I think a lot of people's concerns is that the US has a lot higher gun violence than other developed nations, I mean it's good to hear it's going down but when you compare it to similar nations they don't look so good.
But when you compare violent crime, not just gun crime, our rates start to not look quite as bad as when you focus on just violent crime using a specific weapon.
Which just shows that when one mode is not available criminals just swap to another weapon. So restricting certain weapons is really just ignoring the root causes of violence instead of fixing the problem.
It states, "Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[29][33][34] However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence.[35][36][37][38]"
That's on top of many efforts in the US within that time frame to help curb the soaring rates of gun violence. Many of the arguments stated here are simply restatements of what the US has been struggling with for the past three decades. Crime will not go away if guns are banned outright, and yes criminals will resort to other means of violence and/or simply get guns illegally, but if you want a safer society, devoid of the worry of mass shootings and the trickle of bullet ridden souls (primarily minorities) to the boatman, regulation is essential and well documented that it works.
And, again, it does not look at all violent crime, just violent gun crime. In a country with no baseball bats, I bet crimes committed with baseball bats are pretty rare too.
CptJake wrote: And, again, it does not look at all violent crime, just violent gun crime. In a country with no baseball bats, I bet crimes committed with baseball bats are pretty rare too.
I'd rather have a criminal be armed with a baseball bat than a gun.
I don't understand this American obsession over defending one's home against hypothetical threats. It's like everyone assumes that everyone else is out to get them.
Are home invasions really that rampant in America? Perhaps if you live in a bad neighborhood. But I doubt the majority of people arguing for gun rights live in such poor areas.
We also have the highest incarceration rate in the world, where criminals are not being released as rehabilitated and reformed, but as hardened veterans in a constant struggle against the law.
There's a fantastic metaphor I once heard about many similar problems like this, it goes;
"Two people stand by a river, seeing drowning children rushing by in the current, one immediately jumps in trying to save as many as they can, the other runs away. The one in river screams, "Where are you going, we must save the children!" the other replies, "I'm going to see who's throwing them in."
To control gun violence three things need to happen:
Regulation needs to occur to solve the immediate problem of bad people with access to guns. Deny them legal access of guns by use of background checks. If they fail the background check because they've proven to society they can't assume the responsibility of owning one i.e. past convictions of assault, robbery, felonies, they can be denied the right to own it. Possessing a firearm illegally should be a federal offense that law enforcement could use in court to prosecute.
Second: Reform the prison system to 1. Make the time and tax money spent on criminals actually useful to society. Educate, reform, and restart the lives of criminals so that if and when they are released back among us, they don't resort to the life that got them in the cell in the first place. - Little known factoid: The US prison system has become one of the biggest mental institutions in the world - almost entirely void of the therapists needed to treat and heal those that simply serve their time in tiny cells, only to be released back into the world. It's little wonder why the general public of the US is terrified of themselves.
2. Put these people to work, make them do something productive to both themselves and the society who has to pay for their meals and housing... after the fact that they slighted us.
Third: American society has to change. Limit government spending on arms manufacturing. Dismantle the militant industrial complex Eisenhower warned us we would become. If opponents of gun regulation believe their right to bear arms stems from their own fear of a tyrannical government, do what any competent diplomat would do: disarm both sides. If a citizen can't own a handgun, then the president should have no legal ability to target "Domestic Terrorists of US citizenry" with gun drones.
Finally to those who argue that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Perhaps if you joined law enforcement or the military, you could exercise your right to bear whatever armament you wished, be the good guy, and help be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem of 'Merican politics.
You do realize less than 3% of criminals in prison for gun violence bought their guns at flea markets or gun shows right? How does increasing back ground checks at those locations fix your problem again?
More relevant to the current discussion is how the firearms used in crimes were obtained. Parsing the data from the Department of Justice, it's clear that overall trends have remained consistent. Between 1997 and 2004 — the two years for which data is provided — the firearms felons used in crimes were most likely acquired from family or friends or acquired illegally.
