Executive Orders

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems like they will try to push this hard, but in the end, I am unsure just exactly what they will try to do, but by next tuesday we will probably have a more concrete idea...

NYTimes.com said:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will present President Obama with proposals for stemming gun violence by Tuesday, setting in motion legislative and executive actions that will encompass guns, ammunition, mental health services and violent images in popular culture.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...et-with-gun-advocates-including-nra.html?_r=0

With all they have discussed restricting, it is the unfortunate, but yet still honest truth, many of the things I have heard them discuss, such as a mag restiction, or an AWB, will have a small impact, if any, on crime. I say that because the last stats I stumbled on today from 2011 listed deaths by rifles as 323. Im sure that since assault rifles are a smaller part of the rifle catagory, the number of deaths by assault rifle would be a good bit lower then the 323 listed for the entire catagory of rifle. The majority of the deaths were statistically by handguns, at 6220, but that also is skewed because many of these criminals who committed the murders included in the stat were more then likely (article doesnt break it down) intercity deaths related to criminal activity, by those repeat offenders that are already banned from owning firearms, but seldom prosecuted when they are found in possession of one, due to the plea bargin process.

Its interesting to note as well, that the same article listed knives as 1694 deaths, and hands,feet, etc, as to have caused 726 deaths, both of which are considerably larger then the number of deaths by rifles in general.

I feel fairly certain, that until the government decides to get tough on criminal use or possession of firearms, the crime rate will remain similar. Why? These crimies are not generally comited by those law abiding firearm owners who follow the law and would be subject to more restrictions, so the more restrictions on the law abiding, will have no effect on the criminals.

Source for the stats I used: http://www.inquisitr.com/467102/hammers-deadlier-than-rifles-fbi-releases-crime-stats-for-2011/
 
On "The Five" tonight they reported that in the past 19 years firearm ownership has almost doubled and violent crimes have gone down.
 
FishingCabin, you've hit on a big part of the intellectual dishonesty of the banners. While shocking, abhorrent and vile, the attack at Sandy Hook, or at Columbine, was still a very rare event. The media plays it up, over and over, and together with the shock value the sheer repetition cements it into people's minds that these are a frequent, exigent problem that requires immediate action.

Ok, but more than 10 times as many people drown annually than are killed by rifles of any kind. i'd wager that of the 4000 drownings, a high percentage are children. But nobody is rallying to eradicate swimming pools. More than twice as many are killed by hands and feet, but nobody wants to ban karate lessons. So the uproar certainly isn't about the number of dead, or even that they were children. As Rahm said, never let a good crisis go to waste.

The final piece is: our legislators, by and large, are generally well educated and intelligent, not stupid people. They know that criminals don't obey the laws, by definition and by action. They KNOW that more gun laws will only affect the law-abiding, not the guy who buys his stolen Glock from the trunk of Vladimir's (insert gang name of choice) car. And they don't care. They forge ahead blithely, perpetuating the myth that more laws will somehow stop crazed maniacs. It's the agenda, stupid (not you of course, just borrowing the phrase... :D)

That is intellectual dishonesty.
 
I personally can't "get behind" any type of gun control proposal. Any gun control is an infringement. Whether or not criminals own guns is immaterial. Whether or not law abiding citizens do is what matters. I am near retirement age and I know that once the anti-gun crowd gets something they want from us they then consider it "a good strart" and then go for more. I have been watching these people for too long to trust them. The dishonesty in the reporting of these incidents should be enough for any of you to realize the true intention of these people. When we brought up "fast and furious" and talked about the innocent people being killed in Mexico they had the nerve to say that republicans or conservatives didn't give a damn about innocent Mexicans being killed, they were just after the President. These are first and foremost POLITICAL CONTROL JUNKIES and honesly believe that we are all a bunch of hayseeds that need their guidance and control in order to live through the day. They don't want to allow us any control over our lives because they don't like the choices many of us make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top