Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Pond, James Pond in post #124

Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

Crimes committed with knives? Must be some, since the UK has been talking about knife control, to the extent of possibly limiting some larger kitchen knives to licensed chefs. (I don't think that one passed, but who knows?) Also, the UK apparently limits pocket knife blades to a maximum of 3". (A friend who spends a lot of time in England can't bring his Leatherman...)

I wonder what the assault rate is, in the birthplace of soccer hooliganism.

I wonder what the robbery rate is.

I wonder about the rape rate.

I suspect that, other than gun crime, the UK probably falls into very similar percentages with the US. Humans are humans, and have preyed upon one another for as long as there have been humans.
 
pgdion said:
I count on nothing as being ensured no matter what the state of things are today.
Click to expand...

Life is like that. For the time being, we have Representatives and Senators who support the Second Amendment. I think continuing to work to put people in office who recognize the importance of the Second Amendment is a better strategy than premature capitulation.
 
When were things ever otherwise? You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place. To do otherwise is to ignore the whole reason there is an anti-anything movement. No amount of quibbling over words will make it different.
 
Blue, I am guessing you agree it ain't about "gun or ammo control"... I am also guessing that you agree that the guns are not at all an issue... I am guessing you agree that whack-job crazy folks needn't access anything sharper or harder hitting than a Crayon....

So we are in agreement? The only thing needing controlled are the nutjobs... NOT THEIR CHOICE OF TOOLS!!!

If the latter were needing controlled, Galvanized Pipe (choice of pipe bomb makers the world around) would need controlled...

Brent
 
BlueTrain said:
You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place.
Click to expand...

Weren't you just arguing "What you have to do is to convince people that a small number of deaths from the illegal use of firearms is acceptable"?

I ask because that statement seems contradictory with the statement you just made, and the more recent statement you made above, taken literally ("you should do everything you can") would basically mean creating a police state where every citizen was under such close observation and control that no mass murder could occur.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaning you meant to convey though given your earlier statement. Maybe you could clarify that for me?
 
Leave my guns alone (current)... Keep those who wish to predate upon me at bay (current)...

Arrest all you can and leave me to my own devices to prevent unforeseen crime... THEE AMERICAN WAY!!!

If you want a nanny state, or oversight from big brother... GO ELSEWHERE!!! America shall not need change to suit you... there are already plenty of nations to plop your Co2 producing self into...

As many who did not listen in American Public Schools... There are plenty of places for the ilks who do not want freedom or responsibility... AMERICA IS NOT FOR YOU!!! NEVER WAS... NEVER WILL BE!!!

Brent
 
MLeake said:
Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.
Click to expand...

Murder in the US in 2010 versus Homicides in England and Wales in 2009/2010:

US% UK% WEAPON
13% 37% Sharp Instrument
04% 09% Blunt Instrument
06% 22% Hiting, Kicking
02% 08% Strangulation
68% 07% Shooting
07% 17% Other

Since the British have such a low incidence of firearms deaths, I wonder whether they feel some degree of moral superiority as they cut, stab, bludgeon, beat, kick, strangle, poison, and burn each other to death?
 
but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.
Click to expand...

I realize it is hard to grasp, but it simply not true that the Bill of Rights is a set of Statutes!
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
If statutes is the wrong term for their part in the function in the country, I stand corrected.

I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.
 
What terms...??? How about you try inalienable... or SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Not much room to negotiate as our founding fathers intended... Leave our rights alone... Enforce the laws on the book... when all attempts (real ones) are exhausted... Come see me... then we can send the legal beagles on the next hunt...

Brent
 
Pond said:
I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.
Click to expand...
Technically, it is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. When dealing with language from a constitution (both the federal government and each of the states has a constitution), "constitutional provision" usually suffices. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are collectively known as The Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:
Here's whats comical. Him and Romney say "Gun control wouldnt have stopped this" But then he says that? Thats hypocritical.
 
Criminally insane people will never run out of ways to manifest their violent fantasies. Solutions are not found by focusing on the tool used any more than obesity is about the silverware.

In America, we don't set the bar for liberty based on the acts of a few miscreants.

Both guns and gasoline are manufactured for the benefit of mankind. There is not much that's more dangerous than a psychopath with 5 gallons of gasoline and a match.

But if gas and matches became the weapon of choice for sociopaths, we would go after the sociopaths, not matches or gasoline. There would be no rationing of gasoline, no waiting period, no registration showing the number of gallons purchased. To even suggest that approach would be properly seen as madness.
 