DemetriDominov wrote:Possessing a firearm illegally should be a federal offense that law enforcement could use in court to prosecute.
And how is that different from current law?
By the way, cops are called First Responders for a reason. They come AFTER the crime is committed, they respond to it. Them showing up after the act with a gun is often very late for the victim.
CptJake wrote:By the way, cops are called First Responders for a reason. They come AFTER the crime is committed, they respond to it. Them showing up after the act with a gun is often very late for the victim.
So are you suggesting the best way to deal with crime is to wait for a criminal to go for a gun, and then to out-draw them? This is an honest question.
The very fact their victim is armed is a major deterrent for mos criminals. And trying to out draw is better than having nothing to draw with at all.
Cops are little more than clean up crews, and there really isn't any way to change that. They don't have the ability to tell the future, they can only show up after a crime is committed. Or pursue someone that is wanted for a crime that's already committed.
No, honestly the best thing is to avoid the situation by being aware of your surroundings and don't put yourself into danger. But that does not always work. The next best thing is to not appear victim like. The way you carry yourself and the alertness you demonstrate goes a long way towards deterrence. The next best thing is when the situation develops and you are threatened, yes you pull your gun on the guy and immediately be ready to pull the trigger. He keeps coming (or does anything BUT back off and go running away) you kill him. I would much rather kill the other guy than let a family member (or myself) get hurt/raped/killed.
Just my opinions based on a lot of experience, I trust most folks on Dakka will disagree.
Fafnir wrote: I don't understand this American obsession over defending one's home against hypothetical threats. It's like everyone assumes that everyone else is out to get them.
Are home invasions really that rampant in America? Perhaps if you live in a bad neighborhood. But I doubt the majority of people arguing for gun rights live in such poor areas.
According to the Department of Justice, 1 in 5 homes experience a home invasion or break in in the US each year.
50% of break ins involve a weapon of some kind. And 48% of invasions involve physical injury for the victims.
Jihadin wrote: I just know....that a vehicle and a fire arm have one main thing in common........an operator behind it
By that logic we should ban everything that involves people or we should have no restrictions on anything people use, yeah great argument can't see anything going wrong with that.
Grey Templar wrote: Exactly, it shows how its silly to ban the object and not whats really the problem.
No one wants gun bans (at least not a large enough demographic that it would mean anything) but some people want more gun restrictions, gun restriction is not the same as a gun ban.
CptJake wrote: You do realize less than 3% of criminals in prison for gun violence bought their guns at flea markets or gun shows right? How does increasing back ground checks at those locations fix your problem again?
It's still 3% less, on top of the other legal methods of acquiring a firearm. If criminal's are gaining access to firearms via family members, perhaps they could be tried for being an accomplice to a crime to deter others from borrowing a weapon to an individual who has no reason to use it. After all, family members are probably the best judge of each other's sanity, and if they aren't, perhaps they shouldn't have access to guns in the first place.
CptJake wrote: And how is "your 'should be' law" different from "my current law"?
By the way, cops are called First Responders for a reason. They come AFTER the crime is committed, they respond to it. Them showing up after the act with a gun is often very late for the victim.
It's not any different, I wrote it wrong, and am glad there is a law I believe should be in place. Yes, everyone knows that the law and its enforcement is slow, but everyone should also know that more violence doesn't solve violence. There are a significant amount of accidental gun deaths, and the simple fact remains that guns are extremely lethal as they are designed to be. If you want an effective self defense mechanism to put in place of your pillow that you don't have to worry about having your toddler put in their mouth and pull the trigger while you aren't home, get a stun gun - at least they'll have a higher chance of surviving.
djones520 wrote: Gun crime has dropped 40% in the last 20 years, and American society HAS to change...
Grey Templar wrote: Even restricting guns for law abiding citizens violates the second amendment.
