing with it.
Click to expand...
On the contrary... you're saying that I cannot own a gun until I meet some condition that is not inherent to owning a gun.
Thus, an infringement.

And I've always believed that we have to look at the entire amendment: "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. "
We can't just ignore the first part of that
Click to expand...
This has been settled. The right is held wholly by the individual, regardless of his connection or lack of same to any militia.
 
the makeout hobo said:
He said that the only thing registration has been used for is confiscation, I'm simply showing he's wrong, that its been used for other things.
Click to expand...
No, hes saying that it CAN lead to that. And it has.

As I understood the law, the government was letting people sell their guns to the government voluntarily, correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I believe the story points out that the guns were made illegal and their owners were required to turn them in..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom