Countries with 100% Banning of Firearms...

United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) reports...


The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens.

Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname ..6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2

And, with the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the freedom to own firearms written into he Constitution:




The United States 4.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!

  


.

DC vs Heller determined that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. States are still allowed to have rules for concealed firearms, possession by the mentally ill and unusually dangerous ones. (like impractical assault weapons)

News Buzzard wrote:DC vs Heller determined that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. States are still allowed to have rules for concealed firearms, possession by the mentally ill and unusually dangerous ones. (like impractical assault weapons)

This is incorrect.

Bans of so-called 'assault weapons' may not hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny

http://www.examiner.com/article/bans-of-so-called-assault-weapons-may-not-hold-up-to-supreme-court-scrutiny

To be clear, it has always been the contention of this column that there is absolutely no way to reconcile the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment, with bans of the very arms best suited to maintaining the security of a free state. Whether or not the Supreme Court would see things the same way, though, has been an entirely different question. Ten years ago--and probably less--the idea of SCOTUS striking down such a law would have sounded like idle fantasy.

Now, though, there is a growing body of opinion--sometimes expressed by those not necessarily considered "pro-gun"--that such laws would be skating on thin ice, should a challenge to them ever reach the Supreme Court. UCLA Constitutional law professor Adam Winkler is one who can hardly be considered a fervent gun rights advocate--having written about what he called "the Tea Party's gun problem," and having described Firearms Freedom Act legislation as "insurrectionist." Even so, he has his doubts about a so-called "assault weapons" ban surviving a Supreme Court challenge. As he wrote for the Daily Beast:

Even if enacted, [Senator Dianne] Feinstein’s ["assault weapons" ban] proposal would be the most likely of all the major gun reforms being considered in Washington today to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects arms that are “in common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense. There seems little doubt that assault weapons are in common use, given the millions of them in circulation.

The "common use" factor is important because in writing the majority opinion for the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia listed several "presumptively lawful" infringements on that which shall not be infringed (and no--he didn't explain how that works). Those included bans of arms not "in common use at the time" (and sorry, Obama regime ex-"regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein--"at the time" does not mean "at the time the Second Amendment was drafted").

With so called "assault weapons," (like the AR-15) being overwhelmingly the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, for several years running, and with millions of them in private hands (a number that grows by the minute, as demand continues to outstrip manufacturers' ability to produce them), "regime change rifles" are most definitely "in common use."

In an interview with Kwame Holman on the PBS Newshour, Second Amendment scholar and George Mason University School of Law Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm made not only that point, but expanded on it to include so-called "high capacity" magazines, which number in the scores of millions in private hands--if not hundreds of millions (see sidebar video):

"I don't really think the idea that you can ban them or reduce the magazine will really pass constitutional muster," Malcolm said. "If your standard is common use, these are all in common use for lawful purposes."

News Buzzard wrote:DC vs Heller determined that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. States are still allowed to have rules for concealed firearms, possession by the mentally ill and unusually dangerous ones. (like impractical assault weapons)

Why are my "assault" rifles (In quotes because they are not. New sales of assault rifles have been banned since 1986) unusually dangerous and impractical?

The point I was making is that Heller left the door open to banning weapons that are not in common use. Wasn't that spelled out in Scalia's majority opinion? Neither one of us knows how further Supreme Court rulings would go, and that is precisely spelled out in the article you posted. The in common use exception goes back to US vs Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

News Buzzard wrote:The point I was making is that Heller left the door open to banning weapons that are not in common use. Wasn't that spelled out in Scalia's majority opinion? Neither one of us knows how further Supreme Court rulings would go, and that is precisely spelled out in the article you posted. The in common use exception goes back to US vs Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Right, and semi automatic rifles are, by any definition, "in common use".

Let me ask you, why is your default position to start analyzing, in this case the Heller decision, with an eye towards what can be banned?

This is default position on both sides of the "left - right divide".

"What can we ban, regulate or restrict today?"

My default position is to overturn bans, repeal laws and remove restrictions.

News Buzzard wrote:The point I was making is that Heller left the door open to banning weapons that are not in common use. Wasn't that spelled out in Scalia's majority opinion?[/b] Neither one of us knows how further Supreme Court rulings would go, and that is precisely spelled out in the article you posted. The in common use exception goes back to US vs Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It might help to discover that Chinese "AK-47" rifles were once selling for less than $100.

 


.

News Hawk wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:The point I was making is that Heller left the door open to banning weapons that are not in common use. Wasn't that spelled out in Scalia's majority opinion?[/b] Neither one of us knows how further Supreme Court rulings would go, and that is precisely spelled out in the article you posted. The in common use exception goes back to US vs Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It might help to discover that Chinese "AK-47" rifles were once selling for less than $100.

 

Very well aware of that.   

Anti Federalist wrote:My default position is to overturn bans, repeal laws and remove restrictions.

The Constitution and Case Law are the absolutes in this discussion so it really doesn't matter what our default position is. The political pendulum always swings from one side to the other.

News Buzzard wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:My default position is to overturn bans, repeal laws and remove restrictions.

The Constitution and Case Law are the absolutes in this discussion so it really doesn't matter what our default position is. The political pendulum always swings from one side to the other.

I'm glad you agree.

Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage. Brutus - Anti Federalist papers

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Not so fast!

If I had my way there would be no assault weapons on the street and people would pay dearly every year for pistol permits. That would provide much needed tax revenue for any jurisdiction. It doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, and that's the political pendulum I speak of. You can't always get what you want!  (Rolling Stones)

News Buzzard wrote:"...It doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, and that's the political pendulum I speak of. You can't always get what you want!

