In Support of Gun Rights

[Dru]

rights - the right to arm bears.

[Rainierwon]

scott_harpell said:

murraysovereign said:

scott_harpell said:

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

 

It's more a reflection of a much lower incidence of murder-by-firearm. Since a lower proportion of murders are committed using guns, it's inevitable that the proportion involving "other" weapons will be higher, be they knives or baseball bats or poison-tipped arrows or whatever else was handy at the time. But I think you'll also find that Canadians are far less likely to kill one another overall than are Americans, regardless of method used. I don't have a ready explanation for that one, but I expect the Fraser Institute can find a way to portray our lower murder rates as further proof of the inferiority of our criminal justice system and the moral corruption of our political structures. Either that, or they'll ignore it altogether because it doesn't further their agenda.

 

but if the violence is the same with or without... then it doesn't really matter does it? seems like anyone who kills someone else is pretty much psycho and will do it with a knife or a spoon if they have to.

HEy Scottywad, you try to kill me with a spoon I'll kick your

Get a clue ! A gun is much easier to kill with thana spoon

-j

[Ratboy]

willstrickland said:

In Kennesaw, GA local laws require every homeowner to own a firearm.

 

Requiring someone to own a gun is just as wrong as outlawing them. What's important isn't the guns themselves, but the freedom to make the choice of gun ownership myself.

[jordop]

.

Edited June 8, 2021 by jordop

[scrambler]

Ratboy said:

willstrickland said:

In Kennesaw, GA local laws require every homeowner to own a firearm.

 

Requiring someone to own a gun is just as wrong as outlawing them. What's important isn't the guns themselves, but the freedom to make the choice of gun ownership myself.

 

Kansas Town Requires Homes to Have Guns

 

Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

 

Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

 

"This ordinance fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Councilman John Brewer.

 

"This is simply using the U.S. Constitution — Second Amendment in particular — to the city of Geuda Springs' advantage."

 

Whitney Watson, a spokesman for Attorney General Phill Kline, declined to comment on the legality of such an ordinance, which is similar to one passed in Kennesaw, Ga., 21 years ago that is still in effect.

 

--excerpts from news article

[Dru]

If you are poor will they subsidize your gun purchase?

[murraysovereign]

Rainierwon said:Get a clue ! A gun is much easier to kill with thana spoon

-j

 

True dat. Check the statistics on numbers of innocent by-standers killed by stray stranglings, or who got picked off by some guy hiding in the trunk of a car knocking people off with a baseball bat from across the street. I tell ya, it's outta control. Drive-by knifings are an increasing problem in many urban areas. In fact, cutlery-related homicides are so prevalent, they've even found their place in popular culture: remember that Boom-Town Rats song - "I Don't Like Mondays" - about that guy who killed all those students with a spoon from up in the clock tower?

[murraysovereign]

...people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

 

So in other words, you have to own a gun, unless you don't want to... Boy, that's a pretty Draconian piece of legislation.

[scrambler]

murraysovereign said:

Rainierwon said:Get a clue ! A gun is much easier to kill with thana spoon

-j

 

 

True dat. Check the statistics on numbers of innocent by-standers killed by stray stranglings, or who got picked off by some guy hiding in the trunk of a car knocking people off with a baseball bat from across the street. I tell ya, it's outta control. Drive-by knifings are an increasing problem in many urban areas. In fact, cutlery-related homicides are so prevalent, they've even found their place in popular culture: remember that Boom-Town Rats song - "I Don't Like Mondays" - about that guy who killed all those students with a spoon from up in the clock tower?

 

Yeah, a gun makes it easier to kill but it also makes it easier to defend yourself against an assailant. It's whether more good comes out of it than bad. Sometimes the mere sight of a weapon will prevent attacks.

 

There will always be people with bad intent or people who are socially irresponsible. Restricting law abiding ownership of firearms is bad policy.

 

Here in the States, I don't believe in messing with the US Constitution which guarantees in the 2nd Amendment, the citizen's right to bear arms.

 

 

[Ratboy]

scrambler said:

Ratboy said:

willstrickland said:

In Kennesaw, GA local laws require every homeowner to own a firearm.

