• 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!

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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Jerry said:
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>
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how most massacres in the US happen in Gun-Free zones?
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
If you were armed and refused to leave when directed, the home owner would be within his rights to use his gun.
Click to expand...

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:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The NRA didn't ban anything. It was the the government of NC.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
Here it is:

Ever notice how most massacres in the US happen in Gun-Free zones?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Funny, when I posted those studies I nearly posted this Standard Issue Response instead:

Deuce said:
The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Not quite what we're discussing even though those links also support what the 2nd is and what it's for.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

The headline:

Re: Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know, it got them some free press so far...
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to, because studies are worthless when talking about peoples rights.

Until you can show me law or federal or state court rulings that state that it is an official "hazard" to not allow guns in a location then your argument that you are free to infringe on peoples personal property rights because of a "hazard" are null in void.

I don't care if every study out there said it, that doesn't make it allowable under the law and statutes of the state and country.

I don't have to present counters to your studies, because your studies don't actually back up the assertion you're making....which is the fact that not allowing guns ARE a hazard and therefore its okay to infringe on peoples rights. Studies don't define what a hazard is or isn't, not when it comes to the law...and when you start talking about infringing on peoples rights you're talking about law.
 
Jerry, stop it! You're making the rest of us pro-2nd amendment folks look bad, damnit. :lol:
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The headline:

Re: Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting
Click to expand...

If you had read more than the headline, then you would have seen why the NRA issued the notice of the ban. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
If you had read more than the headline, then you would have seen why the NRA issued the notice of the ban. LOL.
Click to expand...

I read the whole thing; all they did was go in line with the laws on the books and rules of the convention center.
 
Jerry said:
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....
Click to expand...

But isn't it safer for both you and your children to simply respect the wishes of the homeowner and return the firearm to your car?

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.
Click to expand...

Which would be the wise choice in that situation.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I read the whole thing; all they did was go in line with the laws on the books and rules of the convention center.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and all they did was to be stupid in choosing that site. LOL.

I can see it now. Charlton Heston, holding his dick in his hand instead of a gun, and pronouncing "From my cold dead hands". LOL.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Why would a gun owner oppose people carrying...and how much did he have to drink....hmm...
Click to expand...

I'm a gun owner (well, former gun owner), but I'd be an idiot if I let some dude I don't know, who's ex is flopping around my house in a drunken stupor even though her kids are there, carry inside my house.

I've got to worry about me and mine. That's exactly the type of situation that can lead to an angry exchange between the exes. I don't want them armed and on my property. That, in and of itself, endangers my family. I'll shoot anyone who tries to do that.

Anyway, I would have to pose some kind of threat to him. Packing up my kids is not a threat. No, I'm not going back out. I'm not leaving my kids with a group of drunken strangers and a drunken X, especially if the homeowner is waving around a firearm. Hell ****ing no. The home owner will just have to keep his cool and we'll be out asap.
Click to expand...

Refusing to leave his house when ordered to do so, while being armed, is legally construed as a threat.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
But isn't it safer for both you and your children to simply respect the wishes of the homeowner and return the firearm to your car?
Click to expand...

Evidence sourced says no.

The safer solution is not to host the hazard without a permit.
 
Jerry said:
Evidence sourced says no.
Click to expand...

You have evidence that says refusing to leave someone's property when ordered to do so, while being armed yourself, is safer than doing so?

I'd love to see that evidence.

The safer solution is not to host the hazard without a permit.
Click to expand...

The safer solution is to keep yourself out of situations where you can be legally shot.
 
danarhea said:
Exactly, and all they did was to be stupid in choosing that site. LOL.

I can see it now. Charlton Heston, holding his dick in his hand instead of a gun, and pronouncing "From my cold dead hands". LOL.
Click to expand...

Most convention centers won't allow you to carry on their premises, and those that do probably couldn't handle something as large as the NRA's annual meeting. This doesn't even address all the other factors one has to think about when creating a convention.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not while drunk, you can't :2wave:

You don't sound very happy. In fact you sound down right worried.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Most convention centers won't allow you to carry on their premises, and those that do probably couldn't handle something as large as the NRA's annual meeting. This doesn't even address all the other factors one has to think about when creating a convention.
Click to expand...

Every convention the NRA has ever had before this one had guns at it. This one shouldn't be any different.

And no laugh from my tasteless sophomoric humor I threw in there? :mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
What if there was something forcing me into the building?

Let's say my X came over with the kids for a b-day party, had a little to much to drink and is leaving with a friend. She calls me and tells me to pick up the kids.

You don't know I'm armed when I approach because I carry concealed. Once in your home you notice something, note that it's a firearm and tell me to leave.

Kids aren't ready and the only person I know is my drunk X.

I'm not leaving until my kids are good to go.

I have a right to protect my children. I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. By trying to force me out you are trying to violate my rights.

Not to sound like an ass, but that's something I would be willing to go to jail for. I would have no problem telling my NCO that I got arrested for trespassing because I wouldn't leave my children alone with my drunken X and a group of strangers.

I would be cool and civil with you, but if push came to shove, I'm not abandoning my kids.
Click to expand...

You could go wait in the car for them.

You could put your gun in the car until you leave.

If you aren't willing to do either of those things, then I'm afraid you're SOL.
 
Tucker Case said:
You have evidence that says refusing to leave someone's property when ordered to do so, while being armed yourself, is safer than doing so?

I'd love to see that evidence.
Click to expand...

Well if I ever make that claim I'll be shure to source it.

As it relates what I've said, the home owner has the responsibility to make sure the home is free from known hazards. There are always exemptions, such as the presence of oxygen tanks and construction, but the rule holds for normal every day life.

Gun-free zones are hazards, so if you want one you should have to apply for a permit.

Tucker Case said:
The safer solution is to keep yourself out of situations where you can be legally shot.
Click to expand...

Me, and my children, which is why I wouldn't leave them in a house filled with people drinking, especially when one or more are waving around a firearm.

Also, as I said, if it looked like the situation was escalating to that point I'd grab my kids and leave even if they were buck naked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom