Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty Blue
You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.
Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.
The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.
When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.
|
That's certainly a defensible position. Not one that I happen to agree with, but defensible.
And I'm not sure whether that last sentence was aimed at me
In any case, thank you for your service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles
While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.
I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.
|
So you're saying that NH lends itself more to suicide and death-by-cops?
Many violent crimes involve guns, but not all. Just as many murders are committed with guns, but not all. The difference between gun violence in NH and MA is probably not as wide as would be indicated by "gun deaths", but also probably not as significant as the "murder rate" would suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee
No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).
It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.
Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.
That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.
Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.
On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html |
Any idea where those guns in Dorchester (or D.C.) originate?
Whether you agree with the exclusions or not doesn't make the table incredible. Whether it applies in this case is the issue. If a burglary is committed in which victims are present and force is used or threatened, it becomes an aggravated assault, and thus a violent crime. The definition seems fine to me. It is not, however, suggestive of the overall crime rate.
As for guncite - yes, I saw that before my earlier post. But I'm not sure how it proves that MA has more accidents than NH.