Horrible Article on 2nd and Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
More liberal wrist-wringing from the gunbanners. This is to be expected. It would be a horrible thing in their world if the court said the 2A meant what the founders intended.


*!SIGH!*
 
Dear Shirley,

As I'm sure you are aware - and yet conveniently fail to mention - it is criminals that use guns in violent crimes. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does nothing to dissuade criminals from getting guns, it only removes the ability of the population to defend itself. How is it that DC was the murder capitol of the USA for so long even with a handgun ban in place? Oh yes, it's because criminals are considered criminals because they ignore the law. Murder is already against the law, yet year after year thousands of criminals ignore that law and commit it anyway. What makes you think taking a right from a law abiding citizen makes them safer?

You know it doesn't, yet like all politicians you don't want to be mistaken for doing nothing, so you try to do the wrong thing just to say you did something. It's akin to burying your head in the sand, and it helps even less than that. Instead of addressing the outcome, our leaders should be addressing the underlying problems. Until that is done, you can ban all guns, knives, and anything you think might be used for a weapon, and it won't do you any good at all.
 
I can't stand how the article's information is distorted.

Statement: ultra-compact pistols are not for sale in Oakland California

Fact: they are not for sale anywhere in California unless your an LEO. They have not reduced crime in Oakland nor other "bad" areas while seeing no decrease in "good" areas either aside from the national trend. This tells me that the ban had no effect, "bad" people kept being bad and "good" people where good regardless of the law.



Statement: Washington D.C. has lowered suicide rate since enacting the handgun ban.

Fact: Washington D.C. has historically had a very high violent crime rate and has climbed higher after the handgun ban was enacted over thirty years ago. While less suicide candidates choose a gun due to availability they have just as many suicides just using different methods. Wonder how many people kill themseles in Wyoming by jumping off 100 storie skyscrapers as they do in NY. The answer would be none but that does'nt mean getting rid of skyscapers solves anything.



Statement: reduced crime in NYC since handgun ownership was curtailed.


Fact: Handgun ownership was curtailed in 1960's in NYC and roughly twenty years later there was a murder rate increase due to the crack epidemic. The ban was in place yet the numbers of killed soared due to other variables. The crime rate now is very low due to tougher police procedures , use of comstat to monitor activities and the enactment of the "broken windows policy". After the Amidu Diallo shooting the unit responsible for cleaning up the gangs and guns was disbanded and since then it has been steadily rising again.
 
Cities will pay a heavy price if handgun ban is overturned


By Shirley Franklin
For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/23/08

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on
whether Washington, D.C.'s decades-old handgun ban is constitutional.

It's been nearly 70 years since the high court has heard a firearms case
that tests the scope of the Second Amendment. The outcome of this one, D.C. v.
Heller, will have extraordinary implications —- not just for the District, but
for the ability of cities to respond effectively to gun violence.

If
more evidence is needed that the stakes could not be higher, a steady drumbeat
of headlines is supplying it. In the first few days of March alone, just before
the justices heard oral argument in the case, three kids were killed and five
more wounded in Chicago. And in West Palm Beach, Fla., a gunman killed an
off-duty firefighter and wounded five others before turning his gun on himself.

Elected officials and law enforcement in those areas have a lot riding
on the court's decision. The case stems from a lower-court ruling that D.C.'s
ban violated the Constitution. Breaking with decades of Supreme Court precedent
and hundreds of lower-court decisions, a federal appeals court held for the
first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms
not related to service in a "well-regulated militia."

If the justices
agree with the lower court's ruling, cities and states throughout the country
may face challenge after challenge to the constitutionality of firearm
regulations enacted to protect the public and prosecute criminals. And city
attorneys may find themselves spending as much time fighting lawsuits as they do
fighting crime.

Those resource-draining challenges would come at an
inconvenient time. Gun violence is a national crisis, but one that
disproportionately affects those of us who live in urban areas. According to the
U.S. Department of Justice, more than 340,000 homicides were committed in large
American cities between 1976 and 2005. About 64 percent of those homicides
involved firearms.

Very often, it's our first responders who pay the
harshest price. In the decades between 1976 and 2006, more than 2,251 law
enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty —- more them 90 percent of
them by firearms.

The problems are obvious —- and they do have
solutions, some of which are already being implemented around the nation. A
decision from on high that limited our authority to craft local solutions would
be yet another tragedy. Different gun laws make sense in different areas.
Community leaders are plainly in the best position to determine the policies
needed to curb the crime, fear and disorder that gun violence creates in each
city —- not a special interest lobby and gun industry more concerned about
dollars than lives.

It's the nation's mayors who get the call from
police when a shooting occurs. It's the local leaders who comfort the families
of gunshot victims, who walk with police and residents on the neighborhood beat,
who meet with block watch groups and who grapple with the demanding budget
ramifications of violent crime. For those very reasons, policies affecting guns
and community safety historically have been —- and should be —- made at the
local level.

