Please provide a source for this statement. Everything I’ve read has shown gun crime going down in Australia post ban (and please show it for these other countries as well).
I’ve also read made up numbers from the NRA but even they didn’t go as far as saying 800%.
To riot is never a good idea and I think it just shows the laxk of any kind of education…still when you see shitty news coverage that basically causes this race war maybe NBC news needs to be put on trial. This is a blatant continued lack of reporting and seems to be a one sided attempt to get ratings rather then news. This looks bad for nbc
The neighborhood watch volunteer contends the network’s March 27, 2012 “Today” broadcast painted him as a racist by editing out significant portions of the discussion he had with police, The Washington Post reports.NBC’s abridged version of the conversation stated that Zimmerman told police, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."The full tape of the call went like this
:Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black
I’ll let Sir Charles speak for me on this:
Good find. Both in the story and the website
My theory is that the trayvon phenomenon is blacks fighting back for relevancy, away from the new majority-minority, Latinos. Politically, Latinos are becoming a much larger voice and organized group.
Immigration and citizenship has stolen their thunder. I’m being serious.
Just came across this thread and here’s my $.02…
I am a very firm believer in guns and the 2nd amendment. I am on my university’s competition pistol team, am currently an NRA firearms instructor and range officer, and I am one of the range officers for the county’s local sheriffs department. Mind you I am just 22. If you guys seriously think that the police will save you, you are so wrong it’s not even funny. In non-school related competitions, I have invited officers to come out. Some have come out on invite and others have plain showed up by word of mouth…they almost always finish last or at least second to last. Keep in mind they typically use their duty belt, holster, mags, mag pouches, and firearm. That’s utterly pathetic that citizens are far more accurate and faster than their own police. But I digress…
I carry everywhere and anywhere I am legally allowed. Just a couple of points I wanted to address after reading through this:
1- America in a sociocultural context is FAR different than Canada. We have these things here called ghettos and in these inner city ghettos come gangs and gang violence. We also have a rampant drug problem. Two things come from this: people willing to do anything to get their fix and an increase in gang power. Both of these lead to violence and crime against innocent people and within the ghetto population themselves.
2- soaRS4…I doubt you could effectively karate chop bullets coming at you at around 1200 fps. If hand to hand combat was so effective then I think we would be teaching the military more of it, unfortunately it is only good in CQB situations upon which the reaction time to pull a trigger is far faster than to disarm the perpetrator in which case it does no good to the person without the gun.
3- a registry would be a clear violation of our privacy and would move to stop nothing. How’s the war on drugs working out here so far? Illegal items continue to drain through the borders in massive quantities…don’t believe for a second illegal guns wouldn’t follow in place of a ban.
4- If we take a look at Chicago and DC…two places with the strictest gun laws in the US have the highest crime and murder rates…gun control does not work in America. Never has, never will.
5- In my state of Florida, since the issuance of CWPs in 1987 only 165 have been revoked due to a convicted crime with a firearm (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/reports.html)…there are over 1 million licenses that are ACTIVE in this state. That doesn’t count all that have been issued in the past. Do the math. People who hold these licenses are responsible people for the most part.
Now with the case of GZ/ TM…you can argue he should not have gotten out of the car all you want but following someone is not a crime, striking someone in the face is. GZ was walking back to his car provoking no one after TM had disappeared and GZ had reported it to the dispatcher after being asked where the suspect had gone… and then TM attacked him. For all we know one more blow to the head on the sidewalk could have killed Zimmerman. It only takes once. Was he negligent? That is very hard to say…if he died from the beating then a use of force would have been justified but we are all reacting to this in hindsight. We don’t know the exact details and never will. Based off the evidence and GZ’s past history the shooting is justified under FL law.
I’ve had 2 incidents happen to me personally. The first one is why I carry very strictly. The second is why I might still be alive today. As a firm believer of firearms I think it’s a sort of brainwashing that gets people to believe guns are the problem when in fact they really aren’t, its the people using them. That flawed logic kills me everytime I get into these conversations. I’ll never understand this irrational fear of guns some of you have.
Canada has ghettos
Canada has gangs
Canada has drug problems
It’s not different. We just don’t have fifty million guns (or the resultant 1000 gun murders per year that go along with them).
Your credentials are impressive. You’re not the problem. As I said, the gun culture in America and the massive fear mongering program that goes with it results in dumb unqualified people holding guns…and people dying. Never gonna change.
I live somewhat near Oakland, CA. About every three days a person is shot to DEATH, not stabbed or beaten, but shot to death. and I’m sure you can counter this with it being “ghetto” issue. It is, but if the ghetto didn’t have access to the guns, there would be less deaths plain and simple based upon the guns vs. knifes vs pugilist/fist fight.
Though I admire the design of guns, I don’t feel that I need to own one. Reason: my wife was attacked long ago and would probably turn a front door into swiss cheese is a girl scout knocked at the door trying to raise money by selling cookies. and then there’s the part that ties into all of this crap between Trayvon “The innocent” Martin and this Zimmerman guy.
