DC Liberal Democrat Handgun Ban could go away!!

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Here's hoping...
What I don't get though is how some of the lefties in this article can still claim that it the ban on handguns is a good thing. I mean DC leads the nation in gun control and gun homicides, I don't see how much more blatant you can get in seeing that the ban is not working and is making it much more dangerous.


"The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1J9K80&show_article=1
 
TheDanold said:
Here's hoping...
What I don't get though is how some of the lefties in this article can still claim that it the ban on handguns is a good thing. I mean DC leads the nation in gun control and gun homicides, I don't see how much more blatant you can get in seeing that the ban is not working and is making it much more dangerous.


"The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1J9K80&show_article=1
Click to expand...

Dano - Your problem is that you attribute causal connections between things that at best are merely correlated. Additionally, you have no idea what Washington D.C. *would* be like without a handgun ban yet you automatically conclude that it would be *better*.

The statistics show that D.C. followed pretty much national trends with respect to crime rates and nothing remarkable about the period before the ban compared to after the ban as compared to national stats.
 
Dungheap said:
Dano - Your problem is that you attribute causal connections between things that at best are merely correlated. Additionally, you have no idea what Washington D.C. *would* be like without a handgun ban yet you automatically conclude that it would be *better*.

The statistics show that D.C. followed pretty much national trends with respect to crime rates and nothing remarkable about the period before the ban compared to after the ban as compared to national stats.
Click to expand...
It's not just DC. Most Liberal Democrat run inner cities that have very low gun ownership, have very high gun crime rates. And contrarywise, the Conservative countryside has the highest amount of guns owned per capita and the lowest gun crime rate.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Lott for very detailed stats showing the correlation.
 
Not all liberals are anti gun Dano. If you read Lawrence Tribe, probably one of the greatest Con Law Scholars never to be a Supreme Court Justice, you will see that Tribe challenges gun fraidy cats to tell him the difference between the "people" in the fourth and the Second amendements. There is also a really good article that I am trying to find by a Ph.D in English who dissects the Second Amendment and shows that the "well regulated" section of the amendment is independent of and has no controlling function of the "keep and bear arms" section. The other thing he pointed out was that the framers did not create the right in the Amendment but say that because a well regulated militia is also a good thing, the PRE-EXISTENT right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So even prior to the recognition of the need for a militia, there was a right to keep and bear arms. Further, there is a right at Common Law to self defense.
 
TheDanold said:
It's not just DC. Most Liberal Democrat run inner cities that have very low gun ownership, have very high gun crime rates. And contrarywise, the Conservative countryside has the highest amount of guns owned per capita and the lowest gun crime rate.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Lott for very detailed stats showing the correlation.
Click to expand...


You have shown, at best, a correlation, not causation. I'm not going to argue this point with you because you are unable to grasp the difference.

Further, I haven't seen good statistics on gun crime data per capita for urban and rural areas to even give you credit for noticing a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates.
 
Dungheap said:
You have shown, at best, a correlation, not causation. I'm not going to argue this point with you because you are unable to grasp the difference.

Further, I haven't seen good statistics on gun crime data per capita for urban and rural areas to even give you credit for noticing a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates.
Click to expand...

Dano seems to find ridiculous Urban to Rural comparisons to be top notch, and completely dismisses any international statistics as hogwash (After all, in America, it's the blacks that cause our problems, and other nations don't have blacks). Whenever you show him statistics of liberal rural smaller crime rates like conservative urban areas having crime rates like liberal urban areas, he goes into his room and cries.
 
Watermark said:
Dano seems to find ridiculous Urban to Rural comparisons to be top notch, and completely dismisses any international statistics as hogwash (After all, in America, it's the blacks that cause our problems, and other nations don't have blacks). Whenever you show him statistics of liberal rural smaller crime rates like conservative urban areas having crime rates like liberal urban areas, he goes into his room and cries.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. You have never presented such statistics and neither has anyone else. Even if you did, the differences are not as stark and you know it.

And of course I view stats more the way you mentioned above. What makes more sense? To view stats that are more macro across countries with far more different variables or to view them WITHIN countries where the data is more micro and less variables to obscure it?
You can view the same thing in any country, gun crime higher in Canada in Toronto and Vancouver where there are the least amount of guns owned per capita there. Or in Britain in Birmingham and London where again there are the least amount of guns owned per capita, whom by the way, saw their gun crime numbers soar after the confiscation and ban of handguns after the Dunblaine incident.
"Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html


BEYOND stats, my argument makes sense, criminals are not going to turn in their guns or stop buying guns because they are banned, they are criminals for fucks sakes. It is only ordinary law-abiding citizens who will do that. You are countering basic human nature here.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
 
A dog is a better deterrent to home break-ins than a gun .. ask Richard Ramirez.

Americans are goofy people .. sitting around locked and loaded waiting for the british to come.

gun-love :shock:
 
blackascoal said:
A dog is a better deterrent to home break-ins than a gun .. ask Richard Ramirez.

Americans are goofy people .. sitting around locked and loaded waiting for the british to come.

gun-love :shock:
Click to expand...

Oh, we'll be back one day, just when you least expect it.

Only this time i can't see many people raising too many objections when we burn down the Whitehouse.
 
charver said:
Oh, we'll be back one day, just when you least expect it.

Only this time i can't see many
people raising too many objections when we burn down the Whitehouse.
Click to expand...

Don't come back if you bring someone like your last PM. bush / Blair whatsa diff ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top