Gun Control Debate - Monterey, CA

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Monterey, CA.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Monterey opposes
Oppose
 
13
Support
 
5

Vote now in Monterey:

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Law

Omaha, NE

#22 May 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm looking for those statistics about UK violent crime, but have only come across a very interesting, although very long analysis and argument for banning handguns in the US, in part using the UK experience, and the handgun experiences of Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Israel, one of the most heavily armed democracies, to justify the premise. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Dixon2.htm
While these figures are admittedly 20 years old, the premise is that the fewer handguns that there are, the fewer the number of such homicides result, the problem being that in the US, every 4th or 5th person has a handgun, while in the UK, it is less than 1 person in a hundred. Basically, in the US, our rate of handgun homicides is 3000 times the rate per capita than in the UK. In other words 3000 people are killed in the US by handguns for every 1 person killed in the UK. Then again, it could just be a handgun accuracy issue; our handgun owners are 3000 times better shots than the Brits, although I find this hardly more comforting.
Country Handgun
Handguns per 100,000
Handgun Homicides per 100,000
United States 56,833,000 [17]
22,696
3.56
Great Britain 480,000 [22]
837
0.012
Country Handgun Homicides
Population [16]
Rate per 100,000
Great Britain 7
57,376,000 (1990)
0.012
United States 8,915
250,410,000 (1990)
3.560
Aren't you the one that was railing about me comparing apples to oranges? How many of those countries have the same demographics/socio-economic variables as the US? How many have the same per capita single parent households? How many have instituted something as worthless as a War on Drugs which brought with it an entire underbelly of crime? How many of those countries have introduced social programs that have emasculated the males of a particular race? Finally, how many of those countries have in their constitutions means for a citizen (or in their case, subject) to have a legal means of protecting themselves?
When you can find those countries with the same variables, bring on the comparisons.
Bottom line is the US doesn't have a gun problem, the US has a crime problem. And enacting laws that only affect the law-abiding is the definition of insanity. Well, almost as insane as making the right of self-defense a means tested right vis-a-vis the demonizing of "cheap" guns like Saturday Night Specials.
sparticus

Monterey, CA

#23 May 5, 2011
Ocean view you amuse me with your foolish beleif that if you get ride of guns then violent crime will go down. What you fail to note in all your quoting this or that chart is britsh gun crime maybe down but knife and otherid weapon crimes are up.
People will kill with what ever is at hand and you are an idiot to not see that.
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#24 May 5, 2011
sparticus wrote:
Ocean view you amuse me with your foolish beleif that if you get ride of guns then violent crime will go down. What you fail to note in all your quoting this or that chart is britsh gun crime maybe down but knife and otherid weapon crimes are up.
People will kill with what ever is at hand and you are an idiot to not see that.
The statement that "People will kill with whatever is at hand" actually argues more for gun control than against, otherwise, if people are going to be killed at the same rate regardless of the weapon, what is the point of making it any easier. After all, isn't that the reason why we arm our soldiers with rocks instead of rifles, since "People will kill with whatever is at hand," unless of course it is the effectiveness, ease, and availability of the weapon which are the most pertinent factors.
Law

Omaha, NE

#25 May 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
The statement that "People will kill with whatever is at hand" actually argues more for gun control than against, otherwise, if people are going to be killed at the same rate regardless of the weapon, what is the point of making it any easier. After all, isn't that the reason why we arm our soldiers with rocks instead of rifles, since "People will kill with whatever is at hand," unless of course it is the effectiveness, ease, and availability of the weapon which are the most pertinent factors.
No actually "People will kill with whatever is at hand" argues at the failure to create as many laws as you want in an attempt to stop criminals from plying their trade. To single out guns while ignoring virtually every other contrivance that can be (and is) used to kill someone is myopic at best.
sparticus

Monterey, CA

#26 May 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
The statement that "People will kill with whatever is at hand" actually argues more for gun control than against, otherwise, if people are going to be killed at the same rate regardless of the weapon, what is the point of making it any easier. After all, isn't that the reason why we arm our soldiers with rocks instead of rifles, since "People will kill with whatever is at hand," unless of course it is the effectiveness, ease, and availability of the weapon which are the most pertinent factors.
AHHHHH. A small minded and simple response at best. Let's take it up a notch. Would you defend your family and your life? If given the choice a knife or a gun? Or would you just say take what you want including my family?
You are weak and your talk of moral equivalency is nothing more than a liberal drug fools drink. You talk about "an utopian kind of society, of disarming everyone for their own good". There will always be someone trying to take from others. I would rather be armed with my gun but I'll use a knife or whatever is at hand and I will defend myself and my family there isn't a situation where I wouldn't .
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#27 May 6, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>No actually "People will kill with whatever is at hand" argues at the failure to create as many laws as you want in an attempt to stop criminals from plying their trade. To single out guns while ignoring virtually every other contrivance that can be (and is) used to kill someone is myopic at best.
And yet, reducing the number of easily concealed firearms available in some locales has been shown to effectively reduce the number of lethal crimes.

