|
Post by bluecrabber on Mar 12, 2013 7:24:29 GMT -4
Imagine that.. a drive by shooting in Washington DC.. the city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country!! Of course, the problem is only law abiding citizens are unarmed.. And the comment about guns are only manufactured to hurt someone and a car is only for transportation is a hoot.. Compare the stats on how many people are killed annually in auto crashes (and many are killed on purpose with a car) to how many are killed with guns. And include in the guns not only accidents but murder with all types of guns, not just assault weapons (whatever they are), but handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The cars and trucks win easily at about 4-1. Inspector Harry: "You got to know your limitations"..
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 12, 2013 7:55:12 GMT -4
I was thinking the same thing bluecrabber. If an incident like this happens in a region with the strictest gun control, we should model the rest of the nation after them! This will solve all our problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 9:20:52 GMT -4
Just because DC has strict gun laws doesn't mean anything because Virginia is right next to it with lax laws and Maryland on the other side. It's a 5 square mile "city" carved into Maryland. A good guess is that the gunmen were from P.G. County and not DC at all.
Cars are built for transportation. Guns are built to shoot people. Apples and oranges. Do you need a gun to get to work, go to the store, drop your kids off at the movies, etc? A car is a necessity for most, while a gun is not. More people have involvement with cars than guns, and unfortunately cars crash, usually by accident. Guns are toys for some, and murder weapons for others, but they were manufactured to shoot people and things. It's a big difference my fine Fox viewing sheeple.
Clint Eastwood on Guns: Despite being heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and cop movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973.
In the April 24, 1973, edition of the Washington Post, the star stated that "I'm for gun legislation myself. I don't hunt." Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors "gun control to some degree". About a year later, Eastwood remarked that "All guns should be registered. I don't think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They're worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It's impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that's why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted." In 1993, he noted that "I was always a backer" of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period.
In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the famous television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that "My interview with Eastwood will air on 'Larry King Weekend' ... I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. 'Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?' he said."
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Mar 12, 2013 10:53:21 GMT -4
Just because DC has strict gun laws doesn't mean anything because Virginia is right next to it with lax laws and Maryland on the other side. Means a lot to it's citizens, VA residents know they are safer, and the criminals know it too. Crime rates plummeted in VA when they relaxed the carry laws Means a lot when DC has some of the toughest gun laws and highest gun crime rates. Anyone with 1/2 a brain should be able to see that more gun laws aren't the answer to fight criminals. However, in Md. it is working out to be another form of TAXES for their beloved REVENUE RAISING TACTICS
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 12, 2013 11:03:23 GMT -4
So what is Chicago's excuse for their horrible crime? That whole state is under an anti-gun regime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 12:20:11 GMT -4
You are correct in that gun restriction laws don't do much. How can a law do anything when people can just drive a few miles to the next state and buy them there. The DC crime is just one example of that fact. What needs to be done is make the manufacturing of these weapons illegal. It would take quite a few years for the old guns to start going away, but they will. Gun manufacturing and bullet manufacturing bans are the only thing that would actually cut down on gun violence effectively. Look at cigarettes. They are taxed to high heaven, restricted to anyone under 18, not allowed to advertise, come with "you will freakin' die" warnings on them, and people still smoke them. They will never go away, but will only be severely limited once they are not manufactured anymore, which will never happen. Too much profit to be made and a lot of stupid people.
|
|
|
Post by markp on Mar 12, 2013 12:25:47 GMT -4
I take it that you believe prohibition would have worked if we had just stuck with it as well (Nation wide)? People who want to perpetrate a crime with a firearm will do so if there is a law or not. Any new ban or restriction will not matter to those who want to commit a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 12, 2013 12:33:37 GMT -4
We currently have gun control. When I buy a gun, they run a background check. I have to wait before I can pick it up. The gun is registered to me, and I have passed the necessary checks to own it. I don't bring my guns to DC because they are illegal there. The problem is, the crooks don't play by the rules. Enforce the rules on the books. Don't punish the law abiding citizens because of the actions of the crooks.
Why does anyone need an assault rifle?
Why does anyone need a yo-yo? Why does anyone need a Hummer? Why does anyone need a boat? Why does anyone need a skateboard? Why does anyone need a pool? Why does anyone need Playstation3? Why does anyone need a salad fork? Why does anyone need a tie? Why does anyone need Fish McBites?