Who gives a feth, what makes your constitution so special that it doesn't require any fixes? Imagine if there was no restrictions in place for driving a car no designated driving areas, no age limits, no test to prove you worthy enough to drive, etc imagine how gakky and dangerous that would
be. And clearly a lot of Americans don't give a feth about the constitution as there's plenty of Americans who weren't complaining about the current gun restrictions till the government suggested add a few extra changes.
Since the victim is human...and the criminal is human...and without human interaction both a vehicle and a firearm are both inactive...so we just need to remove the humans from the equation.....so who do we start with first?
Who gives a feth, what makes your constitution so special that it doesn't require any fixes? Imagine if there was no restrictions in place for driving a car no designated driving areas, no age limits, no test to prove you worthy enough to drive, etc imagine how gakky and dangerous that would
be. And clearly a lot of Americans don't give a feth about the constitution as there's plenty of Americans who weren't complaining about the current gun restrictions till the government suggested add a few extra changes.
Grey Templar wrote: A few times when it was needed. But its very hard to do and the occasion better be VERY important.
This is not such a situation.
Lots of people thought that many of the changes were not important and not needed at the time.
Including white slave owners, building america off of the "necessary evil" of the moral quandary and seemingly solid and monolithic document that is the constitution.
Grey Templar wrote: I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.
I thought he was saying that the constitution isn't perfect and that sometimes it needs to be updated cause there are parts that are not working in modern society, I mean Canada updated its constitution in 1982 which introduced plenty of good ideas to our constitution, what makes yours so
The Constitution is a living document and has been amended many times to improve it, usually to guarantee more freedoms. One or twice (prohibition) we've screwed up and fixed it later.
The second amendment is an amendment too, bear in mind.
I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'm not equating gun owners to racists.
But many of the changes in the constitution faced a very vocal and sizable opposition at the time. The first ten had people fighting against them very strongly. Some of the other big ones were:
13th: slavery
14th: equal protection
15th: equal suffrage by race
16th: income tax
17th: senators by popular vote
18th: prohibition
19th: women's suffrage
21th: repealing prohibition
24th: poll taxes
Plenty of people didn't think any of these were needed and fought against them at the time.
And I am really not saying that to compare anybody to racists.
Grey Templar wrote: I like how you are lumping anyone who defends the constitution in with racists and slave owners.
I thought he was saying that the constitution isn't perfect and that sometimes it needs to be updated cause there are parts that are not working in modern society, I mean Canada updated its constitution in 1982 which introduced plenty of good ideas to our constitution, what makes yours so
sacred that it doesn't need to be touched?
We need a good reason to amend it. There are no good reasons put forth that outweigh the reason the second amendment exists. Nothing even close.
I'm quite happy with the Constitution as it stands currently, as are most people living here(if we weren't, we'd have a Convention)
And legally, there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from simply making the 28th amendment say "this repeals the 2nd", which is how some people are acting. But nobody is proposing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I knew you weren't replying to me Grey, just wanted to clarify myself.
d-usa wrote: And legally, there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from simply making the 28th amendment say "this repeals the 2nd", which is how some people are acting. But nobody is proposing that.
Yeah, that's not the issue. Its people proposing Unconstitutional laws and restrictions that violate the second amendment that is the problem.
There's also the whole thing about our founding fathers (Jefferson) expecting that the US would revolt against its own government every 20 years to restore the egalitarian america that was his personal vision of American Utopia. Having a regulated citizen's militia complete with their right to bear arms was central to this idea. The 2nd amendment is as archaic and counterproductive as actually having an armed revolt against the US government. The civil war was probably the best example of Jefferson's idea of a citizen's revolt, and that was really a fight between state and federal rights, not even our own. The federal government won that fight, and even if some people believe that they're still fighting to keep what rights they feel like they're losing, they're fighting for the wrong ones.
Well I'm just saying, the 2nd amendment was put in place for revolts like the Civil War to happen. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the wrong people used it.
DemetriDominov wrote: There's also the whole thing about our founding fathers (Jefferson) expecting that the US would revolt against its own government every 20 years to restore the egalitarian america that was his personal vision of American Utopia. Having a regulated citizen's militia complete with their right to bear arms was central to this idea. The 2nd amendment is as archaic and counterproductive as actually having an armed revolt against the US government. The civil war was probably the best example of Jefferson's idea of a citizen's revolt, and that was really a fight between state and federal rights, not even our own. The federal government won that fight, and even if some people believe that they're still fighting to keep what rights they feel like they're losing, they're fighting for the wrong ones.
Actually, I believe someone else tried this argument earlier. The vast majority of the founders did not believe the "militia" to be anything more than the people at large. They did not voice the opinion that it should be under state control.
But if you want to repeal the Second Amendment, you're more than welcome to try. It's a pretty arduous process, though, especially when, in the wake of Newtown, more people than ever before in this country polled in support of it.
Several politicians here in Colorado have active recall petitions the gun control legislation no one likes,a perceived flubbing of MJ laws that the liberals all like, some VERY stupid comments by democratic legislatures during the gun debates that pissed everyone off no matter what "side" you're on, etc = an exciting midterm election.
I just love watching the news stories regarding gun-laws on the news (in Australia), mainly for the anchors covering the stories basically making comedy of how hard you guys fight for your "rights".
Norn King wrote: I just love watching the news stories regarding gun-laws on the news (in Australia), mainly for the anchors covering the stories basically making comedy of how hard you guys fight for your "rights".
Their groans of exasperation are hilarious.
Can't be half as hilarious as the groans of exasperation among the anti-gun crowd when their legislation doesn't pass.
Norn King wrote: Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!
Oddly enough, I suspect that scorn works both ways.
We really are the prettiest girl at the ball, though, if domestic policy disputes are making headlines in Australia.
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
DemetriDominov wrote: US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.
DemetriDominov wrote: US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.
The "mass shootings" that he's referring to are not committed by criminals, by and large. Most are committed by individuals with either no criminal record or a record of nonviolence/minor altercations.
There's no real set pattern to the profile of the individuals committing mass shootings; except that they have committed a mass shooting and allegedly have some form of "mental illness".
The criminal culture plays no real mentionable part in the execution of mass shootings; except that the NRA and pro-gun individuals like to talk about the criminal culture as being a reason to not restrict gun ownership.
Statistically it's not like there's much to do about mass shootings besides increase mental health awareness and availability, de-stigmatizing seeking said care would also be a big step. As the Tsarnev brothers and the Aurora shooter were kind enough to remind us, explosives with the potential to wound hundreds can be made from things acquirable at your local hardware store. Psychos will do as psychos do with whatever means they can acquire if they're not found and treated first.
DemetriDominov wrote: US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.
South Australia, were i live, has heaps of gang activity. Generally they are bikey gangs. It was far worse before gun laws were brought in.
Speaking as a longtime gun owner and generally pro-gun individual, the majority of you 2nd amendment guys are fething off your rockers.
Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation. As is most of the gun-control legislation that's been recently proposed.
Also, all the hot air about the right to bear arms being the bedrock of our democracy and freedom as Americans is utterly preposterous. It's not the goddamned 1700's anymore. The idea that Americans need to have unfettered access to weapons without regulation in case the tie-rannycal gubmint needs a good overthrowin' is ludicrous. The idea that all the liquored up rednecks in the US could overthrow the strongest and most advanced military power in the world with their gun-show AR-15s is fething laughable. So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.
It just makes me angry that, because you nutjobs can scream the loudest, everyone else thinks the rest of us pro-gun types are just as loony as you.
rubiksnoob wrote: Speaking as a longtime gun owner and generally pro-gun individual, the majority of you 2nd amendment guys are fething off your rockers.
Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation. As is most of the gun-control legislation that's been recently proposed.
