Maybe the folks in DC should figure out that part first, before presuming to dictate terms to the people of Wyoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
Printable View
Maybe the folks in DC should figure out that part first, before presuming to dictate terms to the people of Wyoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
Yeah, lutefisk has been known to drive the Swedes into a frenzy of mass killings. Can't say I blame them - having a swedish-american Dad I had my fair fare share of the vile stuff. Now swiss food. Um... snitzel, sauerkraut, und wurst? While it won't make you homicidial, it still may kill you :-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I agree that is the root issue. Using my Calif example for instance. Here's a state with a population the size of a large country, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet probably the highest number of gun-related deaths in the country. A state where it is a illegal (felony with prison time) to carry a loaded or even unloaded weapon - concealed or in the open - be it a handgun or long rifle. Where NO ONE except law enforcement wears a weapon out in the open and a person can only carry a concealed weapon legally if they have an almost impossible to get permit. Where there are very strict requirerments to buy or own a gun that require registering the gun, background checks, waiting times, safety classes, etc... Where all weapons - again handguns or long guns (rifles and shotguns) - must be transported unloaded in a locked case with the ammo in a different location. Yet we still have one of the highest rates of death and injury associated with firearms usage in the country. Why is that? Why don't all the restrictions, etc... reduce that? One word - criminals. Most deaths and injuries are associated with criminal activity and ILLEGAL firearms. And while there is a high sucicide rate by firearm amongst elderly men, the majority of gun inflicted injuries are done during a crime or due to criminal activity. Something that, IMHO, will not go down or away by limiting or ending legal gun ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldensmom
Murders only (not all gun deaths with include suicides, accidents, law enforcement related, etc...) for 2010: The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year.
From Wikipedia: "The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases. Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union.
Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.
California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns. The willingness of issuing authorities in California ranges from No-Issue in most urban areas to Shall-Issue in rural counties. However, concealed carry permits are valid statewide, regardless of where they were issued. California does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and non-residents are generally forbidden from obtaining a California concealed carry permit.
California has state preemption for many, but not all, firearms laws.
"When being transported, handguns must be unloaded and in a locked fully enclosed container other than the glove box or any console attached to the vehicle. The trunk of a car is considered to be a locked container but a glove box or "utility box" is specifically forbidden. If one believes he or she is within a "gun-free school zone" (area surrounding 1,000 feet from the edge of school grounds which teaches any grade from kindergarten to 12th grade) then the handgun must be locked in a fully enclosed container. Failure to lock up a handgun while in a school zone is a violation of federal and state law.
Long guns (rifles, shotguns) must be unloaded when transported in a vehicle. There is no requirement for a locked container with the exception of long guns considered to be "assault weapons". Federal law requires locking containers when inside of a "gun-free school zone." The constitutionality of the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act is in question due to the U.S. v. Lopez ruling.
Assault weapons, as defined by California law, must always be transported in locked containers and may only be transported under certain circumstance"
So if Wyoming was suddenly made tommorow to have Washington DCs gun laws and Washington DCs Wyomings gun laws and everything else was exactly as it is now you seriously want me to believe they would trade places in gun murders? Likely story (by which I mean it's not likely at all). As if such conjecture is even needed to suggest there might be many many things different between the two places besides just the gun laws. Wyoming is such an extreme example anyway, least populated state in the whole country, what next, it should now be the model for modern urban planning?
Well, maybe if you were interested in long-term sustainability of our species on this planet :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I think New York city has lowest per capita carbon use in the country. But if you mean population control so that there were only that many people anywhere maybe. Wyoming is probably theoretically ammenable to sustainability, but at present I'm not sure it beats the purest extreme of urbanism we've got.
The Gun Free School Zone reference in the post above is the perfect example of why we need rationale firearms laws and not political pandering to various causes. If I read it correctly (subject to a few exceptions) driving on the interestate within a 1000 feet of a school could subject someone to felony charges if they have a loaded firearm (or unlocked) and are otherwise complying with the law. That's an accidental felony for many.
Now you're just skipping over points willy-nilly ANM. Is that intentional? If WY and DC traded gun laws tomorrow would they trade places in gun murders PER CAPITA? That is the actual question since that is how the information is presented: it takes total populations out of the equation. I think that once things had a chance to settle out it is HIGHLY likely (by which I mean it is highly likely) that yes, there would be a very significant shift upward in WY gun violence, including murder, and a very significant shift downward in DC gun violence. One reason it would take DC a while to balance out is simply that there are so many people living there now that take illegally carrying and using a gun against other people for granted. Once there were enough stories of people who were actually able to defend their homes coming to light a good number of those predators would flee to somewhere else that had an abundance of easy pray. Like Wyoming. That's when they would trade places.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
To me the simple answer is because they're blooming idiots without a clue about half the stuff they're proposing and voting on. I live in a very rural area with no gunstores within 30 miles. I can drive 100+ miles to BassPro but it's highly doubtful they will have the ammo I shoot in shooting matches. My best choice is to order online. I've done it before and had it delivered in less than a week vs. going to the gunstore, telling him what I want, then waiting for him to get enough orders to justify shipping costs, plus waiting however long it takes to get it in from his distributor, then another trip to the gunstore to pick it up. They want to make things difficult on everyone else because of the actions of one madman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
Actually they work very hard to waste time - USPS is going to default this week from inaction from Congress. However the House found the time to pass 60 bills renaming Post Offices this term.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday