[quote]"We don't want them on the streets, make no mistake about it," Kelly said, referring to AK-47s and AR-15s, such as the one used in the Newtown, Conn., elementary-school massacre. "But the problem is the handgun."
Handguns account for nearly all murders by firearm in New York City and state, data show. An analysis by the NYPD determined that assault weapons were used in just[B] three of the 1,400 instances of gunplay in the city last year.[/quote][/B]
Whole article: [url]http://www.policeone.com/police-administration/articles/6102431-NYPD-Commissioner-Real-enemy-is-illegal-handguns/[/url]
another snippit
[quote]"We support an assault-weapons ban. There is no reason anyone should have these military-style weapons," he said. "On the other hand, if you had to make a priority list, [B]that is low on priority list.
[/B]
"On the top of our list is universal background checks."
Enacting the related background checks, however, won't be easy, gun-control advocates warn.
"[B]Fixing loopholes in laws that the NRA spend three and four decades revising won't happen with one law,"[/B] said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Washington, DC-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.[/quote]
He's got a point about the illegal handguns, still wrong on the "spooky assault weapons" though.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;39398045]He's got a point about the illegal handguns, still wrong on the "spooky assault weapons" though.[/QUOTE]
At least he realizes that they're not the real problem here.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;39398148]At least he realizes that they're not the real problem here.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's kinda heartwarming to see that someone is making some logical sense of this issue.
Here we go, buckle up everybody. The next several pages are gonna be a bumpy ride.
All we need is somebody to say, "it sounds like the officer is encouraging cracking down on [I]all[/I] firearms, given that he also supports the AWB."
Its great that they're realizing that assault weapons aren't so much as a problem as handguns, but they really need to get to the core of the issue - mental health.
I mean, you really don't see permit-holding users with legally acquired guns going out and shooting up schools, it's the crazy psychotic people with illegal guns.
[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;39398197]Its great that they're realizing that assault weapons aren't so much as a problem as handguns, but they really need to get to the core of the issue - mental health.
I mean, you really don't see permit-holding users with legally acquired guns going out and shooting up schools, it's the crazy psychotic people with illegal guns.[/QUOTE]
A part of the real problem is that not all gun owners even legally need permits to get guns. Our gun culture is beyond fucked up, in some states you can get guns without a permit, without a background check. Right now 40% of guns are sold without background checks.
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39398189]Here we go, buckle up everybody. The next several pages are gonna be a bumpy ride.
All we need is somebody to say, "it sounds like the officer is encouraging cracking down on [I]all[/I] firearms, given that he also supports the AWB."[/QUOTE]
Oh, it's going to devolve into a circlejerk. It always does.
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;39398045]He's got a point about the illegal handguns, still wrong on the "spooky assault weapons" though.[/QUOTE]
He was quoted as saying that assault weapons (he was referring to the AR-15) are more lethal because they are "easier to hold handle and reload in mass-murder scenarios". It's an interesting point coming from someone with as much authority on the subject as the police commissioner of NY.
Issue at hand is really the projectile.
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;39398397]Issue at hand is really the projectile.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying the reason for car accidents is the non-premium gasoline.
I like this guy.
He's got his head screwed on right.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39398344]A part of the real problem is that not all gun owners even legally need permits to get guns. Our gun culture is beyond fucked up, in some states you can get guns without a permit, without a background check. Right now 40% of guns are sold without background checks.[/quote]
There's no such thing as a 'gun permit'. Background checks are only not required through private sales. Your ignorance bleeds like a bad stain.
[quote]He was quoted as saying that assault weapons (he was referring to the AR-15) are more lethal because they are "easier to hold handle and reload in mass-murder scenarios". It's an interesting point coming from someone with as much authority on the subject as the police commissioner of NY.[/QUOTE]
Having a job vaguely related to firearms doesn't give you absolute authority on a subject. The use of "assault weapons" in crime is a complete and utter non-issue that's just been belated into an issue by people looking to push agendas with implications reaching far beyond a single class of inanimate object.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39398795]The real enemy is homicidal people.[/QUOTE]
the real enemy is mortality.
ban death
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39398795]The real enemy is homicidal people.[/QUOTE]
The real enemy is widespread poverty and an incredibly poor and hostile education system, both of which breed criminal tendencies and immense mental strain in an individual, but hey, that's hard to fix, right? I need something to put in my track record now, election season is only two years away!
[QUOTE=mastermaul;39398866]The real enemy is widespread poverty and an incredibly poor and hostile education system, both of which breed criminal tendencies and immense mental strain in an individual, but hey, that's hard to fix, right? I need something to put in my track record now, election season is only two years away![/QUOTE]
arent u the answer man
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39398189]Here we go, buckle up everybody. The next several pages are gonna be a bumpy ride.
All we need is somebody to say, "it sounds like the officer is encouraging cracking down on [I]all[/I] firearms, given that he also supports the AWB."[/QUOTE]
[img]http://puu.sh/1OPAQ[/img]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39398189]Here we go, buckle up everybody. The next several pages are gonna be a bumpy ride.
