[Humerox]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I sleep well at night knowing that my right to bear arms will not be infringed regardless of the feeble attempts of you lefties. Time and time again the Supreme Court has struck down restrictive gun laws and New York may be next.

I'm not against bearing arms. Outlawing assault-style weapons is common-sense. No one needs them. Your right to bear arms is already limited. Supreme Court?

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. (Limits your freedom).

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."


"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote.

So, your right to carry what you want to is already limited...and can be changed by law.

Determining what those weapons are is the common sense point we need to reach.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look, if you want to remove guns to reduce gun-based crime, you will be successful. Some of the gun crime will be turn into other types of violent crime and murder weapons and you will feel better feeling that you have solved a problem since deaths by guns will slightly decline while violent crime continues to grow. (again, look at Britain)

I prefer to look at Australia, which is much more culturally like us, albeit on a smaller scale. I can also refer to actual research.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want to reduce violent crime (a.k.a. protect people / kids / etc.), then you have to actually evaluate the problem and statistically & historically a gun ban will not work.

Only due to half-assed enforcement and implementation. And no, gun legislation by itself won't do the trick.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want to reduce mass murders caused by guns, which have almost the same probability of happening as getting struck by lightning, then you can ban the guns and criminals will find an alternative weapon. Like fire, bomb, illegal assault weapon, etc. which still happen despite your saying they don't. You will be 'successful' because while mass killings still happen, they aren't done with guns. I use successful carefully since mass killings represent a fraction of 1% of homicides each year so you aren't really solving the problem.

Mass killings without guns happens all the time in the US. You're arguing apples and oranges by saying that the same nuts will find another means to do the killing. I say they won't because it isn't nearly as easy, and most of the killers have been cowardly lone-wolf rejects. I can count exactly TWO incidents in Australia that were mass murders since 1986. One was a fire, and the other was a man that beat his family to death.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you really want to reduce mass murders, you can evaluate the commonalities from mass murderers and figure out where the likely problems live. You will find one primary box checked routinely when looking at a mass murderer in hindsight. Almost every one will have 'signs of mental illness shown prior to event'. That is where our focus should be, not trying to get rid of the weapon that the crazy person used.

And I say that the focus should be on that and legislating assault-style weapons, among quite a few other legislative moves, like requiring yearly registration, no private transfer of guns, insurance, firearms courses required to own, etc.