quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms.
You keep saying "ban" and from what I been trying to get through to your head that other then assault weapons (and let's not debate this again, let's all assume we know what we all mean)no one has said to ban guns just to LIMIT them or to make it harder for the criminals to obtain through legal places to buy such as gun shows, gunshops and dealers that sell out of homes. The only banning I am advocating is sales at gun shows and out of homes not storefronts.
quote: People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
There is a pattern in this country that most or the majority of crimes are committed by guns. You can't tell me that you do not see that everyday in the news? Violent crime committed with guns more so then with anything else.
As for so called "banning", i'll play Devils' advocate and say Why not? We are trying to ban Nuclear weapons from North Korea, Iran etc. Why so? After all it is a Big gun of sorts and they do have a right to own one just as you do for a regular gun no?
Btw I am not for banning guns but I just wanted to throw that in there.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
No...close but not quite. Lawless will always remain lawless, on that we totally agree. The idea isn't to scapegoat fears onto guns, it is the thought that if we could find a way to limit the amount of projectile weapons available to the lawless then they must turn to other forms of destruction. Unintended targets would no longer be victims and both the rules of law and the rules of the street would be more straightforward.
Does that make sense to you?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, this entire argument is specious, and you'll understand what I'm saying if you think about it logically. And, I must say, we've covered this ground before...
1) the whole "cradle-to-grave" registration issue depends upon no intervention of criminals in the process.
You can read a fairly decent argument, admittedly "pro-gun," here:
Even if you disagree with the conclusion, there's some pretty good rhetoric for "both sides," with links... Granted, I skimmed it, but I'm a decent skimmer...
2) But here's the deal: Even if you read ALL the arguments, all the links, all the linked-links...you *might* very well be missing the real point.
3) Back to my premise, namely, the "gun problem" ain't big enough to worry about, yet. It robs mental/emotional "bandwidth" from consideration of larger problems. Am not saying ignore it, because I realize it's a very emotional issue, on all sides. Monitor it, if you like...
4) Let's say we're interested in improving the human condition. 4-a)So we could focus on feeding folks who don't have proper nutrition; 4-b) or we could focus on providing shelter for those without proper housing; 4-c) etc... 4-d) but, no, in this argument, we're focusing on early/untimely or basically "wrongful" death.
5) As far as I can tell, most of the argument here is centered on life in the USA.
6) Here's a list of the leading causes of death in the USA, as of 2005, from the CDC:
As I read that list, the closest "gun-related" *might* be included would number 5, accidents. My sense of it, however, is that probably gun-related is pretty low even in accidental deaths.
Conclusion
So, if you really want to prevent "early" or "unnecessary" death, wouldn't it make sense to focus on the leading causes?
1. heart disease
2. cancer
3. stroke
4. chronic lower respiratory disease
5. accidents
6. diabetes
7. Alzheimer's, etc?
Makes sense to me to attack the biggest problem, first. Then work *down* the list.
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
No...close but not quite. Lawless will always remain lawless, on that we totally agree. The idea isn't to scapegoat fears onto guns, it is the thought that if we could find a way to limit the amount of projectile weapons available to the lawless then they must turn to other forms of destruction. Unintended targets would no longer be victims and both the rules of law and the rules of the street would be more straightforward.
Does that make sense to you?
big, a cup of gasoline is equal to a stick of dynamite. it actually has more BTU's
there is no way to make the world "perfectly safe" from the animals or even alot safer than it is now
you cannot make guns less available to criminals.
we've tried it with alcohol and drugs and that didn't work. it did and does in fact make MORE criminals.
i know from life experince that the only reason a drug is a "gateway" drug is becuase it is sold by a criminal who has other things to sell.
guns are not consumables. it is even easier to supply them once. then ammo becomes the big black market ticket, and ammo can be reloaded.
it is impossible to make Utopia because it is people that are flawed.
when you consider that over 800,000 people die in America each year, and 30,000 of them are gun deaths. that sounds like alot? not to me
but, to make th eppoint even stronger? over half the gun deaths are suicides;
FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:
* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths), * 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths), * 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
ACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present. -Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
i can accept the fact. however, the gun didn't do it. the person did. maybe gun owners are just more likely to be pro-active? a botched suicide is generally considered a plea for help, whereas a successful one is just what it is.
i am a firm beleiver in the right to suicide.
i've never been able to understand why people think it's so bad.
it's illegal in most states. what a waste of legislation. my first real job was blood drawer in a huge county hosp. i saw plenty of people suffering beyong comprehension, and it was common knowledge amongst professionals that a little extra morphine was the best answer.
stem cell research could change almost of the suffering from hopeless to something to endure because the future will be better, but in many cases at the time i was there? there was no hope.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i am a firm beleiver in the right to suicide.
i've never been able to understand why people think it's so bad.