All we need is somebody to say, "it sounds like the officer is encouraging cracking down on [I]all[/I] firearms, given that he also supports the AWB."[/QUOTE]
I personally enjoy watching people argue over pointless topics.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;39398843]There's no such thing as a 'gun permit'. Background checks are only not required through private sales.[/QUOTE]
Exhibit A: one of the current problems with current firearms legislation
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39398189]Here we go, buckle up everybody. The next several pages are gonna be a bumpy ride.
All we need is somebody to say, "it sounds like the officer is encouraging cracking down on [I]all[/I] firearms, given that he also supports the AWB."[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with him (about banning ALL guns), but I'm glad he actually knows what he's talking about.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39399087]Exhibit A: one of the current problems with current firearms legislation[/QUOTE]
It's certainly a travesty that we don't only let certain people who meet exacting arbitrary requirements exercise their constitutional rights. If you'll excuse me, I have to renew my free speech waiver and unreasonable search exemption.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;39399158]It's certainly a travesty that we don't only let certain people who meet exacting arbitrary requirements exercise their constitutional rights. If you'll excuse me, I have to renew my free speech waiver and unreasonable search exemption.[/QUOTE]
1) The actual wording of the constitution is ambiguous and does not directly guarantee citizens the right to weaponry. That right comes from legislation and judicial precedent. That can change easily, at least compared to calling a constitutional convention.
2) So do you disagree that, as part of the government's role in protecting the people, it has an interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of people with a history of violent crime or mental illness and are thus likely to harm themselves or others (remember, most deaths from gun violence are suicide!)?
3) FYI, your right to free speech is limited. Certain sensitive information (I.e. stuff that can endanger others) is illegal to say.
Besides, it's not like you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun, just that it'd take a bit longer so that people could make sure you aren't a felon or someone else likely to put a bullet in a body (and presumably attempt to keep track of the weapon better than we do in case it is used in a crime).
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;39399353]1) The actual wording of the constitution is ambiguous and does not directly guarantee citizens the right to weaponry. That right comes from legislation and judicial precedent. That can change easily, at least compared to calling a constitutional convention.[/quote]
That's not how Supreme Court decisions work. It's not the normal cat and mouse game of politics where the status quo can be changed every time someone new takes office. Supreme Court decisions are decisions. [url=http://www.nakedvillainy.com/images/2ndamenddiagrammed.gif]Grammatically, the wording of the Second Amendment isn't ambiguous at all.[/url]
[quote]2) So do you disagree that, as part of the government's role in protecting the people, it has an interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of people with a history of violent crime or mental illness and are thus likely to harm themselves or others (remember, most deaths from gun violence are suicide!)?[/quote]
Standardized background checks already do this. The requirement of [I]explicit permission[/I] to exercise an [I]individual right[/I] criminalizes everyone.
Even then I think it's a bit of a fallacy that when the government is tasked with rehabilitating and reintegrating a convict, and then releases said person back into the public on the grounds that they have been rehabilitated and are suitable for reintegration, they still treat said person as though they have not been rehabilitated (and thus as though did not perform their duty) and then strip them of constitutional rights with no chance of reprisal.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39399609]Are you really claiming that the 2nd amendment, called the right to bear arms, that has a line specifically stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not explicitly state that we protected from infringement of our right to keep and or bear arms?[/QUOTE]
They aren't infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. You have two arms on your body when you are born, and there is nothing that has been introduced in this legislation that limits that.
It is implied that the arms they won't be infringing upon are weapons, but no where does it explicitly state such a thing.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39399609]Are you really claiming that the 2nd amendment, called the right to bear arms, that has a line specifically stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not explicitly state that we protected from infringement of our right to keep and or bear arms?[/QUOTE]
Well, you can still wield a sword, that would technically count as 'bearing arms' :v:
[QUOTE=valkery;39399803]They aren't infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. You have two arms on your body when you are born, and there is nothing that has been introduced in this legislation that limits that.
It is implied that the arms they won't be infringing upon are weapons, but no where does it explicitly state such a thing.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? The only person who would take that as vague is either purposely being ignorant or the biggest idiot in the village.
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;39399935]Are you kidding me? The only person who would take that as vague is either purposely being ignorant or the biggest idiot in the village.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen our politicians?
oh boy here we go
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;39399935]Are you kidding me? The only person who would take that as vague is either purposely being ignorant or the biggest idiot in the village.[/QUOTE]
When your constitution was written swords were still in wide use.
It's only 200 years out of date. Even the English language has changed significantly since your constitution was written.
[QUOTE=-Flapadar;39400034]When your constitution was written swords were still in wide use.
It's only 200 years out of date. Even the English language has changed significantly since your constitution was written.[/QUOTE]
The English language can change within a year. YOLO is an example of a new word that got introduced not that long ago.
Ten years ago you'd probably be saying something like dude and man with the end of every sentence, trying hard to be a skater.
Swords were only used by cavalry and people that didn't have guns then, like some Asian countries.
tbh, handguns are much more practical to a criminal.
A sporting rifle or anything else would probably be used in a bank heist or organized crime.
Lol, so if the hand gun is illegal, how would they know if the person had purchased it or even have it..?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