If Zimmerman felt overly confident, knowing that he possessed a firearm, and followed someone when he should have just reported a “profiling” related issue, like the "NIC/negro in Cupertino, where an African American is statistically is up to no good if they are in the city of Cupertino, but he followed someone.
He followed a person that, from what I read, did not belong where has was. What was said and what brought the two parties together to ESCALATE to a fight is something I do not know, but we could assume that nothing kind was said by either party, the alleged trespasser, or the vigilante wannabe a cop that feels secure knowing that the gun will resolve the issue if it comes down to an altercation.
The idea of that someone with a gun would WAIT until getting into a submissive hold/position is beyond me. The idea that someone had enough cool to reach for the gun and not protect their own head is beyond me, but he did it and at that point, if he felt like his life was threatened, then I don’t have a problem with how it ended. this may seem controversial, but if anyone truly believes their life is threatened, then take another life and suffer the potential consequences later, because at least you would be alive.
What happened is sad, and both sides have a role in how this crap escalated. because guns kill so easily, so indiscriminently, I just don’t think the public needs to have guns. again, look at Oakland. A week ago, A child is shot through a wood front door after the shooter knocked on the door, to bring a target to the other side of the door/inside of the home, that’s just crazy.
If you want to look at strict gun laws, look at Singapore or Great Britain, not Chicago, where someone can drive 30 miles away to get a “gat” I really think that the south side of Chicago isn’t a great example of a gun free area
I have no problem with what Zimmerman did, I would have discharged the gun as he did if I was getting beat down and I thought that I was gonna die.
It’s just a mess because of what caused the escalation and no matter which side your on, it’s tragic. much worse than having a clutch slave cylinder fail-bad joke
Guns dont creat violence. Do you think the drug addict high school drop out racest would have attacked GZ if he knew he was armed…no… TM an unarmed drug addict attacked some one for what reason we dont know and isn’t important. …keep in mind GZ was leaving the sene when attacked and he was at the sene doing his job…people if your going to have an opinion get facts. GZ was part of the neighborhood watch and thsre was a string of crime around this time. …a gun saved an upstanding citizen and killed clearly one of the people causing issies. This is a big win for gun laws…
Guns don’t create violence or disagreements that turn violent… They do however escalate violent situations to a lethal level.
People get in fistfights all the time that turn into murders when a gun appears. It’s too easy to escalate. If you’re in a fistfight, and you have a gun handy, the temptation is too great to use it to get the upper hand. A la zimmerman. The kid didn’t really attack him. He out himself in the kids face. That was kinda dumb. He did so emboldened by the knowledge that if it got heavy, he could pull his gun out. Which he did to great effect and killed the kid. I am not saying trayvon is right by the way (read my posts in the thread). He created the situation initially by cutting through a private neighbourhood after hopping a six foot high fence.
You seem to be saying that if there were more guns less people would get shot. Reality is that there are more guns then people in America already and you’re doing a great job of shooting each other despite this. It’s just not true that guns create safety or reduce violence, when the country is full of morons.
Really couldn’t agree more ^
Nobody is willing to just hand out or take a beat down anymore. And if by chance they do, the next logical step is go get a gun and pop a cap in their ass later on…civility and common decency is a long forgotten notion in many parts of the world. Its such a cut throat, gotta gets mine, fuck the rest mentality everywhere. Nobody wants or can accept being pointed out you’re acting like an ass. No personal accountability for actions.
Very interesting. I’ve heard two Americans comment on the 2nd amendment in the last couple of months. Yourself and an 86 year old man. Both of you stand behind the amendment in a complete and unwavering manner. The old dude I can see, but you? Aren’t you young and fresh-minded enough to see that the 2nd amendment is so old and out of touch it’s a wonder it can even be spoken of? The 2nd amendment is 15 years younger than the USA. Meaning yes it was signed in 1791. When there were muskets around. Not guns that you can pretty much cut down oak trees with. So in 1791, do you figure the powers that prevailed at the time envisioned the state of guns in the country to be what it is today? Of course not, the amendment is so out of touch and has been so blatantly perverted over time it’s a farce to even make reference to it. My advice would be to not even speak of the 2nd amendment. Do what you will with your own personal guns but sheesh that 2nd amendment solidarity thing is completely ridiculous.
I think the problem is Americans who trumpet the 2nd ammendment around have inherited that over generations.
It used to be that the public needed the right to arm itself against an oppressive government, a.k.a. the British. That doesn’t exist anymore. The British are gone. You have your own government now, and they’re not coming to take over your house. That’s such an antiquated notion that hasn’t been a real concern for law abiding citizens for 200 years.
If people are so concerned about their government coming to kill them…they need to find a new government, or somewhere else to live. Either start a militia and fight government, or GTFO of the country. Staying and being angry and paranoid…and armed…and killing each other as a result…is no way to live.
All of a sudden I’m reminded of the unions thread.
Unions and the 2nd amendment - two devices created long ago for similar purposes that no longer exist in any shape or form whatsoever in the areas of the world that created them. Zero keeping up with the times applied to these antiquated concepts opens the door for the chaos they bring today.