 

Requiring someone to own a gun is just as wrong as outlawing them. What's important isn't the guns themselves, but the freedom to make the choice of gun ownership myself.

 

Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

 

It's just as wrong in Kansas as it is in Georgia.

 

 

[Dru]

"have passed an ordinance"

 

shouldn't that be an ordnance in this case

[Ursa_Eagle]

Fairweather said:

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. The following is a shining example of how you misconstrue the opinions of others:

 

"Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves...."

 

Looks to me like you just used the classic "attack the source" tactic, and only speculated about its validity without any critical thinking of your own. Don't you think a more reasoned challenge to Scrambler's post would have involved some real investigation? Ahh, but then you're a scientist as you continually remind us all.....

 

no critical thinking? he found out information about the guy who wrote the article and found out what the guy's personal agenda is! He actually had the intelligence to do the research and form an opinion of his own, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you.

[Ursa_Eagle]

scrambler said:

 

Here in the States, I don't believe in messing with the US Constitution which guarantees in the 2nd Amendment, the citizen's right to bear arms.

 

 

Ummm, that's a document that was written 227 years ago. I supposed you also don't believe in messing with other important documents, such as "the earth is flat", and "blood-letting: a cure-all"

[mtnear]

They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

 

But just make sure that guy (Dane I think) going after the Exit 38 bandits isn't armed

[Fairweather]

Ursa_Eagle said:

scrambler said:

 

Here in the States, I don't believe in messing with the US Constitution which guarantees in the 2nd Amendment, the citizen's right to bear arms.

 

 

Ummm, that's a document that was written 227 years ago. I supposed you also don't believe in messing with other important documents, such as "the earth is flat", and "blood-letting: a cure-all"

 

Wow. With thinking like that, our republic is indeed doomed. Here is a quote someone like you might agree with....

 

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?

 

- Joseph Stalin, In Politics

 

BTW, Ursa: "That document" that you refer to in your post above, was written 214 years ago. Ratified march 4, 1789.

[scrambler]

Ursa_Eagle said:

scrambler said:

 

Here in the States, I don't believe in messing with the US Constitution which guarantees in the 2nd Amendment, the citizen's right to bear arms.

 

 

Ummm, that's a document that was written 227 years ago. I supposed you also don't believe in messing with other important documents, such as "the earth is flat", and "blood-letting: a cure-all"

 

Your comparison is ludicrous and erroneous. Ludicrous because all educated people know certain basic facts concerning the earth and physicians are trained in the causal nature of disease and illness. Suppositions such as 'the world is flat' are clearly wrong. Your comparison is erroneous because one can't compare those suppositions with the articles which express our basic underlying political beliefs concerning liberty and human nature. They're apples and oranges. The only way you could equate the two is if you take scientific facts and political tenets as assumptions used to form the basis of a theory. Let me just say that the test of time is the measure of a theory and our Constitution has seen the test of time.

 

 

 

[badvoodoo]

Fairweather said:

Wow. With thinking like that, our republic is indeed doomed. Here is a quote someone like you might agree with....

 

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?

 

- Joseph Stalin, In Politics

 

Funny, that seems to apply more to you, FW.... Why let people think differently than you?

[Fairweather]

Ursa_Eagle said:

Fairweather said:

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather, I am exhorting people to be critical of what they read on the Internet and to dig deeper to find the truth. No more, no less. Critical thinking is something which many people lack these days. You demonstrate more than any one person on this site, the inability to think critically and to respect the views of others. The following is a shining example of how you misconstrue the opinions of others:

 

"Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves...."

 

Looks to me like you just used the classic "attack the source" tactic, and only speculated about its validity without any critical thinking of your own. Don't you think a more reasoned challenge to Scrambler's post would have involved some real investigation? Ahh, but then you're a scientist as you continually remind us all.....

 

no critical thinking? he found out information about the guy who wrote the article and found out what the guy's personal agenda is! He actually had the intelligence to do the research and form an opinion of his own, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you.

 

 

But I guess that he is not interested in challenging the validity of the CDC report that I used to corroberate Scrambler's original post? And apparently, neither are you.

[scott_harpell]

Rainierwon said:

scott_harpell said:

murraysovereign said:

scott_harpell said:

I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....

 

isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!

 

It's more a reflection of a much lower incidence of murder-by-firearm. Since a lower proportion of murders are committed using guns, it's inevitable that the proportion involving "other" weapons will be higher, be they knives or baseball bats or poison-tipped arrows or whatever else was handy at the time. But I think you'll also find that Canadians are far less likely to kill one another overall than are Americans, regardless of method used. I don't have a ready explanation for that one, but I expect the Fraser Institute can find a way to portray our lower murder rates as further proof of the inferiority of our criminal justice system and the moral corruption of our political structures. Either that, or they'll ignore it altogether because it doesn't further their agenda.

 

but if the violence is the same with or without... then it doesn't really matter does it? seems like anyone who kills someone else is pretty much psycho and will do it with a knife or a spoon if they have to.

HEy Scottywad, you try to kill me with a spoon I'll kick your

Get a clue ! A gun is much easier to kill with thana spoon

-j

 

obviously you are missing the point ace.

[Ursa_Eagle]

Fairweather said:

But I guess that he is not interested in challenging the validity of the CDC report that I used to corroberate Scrambler's original post? And apparently, neither are you.

 

At what point did I say that the CDC report was valid? I'm just pointing out that catbirdseat did the research, and you have your head up your ass.

[scott_harpell]

Ursa_Eagle said:

scrambler said:

 

Here in the States, I don't believe in messing with the US Constitution which guarantees in the 2nd Amendment, the citizen's right to bear arms.

 

 

Ummm, that's a document that was written 227 years ago.

 

yeah fuck freedom of speech too that's way old skewl.

[Fairweather]

The subject is gun rights. Catbird did no research whatsoever. He simply attacked Scrambler's documentation from The Frasier Institute, as slanted. He did this from memory and a personal predjudice of his own. I posted a CDC report that seems to back up the Frasier report, but apparently you would rather change the argument to the validity of the US Constitution, and Catbird would rather take his ball and play elsewhere.

[scott_harpell]

Ursa_Eagle said:

Fairweather said:

But I guess that he is not interested in challenging the validity of the CDC report that I used to corroberate Scrambler's original post? And apparently, neither are you.

 

At what point did I say that the CDC report was valid? I'm just pointing out that catbirdseat did the research, and you have your head up your ass.

 

he didn't say you did. he is asking if you are gonna try and refute the CDC. quite the challenge i would say.

[scrambler]

Here's some interesting evidence, effectively a case study: United Press International--Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town

 

The results:

"...But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported."

 

"The rate of violent crime is approximately four times lower than the state and national rates, Kennesaw's Crime Statistics Report said. "Violent crime is almost nonexistent in residential neighborhoods," Graydon told UPI. The detective, who has been with the police department since 1986, said the isolated exceptions take place in motels or in commercial areas."

 

 

Everyone is not specifically required to be armed:

"Similarly, Kennesaw's law provides so many loopholes that, in effect, no one is compelled to obey it. Convicted felons are, of course, excluded. Also exempt are those "who suffer a physical disability [undefined] which would prohibit them from using such a firearm" and those who "conscientiously oppose firearms as a result of religious doctrine or belief [also undefined]." Inhabitants may claim exemptions for moral or financial reasons, said Detective Cpl. Craig Graydon, a Kennesaw Police Department spokesman, in a phone interview Tuesday."

 

"According to a National Rifle Association document, the law was not expected to increase gun ownership. "It was expected that publicity surrounding the ordinance would warn criminals that residents were capable of protecting themselves and their community and would do so with the government's blessing," the document said."

 

 

 

[Ratboy]

Is no one else bothered by the fact this town is requiring citizens to own guns? Loopholes aside, the government is removing choice and forcing people to do something. Would it be just as ok if they said no one could own guns to cut down on crime? What if they said everyone had to own their own farms to feed themselves? Removing choice is wrong, whether it's banning or requiring. Guns themselves are not more important than the freedom to choose whether you want one.