Still, I am willing to be "myopic at best" (it helps to be able to see the details, and one can always use binoculars or corrective lenses to compensate) in regard to handguns in the same manner that we preclude the personal ownership and use of switchblades, brass knuckles, military assault weapons, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and tactical nuclear weapons, as well as land-mines, sawed-off shotguns, and lethally booby-trapped entry doors designed to dissuade burglaries.
bella christian

Tempe, AZ

#28 May 6, 2011
NO! Let me know how could I support myself without a handgun first!

my signature: churchfriends.com
Law

Omaha, NE

#29 May 6, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, reducing the number of easily concealed firearms available in some locales has been shown to effectively reduce the number of lethal crimes.
Do you have a cite for that?
Ocean View wrote:
Still, I am willing to be "myopic at best" (it helps to be able to see the details, and one can always use binoculars or corrective lenses to compensate) in regard to handguns in the same manner that we preclude the personal ownership and use of switchblades, brass knuckles, military assault weapons, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and tactical nuclear weapons, as well as land-mines, sawed-off shotguns, and lethally booby-trapped entry doors designed to dissuade burglaries.
Yup, the concept of rights and liberties would require you to use the aforementioned binoculars to possibly see. Funny that you overlook swimming pools, automobiles, common kitchen knives, blunt instruments, explosives/chemicals, flammables, etc. You know, the things involved in more deaths of the average citizen in this country than firearms. But I'm sure you'll now run to your pollutician du jour begging them to enact tougher laws on the acquisition of those contrivances. Right? I mean, you DO want to be consistent.
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#30 May 6, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a cite for that?
<quoted text>Yup, the concept of rights and liberties would require you to use the aforementioned binoculars to possibly see. Funny that you overlook swimming pools, automobiles, common kitchen knives, blunt instruments, explosives/chemicals, flammables, etc. You know, the things involved in more deaths of the average citizen in this country than firearms. But I'm sure you'll now run to your pollutician du jour begging them to enact tougher laws on the acquisition of those contrivances. Right? I mean, you DO want to be consistent.
The primary difference between handguns and all of the things mentioned above is their primary purpose. Handguns are intended to fire bullets accurately at close range to inflict fear, injury, or death, while it's unlikely that this can be said of the swimming pool, for instance, or even the carving knife, although mankind in general is certainly capable of creative thinking when it comes to using any variety of objects for unintended and nefarious purposes.

Handguns are inherently dangerous, as are swimming pools, which is why it is prudent to put fences around the latter and limit access to the former, especially in circumstances where their use has become exceptionally rampant. The right to bear arms has reasonable limitations which have been upheld by the courts both in regard to keeping them out of the hands of juveniles, parolees, and incompetents as well as in regard to the types of firearms which are covered under that right.

Just as the freedom of speech does not apply to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting to riot, the right to bear arms in the form of a handgun can be similarly subjected to limitation where its unfettered presence/use may represent a threat to public safety.
Law

Omaha, NE

#31 May 7, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
The primary difference between handguns and all of the things mentioned above is their primary purpose. Handguns are intended to fire bullets accurately at close range to inflict fear, injury, or death,.....
Which is ideal for criminals who choose to prey on the weak and defenseless.
Ocean View wrote:
...while it's unlikely that this can be said of the swimming pool, for instance, or even the carving knife, although mankind in general is certainly capable of creative thinking when it comes to using any variety of objects for unintended and nefarious purposes.
Exactly my point. ANY contrivance can be used to bring on the demise of another being.
Ocean View wrote:
Handguns are inherently dangerous, as are swimming pools, which is why it is prudent to put fences around the latter and limit access to the former, especially in circumstances where their use has become exceptionally rampant.
No, you don't punish the majority for the acts of the minority. In the case of swimming pools, it is commonly understood that children unable to swim can and do drown when entering a pool.
Limiting access to firearms for those that already know how to use them is a poor exercise in saving us all from ourselves.
Ocean View wrote:
The right to bear arms has reasonable limitations which have been upheld by the courts both in regard to keeping them out of the hands of juveniles,
Age of consent law. Not a limit on the right.
Ocean View wrote:
parolees,...
Another great example of false security foisted on polluticians and swallowed by the sheeple in the citizenry.
Ocean View wrote:
and incompetents ...
Where adjudicated mentally unfit, due process is exercised. Again, not a limit on a right.
Ocean View wrote:
as well as in regard to the types of firearms which are covered under that right.
Another usurpation of the government that is both arbitrary and punitive.
Ocean View wrote:
Just as the freedom of speech does not apply to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...."
[/QUOTE}
Actually it does. There is no law that says I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, I have an obligation to if it will save lives.
[QUOTE who="Ocean View"]
or inciting to riot,
That's prosecuted the same was as yelling "fire" in a theater where there is none. That is not a limit on the 1st Amendment.
Ocean View wrote:
... the right to bear arms in the form of a handgun can be similarly subjected to limitation where its unfettered presence/use may represent a threat to public safety.
No it can't. What you're suggesting is that I have every right to use my fear as justification for you not to be able to exercise those rights of yours that I am fearful of. That's the difference between a democracy and a republic.
Liberty is your way of telling me to go stuff it.
Armed

