Finally, a gun just right for the baby!

[Breukelen advocaat]

Why don't you tell my why we have under 1000 murders a year in New York State, with over 19 million people?

Arizona Crime Rates 1960 - 2006
2006 population of Arizona:
6,166,318
Number of murders: 465

New York Crime Rates 1960 - 2006
2006 population of New York State:
19,306,183
Number of murders: 921

New York State, with over thee times the population of Arizona, and stricter gun control, has significantly less murders, per capita, than Arizona.

[rebgirl420]

I'm curious as to why you feel this way. We're doing doing much better, in terms of crime rates, than most of the states where guns are less regulated. New York City is very safe these days. Basically, more guns equals more crime.

They bombed a recruitment center early this morning, but I doubt that citizens with guns would have been able to do much to prevent that.

I feel that way because I feel our second admendment rights are being stripped away. new York City isn't any safer. The fact that there is a gun ban makes evryone unsafer because the criminals (who still have guns btw) are able to pick out victims that are sure NOT to have guns. I don't know about you but i would rather take my chances robbing someone in NYC than say somehwere in Texas where theres a good chance I may get my head blown off my shoulders.

The gun laws only punish honest. hard working people from owning guns. NOT the tough criminials (the reason for the gun bans in the first damn place).

And if that bombing of the rescruiting center happened where people could have guns he/she may not have made it very far.

This site that I linked shows the stats for NYC and other places that have ennacted gun bans (like D.C., Australia, etc.) and the information shows that the violent crime rates are climbing right on back up.

Crime Statistics Page

NRA-ILA :: Articles

I also found a list of true and false gun control myths at Gun Control: Myths and Realities

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.




Gun control is a bunch of hoopla that the government uses so that it can strip your rights and you will have no way of protecting yourself. The founding fathers knew that the right to bear arms was VERY important. And that's true even to today.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I dont' need a gun. My friends don't own guns.

We have effective police protection. Crime in New York is very low, and has been for years. Why? Because we don't have guns.

The guns that come here illegally are usually from gun-friendly states like Arizona, where the murder rate is higher than New York. To add insult to injury, the gun-nuts tell us that we have to arm ourselves to protect our lives and property against gun-toting criminals that got their weapons in the first place from the communities where they reside!

These are the facts. New York is safe, and we're not going to run around packing heat like it's a frontier city, the Wild West, or a scene of urban decay and dangar - because it's not. If it gets like that, I'll reconsider my decision. For now, it's more dangerous to have a gun in NYC than not.

[ldg420]

i have always believed that guns don't kill people, people kill people. and trying to impose violations of second amendment rights is quite simply gives the criminal element an edge over the entire population. they already know the illegal methods of purchasing a gun which is far less regulated. if the gun restrictions were lifted or altered in a certain way it could quite possibly "level the playing field" amongst criminals and citizens alike.....:stoned:

[Rusty Trichome]

The guns that come here illegally are usually from gun-friendly states like Arizona, where the murder rate is higher than New York. To add insult to injury, the gun-nuts tell us that we have to arm ourselves to protect our lives and property against gun-toting criminals that got their weapons in the first place from the communities where they reside!

Gun nuts? We get these rights from the United States Constitution, not from 'gun-nuts'. However, on the other hand, I'm not at all willing to let 'anti gun-nuts' attempt to tell me I can no longer own the tools I use to protect my family.

These are the facts. New York is safe...

:S2: :S2: :S2:

Too funny. Some are not as fortunate as you to have such a fine police state..er..I mean such a fine police force. No matter how much 'anti gun-nuts' whine, I will keep my guns and my 2nd ammendment rights, thank you.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Gun nuts? We get these rights from the United States Constitution, not from 'gun-nuts'. However, on the other hand, I'm not at all willing to let 'anti gun-nuts' attempt to tell me I can no longer own the tools I use to protect my family.
:S2: :S2: :S2:

Too funny. Some are not as fortunate as you to have such a fine police state..er..I mean such a fine police force. No matter how much 'anti gun-nuts' whine, I will keep my guns and my 2nd ammendment rights, thank you.

I don't care if the people in other places want guns, what I object to is the ignorant assumption that New York needs them as well.

Not for nothing, but I grew up in a pretty tough environment, and we learned how to settle things without guns.


Punks from the suburbs and the sticks who couldn't hold their own against a bar rag make ME laugh.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Most gun-loving guys have serious issues with their masculinity. :thumbsup:

I guess if I lived in a remote, or dangerous area, I'd have a rifle too. But that's not New York, and we don't need them.

[Rusty Trichome]

Most gun-guys have serious issues with their masculinity. :thumbsup:

Proof?
Your logic is flawed. I treat my guns like I treat my grow. Not for public viewing. I'm actually more concerned with my family being safe, than I am about what others may think about my guns, which nobody but my wife and I have ever seen.

If you chose to not utilize your rights, that's fine by me. But are you one of the "let's not tap terrorists phone calls" guys? Tell ya what...you disregard the rights you wish to disregard. I'll do what I feel is right.

(So by your thinking, anti-gun guys have issues with their lack of masculinity, lol? :jointsmile

[Breukelen advocaat]

(So by your thinking, anti-gun guys have issues with their lack of masculinity, lol? :jointsmile

Gun guys have got plenty of it (masculinity). Maybe a little too much, if you catch my drift.

[Mississippi Steve]

Most gun-loving guys have serious issues with their masculinity. :thumbsup:

I guess if I lived in a remote, or dangerous area, I'd have a rifle too. But that's not New York, and we don't need them.

Gotta love it when you contradict your own statements....New York is not a dangerous area?? You gotta be smoking something other than weed. That little toy pistol is cute, but I like something I can get my hand around.

I for one, don't hunt, but I do enjoy collecting sporting arms and shooting them either in the woods, or at the range. It bothers me to see folks that can't handle the responsibility of ownership, that want to try and take others rights away from them. If you don't own any weapons, and have never fired one, then you really have no reason to even enter into the conversation unless its just to stir the pot.

I have attached a couple of pics... the lone target was done with a 30-06 at 200 yards, while the revolver was fired at its target at 50 yards. Proficiency and safety are the key words here. All weapons should be stored in a secure place, seperate from the amunition, they should be kept clean and in good working order. They should be taken out and fired at least once a quarter to maintain proficiency. If you own a weapon and never fire it, then all you have is an expensive club.