Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Please, please feel free to 'obliterate'.

OK.

Main Outcome Measures The outcome measures were state-level firearm-related fatalities per 100 000 individuals per year overall, for suicide, and for homicide. In various models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, nonfirearm violence–related deaths, and household firearm ownership.

Results Over the 4-year study period, there were 121 084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

Source

Easily done. The statistics show that the more gun laws in place in a given state, the more likely it is that they will have lower death rates due to firearms.

Link

The link above shows a comparison between the US and other nations with stricter gun laws or outright bans. The difference is astounding!

That being said, I am a gun owner and advocate fro the 2nd amendment, but that does not mean that we, as responsible gun owners, cannot support good legislation that puts decent regulations in place.

Ummm

So why does Chicago, DC and New York, with some of the tightest gun laws, also have the most gun deaths?

And here is a study that show the US is not even in the top half in the gun violence:

crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...

And this one:
www.theguardian.com...

And lets look at the murder rates:

www.nationmaster.com...
data.worldbank.org...

And one more:
www.civitas.org.uk...

You may not get shoot in the other countries, but your chances for being raped, robed, beat or mugged is a lot greater.

www.infoplease.com...

a reply to: introvert

PSSSTtt. You gonna address what I put forth??? Or just respond with BS?

a reply to: dismanrc

So why does Chicago, DC and New York, with some of the tightest gun laws, also have the most gun deaths?

They don't. They may have a lot of gun deahts and violence, but considering their popultion, places like Chicago are not near the top of the list.

In fact, what’s striking is that from 1985 through 2012 only six cities have held the anti-honor of having the nation’s highest murder rate: New Orleans (12 times, most recently in 2011); Washington, D.C. (eight times, most recently in 1999); Detroit (four times, most recently 2006), Flint, Mich. (twice, also in 2010); Richmond, Va. (once, in 1997) and Birmingham, Ala. (once, in 2005).

Source

The key to forming a valid opinion is to be properly informed.

a reply to: dismanrc

There's a great study on the breakdown of historical homicide trends on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website that would add credence to your point. I'll find it later if necessary, but essentially, it breaks down the numbers on the basis of rural, urban and suburban. And not surprisingly, the rural homicides, where gun laws tend to be the most relaxed, also contribute a disproportionately low percentage of the homicides as compared to the other two classifications. You have to also use Census data, and assume that the two agencies classify rural the same way, but if they do, the base homicide rate can be calculated to be around a third of the national average in rural areas.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

PSSSTtt. You gonna address what I put forth??? Or just respond with BS?

I did. This was your last response to my inquiry:

Arms were defined early on by Military actions. I am sure that of all the research and googling you have done, that you can produce your own search results.

By using that knowledge, I formulated my previous questions. Are you able to respond to those questions, or was your claim of it being "BS" mean that you cannot?

a reply to: introvert

Posted to the wrong person. Sorry about that.



But, I shall address your statement.

I already went over how Arms have been defined.
The basis to the 2nd was that the People, the Militia, would have access to the same Arms as the Govt. This was to keep Govt in check.
Draw your own conclusion as to what the People are to have access to.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Will you address anything from me and several posters? Or are you just cherrypicking the easy ones?

a reply to: macman

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to defend or overthrow tyrannical government, no doubt about that.

Draw your own conclusion as to what the People are to have access to.

Which leads me back to my original premise.

The 2nd amendment needs to clearly define what is acceptable for us to arm ourselves with and not leave it up to individual or government interpretation. If we do not, it is no longer a right but a privilege based on someone else's interpretation.

Obviously, people do not need to have access to the same destructive armaments that governments currently have. So how do we remedy that?

a reply to: introvert

What ever the Military has access to was what it was created on. Or what ever a Government has access to.
The whole thing is so the People aren't out gunned, or undergunned.

Why does this need to be re-redefined?

originally posted by: introvert
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to defend or overthrow tyrannical government, no doubt about that.

