PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.
Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made.
Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest.Lesson learned: Law abiding citizens carrying guns are not a threat.
Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry. (Source: CNN)
If you piddle-down-your-leg, thumb-sucking liberals don't like our Out West gun laws, you can slink back to the liberal urban cesspools you crawled out of. Big Daddy will take care of you there by taking your rights away and ensuring only criminals have firearms, you constitutionally-ignorant morons.
Here's a quote you lefties love throwing around:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.It's almost as pithy as "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," which is proven true every day in the enlightened "gun free zones" all over the world.
23 comments:
Yah, like Canada, where we basically have no crime anywhere.
If people were only allowed to carry around assault rifles.
This isn't an example of essential liberty. Just as the freedom to buy smack isn't.
This isn't an example of essential liberty. Just as the freedom to buy smack isn't.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment addressed gun rights. Nowhere does the constitution address drug use.
You totally missed the point. Despite metrosexual reporters pissing down their legs at law-abiding citizens carrying guns, no gun violence happened.
Another non-story brought to you by cable "news" outlets.
So, they happened not to kill anyone or the president. What heros.
The second amendment is outdated.
Is there more or less crime per capita, up here or down there? Exactly how many people have to die for you to start thinking... hum, maybe allowing people to walk around with assault rifles isn't such a good idea?
Also, where are these "gun free zones you speak of? Do you mean schools, churches, mosques, temples or what? I don't know of any country that prhibits gun licenzing, except maybe the holy see.
I thought we went over this once already, using your own governments statistics. Canada has an overall higher violent crime rate than the US. We have a higher murder rate with guns, y'all just like to get drunk on Molsen's and beat or stab each other to death. There are only a handful of US urban areas with violent crime rates higher than many of your provinces.
Excepting murder by firearm, Britain too has an overall higher violent crime rate than the US. Hell they're talking about banning kitchen knives there.
When kitchen knives are outlawed only criminal chefs will have kitchen knives.
Only tyrants need fear their own citizens.
Do I need to dredge up all the Canadian government statistics again?
Personally I've always favored the Swiss model of compulsary service with all able bodied males in the armed forces reserves (militia) and required to keep their personal equipment, including weapons at home. The weapons designated as being personal equipment ranging from 5.56 assault rifles, 7.62 battle rifles, 9mm and .45 semiautomatic pistols.
Gee, I wonder why Switzerland with 6 million citizens and 2 million guns, where the government sells surplus military equipment to its citizens, doesn't have a violent crime problem.
Hmmm, maybe it isn't the guns afterall.
~Finntann~
Good job, Finntann. I was getting ready to dig through old posts looking for where you had covered this before.
Hard to believe you guys have lower violent crime rates than us. I wonder why? It's not true:
"Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US" (wikipedia)
And even by your own admission there are more murders in the US. I wonder why? It is harder to kill someone with a kitchen knife than a gun?
People steal cars here. We were the first to have that program where there are "bait cars" on the streets with camera inside them and tracking devices. Its pretty cool actually. You can watch the videos of criminals being informed that they just stole a bait car on the web.
"Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.
It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Only about 50 permits had been issued in all of Canada as of 2000. In the same year there were approximately 1 million hand guns in Canada, compared to 77 million in the United States.[12] Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.[13]
Canada has more guns and fewer controls on them than most nations in Western Europe (exceptions being Finland, Norway and Switzerland which have comparatively fewer restrictions) or Japan. Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher urban, west higher than east." (wikipedia)
Switzerland has fewer control on guns that Canada but more than the US. Maybe they've achieved a happy balance. Either way, you're hell-bent on absolute liberty on guns, so its basically an impossible position to defend, unless the constitution was amended the second time by God.
Go back to the fascism post. I'm being assailed by a Christian...
Figured it out. It was just hard to believe you were being assailed by a Christian.
You didn't even saying anything for or against religion in that post. Why did they sound of like that?
Okay, here we go again:
Figures are from Statistics Canada (StatCan)... your Canadian federal government department. US figures are from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.
US Violent Crime rate: 465.5 per 100,000 population
Canada Violent Crime rate: 951 per 100,000 population.
Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario have violent crime rates 700-800 per 100,000 comparable to the worst US states: Florida and Maryland, and the District of Columbia (worst at 1371/100,000).
Places like Manitoba
(1598/100,000), Saskatchewan
(2039/100,000), Yukon
(3,007/100,000) and god forbid the North West Territories
(6448/100,000) and Nunavut
(6747/100,000) far exceed the worst US cities.
Now, admittedly, the murder rate in the US is much worse than in Canada (1.9/100,000 for Canada compared to 5.5/100,000 US).
But let's take New Hampshire for an example, since it has fairly unrestrictive gun laws, and was the location with the Obama protester with a sidearm strapped to his leg:
The NH homiced rate is only 1.4/100,000... the same as Newfoundland/Labrador... lower than Canada overall, only Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Quebec have a lower homicide rate than New Hampshire. The violent crime rate in NH is 167/100,000, lower than all of the Canadian provinces.
