Gun laws do they work

I did find plenty of evidence that Belgium has a high muslim population and that there was at least one one recent religious whackjob who killed some people and was muslim. But that's 1 out of 250,000 who has been proven to be dangerous, so I looked for some official or well-reported article on this 'problem'.

The first few links I found when I searched for any increase in crime because of Muslims included:

This one from the Gatestone Institute (hardly a prime example of an organisation without their own agenda) http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state
Any fair websites talking about it?

Are you people not worried about Sheria Law and its implications it has on the laws in you Country.
 
I don't agree with much that Bladerunner writes and a few years ago I might have said that he was wildly exaggerating however we have seen the increasing creep of islam's influence, and I cast my mind to the way the homosexual lobby are not content to compromise and Deliberately target devout Christians causing them to lose their jobs and businesses because they won't go against their beliefs.

I await them taking on the Muslims !

Brian
 
I don't agree with much that Bladerunner writes and a few years ago I might have said that he was wildly exaggerating however we have seen the increasing creep of islam's influence, and I cast my mind to the way the homosexual lobby are not content to compromise and Deliberately target devout Christians causing them to lose their jobs and businesses because they won't go against their beliefs.

I await them taking on the Muslims !

Brian

Forget my original reply - I misunderstood. Should we arm the gay community to tackle islam Bladerunner?
 
Are you advocating shooting Muslims whose views you find worrying?

Based on previous comments involving his rabid islamophobia and desire to eliminate Islam, his repeated commentary that Muslims and their religion are pure evil, and his use of white supremacist groups as "valid" sources of information, my money's going to be on "YES".
 
Based on previous comments involving his rabid islamophobia and desire to eliminate Islam, his repeated commentary that Muslims and their religion are pure evil, and his use of white supremacist groups as "valid" sources of information, my money's going to be on "YES".

I'm imagining Katie Hopkins with a gun. That cant be a good thing.
 
Are you advocating shooting Muslims whose views you find worrying?

I am sorry you do not get it. They are not in my back yard so don't ask me about shooting them. In a few years, you may have to convert to Islam or DIE!

Don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.
 
I don't agree with much that Bladerunner writes and a few years ago I might have said that he was wildly exaggerating however we have seen the increasing creep of islam's influence, and I cast my mind to the way the homosexual lobby are not content to compromise and Deliberately target devout Christians causing them to lose their jobs and businesses because they won't go against their beliefs.

I await them taking on the Muslims !

Brian
Brian there will be no fight. The Muslims will simply kill them or they will convert to Islam. Homosexuality is against their belief and there is no tolerance as in Christianity. Unfortunately for you and the others in Europe, the Muslims are in the final throes of gaining that foothold that will bring them to power. It has been said that Europe is at least 10-15 years ahead of the USA when it comes to the threat from Muslims and Islam.
 
Maybe I jumped the gun (pun intended) when I said I was for background check. My guns are mine, I worked hard to buy them. I should be able to will them to my grand kids like everything else I own. There sure are slippery slopes. One slippery slope is underestimating the taking away of liberties by liberals.
By Edmund DeMarche
Published November 13, 2014FoxNews.com


Facebook529 Twitter319 livefyre666 Email Print

buffgun1.jpg
FILE 2012: Buffalo police confiscated nine illegal handguns in connection with a gun trafficking operation that stretched from the Decatur, Georgia area to Buffalo. The city has been focused on reducing the number of illegal guns on the street. (Buffalo Police Department)


A plan by police in Buffalo, N.Y., to begin confiscating the firearms of legal gun owners within days of their deaths is drawing fire from Second Amendment advocates.
The plan is legal under a longstanding, but rarely enforced state law, but gun rights advocates say, with apologies to onetime NRA spokesman Charlton Heston, it is tantamount to prying firearms - some of which may have substantial monetary or sentimental value - from the cold, dead hands of law-abiding citizens.
"They're quick to say they're going to take the guns," said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. "But they don't tell you the law doesn't apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one's] pistol or apply to keep it."
King said enforcing the state law is the latest example of authorities targeting law-abiding gun owners, while doing little to secure the streets.
"They're quick to say they're going to take the guns."- Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so "they don't end up in the wrong hands." The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said.
 
So help get the law challenged and its constitutionality brought into question. Believe it or not, that's the kind of thing the ACLU lives for - they just need someone who got their guns confiscated by the law to contact them so they can file it for them. Most courts are conservative right now, so odds are that this particular law will get thrown out. Hell, even a more liberal court would likely toss that one in a heartbeat.

I think you'll find that most self-professed liberals would be appalled by what's going on in that article - I know I am. What I see there, though, isn't a liberal conspiracy to get guns off the streets, but rather jackasses in the Buffalo PD getting overzealous, probably at the prodding of a DA looking for an edge in the next election. ("In my last term, I got thousands of unlicensed guns off the street!") As a rule, I've found you're more likely to be right if you assume banality, selfishness, or incompetence before leaping right to conspiracy.

(And requiring background checks on gun purchase wouldn't interfere with inheritance at all unless specifically written that way. I'm all for background checks, and even I would be unlikely to want that expanded to include inheritances. I just don't want people who are barred from purchasing firearms by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to be able to get around it that easily.)

And in regards to one other thing you mentioned - if you actually LOOK, you'll find that virtually every right we've lost in the US in the last few decades was at the hands of conservatives, not liberals. The right to privacy, immediate Miranda warnings, judicial overview of wire taps, habeus corpus, the right to vote - all of those have been weakened, limited, and in some cases flat-out denied by conservatives. I won't deny 'liberals' have attempted to do the same in regards to firearms with things like the idiotic push to ban 'assault' weapons, but there's a large number on the left who think those people are idiots, and you'll note that the latest attempt at an assault weapons ban was shut down by folks on both sides.
 