I dunno.  



The Columbia Mall shooting occurred in a "Gun-Free Zone".

Maryland is an "Idiocracy"!

(But not as bad as an "Idiocracy" as Jamaica—but the Marxists are dragging the USA there.

  




.

News Buzzard wrote:Not so fast!

No—faster!

A woman who was attacked and raped in her Manhattan apartment in 2012 has come forward to detail the horrific night a teenage pizza boy allegedly assaulted her as her 7-year-old daughter slept in the bed beside her. Kia Graves, 37, reveals that her life has been utterly turned upside down since the night Cesar Lucas, 17, is charged with slipping into her apartment and having his way with her while out on a run for his father's 10th Avenue pizza restaurant. 'I have nightmares thinking that he’s getting out of jail, and I wake up all the time making sure my door is locked,' said the shell-shocked mom. Unfortunately, her door was not locked that September night. Cesar Lucas was working as a delivery boy at Sal’s Pizza in the same Manhattan neighborhood as the woman’s luxury apartment building. He was delivering a pizza to the next-door flat when he noticed that the door was slightly ajar and allegedly entered the apartment. Graves, a former actress turned model agency employee, had gone to bed with her daughter an hour and a half before the alleged incident. It was the last time Grave says she's had a normal night's sleep. 'I sleep with one eye open, basically,' she told the New York Daily News. 'I have panic attacks and I wake up in sweats.' Graves no longer works and lives each day crippled by her memories of the attack. 'I don’t know what to do,' she said. 'I’m just seeing my doctor and hoping for the best.'
—dailymail.co.uk

.

News Buzzard wrote:The Constitution and Case Law are the absolutes in this discussion so it really doesn't matter what our default position is. The political pendulum always swings from one side to the other.

Would The Founders have approved of "packing the court", as your "Progressive Hero" attempted?

Or were The Founders just "old and angry white men"?




.

The court is already packed with people who aren't very smart, (see Citizens United) and hopefully Obama and Hillary will have a chance to change that.

News Buzzard wrote:The court is already packed with people who aren't very smart, (see Citizens United) and hopefully Obama and Hillary will have a chance to change that.

Even more "Wise-Latinas"?

  




.

Nice girl from a tough spot in The Bronx. You wouldn't know anything about that.  

From the list, in what percentage does New York City fall?

  


.

News Buzzard wrote:Not so fast!

If I had my way there would be no assault weapons on the street and people would pay dearly every year for pistol permits. That would provide much needed tax revenue for any jurisdiction. It doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, and that's the political pendulum I speak of. You can't always get what you want!  (Rolling Stones)

Why?

I've been an advocate for gun control for 40 years, and I don't see any useful purpose for assault weapons outside military use. I get the fact that hunting is a very active sport throughout the country, but I don't see any reason not to do background checks on the owners of rifles and shotguns, and I believe the weapons should all be registered. I believe that there should be a nationally legislated permitting process for pistols, administered by the states with a uniform criteria.

We just finished up 6 days in a row of school and mall shootings, and the Newtown massacre has to be the defining incident in the need for some type of gun control. There are other areas to address, like mental illness, but I feel we must take a multi-pronged approach to address this problem. We shouldn't be comfortable with turning on the news and seeing a report on another shooting almost every night.

Like I said, this is a democratic process and it doesn't look like we're going to see any form of gun control anytime soon. I don't expect you to agree with me but I've attempted to answer your question.

News Buzzard wrote:I've been an advocate for gun control for 40 years, and I don't see any useful purpose for assault weapons outside military use. I get the fact that hunting is a very active sport throughout the country, but I don't see any reason not to do background checks on the owners of rifles and shotguns, and I believe the weapons should all be registered. I believe that there should be a nationally legislated permitting process for pistols, administered by the states with a uniform criteria.

We just finished up 6 days in a row of school and mall shootings, and the Newtown massacre has to be the defining incident in the need for some type of gun control. There are other areas to address, like mental illness, but I feel we must take a multi-pronged approach to address this problem. We shouldn't be comfortable with turning on the news and seeing a report on another shooting almost every night.

Like I said, this is a democratic process and it doesn't look like we're going to see any form of gun control anytime soon. I don't expect you to agree with me but I've attempted to answer your question.

A very thorough answer.

So it's simply a public safety issue then, correct?

So you should be in favor of more guns.

Because in the thirty years or so since "Must Issue" concealed carry started Florida, there are more people carrying more guns and more gun sales, than ever before.

And violent crime is at all time record lows.

Violent crime is in fact down considerably throughout the country, but not necessarily because of the amount of guns out there. There are several other reasons cited for the drop in crime. As a rule we are a gun loving country. The states in the Midwest literally get millions of hunting license applications every deer season, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The purpose of gun control is to try and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, for reasons like prior felonies and mental illness, and that would be for public safety.

News Hawk wrote:United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) reports...

Need this for another forum, have you got a link?

Anti Federalist wrote:Because in the thirty years or so since "Must Issue" concealed carry started Florida, there are more people carrying more guns and more gun sales, than ever before.

And violent crime is at all time record lows.

...and we know who's the greatest gun-salesman of them all...!

  





.

Once again, NB wants more laws that don't work Look at the places like Chicago and DC where it is illegal to have guns. They have the worst crime records of all. You can have all the gun laws you want and people who shouldn't have them will still get them. Laws only work for the good guys.