Salinas, CA

#32 May 7, 2011
If your not armed, your a victim!!!!!!
Armed

Salinas, CA

#33 May 7, 2011
PROTECTION!!!!!
douchefighter

AOL

#34 Jul 12, 2011
When death is breathing down your neck, the police are minutes away. The argument that gun accidents are a reason to ban guns, sentences to death people who could otherwise defend themselves. But their deaths do not bother liberals for some reason.

What do these quotes tell you about the founding fathers intentions in creating the second ammendment?

No free man shall be debarred from the use of arms within his own land: Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms: James Madison

They that give up liberty to purchase safety, deserve niether: Benjamin Franklin

Since: Jun 11

Klamath Falls, OR

#35 Jul 30, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
Not legitimate defensive gun use by civilians; by the police, more likely. Otherwise, I believe that we would be hearing a lot more every single day about individual citizens and citizen militias arresting and shooting both more criminals and more innocents, but that's not the case. In fact, it is the rare case of legitimate ciilian firearm self-defense that draws public attention over the routine infliction of death and injury by both criminal and civilian on civilian handgun action.
However, please note that this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Defensive gun use (brandishing? threatening? shooting in the air? shooting to kill?) is different in character from counting the actual number of homicide/injuries inflicted by criminals, while not counting the number of times that a handgun is used without effect or being fired in robberies, rapes, etc.)
<quoted text>
So, the founders just threw that well-regulated militia phrase in there just for the heck of it? I don't think so. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would have read like a cross between Oprah Winfrey and Charlton Heston: "YOU get a gun! And YOU get a gun! and YOU get a gun!"
Essentially, the Minutemen were the epitome of a "well-regulated militia," meaning at the time, white, land-owning men, because blacks certainly couldn't have guns, nor could women, unless their father or husband let them. Having people trained in the use of firearms for the purpose of resisting the sort of oppressive government which had just been overthrown, was a laudable and responsible approach to ensure future freedom.
However, the purpose was never to justify arming the general citizenry with cheap handguns or stuff just short of artillery so that they could settle personal conflicts or react to every perceived slight or turf intrusion.
<quoted text>
While membership in a militia was never a requirement, the premise that people familiar with firearms in their use for hunting, or as veterans of previous conflicts would serve as a basic personnel resource for future group/national defense purposes (i.e., a well-regulated militia), was reasonable in order to retain the possibility of their future services, especially with the prohibition at the time, both philosophical and financial, of maintaining a standing army, which both Washington and Jefferson warned against.
How the Second Amendment has become a justification for every citizen of supposedly legal mental compentency to have the right to gun ownership, including Saturday Night Specials, when it was originally intended to serve a completely different purpose, is a tortuous story written in the blood of both the innocent and the damned, more in the United States than in any other democratically influenced country.
I have a good solution to the problem as you see it. Put a fence around the state of California to keep all the lune-toons who live there from escaping, and throw every criminal over the fence to a life sentence of living in a cess pool state. If their crime is real severe make them live in San Francisco, but outlaw Vaseline so they can't carry it.
Songbird

Spring Valley, CA

#36 Jul 30, 2011
It's a constitutional right and enough is enough.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? 11 hr Rosiedosie 7
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Thu scirocco 71,697
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar 24 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar 20 Gary 16
Review: Salazar Auto Repair (Sep '13) Mar 10 fed up 3
News Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) Mar 5 Carlos Slim 14
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Mar 3 Joe Balls 1,530

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]