Last edited:
The last two posts amaze me, for god's sake Froth why do people need assault weapons?

Surely it is reasonable and sensible to not have a free and easy inheritance of weapons, the inheritor should have to apply for a licence for the gun.

Brian
 
For the same reason they need pistols, or rifles, or shotguns. The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment says that (barring quibbling over that bloody comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, specifically due to the need of a militia. While I freely admit that the National Guard has replaced the militia, the right to bear arms has never been revoked, and was very obviously protected with eye to allowing citizens to be armed effectively for use against other PEOPLE. Yes, assault weapons are designed for combat use, but those are the specific types of weapons the 2nd amendment was looking at.

Also, keep in mind that one of the major reasons people all over the world know it's suicidal to invade America is the fact that even if you did, you'd face an entire POPULATION of guerillas. "A gun behind every blade of grass" was how Yamamoto described it, and for good reason.

I understand a lot of people seem to feel that firearms cause crime, but let's look at Switzerland, shall we? It has one of the absolute highest gun ownership rates in the world, and virtually everyone in their 20's has an assault rifle at home (thanks to mandatory militia membership). Despite that, they have a ridiculously low rate of gun crime - 40 gun-related murders in 2010 (for 0.52 per 100,000 people), compared to 11,078 gun-related homicides (or 3.6 per 100,000 people) in the US. Admittedly, while gun ownership is insanely high in Switzerland, they do balance that off by having what are, by our standards, draconian laws covering purchase, sale, carry, and transport of firearms.

(And before anyone thinks I'm saying firearms prevent crime, I suggest they go look at crime rates in countries with firearms banned, which are largely in line with Switzerland. The problem is US, not our guns.)

As to inheriting firearms, let me ask you this: just how many people do you honestly think acquire their guns via inheritance as opposed to purchase? I guarantee you it's a statistically insignificant amount compared to the number acquired via 3rd party sales. In addition, laws like D7A mentioned step on a person's right to distribute their property as they see fit, which is an area that lawmakers have usually tried to stay away from for good reason. Vehicles must be licenced, but if you die, you can will your car to whomever you want. Same with your business, your sword collection (and I actually do have one), your home (assuming it was owned and not mortgaged), etc.

Do we start passing laws saying you can only will your car to licenced drivers? What if I forgot to renew my license, had a 3 day gap before I did, and my dad died in those three days? Does his car now get scrapped? Perhaps we can enact financial background checks as a requirement for inheriting your parents' homes? How about a business management degree requirement for inheriting your parent's business? Oh, and if I die, do my kids need an antique weapons permit to get my sword collection?

There's necessary (background check requirements being extended to cover a glaring hole in the laws prohibiting felons from purchasing guns) and then there's inane (background checks required to inherit family property).
 
Let me see if I can address the issues raised.

First the simple one of inherited weapons. I can see no argument as to why the same licensing regulations should not apply to inherited weapons as to purchased weapons, and for the record in this country all cars have to be licensed by the owner even if kept off the road (SORN) and you have to be insured and have a driving license to drive it.

Your constitution was established in a different time to today, you had just fought , or were fighting, a war for independence, and were still involved in fighting wars against the native peoples to steal their lands, I can understand why the right to bear arms might be included in the constitution but times have changed and you now have a professional military.
As to the quote afforded to Yamamoto if that is what the Japanese thought no wonder they lost the war. Rifles are not much use against tanks and aircraft and guerrilla warfare on the plains is a bit of a no no anyway. The Gestapo took ruthless action when any of them were killed by the resistance but the Wehrmacht was a gentleman's army compared to the Japanese.

Yes the problem is the US culture almost certainly born out of its history, does that mean nothing should be done to mitigate against the worst effects.

Brian
 
The last two posts amaze me, for god's sake Froth why do people need assault weapons?

Surely it is reasonable and sensible to not have a free and easy inheritance of weapons, the inheritor should have to apply for a licence for the gun.

Brian

Brian,
It is not need. It's freedom. If someone can say you don't need a assault weapon, then I can say you don't need X. All X needs to be ban. We had a local yocual who tried to get ATV's banned here in Florida. She said nobody needs those dangerous vehicles. Then somebody brought to light that there are way way more people killed on bicycles than on ATV's per 100 units. My Dad was a Triumph motorcycle dealer. All through my youth I heard, even from some of my school teachers how dangerous motorcycles were. (of course doing wheelies in the school parking lot, didn't help my cause) Yet for ever accident per 100 motorcycles there were 100 times more accidents per 100 autos. I read, (but not sure its actual fact) that there are far more killings by hand guns than assault rifles.
 
Brian,
It is not need. It's freedom. If someone can say you don't need a assault weapon, then I can say you don't need X.

So where do you draw the line and what is the criteria for that line to be drawn?
 
So Dick we are on the freedom argument again, but as I said last time we can not have total freedom, I doubt that you are free to drive a battle tank down the high street crushing any cars in the way, nor use you guns to shoot out the windows in a building you don't like.
Why are ATVs dangerous?
It would not surprise me to find that more people are killed by handguns, but cold stats are not the whole story. Most gun deaths in this country are targeted hits, ie gang wars, this will almost certainly be by handgun as they are easy to hide and dispose of, does the same apply in the US.

Brian
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom