George Bush and law on guns in the USA?
826368
Quote: "Why do so many people still vote for him?"\n\nWell, Americans are like a flock of sheep, they all do what the other does.\nThey are just as dumb as well, because they still stick with this Potus even though they can see that he is fecking up their own and other countries as well.\nPlus they make all their decisions by television, if they see something or someone on the tele who says they will do something, they'll vote for him without even checking him out.\nLike Bush jr. \nIn my opinion they only voted him Potus just for the fact that he's a Bush.\nThey never even thought about what troubles he can start.\nLike these wars, Bush only started these because his daddy did that as well and he just had to show everybody that he can do it better than his old man.\nWell, take a good look again jr, you failed big time!\nAs for the freedom to have a gun, the biggest mistake they've ever made.\n\nNote: THIS IS ALL MY OWN OPINION.\nDon't burn me off for saying, please.
57371
Gun control is very strict.  I lived there for 17 years and never saw a gun for sale except in the hunting section of sporting goods stores.  Drive-by and random shootings are virtually unknown there.
908703
It isn't about rights as Americans it is about human rights. The answer is a resounding no. Our country is based on a rule of law and the president and his goons have found a way to circumvent it. This is for now, with the democrats in power we could see a return to law and order.
62581
Well, we can look back in history to see what such things were like.  I'll use the murder rate as the proxy for gun violence.\n\nPrior to 1968 there were no federal controls on most firearms (excepting full auto, suppressed, short barreled, etc).  They were advertised in comic books.  Kids could buy them in many states.  Most states had no background checks.  What was the violence rate?  We're just getting back down to the rates of the 1960s, and that was much higher than the 1950s.\n\nPrior to 1938, there were no federal restrictions on purchasing any firearms.  Even Sears sold full auto guns.  Crime peaked during Prohibition, never to go down to pre-Prohibition levels again.\n\nThis pattern is true in other countries, too.  Here's what a British "bobby" found out when he did some research:\n\n"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.  Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, _Firearms Control_, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243\n\n"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the 'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, "Shooting Back," Police Review, 10 November 1978 page 1668\n\nAmerica's foremost researcher on gun violence also feels about the same:\n\n"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found.  For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60).  In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1).  Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; PB;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, _Targeting Guns_, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1997)\n\nOthers have pointed out that the criminals are willing to break the law to further their criminal activities.  Increasing legal availability isn't going to increase the "illegal" availability very much, if any.
1005697
Thank you. And it was on the news tonight that Bush is being charged with violating the Geneva convention. Let's see what the people who support Bush have to say about that.
133608
Attorney General is American. Prior it's a military lawyer,.. no such thing in Europe just the town constable; walking the streets.
1051592
In my opinion, Americans have violated the priviledge of owning guns.  I know it is in the Constitution, but the world we live in is not 1776 and banning guns would only make the problem with guns worse.
553123
i know for a fact it is illegal in the us because i'm an american. go george bush
910399
Do you ever hear stories of the good ole days when every one had a gun? I do and there wasn't much law breaking cuz your neighbor would shoot you. ooooh the good ole days \nMy point is:: there wasn't much crime back in the day so to speak everyone looked out for there family and friends. I feel gun control is a disaster.
866310
True, The right to bear arms will get restricted pretty fast if you start pointing a gun at someone who isn't attacking you.  Hmm...guess no one told Bush that when he went into Iraq.
279423
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm\nCONCEALED CARRY\nFacts & Statistics\n \nToday, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.  \n\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) \n\nRight-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:  \n\n• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.  \n\n• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.  \n\n• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.  \n\n• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.  \n\n• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.  \n\n• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.  \n\n• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.  \n\n• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.  \n\n• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
1082235
I think you're a bit behind the times. Bush has signed into law a piece of legislation barring protests at military funerals.\n\nThe new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.\n\nThis was directed at Fred Phelps and his band of nutjobs, no doubt.