Last edited:
Maestro, I hope you don't mind that I've cut/paste your post into a small Word doc I've been building up for future reference. I was captain of my Speech and Debate Team in High School and I just don't have your gift for prose. I won't plaigiarize directly, but I'll try not to mess with your perfection.

That bit about gasoline and matches is just about as perfect an analogy as I've heard... should be able to use that one to get through some of my more thick-headed friends.
 
I see the benefit of a single 100 round snail drum over a gob of mags or ammo boxes when I trudge out in my jeans and t-shirt.
Click to expand...
You've got a good point, but if we have to prove the utility of a right, its status as such is questionable in the first place.

The right to self-defense is innate, and the Framers did right to make sure it was protected. We have the high ground in the philosophical battle, something with which the Supreme Court has agreed.

I'm not saying arguments to utility aren't relevant. They certainly are, but I usually don't lead with them in a debate.
 
Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

....

I suspect that, other than gun crime, the UK probably falls into very similar percentages with the US. Humans are humans, and have preyed upon one another for as long as there have been humans.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the last time they were brought up off hand, but I was not not refering to gun crime on this occassion, so made no claims about their lower incidence.

I found some stats yesterday, but can't find the link again showing reported crimes being very high in the UK. It was in second place. The US was in first though, but by quite a margin.

Humans are humans, and there will be preying on one another. I've never disputed that fact. However, I think crime levels and gun ownership are not all that related.

Humans also inhabit countries with lower crime rates where they seem to co-habit far more amiably so something has to be influencing the humans in one country to be more violent/criminal than in another.

Most people then say "wealth". Interestingly, I did some basic research into quality and satisfaction with life around the world a while back. There was a survey carried out to measure "happiness" rather than disposable income. Top place? Costa Rica! Scandinavians did well, as did Central America and some other surprises. USA so-so, but higher than the UK. France did pretty well, actually. Estonia? Full of unhappy bar-stewards!! According to the tables those living in the West Bank were happier with their lot than Estonians!! :eek:

Bottom line is I don't like UK gun control and I don't like UK crime. However, I don't believe that saying the latter is influenced by the former is accurate. That is cop-out logic to me and often that seems to be the assertion being made. So, I don't like the UK being used as a pariah when it is far from justified and the claims far from supported.

The US has high crime, the UK has high crime.
The UK has next to no privately owned guns, the US has the highest levels in the world, by no small margin.
Clearly, the causes of crime are waaay to complex to attribute to one factor, just because everyone on this forum things that factor is cool or fun or an innate right etc...

As I said earlier, for me, guns can even up the terms of the engagement, and influence the outcome that would otherwise be far more certainly in favour of the crim'.

Since the British have such a low incidence of firearms deaths, I wonder whether they feel some degree of moral superiority as they cut, stab, bludgeon, beat, kick, strangle, poison, and burn each other to death?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the stats breakdown.

Aside from that I don't really see what your kind of jibe brings to the table...

Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....
 
Miller Ruling

The disconnect in all the rehtoric is that the Supreme Court refused to overturn Miller in either Heller or McDonald. In both cases they went out of their way to uphold Miller. As long as the court continues to tie gun ownership & use to Militia service the type of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment is going to based on military weapons. The military is chocked full of fully automatic assault weapons and more. By maintaining a link between citizen's right to keep & bear ams and only those weapons suitable for Military service this problem simply can't be fixed.
 
Yet, the court specifically (mis)read Miller in a way which did not conflict with NFA and the gun control act of 1986. Miller says only weapons with a militia purpose are what is protected, and Heller said militia weapons are what is in common use at the time.
 
Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....
Click to expand...

James - I did a paper on this about a year ago... The UK police actually make station to station judgments on what is and is not a violent crime... It’s not that they don’t have a written standard it’s that the standard gives figures that are higher than the political apparatus wants reported... Hence a certain degree of tinkering with how things get reported happens.

So there is no real way to measure using UK statics short of compiling the actual phone calls or something similar.... Everyone knows the numbers are being fudged and everyone turns a blind eye to it and pretends it really the right numbers...

Also humans are humans all over and the strong will often prey and the weak and even more so when they know the weak cannot physically fight off the predators and arent allowed guns to even the relative differences...

Hope your doing well James :)
 
Last edited:
I have never found an AK47 on the streets.... Bout all I ever see is cans and trash... Seriously though, new gun laws are not the issue and banning them totally are not the solution. Each society is different, ours, I firmly believe, is upheld by our rights. We cannot ever sacrifice our rights. Its a shame we can't get what we lost back...thanks patriot act...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top