If we accept this as among the primary purposes of the 2nd amendment, and I do, then I think the answer as to the types of armaments it applies to is fairly clear. In order to serve that purpose, it would need to apply to the types of armaments that would be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a militia/military force. In effect, the same would have to be available in some manner to the citizenry and the militia as to the actual military.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Indigo5
Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

That's already a requirement. One of the questions on form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm asks about this and is a part of the background check that the dealer calls in to the FBI's instant background check system before finalizing the sale.

And let me just note here: I'm not saying that its perfect or that it catches everything. Undoubtedly, it does not.

WOW...You guys don't even know what you are arguing about?????

The Admin is proposing that the law be effective...NOT creating some new law???

And since you are good with it???? RIght??? you should be happy about this???

Presidents can not create new laws...It's called an "Administration" because they administer the law.

The White House said yesterday that the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments were proposing changes in regulations to clarify who under U.S. law is prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

Among the findings in the GAO report: As of October 2011, 17 states and five U.S. territories had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited from owning a gun because of mental health issues.

There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all,”

A Justice Department statement said it’s proposing to make clear that firearm possession would be banned for people found incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of mental disease, guilty but mentally ill or lacking mental responsibility.

JESUS H CHRIST....If you are claiming that "is already a law"...you ARE RIGHT.

What you are all FREAKING OUT about is actually ENFORCING IT.

You Either want that regulation to be enforced or you don't...Choose...

So, they weren't enforcing it before?

OK, well, can they make it clear to enforce immigration laws as well?

Derailing the topic? let's skip the derail and hold to the OP?

They've been enforcing it BTW. My friend's son is bipolar, and the background check turned him down when he went to buy a gun. PLUS the feds paid him a visit to ask him why he even tried.

you are either engaging in creative license or don't have the whole story. Bi-Polar cannot now, nor ever been used to deny the purchase of a gun.

The only info that CAN be uploaded to NICS in regards to mental health is Convictions from "not guilty because of insanity"...or a court signing off on institutionalizing someone against their will for fear of a danger to themselves or others. And for those things...NCIS had only 11 records in the USA...cuz no one is actually reporting the same. There is NO Mechanism to report Bi-Polar.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Indigo5

Again, Sweden has some of the most liberal gun laws in the western world and their crime statistics are staggeringly low. There is no rational correlation between the violence inherent in a society and access to firearms. None.

Hmmm? What do you consider Liberal Gun Laws???

In Sweden, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law


In Sweden, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, firearms disguised as other objects, and armour-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition44 45

In Sweden, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited44 45 14

In Sweden, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted only with special authorisation


In Sweden, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence, in some cases, but not for the protection of person or property

In Sweden, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law

In Sweden, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Possession
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Sweden are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, security

Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm licence in Sweden must pass a background check which considers criminal and mental


Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Sweden stipulates in practice that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

Firearm Safety Training
In Sweden, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm license

Licensing Records
In Sweden, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition
Licensed firearm owners in Sweden are permitted to possess only ammunition suitable for the intended firearm


Civilian Gun Registration

In Sweden, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

Gun Dealer Record Keeping
In Sweden, licensed firearm dealers are required52 to keep a record of each firearm or ammunition purchase, sale or transfer on behalf of a regulating authority

Gun Manufacturer Record Keeping
In Sweden, licensed gun makers are required51 to keep a record of each firearm produced, for inspection by a regulating authority

State-Owned Firearm Records
In Sweden, State agencies are required to maintain records of the storage and movement of all firearms and ammunition under their control

www.gunpolicy.org...

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Indigo5

I was pointing out the idiocy of thinking that laws will prevent the underlying problems.

Agree that laws do not treat the underlying problem, but they do effect the symptoms of the disease.

No convicted pedophile has ever been cured by being forbidden to have an occupation with relation to children...but that is not the point of the prohibition.

Do we say...hell..there is still pedophilia, so why bother? Is there no value in attempting to make it more difficult for pedophiles to practice their illness?

No value to background checks? Is there no value to having laws by which to arrest gun dealers who run guns to gangs? Or laws by which to confiscate guns legally possessed?

Effectively enforcing already existing regulations prohibiting people that have been legally declared mentally ill (which is what the Admin is proposing here)...will not cure those people of mental illness, but it will make it harder for those people to obtain guns during a psychotic episode. It will also raise standards for gun dealers.

