Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 137

Thread: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Except for those studies are not air-tight and are controversial at best, and attempting to make an argument based on them as if they're absolute fact is hilarious in and of themselves.
    Here it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
    In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


    More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

    <snip>

    Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

    This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


    <snip>
    Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
    Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
    A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
    Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


    The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

    The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

    Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
    .

    Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.
    Ever notice how most massacres in the US happen in Gun-Free zones?
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-17-10 at 05:50 PM.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If you were armed and refused to leave when directed, the home owner would be within his rights to use his gun.
    I will take a bullet for my kids. I've been in that life-or-death situation before. Once with a 200lb pit bull and once with a shiv wielding gang banger. I'm no hero, I didn't fly in and save the day, thanfully I kept my cool and got out of it.....but I've been in no-win situations where it was either me or my children and I made my choice. Just because I won the loto and walked away doesn't mean I wasn't in the mindset ready to die.

    I will die for them, so if you pull your weapon you had better hope you don't get distracted and give me an opportunity. If you don't offer me a way out with my kids....

    On the other hand, if the situation escalates to someone threatening a firearm if I don't leave, I don't care if the kids are buck naked, I'd pick them up and go.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-17-10 at 06:00 PM.

  3. #53
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    The NRA didn't ban anything. It was the the government of NC.
    I didn't say the NRA banned anything. I said they chose to have their convention in a place where guns were banned. IMHO, that was stupid of them.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #54
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Here it is:

    Ever notice how most massacres in the US happen in Gun-Free zones?
    Yes, congrats, you've presented some studies. Studies aren't fact, let alone law.

    It is a fact, and a law to my understanding, that certain things are deemed "hazards" and thus business can't account for them.

    Not allowing guns on the premises is not one of them.

    Now, you can argue that it SHOULD be, but because you THINK that it should be does not magically make it the case, nor does it make it fact.

    And you can not argue your opinion on what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be a hazard as if its a fact that it is to say that something currently occurring is somehow wrong or illegal.

    You can throw out all the studies you want. As it stands now, by the law and by current fact in this country, not allowing guns into a premises is NOT a hazard. As such, you can not use the argument "not allowing me to bring my gun in creates a hazard" as an argument to infringe upon someones rights.

    Once you get a court case showing that the United States of America deems the inability to have a gun at a location a hazard, you'll have a case. Till then you're simply arguing your opinion as if its definitive fact.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    11-18-12 @ 01:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    520
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    They are political - they remind me of the labor movement always endorsing
    democrats. They were supporting Bennet that lost the primary - and that was against a lot of the main stream Conservative view of Incumbents that lack clear values and a voting record to go along with it.
    I like my organizations free of politics. ENDORSE NO ONE use your PAC to unseat incumbents. ALWAYS

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, congrats, you've presented some studies. Studies aren't fact, let alone law.

    It is a fact, and a law to my understanding, that certain things are deemed "hazards" and thus business can't account for them.

    Not allowing guns on the premises is not one of them.

    Now, you can argue that it SHOULD be, but because you THINK that it should be does not magically make it the case, nor does it make it fact.

    And you can not argue your opinion on what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be a hazard as if its a fact that it is to say that something currently occurring is somehow wrong or illegal.

    You can throw out all the studies you want. As it stands now, by the law and by current fact in this country, not allowing guns into a premises is NOT a hazard. As such, you can not use the argument "not allowing me to bring my gun in creates a hazard" as an argument to infringe upon someones rights.

    Once you get a court case showing that the United States of America deems the inability to have a gun at a location a hazard, you'll have a case. Till then you're simply arguing your opinion as if its definitive fact.
    I'm sorry I didn't see hyperlinks to an equally credible counter study or 2, I guess you didn't have anything to say.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Funny, when I posted those studies I nearly posted this Standard Issue Response instead:

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

    ~snip~

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

    ~snip~

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


    Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

    You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
    Not quite what we're discussing even though those links also support what the 2nd is and what it's for.

  8. #58
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I didn't say the NRA banned anything. I said they chose to have their convention in a place where guns were banned. IMHO, that was stupid of them.
    The headline:

    Re: Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I didn't say the NRA banned anything. I said they chose to have their convention in a place where guns were banned. IMHO, that was stupid of them.
    Well I don't know, it got them some free press so far...

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Donít shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Since all evidence shows that guns lower crime, by barring firearms they are posing a public hazard no different in nature then a factory with exposed machinery. They need to file for a permit to justify/regulate that hazard and have their property zoned accordingly. Hospitals and government buildings are examples of locations which could justify the public hazard.

    IMO, posting a sign that no firearms are allowed in your home is exactly identical to posting a sign stating that you have Black Mold. you can't just just choose to keep the hazard on your property. You have to clean it up. So sure, maybe we should treat such anti-gun signs and behaviors as criminal activity and subject the home owner to civil and criminal penalties for refusing firearms in the home.
    Again.....just because you need to come on my property for some reason (to come get your kid or some other hypothetical bull**** situation you come up with) does not give you the right to break my rules as a land and homeowner. If I have a sign out front that says no guns allowed and you step foot on my property with a gun I will give you one warning verbally, the next will be a bullet. You are an armed intruder at that point and in my state I have a right to shoot to kill, no questions asked. I don't even have to give the warning. And yes, I can have as many guns on my property as I want and not allow anyone else to have guns on my property. Why? Because it's my property.

    So keep up your bull**** ass ideas that you can walk anywhere you damn well please because you got your little concealed carry permit in your pocket. Obviously no amount of reasoning will change your mind.

    You, my friend, are what the liberals like to define as a "gun nut." You give regular REASONABLE gun owners a bad name.

    To the liberals who read this, we're not all like him. Some of us actually respect a property owners rights to make rules on their own land.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 05-17-10 at 06:19 PM.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •