I figured Hawaii being an island would help. Its stupid to ban guns in a city where 10 miles away, you can purchase a handgun. An island, if all guns were taken away, I think you actually could reduce the number of guns in the hands of people, criminals and non criminals alike. I know crime has gone up in both the UK and Australia after the gun ban went into effect. If you read what I wrote previously, I said I think that a gun ban would actually reduce GUN related crimes. I did not infer that crime itself would go down. However, whatever Honolulu seems to be doing seems to be working.hillbilly said:
Boston Globe insults NH and Vermont
- Thread starter Manedwolf
- Start date
- Status
Waitone
Member
Mass bellyaches about VT and NH supplying guns to Mass' criminal culture.
How 'bout NH and VT complaining about Mass diverting so many legal guns into illegal channels. Mass law are directly reponsible for sucking so many legal gun into the state to satisfy the artifically created demand for illegal guns. But then again, I argue from an economic standpoint. Something evidently rarely used in Mass.
How 'bout NH and VT complaining about Mass diverting so many legal guns into illegal channels. Mass law are directly reponsible for sucking so many legal gun into the state to satisfy the artifically created demand for illegal guns. But then again, I argue from an economic standpoint. Something evidently rarely used in Mass.
Devonai
Member
So do you want me to go back?
Peet
Member
And there is a simple way to bring Boston (home of the liberal politicians) to its knees without ever going east of Worchester county.Chipperman said:
I resent that! The sentence should have been "I appreciate that very much, considering that the good people of eastern MA elected John Kerry." Believe me, the further west you go, the redder .ma gets - and we resent hell out of Boston and its satellite socialist republics.shaldag said:
Just call me Grumpy...
I'm not sure...
how one could define "working".... "However, whatever Honolulu seems to be doing seems to be working."
We have plenty of gun crime also, just spend a bit of time reading our daily papers at www.honoluluadvertiser.com or www.starbulletin.com. Some that stick in my mind: a shootout between rival gambling protection thugs in a golf course parking lot, a woman shot outside a nightclub by her TRO'd husband, a man shot sitting in his friends carport because the drug thugs had the wrong house they were attempting to steal drugs from, a man shot in his carport by a guy who owed him a gambling debt.
I used those recent crimes because it points out the biggest flaw in our gun scheme. In each of the instances cited if the victims would have had ready access to a handgun then the outcome could have been far different. We make it so difficult to acquire a handgun here that many regular citizens won't go through all the hoops to do so.
A total ban would not work and we have real world examples here to prove it. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth-amphetamine have all been totally banned here for decades yet all seem to be readily available to those not concerned about committing a crime. Do you really think a total gun ban would be any different?
Just reducing "gun" violence is meaningless. The only meaningful measure of if something is working is if all successful violence (the thug succeeds in committing the violence) against all us "normal, law-abiding" folks is reduced. You're just as dead from a fatal knife wound, stragulation, or beating as you are from a fatal gunshot. What is working here is that the thugs and idiots are assured that their victims on the street will be either unarmed or armed only at the spice and dice level.
migoi
how one could define "working".... "However, whatever Honolulu seems to be doing seems to be working."
We have plenty of gun crime also, just spend a bit of time reading our daily papers at www.honoluluadvertiser.com or www.starbulletin.com. Some that stick in my mind: a shootout between rival gambling protection thugs in a golf course parking lot, a woman shot outside a nightclub by her TRO'd husband, a man shot sitting in his friends carport because the drug thugs had the wrong house they were attempting to steal drugs from, a man shot in his carport by a guy who owed him a gambling debt.
I used those recent crimes because it points out the biggest flaw in our gun scheme. In each of the instances cited if the victims would have had ready access to a handgun then the outcome could have been far different. We make it so difficult to acquire a handgun here that many regular citizens won't go through all the hoops to do so.
A total ban would not work and we have real world examples here to prove it. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth-amphetamine have all been totally banned here for decades yet all seem to be readily available to those not concerned about committing a crime. Do you really think a total gun ban would be any different?
Just reducing "gun" violence is meaningless. The only meaningful measure of if something is working is if all successful violence (the thug succeeds in committing the violence) against all us "normal, law-abiding" folks is reduced. You're just as dead from a fatal knife wound, stragulation, or beating as you are from a fatal gunshot. What is working here is that the thugs and idiots are assured that their victims on the street will be either unarmed or armed only at the spice and dice level.
migoi
Last edited:
Chipperman
Member
"I appreciate that very much, considering that the good people of MA elected John Kerry."
...and the good people of Vermont elected Howard Dean.
Should we hold that against them?
...and the good people of Vermont elected Howard Dean.
Should we hold that against them?
Manedwolf
member
jkswiss said:
Yes, it's an island. Therefore there's some resources that need to be imported, as well as finished consumer goods.
Those come in on ships, some from third-world countries, and if there's a demand, there will always be smugglers. There will always be knockoffs of knockoffs of some kind of guns hidden under the produce or in the lawn statues from some tinpot nation.
Bottom line, you cannot keep criminals from getting illegal guns. But you CAN punish them more severely if they're caught with them, or use them. And keeping legal guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens doesn't accomplish either goal. It just makes more victims.
atek3
Member
my email
In your article Live free and die, November 30, 2005
You make the claim that:
Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but the streets of Boston haven't felt this dangerous in years. Increasingly, say police, guns are coming from Northern New England, where the gun laws are weaker.
You seem to think that tough gun laws will reduce gun crime, the picture is much more complicated. Any noncriminal in Vermont can carry a loaded handgun open or concealed without a license or permit. Any resident of New Hampshire can buy hand guns and "assault rifles" for little more than the time it takes to fill out a form 4473. But if this "gun craziness" really caused crime, wouldn't those states have higher murder rates than massachusetts...
2000 Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants:
massachusetts 2.0 murders per 100,000
New Hampshire 1.8 murders per 100,000
Vermont 1.5 murders per 100,000
In your article Live free and die, November 30, 2005
You make the claim that:
Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but the streets of Boston haven't felt this dangerous in years. Increasingly, say police, guns are coming from Northern New England, where the gun laws are weaker.
You seem to think that tough gun laws will reduce gun crime, the picture is much more complicated. Any noncriminal in Vermont can carry a loaded handgun open or concealed without a license or permit. Any resident of New Hampshire can buy hand guns and "assault rifles" for little more than the time it takes to fill out a form 4473. But if this "gun craziness" really caused crime, wouldn't those states have higher murder rates than massachusetts...
2000 Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants:
massachusetts 2.0 murders per 100,000
New Hampshire 1.8 murders per 100,000
Vermont 1.5 murders per 100,000
Igloodude
Member
Chipperman said:
Indeed. And both Vermont (59/39) and New Hampshire (50/49) went for Kerry over Bush in 2004.
But that aside, I wonder why this "blame NH/VT/ME for MA's crime woes" is seemingly showing up everywhere? Could the anti-gun crowd actually be targeting the better half of New England for more gun control?
cbsbyte
Member
Peet said:
Nope, most of Mass is Blue. At one time many western counties where mixed but they all of realigned to become pure Democrat. Not one town in Berkshire county voted Republican. Hampden county is the only county that is red.
http://minerva.dce.harvard.edu/~dheitmey/svg_map/about.html
Partisan Ranger
Member
I'm accustomed to getting the blame for other jurisdictions' violent crimes -- here in Virginia, we are accused of driving up DC's gun crime rate due to our 'weak gun laws."
Let me see if I have this right: DC is full of criminals who misuse guns, and law-abiding VIRGINIANS should pay the price and have our rights restricted? For what criminals do outside our state?????
Our relative easy access to guns in VA doesn't cause us much problem in terms of violent crime. We're far below MD's and DC's homicide rate. Seems to me the problem lies with certain residents of DC, not with VA gun laws.
Let me see if I have this right: DC is full of criminals who misuse guns, and law-abiding VIRGINIANS should pay the price and have our rights restricted? For what criminals do outside our state?????
Our relative easy access to guns in VA doesn't cause us much problem in terms of violent crime. We're far below MD's and DC's homicide rate. Seems to me the problem lies with certain residents of DC, not with VA gun laws.
I am a resident of MA, on the way to NH. If I put down what I really think about Boston Blob, I will surely violate every rule of this forum.
This is one of the lowest, scummiest piece of dirty filthy rag from deserted public toilet in Bagdad. Boston Blob is not even good for wiping one's behind on a hunting trip. The filthy rag is almost out of byisness, having its circulation reduced by 30% in the last two years. Conservatism is well alive in MA, and it is growing. Just look at the polularity of conservative radio talk shows vs. filthy liberal ones.