Because not all suicides are due to terminal illness... you are forgetting the ones that are due to depression and/or murder-suicide..
I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
Someone made that same point here about God once upon a time. I told him relying on doomsday scenarios to prove your position is a very weak argument as well.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not relying on any doomsday scenarios. For you to try to make that my position is an even weaker argument.
Not really doomsday when Katrina had barbaric consequences. Bodies floating in water, rescue helicopters being shot at by gangsters. People protecting their home from looters. Did you forget about that?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
what right do you have to tell somebody they don't own their own life.
this is not about a free for all, it's ridiculous to make that leap.
this is very specific. a person that does not wish to live anymore should be able to decide that without you or anybody telling them they cannot.
making suicide legal woold change nothing. you don;t think peopel actually refrain from do in git because it's illegal do you?
the only thing the law accomplishes is to criminlaise someone assisting them.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
If you mean guns... i'm 37 soon and have not needed a gun and never will... especially in the area i live in imo... and in most of the areas board members live in... not because guns prevent the spread of crime but because poverty isn't where i live.. and sad to say where there is alot of poverty is where there is more crime... imo tackle poverty and crime will decrease...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
Exactly...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what right do you have to tell somebody they don't own their own life.
this is not about a free for all, it's ridiculous to make that leap.
this is very specific. a person that does not wish to live anymore should be able to decide that without you or anybody telling them they cannot.
making suicide legal woold change nothing. you don;t think peopel actually refrain from do in git because it's illegal do you?
the only thing the law accomplishes is to criminlaise someone assisting them.
So basically to use another example that is someone's life and body... you do not want any laws against hard drugs because it's a persons' right to inject whatever they want into their body... therefor you will fight for the right of your child to shoot Heroin, for example... so Glass do you want your child to be a heroin addict because it is her/his right to do what they will with their body? .. you would basically accept it and say there is nothing wrong with it? ...
But since you do not seem to get it that even though someone will break the law anyways why make the law in the first place, so I'll paste Bigfoot's statement that pretty much is same as mine:
"Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?"
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: big, a cup of gasoline is equal to a stick of dynamite. it actually has more BTU's
there is no way to make the world "perfectly safe" from the animals or even alot safer than it is now
You are still arguing against a total ban, Glass. I'm not looking for a perfectly safe world. Just a safer one. There may be more BTU's in a cup of gasoline than in a stick of dynamite but a frustrated 17 yr old isn't gonna kill three people before they can even react with a cup of gasoline now is he?
quote: you cannot make guns less available to criminals.
we've tried it with alcohol and drugs and that didn't work. it did and does in fact make MORE criminals.
Again with the total ban. That isn't what is being argued here. And since you brought up alcohol and drugs why is it do you think that you have to be 21 to drink or get a doctors permission to receive a pharmaceutical drug? Are these not "reasonable limitations" that have been placed for the public welfare? They can be circumvented by those who seek out loopholes, but that doesn't invalidate the limitations as pointless.
Glass, I DO get your point, believe me. Just because you put a law on the books doesn't make it so in the world. This is the same reason why I think it is so ridiculous the amount of effort being expended to refute gay marriage or to make abortions illegal. And you are right, no matter what, some guns are gonna fall through the cracks and end up in violent hands.
What I don't get is how folks can be so Laissez-faire about 34 violent homicides from the barrel of a gun every single day in our country. (Using your stats glass) One violent death every 45 Minutes.
Cancer took my grandfather Tex, I watched him wither and die. It was hard. Heart Disease nearly ended my father and it scared the crap outta me. A stroke took my Uncle while he was walking his grandchildren to preschool and the suddenness of it hurt worse and took longer to heal from than anything except the day I learned one of my best friends was in a side impact crash and killed instantly. That one hurt the worst of all, even though she wasn't family, because that girl had another 60 years of joyful life ahead of her until that goddamned idiot got close to her when he wasn't paying attention.