And when communities have the authority to enact
regulations that respond to local needs, they're often aggressive and
successful. New York City has experienced a dramatic decline in crimes involving
firearms after tailoring creative local regulation to curb gun violence. The
city of Oakland, Calif., prohibits firearms dealers from selling ultra-compact
(and easily concealable) handguns. Washington, D.C.'s handgun restrictions have
led to one of the lowest suicide rates in the nation. And Chicago, like the
District, bans the possession of handguns.

For the sake and the safety
of all Americans, let's hope the Supreme Court will allow local leaders and law
enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs.

> Shirley Franklin
is mayor of Atlanta. Contributing to this column were: Tom Barrett, mayor of
Milwaukee; Manuel A. Diaz, mayor of Miami; Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco;
Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle; and Douglas H. Palmer, mayor of Trenton, N.J.
 
"Blood will be running in the streets if the court doesn't strip us of our right to keep and bear arms!"

Not again! I hate it when that happens. I always get ugly stains on my cuffs! :rolleyes:
 
The problems are obvious —- and they do have
solutions, some of which are already being implemented around the nation. A
decision from on high that limited our authority to craft local solutions would
be yet another tragedy. Different gun laws make sense in different areas.
Community leaders are plainly in the best position to determine the policies
needed to curb the crime, fear and disorder that gun violence creates in each
city —- not a special interest lobby and gun industry more concerned about
dollars than lives.

So very many truth twists in that one paragraph.
Yes, the problems are obvious.
Yes, you are ignoring the real problems and making up solutions to issues that don't exist.
Yes, protecting our Constitutionally guaranteed rights is a "special interest". (Especially since those sworn to do so are the ones most likely to try to take them away...)
 
If more evidence is needed that the stakes could not be higher, a steady drumbeat of headlines is supplying it. In the first few days of March alone, just before the justices heard oral argument in the case, three kids were killed and five more wounded in Chicago.
That's great, except for the fact that Chicago already has some of the tightest gun laws in the country. :uhoh:
 
Why do governments piss and moan about suicide (with firearms)? what business is it of theirs if someone self terminates?

Is it the reduction in tax revenue from a former warm body that bothers them so much?

Im thinking Atlanta, Detroit, NYC, Chicago and Oakland need some of these:

suicide-booth.jpg

-T
 
... just before the justices heard oral argument in the case, three kids were killed and five more wounded in Chicago.
Interesting.

I wonder if he's aware he used a city where it's pretty much illegal to have a handgun as an example as to why bans are good.
 
To the liberals I ask:

How can, on one hand, you believe in a "patients right to die" and be "pro choice" but then on the other hand support gun control on some suicide concern??? Isn't that curtailing your right over your body and life to an unreasonable level. If the government says YOU HAVE TO LIVE, isn't that the ultimate form of tyranny?? Can't then they regulate everything, from property, to thoughts, to actions, et cetera?
 
Or the fact that Washington has a murder rate so hight that the city asked the Basketball team to change it's name from the "Bullets." - even though guns are prohibited and there should not be any bullets flying around.
 
Looks like Shirley had a lot of help in crafting this drivel from these usual suspects:

> Shirley Franklin
is mayor of Atlanta. Contributing to this column were: Tom Barrett, mayor of
Milwaukee; Manuel A. Diaz, mayor of Miami; Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco;
Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle; and Douglas H. Palmer, mayor of Trenton, N.J.
 
Folks this is ATLANTA. Once you cross the city limits into the twilight zone everything you know that is based on logic is invalid. Actually it read like one of the AJC editorials or a cut and paste from the Brady Bunch bucket of bull. Is Shirley too lazy to write her own fairy tale?
 
New York City has experienced a dramatic decline in crimes involving
firearms...

If a 20 year old with a baseball bat attacks 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair and grandma uses a gun to defend herself, that is also a "crime involving firearms". They want us to think the "dramatic decline" means criminals aren't using guns but just because "crimes involving firearms" are down doesn't necessarily mean that is a good thing.
90% of statistics are misleading 50% of the time.
 
New York City has experienced a dramatic decline in crimes involving
firearms...

But New York City is now experiencing a dramatic increase in crimes that DO NOT involve firearms, and these crimes are just as fatal in some cases. Just yesterday a tourist was stabbed twice in the head right in Times Square. The victim is in extremely critical condition at this moment. Motive is a possible robbery.
 
None of this surprises me. The Atlanta Urninal & Constipation is one of the far-left rags that has ever seen a printing press. Yet 1 more time the cry of 'blood running in the streets' coming from someone who just doesn't understand that more gun laws just give law-breakers more opportunity to do so.

As my signature states:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top