Your argument at best is that...laws don't stop crime....an argument that requires supernatural precognition to fully debunk. I am satisfied with the reality that it affords mechanisms to arrest those who break the law and am pretty damn sure it puts a dent in crime...though again...your demand of knowing all future outcomes is impossible to abide by.

originally posted by: dismanrc


The 2AD has been chipped away starting with the 1934 law.

And the 1934 National Firearms Act was a knee-jerk reaction to organized crime and other prohibition-related violence that was occurring at the time COMBINED with the fact that the prohibition-era version of the ATF needed something to do once alcohol was legalized.

So instead of focusing on the root cause, they went after the tools used.

Funny how nobody learns from history and they want to keep repeating the same idiotic failed attempts to solve violence.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Agree that laws do not treat the underlying problem, but they do effect the symptoms of the disease.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim? Please show me where gun laws have led to a reduction in violent crime in the US.

No convicted pedophile has ever been cured by being forbidden to have an occupation with relation to children...but that is not the point of the prohibition.

You're right. The point of prohibition is to keep things away from law-abiding honest people. Did the Volstead Act stop people from drinking? No, it just made them all criminals. Does the "war on drugs" stop people from using drugs? No, it just turns them into criminals. The goal of laws are to CREATE more criminals, not solve a problem. The attempts have failed again and again so you can't tell me our elected lawmakers aren't smart enough to see the pattern.

Effectively enforcing already existing regulations prohibiting people that have been legally declared mentally ill (which is what the Admin is proposing here)...will not cure those people of mental illness, but it will make it harder for those people to obtain guns during a psychotic episode. It will also raise standards for gun dealers.

If someone wants a gun, they will get one. It certainly doesn't require walking into a gun store.

What standards for gun dealers should be raised? You, being someone who knows nothing about the laws regulating firearm dealers, should probably refrain from making such statements.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Indigo5

Again, Sweden has some of the most liberal gun laws in the western world and their crime statistics are staggeringly low. There is no rational correlation between the violence inherent in a society and access to firearms. None.

Hmmm? What do you consider Liberal Gun Laws???

He meant Switzerland, not Sweden.

Source

a reply to: Answer
That could be worrisome if they decriminalize drugs. Imagine 11,055 DEA employees needing a job. Maybe the ATF would hire them all.

a reply to: Indigo5

Accept, a state provided fully auto capable rifle is supplied by the state in every home.
Along with a healthy stock pile of ammo.www.wnd.com...

originally posted by: introvert


The key to forming a valid opinion is to be properly informed.

Right, and the source you used to show that "states with tighter gun laws have fewer gun deaths" is misleading.

They looked at a 3 year snapshot of overall firearm-related deaths.

They DID NOT compare firearm death rates in a state before and after legislation was passed. An honest study that truly wants to correlate firearm laws and death rates would look at the effects before and after gun laws are passed. Crime rates are affected by a multitude of factors but at least that comparison would be worth the paper on which it's written.

Then you use the old "well England banned guns and now people don't get shot." Ignoring the cultural differences and the prevalence of guns BEFORE England tightened their laws compared to the US, the violent crime rates in the UK increased after gun laws were changed and are still outrageously high. Anti-gun folks love to focus on the "gun violence" aspect of the numbers because that is the only statistic that fits their agenda. The rates of beatings, stabbings, robbery, rape, property crime, and murder are still incredibly high in the UK and some studies suggest that the rates are far higher now than they were before the gun bans... but at least they can say people aren't shot as often.

You keep repeating the "I'm a gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment" line while simultaneously employing the exact same tactics used by anti-gunners. Just stop. At this point, you should embrace your anti-gun brethren and quit pretending to be a "reasonable gun owner."

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer
That could be worrisome if they decriminalize drugs. Imagine 11,055 DEA employees needing a job. Maybe the ATF would hire them all.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me. The DEA will still have a job hassling dispensaries and making sure everyone is following the regulations. Also, there's no way harder drugs will be legalized so they'll still have something to do.

Maybe if they don't have to burn down farms and arrest hippies, they'll find more time to go after the drugs that are actually influencing crime rates like meth and heroin.