Another NYC gun arrest thread...

It's certainly a factor in why drug dealers kill other drug dealers.

No, I asked if any of you have a theory as to why so many Americans kill other Americans.

IIRC, there are just as many guns-per-person in Canada, and a fraction of the murder-using-an-inanimate-object-that-fires-projectiles-at-high-speed compared to the U.S.

Is the illegal drug market in Canada proportionately smaller? I doubt it. Take drug dealers out of the demographics, and tell me why you think people shoot each other.

ETA: No rush. I'm seldom here in the evenings.

I'm pretty sure you just embarrassed yourself with that nonsense.

I figured that counted as murder.

I tend not to believe that it has anything to do with the availability of guns, which I didn't realise until now that you apparently agree with. I figure it's a combination of reasons. However, I do think ending the war on drugs would result in a decrease in violent crime, whereas gun restrictions would not. I think the latter is obvious when you consider the fact that as gun laws have relaxed, the crime rate has dropped. I'm not suggesting causation, but it is what it is.

Ultimately however, I'm less concerned about why America is so violent than the fact that it is so violent.

Couldn't that same argument be used against the global warming types? Or like, against anyone. Kinda makes that argument pointless, really.

We also really like porn and driving while intoxicated.

One more crack at interpreting the 2nd in modern language (based on my reading of more learned peoples' take on 18th century parlance) :

"In case the citizenry need to defend the state [or themselves], no one shall be denied the right to own and bear firearms."

***

The "overly expensive ammo" idea has been bandied about for about 30 years, so no one is being clever by bringing it up here. The idea that it'll keep thieves and murderers from getting ammo is pretty insane. But it WOULD kill evil target shooting by non-criminals, so paper will be safe.

Except box cutters.

All of the states have their rights...or should. However, in this case, New York's gun laws violate 2 provisions, the 2nd Amendment and Article IV, Section I, of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

What gives New York the right to violate the Constitution?

We'll have to pass that question on to Mayor Bloomberg - if he isn't unavailable due to running a family gun store sting operation in a small town in Kansas, that is.

Mayor Bloomberg needs to be taxed into poverty, from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Of course. But take them out of the equation and what do you have? The majority are acquaintance murder.

We're in agreement on ending the "War on Drugs." As for whether or not crime rates have dropped, that's a far more complicated issue, IMO. It varies by region, and by how crimes are categorized. (NYC, for example, has been fiddling the COMPSTAT categories since the Giuliani administration.)

The way I see it, figure out the underlying reasons, and you've got a handle on solving the problem.

I figure in a lot of drug violence the perps know each other too. What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that the majority of gun violence is domestic violence or something?

Okay. So contrary to statistics, are you suggesting that crime rates have actually gone up? because even if the rates have been stagnant, my point still pretty much stands.

That's all well and good, but I don't see how understanding the underlying reasons will help you all that much if you've got someone threatening to kill you for your wallet.

It was a Goody Powder!

Here's how "gun crime" is playing out in my town:
most gun murders are committed by suspects who know the victims, be it family members, fellow thugs, etc.

Most gun crimes that don't end in fatalities are robberies. For example clerk shoots at a robber but misses or wounds them, robbers demand money at gunpoint but doesn't have to actually shoot their gun, etc. Drive-by shooting where people and property are shot up but not fatally, etc.

BTW only 27 murders this year, down from 37 last year!

That would be wonderful. I just got a little thrill thinking of him stepping down in shame. But he'd never do that, because he has none.

Sounds like she's saying "If we ignore part of the statistics that bear on the overall situation, and just leave the statistics that support my point, I'll sound like I have a point."

G, you fail on so many levels here.

1) In Constitutional terms, the "militia" is pretty much every able-bodied male in a certain age range--the whole selective service registration thang. In other words if the SHTF then send out for everyone to serve their commitment.

2) As has been pointed out, the two parts aren't directly linked. The wording isn't "You have to be in an organized military unit to be allowed to have a gun." It is "We need people who know how to shoot so that if we need to come up with a bunch of soldiers on short notice, we don't have to spend as much time on training."

History is replete with country boys who put on a uniform and served our country. Sgt York. Carlos Hathcock. I'm pretty sure Audie Murphy, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. They can teach 99% of people how to shoot well enough to qualify every year, but the people who save the day and get the Medal of Honor are the farm kids who hunted duck to put food on the table.

What part of "...the right to...bear arms shall not be infringed." is confusing you?

It pretty much says you DON'T "have to follow certain guidlines" and you DO have the "right to CARRY them."

Now go stand in the corner, dumbass.

He's one of those guys who will twist things to say what he wants.

Do you dare mention that the intentions of the Framers in this regard are pretty clearly defined in The Federalist Papers?

Because we as a nation are impatient, uncultured, spoiled, hot tempered, and just in general not known to follow rules/laws or respect authority in any form. Just my opinion.