It's not the governments job (or Clint Eastwoods) to tell us what we need, or what's good for us.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Mar 12, 2013 14:50:13 GMT -4
You are correct in that gun restriction laws don't do much. How can a law do anything when people can just drive a few miles to the next state and buy them there. The DC crime is just one example of that fact. What needs to be done is make the manufacturing of these weapons illegal. It would take quite a few years for the old guns to start going away, but they will. Gun manufacturing and bullet manufacturing bans are the only thing that would actually cut down on gun violence effectively. Look at cigarettes. They are taxed to high heaven, restricted to anyone under 18, not allowed to advertise, come with "you will freakin' die" warnings on them, and people still smoke them. They will never go away, but will only be severely limited once they are not manufactured anymore, which will never happen. Too much profit to be made and a lot of stupid people. Again, do you know what you think you know? I can't go to VA and buy a gun, as far as I know you must be a VA resident, even in a private sale. It's stupid to think that gun ownership declining by attrition will have any affect for 10 generations to come. The problem is NOT legal gun ownership. Punish the criminals hard enough so the next guy will re-think his use of a gun in a crime BAN plea bargaining in any gun crime. and allow law abiding citizens to CARRY. If you're a criminal thinking about robbing me or jacking my car, you will think twice about it if theirs a good chance I'm carrying.
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Mar 12, 2013 17:03:32 GMT -4
Loudness, with all due respect you talk like so many anti-gun thinkers who really do not understand the current law.
As Deputy noted above, a MD resident cannot go to VA, or Delaware, or Pennsylvania and buy a regulated firearm. You can only buy a regulated firearm in MD as a resident of MD. And then, you have to fill out a bunch of forms, pay for a Maryland State Police background check, submit to a National Information Criminal System check with the FBI, and wait a minimum of seven days to pick up the regulated firearm. And then you are limited to only one firearm purchase a month in MD. And, you have to attend a Certified Firearms Safety Course, and carry your certification card on your person while in possession of the regulated firearm, and manufacturers of regulated firearms that plan to sell in MD MUST deliver the firearm with at minimum of two safety devices one of which must be integrated into the firearm, and then after you jump through all of MD's hoops, many of which are in direct violation of Second Amendment rights, you still cannot carry the firearm on your person without a permit that the average citizen cannot get approval for.
And, in addition to Maryland's ridiculous anti-gun mentality there are over 20,000 laws on the books in the United States that regulate the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms.. How many of those laws do you think the criminal element cares about?
Now, would you like to explain to me what an assault weapon is? Virtually nobody I have ever talked to, including politicians who are anti-gun can explain what an assault weapon is..
:/
|
|
|
Post by georgej202 on Mar 12, 2013 18:20:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Mar 12, 2013 22:10:59 GMT -4
ROBBER CONFRONTS 81-YEAR-OLD MAN AND DEMANDS ‘EVERYTHING YOU GOT’ — TURNS OUT, WHAT HE HAD WAS A .38-CALIBER REVOLVER. As he was driving home on Sunday night, 81-year-old Florida resident James Stevens said he knew something was amiss after he realized a 2010 Kia had been following him for about 20 minutes. Stevens wasn’t about to lead the man tailing him to his Ocala, Fla. home, so he pulled over in a field. Sure enough, the Kia also stopped. In retrospect, the suspected robber would tell you he should’ve just kept on driving. The quick-thinking 81-year-old then retrieved his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and got out of his truck, according to Marion County Sheriff’s Office reports. Stevens told investigators that the driver of the Kia — later identified as Lonnie Lorenza Hollingsworth Jr., 28 — got out of the vehicle, approached him and demanded “everything you got,” reports state. “I didn’t want to shoot him, but I had to. I shot him,” Stevens told deputies. www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/robber-confronts-81-year-old-man-and-demands-everything-you-got-turns-out-what-he-had-was-a-38-caliber-revolver/
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Mar 26, 2013 13:55:20 GMT -4
Unfortunately, no matter what manner of gun controls laws are passed, the "law abiding" citizen is being punished when a criminal couldn't care less about gun control and will get the weapons they want regardless of the laws. It is a people thing and no manner of laws can control human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 26, 2013 14:07:03 GMT -4
Unfortunately, no matter what manner of gun controls laws are passed, the "law abiding" citizen is being punished when a criminal couldn't care less about gun control and will get the weapons they want regardless of the laws. It is a people thing and no manner of laws can control human nature. Exactly! This is what the anti-gun folks don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 31, 2013 7:44:06 GMT -4
More proof that we law abiding citizens of MD are doomed.
