The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[broncofan]

>>>

The statistics in the US clearly show that the cities with the strictest gun control (e.g., Chicago, Washington DC) have the highest violent crime; while those with the least control — including the legal language " . . . WILL issue . . ." (instead of "MAY issue") in its laws pertaining to conceal-and-carry permit requests by gun owners, have the least gun-related crime.

Which is cause and which is effect? Are you sure gun control laws were not passed as a response to high levels of violent crime?

[paulclifford]

>>>and was part of the bill called the Patriot Act signed into law by GW Bush

And re-signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama (Democratic), as well as by congress — with a Democratic majority in the senate.

Democrats are no great supporters of the 4th Amendment.

Thomas Menino, Democratic mayor of Boston, had no problem violating the 4th Amendment rights of Bostonians during the police manhunt of the marathon bombers several months ago.

And if I remember correctly, the only person to filibuster the senate until he got an answer from Eric Holder regarding whether or not drone strikes on American citizens on US soil was considered within the the just powers of the president and the DoJ, was a Republican — ideologically a libertarian — i.e., Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky. I haven't heard a peep of protest about infringement of privacy from drones by Democrats.

[broncofan]

With the Boston Manhunt, I would not be surprised if they were using the special needs exception to the fourth amendment warrant clause. But I suppose that is my point. In certain contingencies, both parties recognize that compromises need to be made. It helps that the 4th amendment has the word unreasonable built into it which allows for a certain amount of flexibility in its application.

You say that the Democrats have not been friends of the 4th amendment. I don't doubt that as I haven't read anything that looks at the issue from a partisan perspective. Nor am I saying Republicans are necessarily worse offenders. My point is that there were plenty of excesses under the Bush administration that continued under Obama.

But if anything it was organizations like the ACLU warning about tyranny and about the erosion of civil liberties. But the rhetoric from the GOP then was not anything like the echo chamber we hear now.

[paulclifford]

>>>Are you sure gun control laws were not passed as a response to high levels of violent crime?

???

Why would hamstringing law-abiding citizens from owning firearms reduce violent crime?

Obviously — like most government regulation — gun control laws have the exact opposite effect from the one intended.

If the gun-control lobby were really interested in reducing violent crime, they wouldn't be so interested in making it more difficult for those who don't commit crimes to acquire firearms.

[broncofan]

>>>

Why would hamstringing law-abiding citizens from owning firearms reduce violent crime?

.

Law-abiding citizens don't telegraph that they are going to commit a future crime with a firearm. Probably because they don't know they will lose it one day when driving in their car or when arguing with their spouse.

In fact, every felon had a period in his or her life when they were not a felon.

[paulclifford]

>>>there were plenty of excesses under the Bush administration that continued under Obama

That's why many have claimed that the Obama administration is better understood as the 3rd term of the Bush administration . . . except with lots of ex-Clinton administration people in office, and with a similar kind of "out-of-touch" mentality as the 2nd Nixon administration.

The main difference appears to be that Nixon didn't need a teleprompter.

[paulclifford]

>>>Law-abiding citizens don't telegraph that they are going to commit a future crime with a firearm.

Neither do habitual criminals, and neither did the nut-jobs who illegally obtained firearms anyway before they committed mass atrocities.

Not sure what your point is. It appears to be, "Since even a law-abiding citizen might, possibly, some day, suffer from road-rage and discharge his Glock that he carried legally in his glove-compartment, let's make it real difficult for all law-abiding citizens to obtain legal permits to buy a gun."

OK. Let's do the same to law-abiding citizens regarding car ownership (they might lose it one day and intentionally drive it through a storefront window); let's do the same regarding the purchase of knives (including cutlery, of course), which is already being discussed seriously in the UK; let's do the same regarding rope, string, yarn, and dental floss (could be used as a garrote); and let's especially do the same for baseball bats — because according to FBI data, the #1 weapon of choice in the US for murdering someone is a bat.

By all means, let us do everything we can to prevent law-abiding citizens from committing violent crimes. This way, the only people who will actually have access to guns, knives, cars, garottes, and baseball bats will be the non-law-abiding citizens. And when the violent crime rate soars, we can look for a suitable scapegoat: George W. Bush, perhaps, or maybe even Global Warming.

[broncofan]

A baseball bat has more than one use. Some objects are dangerous not by design but because the features that make them useful in one hobby make them dangerous in another. I am not saying we should turn our lives upside down in order to get rid of every conceivable risk. Let's start by trying to minimize the risks associated with articles designed to kill and with a great potential to do so.

And if you want to blame George Bush for any problems I'm on board.

[trish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

[broncofan]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trish's statistics show that the United Kingdom has a much lower death rate with guns. Your objection might be that because fewer guns are available, people in the UK must just be committing murders in other ways. So, this demonstrates, unless I read the numbers incorrectly that they also have a lower homicide rate.

So, they have fewer deaths per capita with guns. AND fewer homicides per capita.