Also, all the hot air about the right to bear arms being the bedrock of our democracy and freedom as Americans is utterly preposterous. It's not the goddamned 1700's anymore. The idea that Americans need to have unfettered access to weapons without regulation in case the tie-rannycal gubmint needs a good overthrowin' is ludicrous. The idea that all the liquored up rednecks in the US could overthrow the strongest and most advanced military power in the world with their gun-show AR-15s is fething laughable. So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.
It just makes me angry that, because you nutjobs can scream the loudest, everyone else thinks the rest of us pro-gun types are just as loony as you.
You are making the mistake of thinking all the 2nd Amendment "we need to be able to overthrow the government" types are loony rednecks. You are flat wrong.
And the government could definitely be overthrown by the citizens. It wouldn't necessarily be them storming the capital putting the tyrant's head on a spike type thing. But it would be they would cause so much destabilization that it would force the government to flee, allowing the citizens to hold an election to put a new government in office.
Look how much trouble we have fighting insurgents elsewhere. Imagine that here, but 10,000 times worse.
rubiksnoob wrote: Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation.
What, in the most recent round of proposed legislation, would have made background checks more effective? I don't recall any changes to NICS being introduced.
So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.
What if it's that we already have background checks?
I'm not going to argue with y'all, because frankly, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've just been following the thread and got so fed up I had to toss in my own two cents. Take that as you will, I'm going to sleep.
Grey Templar wrote: You are making the mistake of thinking all the 2nd Amendment "we need to be able to overthrow the government" types are loony rednecks. You are flat wrong.
They might as well be for all the stupid that goes on within them.
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?
and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?
and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.
To be honest, most of the Australian news networks (at least in Brisbane) are utter trash. Channels 7, 9 and 10 have news shows which are basically an extra session of their dodgy 'current affair' shows, with just a wee bit less reporters chasing after people and getting yelled at. ABC I haven't watched much of, really SBS is the only one I watch on any sort of regular basis. The rest...just utter jokes.
Norn King wrote: Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!
Oddly enough, I suspect that scorn works both ways.
We really are the prettiest girl at the ball, though, if domestic policy disputes are making headlines in Australia.
We don't have enough murders, mass shootings or bombings happening over here to fill up a news hour, so we spend a lot of our time laughing at the USA.
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.
Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....
Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?
and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.
To be honest, most of the Australian news networks (at least in Brisbane) are utter trash. Channels 7, 9 and 10 have news shows which are basically an extra session of their dodgy 'current affair' shows, with just a wee bit less reporters chasing after people and getting yelled at. ABC I haven't watched much of, really SBS is the only one I watch on any sort of regular basis. The rest...just utter jokes.
Yeah, totally agree. If you want reliable news, i suggest ABC's 24 hour news channel, 24.
In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.
Norn King wrote: In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.
When will you guys get the message?
I have a feeling the media's going to sweep that one under the rug and not go into hysterics very, very quickly. Just remember I made that prediction after we learn more about the perpetrators.
Norn King wrote: In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.
When will you guys get the message?
I have a feeling the media's going to sweep that one under the rug and not go into hysterics very, very quickly. Just remember I made that prediction after we learn more about the perpetrators.
How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.
Norn King wrote: How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.
Nobody gets hysterical if the media doesn't cover it. It's why, as I've pointed out several times in this thread now, gun violence in the US has plummeted even while many people believe that it has gone up.
New Orleans police were also quite quick to call it "street violence," which, like it or not, suggests a gang relation, which in turn means the probability that these guns were legally sourced is near zero. So all the squawking in the world about background checks and registration and classes and the like wouldn't have made a bit of difference, as is the case with most shootings.
Norn King wrote: How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.
Nobody gets hysterical if the media doesn't cover it. It's why, as I've pointed out several times in this thread now, gun violence in the US has plummeted even while many people believe that it has gone up.
New Orleans police were also quite quick to call it "street violence," which, like it or not, suggests a gang relation, which in turn means the probability that these guns were legally sourced is near zero. So all the squawking in the world about background checks and registration and classes and the like wouldn't have made a bit of difference, as is the case with most shootings.