If the vote doesn't go their way- NO PROBLEM. go beat up on some legislators and call for an illegal revote.
YOUR lawmakers in action
|
|
|
Post by cranky64 on Mar 31, 2013 10:43:18 GMT -4
I'm ashamed to call Maryland my home.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 31, 2013 11:06:13 GMT -4
As if we didn't already know we were ruled by idiots, voted in by even more idiots?
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Apr 1, 2013 15:23:15 GMT -4
As if we didn't already know we were ruled by idiots, voted in by even more idiots? and also surrounded by them.
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Apr 2, 2013 12:19:57 GMT -4
lib·er·al /ˈlib(ə)rəl/ Adjective Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. Noun A person of liberal views. Synonyms generous - bounteous - lavish - bountiful - free - Moron (Liberal editing performed by resident idiot) Actually the part about being open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values is fine with me as well as the generous part.. but somehow the Morons have twisted the definition into some deranged fanaticism about a Utopian fairyland..
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 2, 2013 12:29:48 GMT -4
They seem just as closed minded to opinions outside of their own as conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Apr 2, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -4
RobMoore, the "Utopia" in which everyone agrees on anything is a pipe dream. Even when something reeks of common sense, there is always a differing opinion, which is fine, that will not be swayed regardless of the evidence. As bluecrabber notes.. when you are set in your ways or thoughts, anything new is abhorrent and unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Apr 3, 2013 8:57:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by jetskibrat on Apr 3, 2013 18:53:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 4, 2013 20:09:34 GMT -4
Senates passes the gun bill.
Shameful
|
|
|
Post by topfish on Apr 5, 2013 9:08:15 GMT -4
Kudos to our Maryland Legislators on Gun Control! Thanks for standing strong! I am a gun owner, Vet., and embarrassed to say a NRA Member. The NRA was a great Organization a couple of decades ago but now the NRA Leadership are just shills for the Trillion Dollar Gun Manufacturing Industry (for the most part). I believe our Country is controlled by Special Interests and not to the benefit of the rest of the 98% of us. I formally believed that our Members of Congress were for the most part served for the good of all. Now I believe the vast majority of Members have sold their souls for re-election (taking money, selling out to Special Interests, etc.) It is depressing and I wish there was a way we could take the money and unfair influence out of Politics. Four States out of 50 have taken steps to do something about the insanity out of lack of gun common sense gun control. Through my past involvement as a Volunteer I have worked at over 100 Gun Shows (not just visiting but working the entire time that the doors were open to the public). I have witnessed dozens and dozens of people buy handguns and long arms with out any paper work or ID. If a Second Degree Murderer was released from prison after serving his time I could guide him to gun shows and he could load up his trunk with his choice of handguns and other firearms without even being asked for an ID. Now at least at Maryland, Connecticut, NY and Colorado gun shows this will not be likely to happen. Some dummy that is the head of Gun Owners of America was just on TV and said criminals will just buy guns on the Streets and background checks are useless. Through my many years of experience with guns I believe the first place a convicted felon would go to buy a handgun is a gun show. At gun shows there is a large selection of available guns that can be purchased without ID and the prices are competitive to the legal market. Criminals always will be able to buy illegal guns from other bad guys but I believe the vast majority are sold at gun shows. I assume bad guys selling guns charge a premium. If I could buy the same Glock for 50% less at a gun show rather then a bad guy the decision is a no brainier. The problem is when the Maryland background check is established at gun shows I could just go to Virginia or Pennsylvania to buy without any ID. There should be signage posted at Maryland gun shows predominately displayed that any gun transaction not properly transferred will be prosecuted and security personal attending the shows to help make sure the laws are upheld. I speak from decades of experience working at Gun Shows and have witnessed too many dubious transactions. The pols say around 90% of us are for Background Checks and with all my experience, I consider it to be only common sense. We must do something to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, felons, those on protective orders and certified mentally incompetent people. The Background Checks would help a great deal but there is nothing that is 100% reliable in helping with our serious problems.
|
|