The figures for Canada are from 2006 and the figures for the US are from 2004... but, the rates of crime in the US have been declining, not going up... so even with the difference in years, it is probably a fair comparison. If you find better data, by all means let me know.
I think this is interesting, because it would seem that this is more a matter of perception than fact, most Americans would consider Canada the safer place, and I was actually surprised by the figures the first time I saw them. I think much of the perception of the US as an extremely violent nation is more a product of Hollywood than anything else.
Facts are stubborn things, eh CP?
@CP "You didn't even saying anything for or against religion in that post. Why did they sound of like that?"
I can't believe you, of all people, would ask that question!
Why do you compare figures from 2004 and 2006? and also could you actually provide the link?
Aside from which, murder is really the problem with gun crimes (to be completely honest) and you admit that the US murder rate is astronomically higher than that in Canada. Isn't that an argument for gun control, even leaving aside all else?
I still don't even buy the violent crime rate as being lower in the US though. Its not as much hollywood, but the news that gives me that perception. We must just not have reporters reporting crime or something.
And why do you take New Hampshire as an example? You do some rather dodgy things here Finntann, can I have the link(s) so I can check it out for myself.
A lot of this could do with what each counts as a violent crime.
"Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."
Less murders in Canada, and less committed with firearms. That seems to be the key.
A guy being pushed in a "violent" crime, but its not really. Lets look at it where it counts and as it relates to guns.
"Less murders in Canada, and less committed with firearms. That seems to be the key..." And less murders with the use of firearms.
You can simply look at the tables republished on wikipedia on the pages "crime in Canada" or "Crime in the United States".
The Candadian table is titled:
"Crime rates by offences for each province and territory, 2006"
The American table is titled:
"Number of Crimes per 100,000 persons (Crime Rates)"
Or you can go directly to the source data:
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal04a-eng.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html
The years I compared are simply the years of data that I found on a quick search. Nothing devious, they were just readily available... which is why I disclosed the difference in years.
Comparing crime statisitics is a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Each nation defines crime in many different ways, I'll be the first to admit the definitions may vary somewhat. Still, we can only work with the figures we have, or can find.
If you can find more current data on the US please let me know.
Yah, I looked for more current stuff and I couldn't find anything either.
My main point was that there is no doubting that when it comes to murder, America beats Canada every year and with a large margin of victory.
We're debating gun laws here, not who has more crime (although that was what it turned into a little bit).
We have less murders, and when there is a murder it is less often committed with a gun which is probably a reason why we have less. Its harder to kill someone with a knife as compared to a gun.
And we have the lower homicide rates to prove it.
The problem with your argument is you associate the action with the tool. Explain to me then, why, if Canada has a higher violent crime rate, why it doesn't have a higher murder by knife rate? Surely, they are as readily available in Canada as in the United States.
You also associate restrictive gun laws with reduced gun crime, which I believe is a falsehood. The areas of the United States with the most restrictive laws often have the highest gun crime rates.
Looking at per capita figures Switzerland has 1 gun for every 3 people, the US 1 gun for every 5. Why then do the Swiss have a lower gun crime rate? I would venture to say it has more to do with culture than equipment.
Canada has a higher violent crime rate and yet it still has a lower murder rate. That should tell you that it has something to do with not having as any guns. Why don't they use knives?
Murdering people with a knife is harder. I am not a special agent or anything, but I took enough martial arts classes to know how to avert a knife strike. I wouldn't know what to do if someone decided they'd like to shoot me, but - if I had the time -duck.
Switzerland is a completely different culture, but you have to think that less guns (even there) would equal less homicides (though they have low homicide rate anyways). Maybe they're just friendly people; sure. Guns or not they don't kill eachother.
But, just think: A place with guns readily availbable and another without guns except for those sanctioned for recreational purposes and in some cases, protection... quite generally, which do you suppose you'd have a better chance at leaving alive?
There is something to besaid for equipment. I'll give you culture, but there is a difference between a knife and a gun.
A killer difference!
CP: I think you're on to something with cultural differences. We are a violent society, but it's not because of responsible gun owners.
DISCLAIMER: "Averting" a knife attack is almost impossible for anyone but Chuck Norris. Yes, you can disarm a knife wielding attacker, but you will get cut at least once, so don't try it unless you know what you're doing. As Master Lewis, my Kung Fu master told me 25 years ago, your best and first defense is your feet.
You're probably right. I should just run.
No, its not because of responsible gun owners, and we have plenty of responsible gun owners here as well. The difference is that there is a certain assurance we get of their responsibility by licensing them.
Is a gun not potentially as, or more dangerous than a car?
I had a professor that loves to hunt. He has a rifle and he goes out into the woods and hunts. No one stops him.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.