A teacher I know got a cheque for $5500 in the mail from the school board the other day. Why?
Because she hadn’t been sick in a few years. Part of her union negotiated contract was that she gets X sick days per year. She never used them, so the school board was obligated to give her EXTRA MONEY for the value of the days she didn’t take off work.
They gave her a bonus because she went to work. Incredible.
Ontario will be in credit trouble within the next 4 years. Mark my words.
Soo much misinformation in this entire thread - where to begin??
I’ll start with Sak’s comment. Americans most certainly have a tradition of respecting the second amendment, and it is highly likely that tradition has been passed down through the generations. Outside of the apparent “problem” that this creates (which I don’t buy into) so what? A traditional respect for the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about the text of the amendment, or, more importantly, how it should be interpreted.
So let’s go to the text. The 2nd amendment reads: “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.”
Interestingly, it took over two centuries for the US Supreme Court to actually decide the age-old question of whether the second amendment protects an “individual right” to bear arms, or whether the amendment only protected militias to organize and arm themselves. You can see the obvious implications: choose the latter, and you essentially gut the 2nd amendment from the constitution, as no one would argue that there are significant militias alive and well in this country. They died off centuries ago. But adopt the former rationale, and you have a constitutional right to own a handgun that is every bit as valid as our sacred right of free speech anchored in the first amendment.
Now I’m a bit of a constitutional law nerd, but I won’t bore you with the details. In short, Justice Scalia’s heroic opinion (joined by four other justies) in D.C. v. Heller held that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms according to the original public meaning of amendment at the time it was enacted. (As an aside, originalism is the ONLY proper method of constitutional interpretation. Scalia was on his A-game in this case.)
I’ll quote his final paragraph, because it is so eloquently written:
We are aware of the handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
The whole opinion is here (including the various dissents): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
My point is that it while it may be fun to lodge rhetorical attacks about a nation full of morons armed with guns (a premise to which I do not subscribe), that is still a discussion far ahead of itself.
The bottom line is that we have a Constitution, and in that Constitution are rights guaranteed to all Americans, ranging from free speech, lawful gun ownership, the right not to incriminate yourself, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, inter alia.
THAT is the starting point for any debates. It is a GIVEN that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to lawful gun ownership. From that point, you can start arguing policy and propose certain laws and regulations that would supposedly cut down on unnecessary gun violence. But keep in mind that those very policy proposals are nonetheless subject to the Second Amendment. Just as in restrictions on free speech, a proposal to limit a 2nd amendment right in some way will be subject to the “strict scrutiny” test (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) when challenged in court. And as proposed limits on free speech nearly always fail strict scrutiny under the 1st Amendment, expect the same for the 2d Amendment.
Wow, this has gone on longer than I expected. But I’ll follow up with more thoughts on the actual statistics of gun violence. Hopefully soon.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure the debate is framed in the proper context. I quite like my Constitution - well, at least the parts that haven’t been ripped to shreds yet by certain loathsome justices over the past 85 years. But I digress . . .
There is a reason why it’s the second, and not the 10th.
If we started applying some of the same logic applied here to the first amendment, I think you would recognize the insanity.
“Free speech is so antiquated. It’s not like we have printing presses anymore, the Internet has freed us.”
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am not debating the legality or validity of zimmerman or whomever having a handgun (or 9). I’m simply examining why so many people die in America at the barrel of a gun, and the absurdity of saying “we can solve this with more guns”. The opinion/ruling you posted was interesting. What he wanted to say was ‘let congress eliminate the right to bear arms from the constitution… and until then let’s not make any waves’. Beneath that you could feel him wanting to say that something needs to be done. In any event the text of the second is definitely antiquated, and again, refers not to modern times, but refers to the early Americans wanting their own way of life, including the right to defend themselves from an oppressive government aka the Brits.
Seatbelt laws used to describe only lap belts. Then shoulder belts came along and Seatbelt laws had to evolve. So too should the 2nd.
It’s true what I said though. It is a nation full of morons (moronic with respect to guns). Someone with extensive training and a great respect for a gun’s power is not a moron. Unfortunately that is not a requirement to obtain a gun in America. Or to use one. Or to put yourself in situations where you may need to use one with lethal results. A signature and a couple of pieces of ID is all that many Americans require to obtain a gun. Therein lies the problem.
Access and ignorance equals deaths that in many cases were destined to be arguments, fistfights or knife fights.
We should limit who can write and talk aloud about their opinions.
There are so many morons with voices that we should silence.
You cannot cherry pick your favorite amendments and apply progressive thinking without committing serious error.
The founders wanted every law abiding citizen to have the right to bear arms. Who are you to deem competent? Wake up, the government cannot figure out health care let alone gun control.
The fundamental thing that people also need to realize is that the 2nd amendment is about personal defense from tyranny by your neighbor or criminals. Just because your iq is lower than average shouldn’t eliminate your right to defend yourself.