Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

[RyanH]

once again, you people are acting like the firearm related murders are all children finding daddy's gun or some guy shooting his wife. the majority of these murders are the fucking thugs and criminals in the inner cities, not your law abiding citizens.

plus, i think we should give more of these inner city ghetto trash even more guns, so they can solve the crime problem for us by blowing holes in each other.

So how do you think we should solve school massacres which usually occur in affluent suburban areas?

 

[musclebrains]

you also need to think about other factors: for example most violent crimes usually occur in large cities. Here we have like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver then the rest are medium to small cities. Considering the way my country is 1397 is a lot.

Nice spin. I could as well say you have a lower murder rate because you have a more enlightened law. But if our urban conditions are so much worse than yours, that's an argument for gun control, not against it.

 

[manny78]

Nice spin. I could as well say you have a lower murder rate because you have a more enlightened law. But if our urban conditions are so much worse than yours, that's an argument for gun control, not against it.

As I mentionned I have nothing against regulation. But banning something is different. BTW yesterday someone was killed by a guy armed with a ........ golf club ! You see no need for a gun sometimes lol

 

[p0ink]

So how do you think we should solve school massacres which usually occur in affluent suburban areas?

however we do it, one thing is certain, we must raise taxes and spend billions doing it. do you think guns are the only way for kids to massacre people at school? the kids at columbine had a huge bomb full of nails in the cafeteria, that if it went off, would have killed much more people than their guns.

i believe school violence would not be an issue if teachers could actualy discipline the shitheads who are starting the trouble in the first place. but no, we cant do that. it will hurt johnny's self esteem. notice how none of this shit happened 30 years ago? cause teachers would have beat their ass if students got out of line.

 

[musclebrains]

As I mentionned I have nothing against regulation. But banning something is different. BTW yesterday someone was killed by a guy armed with a ........ golf club ! You see no need for a gun sometimes lol

I've killed some trees with golf clubs. Of course, the golf clubs killed themselves in the act.

 

[kaneman23]

p0ink

I think you are my long lost brother!!

 

[Hangfire]

Ummm.........did it ever occur to any of you that the U.S. has 270,000,000 people? Quite a few more than the U.K., or Australia so, obviously (to me anyway) the straight comparison of occurences is useless.

The FACTS are that in countries that have banned private ownership of firearms, violent crime has increased. The latest fun time in Australia is "hot entries" into private homes. That is, illegal entry and robbery while the residents are at home! That is what you get when the criminals KNOW you cannot offer resistance.

It is inarguable FACT that in states that have legalized concealed weapons carry for law-abiding citizens, violent crime has dropped dramtically. I know you wish it was not so, but it is a verifiable matter of public record.

For any of you who doubt the value of having the means to protect yourself and your family, why not post a big sign outide your house announcing to all passersby that yours is a gun-free household? I'll tell you why not. Because the uncertainty of what is behind your front door is the only thing that keeps the predators out. If you place so little value on your own lives and don't want to take the personal responsibility of protecting your families, so be it. But you have no ground to deny the basic right of self-defense to anyone who chooses it.

BTW, the Second Amendment does not confer the right of firearms ownership--it confirms that it is a pre-existing right that cannot be taken away. Read some history sometime instead of "Between The Sheets".

 

[smallmovesal]

however we do it, one thing is certain, we must raise taxes and spend billions doing it. do you think guns are the only way for kids to massacre people at school? the kids at columbine had a huge bomb full of nails in the cafeteria, that if it went off, would have killed much more people than their guns.

i believe school violence would not be an issue if teachers could actualy discipline the shitheads who are starting the trouble in the first place. but no, we cant do that. it will hurt johnny's self esteem. notice how none of this shit happened 30 years ago? cause teachers would have beat their ass if students got out of line.

um, my parents are teachers and my mum teaches at a problem high school in my city... teachers have to put up with shitty pay, kids who cry abuse for the fun of it and affect the entire life of the accused teacher, and parents blaming teachers for their kids problems like it's the teacher's job to be a babysitter.

like my mum always says, someone had to teach every jeffrey dahmer.

i think we owe a lot to teachers.

 

[musclebrains]

Ummm.........did it ever occur to any of you that the U.S. has 270,000,000 people? Quite a few more than the U.K., or Australia so, obviously (to me anyway) the straight comparison of occurences is useless.

The FACTS are that in countries that have banned private ownership of firearms, violent crime has increased. The latest fun time in Australia is "hot entries" into private homes. That is, illegal entry and robbery while the residents are at home! That is what you get when the criminals KNOW you cannot offer resistance.

It is inarguable FACT that in states that have legalized concealed weapons carry for law-abiding citizens, violent crime has dropped dramtically. I know you wish it was not so, but it is a verifiable matter of public record.

For any of you who doubt the value of having the means to protect yourself and your family, why not post a big sign outide your house announcing to all passersby that yours is a gun-free household? I'll tell you why not. Because the uncertainty of what is behind your front door is the only thing that keeps the predators out. If you place so little value on your own lives and don't want to take the personal responsibility of protecting your families, so be it. But you have no ground to deny the basic right of self-defense to anyone who chooses it.

BTW, the Second Amendment does not confer the right of firearms ownership--it confirms that it is a pre-existing right that cannot be taken away. Read some history sometime instead of "Between The Sheets".

Really nice spin, but no silver bullet.

This is a typical trick of the gun lobby. They conflate all forms of violent crime -- making no difference between murder and robbery, for example. Then, if the overall rate of violent crime has increased and the particular society has instituted gun control, they claim the latter is to blame.

Of course, this is idle speculation. The only meaningful correlation is between gun availability and the rate of gun-related crime, primarily homocide. Where societies have instituted gun control there has been a drop in the murder rate. I already posted the numbers from Australia's own Board of Statistics. I also posted New York City's.

To say that the increase in burglary or robbery is a result of ordinary people not having access to guns is nothing but speculation. Many other factors contribute to an increase in crime.

As for the comments about the populations of the US and the UK: the RATE of gun-related crime is far lower in the UK (and Canada and Australia), no matter how you try to spin it. If those countries saw a significant decrease in gun-related deaths because of gun control and the US rate remains about the same, it's pretty easy to figure the next step.

 

[Hangfire]

musclebrains,
You conveniently avoided the substance of my prior post, which is that when people have the ability to dfend themselves, crime goes down. It is demonstrable and it is NOT idle speculation. What is the purpose of disarming private citizens? Is it to demonstrate a decline only in the murder rate? Only murder? Is armed robbery OK? Assault? Rape?

I don't understand why you think it logical to separate murder from all other forms of violent crime. The purpose of one's right to self-defense is to defend against all VIOLENT CRIME--not just murder.

Can't remember who first said it: There are three kinds of lies--lies, damned lies, and statistics.