417701
America is unique in the way the "West was won" - by violence.  Cowboys and Indians, lots of fighting, lots of Guns.  Followed by the "Right to Bear Arms", the Gun Lobby and Charlton Heston, Armed Police and so on.  USA is still a very young Country compared to Europe. It hasn't yet grown out of its hip shooting past.  And 9/11 has just made things worse.
910906
King George the III is dead. I believe England has since formerly recognized our independence (or I guess we are technically still those darn rebel colonists).\n\nIf you are talking about Bush (and you should be more clear), then my answer is never, mostly cause we are NOT a democracy where the people would vote on every single law. And secondly cause Bush is the "Decider" in his own words.\n\nWe are a representative democracy or a constitutional republic.\n\nThey are just terms anyway.\n\nThere is also some evidence to suggest that our democracy was effectively or partially ceased on 9/11:\n\n"The George W. Bush Administration put the Continuity of Operations plan into effect for the first time directly following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. Their implementation involves a rotating staff of 75 to 150 senior officials and other government workers from every Cabinet department and other parts of the executive branch in two secure bunkers on the East Coast. Friends, family and co-workers can only reach them through a toll-free number and personal extensions.\n\nInvocation of the continuity of government\nContingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders were implemented almost immediately after the attacks.[89] Congress, however, was not told that the US was under a continuity of government status until February 2002.[90]\n\nApparently the Legislative and Judiciary Branches of the US Government each have similar continuity plans. However, both require the Executive to notify them before they are activated. There appears to have been no notfication following 9-11 to either the Congress or US Supreme Court until it was finally admitted to Congress in 2002.\n\nIt appears the US is still in the Continuity of Government status invoked as a result of 9/11.\n\nThere is considerable confusion between the use of extra-constitutional powers and "martial law" in an emergency situation, and Continuity of Government as such. Continuity of Goverenment properly refers to processes, systems, and infrastructure whereby Government control and communications can be maintained. They involve communications systems, operating procedures, delegation of responsibility, and emergency accommodation- including bunkers.\n\nThe use of unusual powers in an emergency- whether legal or illegal- are not Continuity of Government so much as restraints on legal and constitutional rights. Historically many governments and leaders have used a disaster or attack as an excuse to assume illegal and draconian powers."
891133
so Greenpeace has been jailed? and you claim Bush is a liar! if you are captured on the battlefield, you are an "enemy combatant", not a suspect in custody, there is a vast difference. you have the rights guaranteed (if you're in uniform) by the Geneva Convention, not Miranda, understand? if you are not in uniform, then by the laws of war, you can be summarily executed on the field of battle without trial. this is not some new thing Bush made up, either. Major Andre, the Brit who took the plans for the defense of West Point from Bendict Arnold was summarily executed when he was captured because he was out of uniform. you libs really need to learn the laws before going off half cocked accusing someone of breaking them
522875
God, Guns, and Guts made this Country great. Remember the West wasn't won with a registered gun. Also it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Gun control is being able to hit your target. Peace thru superior firepower.
100296
An article titled, "The 7 Myths of Gun Control" addresses this topic. It's in the magazine, "America's Freedom 1st", put out by the NRA. The issue of the article is December 2001, written by Richard Poe.\n\nThe myths addressed in this article are as follows:\n1- "guns increase violent crime"\n\n2- "pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal"\n3- "guns pose a special threat to children"\n4- "the 2nd Amendment applies only to militiamen"\n5- "the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era"\n6- "we should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users"\n7- "reasonable gun control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners".\n\nAbout myth #7, all one has to do is check out how home invasion robberies have sky-rocketed in England & Australia, since the implentation of their respctive gun control policies.  In England, a citizen is required to flee the house during a break in, rather than defend the home, or face criminal charges if the burglar is harmed. How messed up is that?\n\nAnd, in states that have passed 'right-to-carry' laws, the spokespeople for the Brady bill, and other anti-gun entities have predicted there would be "blood in the streets" after these laws are passed.  Each time, they've been proven wrong.\nAfter Florida had passed their own "right to defend yourself" law, again, these people predicted that motorists will be shooting each other in mass road-rage incidents.  Again, they've been wrong.