So how much worse do you suppose it is to learn that the person you love was completely healthy and ready to share years more with his loved ones but that guy over there put a hole in his heart and we still aren't sure why?
quote: i know from life experince that the only reason a drug is a "gateway" drug is becuase it is sold by a criminal who has other things to sell.
guns are not consumables. it is even easier to supply them once. then ammo becomes the big black market ticket, and ammo can be reloaded.
I understand what you are saying but am vague on your aim here. Are suggesting stricter limits on ammo instead of guns would be more beneficial? I.E. The guns are the crack pipe but the ammo is what you smoke?
quote: it is impossible to make Utopia because it is people that are flawed.
Agreed.
quote: when you consider that over 800,000 people die in America each year, and 30,000 of them are gun deaths. that sounds like alot? not to me
but, to make th eppoint even stronger? over half the gun deaths are suicides;
FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:
* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths), * 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths), * 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
You got me there. I am not interested in the suicides. That is a person who made a choice. I am no angel trying to save one from himself.
12,352 might seem small (though I don't consider 34 violent deaths every day small) but these are not folks who are terminally ill. They are not jumping out of airplanes. A few may be dukeing it out in a 21st century OK corral and for them I care nothing. But for every one Doc Holiday within those statistics there are at least 20 who were innocently living their life until some fool who never learned how to express frustration through words decided to vent his hate on the world. How you can look at that and shrug your shoulders I cannot know.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think I got a little too partisan near the end of this last reply. I still get angry when I think of Rachel even though its been close to a decade now.
The words stand but mentally delete some of the heat behind that last sentence.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally...making it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun is NOT going to stop the criminals from getting them...isn't that who you want to stop?...the criminals?
So why would you want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, when you state it's the criminals you want to prevent from getting them? (unless you REALLY don't want ANYONE to have them)
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they are law abiding then they will eventually get the permission to get the gun... simple as that... no matter if the law is lax or constricted... but what you do not see is by making it easy to get a gun it makes easier for criminals to get it via whatever method like straw buying, gun shows, private sales in a home etc.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
Posts: 492 | From: new york | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't get is how folks can be so Laissez-faire about 34 violent homicides from the barrel of a gun every single day in our country. (Using your stats glass) One violent death every 45 Minutes.
do you know that five to ten times that many die every day from doctors/hospital/health care mistakes?
my exact point is that considering how many people own guns very few are involved in a crime.
more than half of those crimes are suicides tho.
suicide is a crime so they more than double the crime stats.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Every single one of the 34 deaths per day that I am talking about are homicides.
And yeah...I know how many people die each day from illnesses, infections, mistakes. That's why we are throwing billions of dollars against the problem and trying to reform the entire healthcare system at the same time.
That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
Pretty much how Washington DC works.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
Exactly... couldn't be said any better...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
So maybe guns should be locked up when not in use?
And maybe ammo should be locked up separate?
I know a few people who do this for their high-end guns but how many states require this as a law.
Ya I know, I know, I know. It doesn't allow you to defend your self, ......
So set a limit on how many loaded guns you can have "under your pillow" and lock up the rest!
Not all states have the same "strict" gun laws and it is not hard to "move around" and get a gun.
Stats and Data are very difficult to interpret, and I have a hard time believing that someone who dies from a car crash, cancer or a heart attach is in the same category as a gun shot victim.
A 400lb person who dies from a heart attack, or a 60 year old cancer death does not compare to an unintended gun death. More over a child's death.
I am not sure about your part of the world but up here when a child is in distress ( near death ) the emergency services "fan out" to everyone on duty and get the kid to the hospital asap. Intersections get blocked by Police, Ambulance and Fire. Children are never considered an acceptable loss.
As far as all the other ways to die, you need to look at the history ( time line ) and the money spent on the causes and remedies before you can compare it to gun deaths. Heart and Cancer have a HUGE budget.
I have no idea how much has been spent on preventing gun deaths. All I ever hear about is how much lobbying is done to promote gun ownership, and how many people die from guns. Can't say I hear much about responsible gun ownership.
But the most important thing is that proposing change in the rules and regulations with regards to guns gets the MOST RESISTANCE compared to any other way to DIE.