This is one of the lowest, scummiest piece of dirty filthy rag from deserted public toilet in Bagdad. Boston Blob is not even good for wiping one's behind on a hunting trip. The filthy rag is almost out of byisness, having its circulation reduced by 30% in the last two years. Conservatism is well alive in MA, and it is growing. Just look at the polularity of conservative radio talk shows vs. filthy liberal ones.
benewton
Member
"SHOOTINGS in Boston are up 28 percent over last year, The Boston Globe reported last week. One culprit the Globe singled out: New Hampshire gun laws.
The paper noted that police have traced some guns to "New Hampshire and Vermont, where firearms laws are less strict and easy for criminals to manipulate."
Or, to put it another way, they have traced guns to New Hampshire and Vermont, where firearms laws are less strict and citizens have an easier time obtaining guns for self-defense. If our firearms laws are the cause of high gun crime, then why is most of the crime in Boston?
Boston mayor Thomas Menino professes to be angered by the guns coming into his city and wants to meet with regional and national officials to "stop the flow of guns across state borders," according to the Globe. That, of course, is impossible, but no doubt the mayor will try anyway. It beats taking responsibility for controlling crime in his own city.
We can sympathize with frustrated Boston residents whose neighborhoods are terrorized by criminals bringing danger from out of state. Why, right here in New Hampshire we are witnessing an explosion in crimes fueled by heroin addiction. Dominican gangs based in Massachusetts are the predominant suppliers of heroin to New Hampshire, according to federal officials. Where are the Bay State officials outraged about drug dealers crossing state borders?
In New Hampshire, we realize that citizens having ready access to guns is beneficial, as national data show that guns are used more often for defensive than offensive purposes. If Mayor Menino were to succeed in preventing guns from crossing state lines, he would effectively disarm many Massachusetts residents, thus making them more vulnerable to criminals. Just because a gun crossed a state line does not mean a criminal carried it over for criminal purposes.
If Boston leaders really want to reduce gun-related crimes in their city, we have a suggestion. Forget the guns; catch and lock up the criminals. The guns aren't going to go out on the streets and shoot by themselves.
Perhaps New Hampshire can help out, though. We could make a deal. We'll keep all our guns if Massachusetts keeps all its drug dealers."
(Manchester Union Leader editorial, 12/5/05)
I'd say that about covers it...
The paper noted that police have traced some guns to "New Hampshire and Vermont, where firearms laws are less strict and easy for criminals to manipulate."
Or, to put it another way, they have traced guns to New Hampshire and Vermont, where firearms laws are less strict and citizens have an easier time obtaining guns for self-defense. If our firearms laws are the cause of high gun crime, then why is most of the crime in Boston?
Boston mayor Thomas Menino professes to be angered by the guns coming into his city and wants to meet with regional and national officials to "stop the flow of guns across state borders," according to the Globe. That, of course, is impossible, but no doubt the mayor will try anyway. It beats taking responsibility for controlling crime in his own city.
We can sympathize with frustrated Boston residents whose neighborhoods are terrorized by criminals bringing danger from out of state. Why, right here in New Hampshire we are witnessing an explosion in crimes fueled by heroin addiction. Dominican gangs based in Massachusetts are the predominant suppliers of heroin to New Hampshire, according to federal officials. Where are the Bay State officials outraged about drug dealers crossing state borders?
In New Hampshire, we realize that citizens having ready access to guns is beneficial, as national data show that guns are used more often for defensive than offensive purposes. If Mayor Menino were to succeed in preventing guns from crossing state lines, he would effectively disarm many Massachusetts residents, thus making them more vulnerable to criminals. Just because a gun crossed a state line does not mean a criminal carried it over for criminal purposes.
If Boston leaders really want to reduce gun-related crimes in their city, we have a suggestion. Forget the guns; catch and lock up the criminals. The guns aren't going to go out on the streets and shoot by themselves.
Perhaps New Hampshire can help out, though. We could make a deal. We'll keep all our guns if Massachusetts keeps all its drug dealers."
(Manchester Union Leader editorial, 12/5/05)
I'd say that about covers it...
- Status