America's Most Wanted ( I catch it twice a year, maybe ) has the ATF tracing 8000 confiscated guns back to 3 "Bad" US gun dealers on the Mexican border for 2008. So three for jail or what???????
As much as it is a right for you to own a gun or two, it should be considered a privilege to own bigger, better, and badder guns. And it should come with a higher price, cost, or effort on the owners part. If guns are ending up in criminal's hands because of bad gun owners then, you guest it, bad gun owners should be accountable.
Last week a 14 yr old kid was shot to death in a park that I used to fix lights and other electrical equipment in about 16 yrs ago. The kids used to cut the electrical feeds to the lights so they could "own the park" and party all night. Now they shoot each other during the day so they can own the park at night. Two days later shots rang out at three different locations, all with in 30 min. and all related to the 14 yr old's death.
Oh, Assault Weapons? Proly designed for the military first. Then they lobbied the sh*t out of the Gov. to get them sold to general public as semi autos.
So, how many years before the 7/11 crook destroys a whole block and the gun\balistics dealers are selling "YOU" the latest and greatest thing to defend a TWO block radius around "your" house.
Good wish lists Mac and Big, kinda got forensically dissected but it makes for great discutions.
Communication is a wonderful thing.
PS, NO ONE, is asking for a gun ban. If that happened it would be hell till all the guns rusted out in 50-100 years. Or till the ammo ran out. And that's another topic.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
Exactly... couldn't be said any better...
transfer titles?
this is specifically going to be fought to the bitter end.
why?
history.
i've posted this before, i'll repost it.
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? they first told people to register them and they promised that this would not lead to taking them away.
but they did exactly that. they used the registration lists to make sure that people who registered them got rid of them.
not only was the plan full of lies, but the people who got gun permits at first were criminal freinds of influential people.
registering guns does not keep criminals from getting guns either.
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile . Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
registering guns and IDing owners can and will lead to discrimination.
getting a conceal carry permit is quite reasonable.
being arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in public WITHOUT a permit is quite reasonable.
i don't carry mine around unless i am specifically going to a place to shoot or going hunting. but i never conceal them.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
as you can see here? the Supreme Ciurt has case law showing why gun registration won't stop a single criminal from getting a gun here's why:
A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, "What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?" Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing -- and they understand our objection to registration.
In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.
most of the "reasonable" issues have been debated and litgated, this is nothing new.
most people are unaware how much case law already exists because the media doesn't care, they just want to make you get upset like the anti-abortionists
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner.
historical facts that tell US not to have gun licenses or titles.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Persons exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms should not be forced to pay a special tax to support enforcement efforts against gun criminals, any more than camera owners or magazine readers should be taxed to pay for enforcement of child pornography laws." (Kopel, David, WHY GUN WAITING PERIODS THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Assault Weapons? Proly designed for the military first. Then they lobbied the sh*t out of the Gov. to get them sold to general public as semi autos.
not how it works at all
the pentagon reviews all weapons submitted to them and then if accepted creates what we call milspecs. the weapon system is almost alwars redesigned to milspec.
it must be able to be maintained by a person of 8th grade education and cannot be prone to malfunction from dirt and water etc.
the assault weapons that were banned mostly just had bayonets and detachable magazines.
how many people have been bayonneted int he last fifty years outside of the battlefeild?
ten rounds? fifty rounds? what's the difference?
not much if the person practices. maybe a second or three. depending on how well prepared the shooter is
the real plan is to ban guns- you guys can say all you want that you "just" more laws, but we already have most of the laws you asked for here, and the courts have looked at them over and over again..
so pardon me when i don't beleive you when you say you just want safer gun ownership.there's no such thing.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If guns are ever banned you are going to see my sword fighting skills go up. haha
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am reading through the Opinion of the court regarding Haynes VS US so this is gonna take a day or two to respond. It seems the phrasing was the big problem but I need to dissect it more.
I find it hard to believe that there is no way to hold an individual accountable for illegally possessing a firearm without impinging on either the 5th or the 2nd.
As to your other examples of how registration led to persecution for ownership. They are valid. I would not want law abiding owners weapons being confiscated because the state representatives 'changed their mind' after a list had been compiled. If registration were to take place there would have to be some sort of protections written into the law on behalf of the gun owners.
Gimme a few days here....
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