The motive for the shooting is unclear. If we are going to speculate, it may well be just another nutjob, who perhaps may have been stopped if there were stricter laws.
It wasn't one guy. It was three. The FBI has also said it was strictly a flare-up of street violence. And, this tidbit from an article on it..
Shootings at parades and neighborhood celebrations have become more common in recent years as the city has struggled with street crime. Earlier this year, four people were shot following an argument in the French Quarter during the last weekend of partying before Mardi Gras. The victims survived, and several suspects were eventually arrested.
Nobody really likes to say, "This is just gang violence," but that's precisely what it is.
It wasn't one guy. It was three. The FBI has also said it was strictly a flare-up of street violence. And, this tidbit from an article on it..
Shootings at parades and neighborhood celebrations have become more common in recent years as the city has struggled with street crime. Earlier this year, four people were shot following an argument in the French Quarter during the last weekend of partying before Mardi Gras. The victims survived, and several suspects were eventually arrested.
Nobody really likes to say, "This is just gang violence," but that's precisely what it is.
Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
So... you advocate banning guns to create a stronger police state.
Make more things illegal, so they have more things to arrest me for if they can't find the evidence they wanted in the first place?
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
It would send a great deal of non-violent offenders to jail. Ban guns, and a large population of otherwise law-abiding citizens will suddenly become criminals, because there are a great many who certainly would not turn theirs in.
Making comparisons with Australia or any other state is pretty fruitless. There's nobody in the world who has anywhere near our amount of firearms per capita. We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have an awful lot of cars. And that's just the ones we're pretty sure we know about. Given that it's hard to estimate the amount of illegally-acquired firearms in the US, we could very well have more than one gun per person. That's over 300,000,000 firearms. You think a ban just gets rid of them?
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
It would send a great deal of non-violent offenders to jail. Ban guns, and a large population of otherwise law-abiding citizens will suddenly become criminals, because there are a great many who certainly would not turn theirs in.
Making comparisons with Australia or any other state is pretty fruitless. There's nobody in the world who has anywhere near our amount of firearms per capita. We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have an awful lot of cars. And that's just the ones we're pretty sure we know about. Given that it's hard to estimate the amount of illegally-acquired firearms in the US, we could very well have more than one gun per person. That's over 300,000,000 firearms. You think a ban just gets rid of them?
With the surge of purchases over the last year, I'm pretty sure that there are more legally privately owned guns in this country then their are people now.
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
Not the right tangent to go with against the yanks Their police force is that corrupt that it would be an issue.
If you're going to 'ban' guns outright, there also needs to be a buy-back program. No-one is endorsing suddenly making 75% of the population in violation of the law.
I don't understand why there is such terrible knowledge of gun ownership in the US. Shouldn't every single gun be registered to a single person, in the same way that a car is? It isn't that big a hassle to get the little bit of transfer-of-ownership done, and it doesn't prevent private sales.
I'm in favour of gun control to get guns out of the access of petty criminals. Organised crime will find a way to access guns, this can't really be prevented. But there should be a way to get guns away from muggers, shoplifters and street thugs; I believe ready availability of guns increases the relative power of these types of offenders. It also (hopefully) removes guns from spree killers and the like.
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
Not the right tangent to go with against the yanks Their police force is that corrupt that it would be an issue.
If you're going to 'ban' guns outright, there also needs to be a buy-back program. No-one is endorsing suddenly making 75% of the population in violation of the law.
I don't understand why there is such terrible knowledge of gun ownership in the US. Shouldn't every single gun be registered to a single person, in the same way that a car is? It isn't that big a hassle to get the little bit of transfer-of-ownership done, and it doesn't prevent private sales.
I'm in favour of gun control to get guns out of the access of petty criminals. Organised crime will find a way to access guns, this can't really be prevented. But there should be a way to get guns away from muggers, shoplifters and street thugs; I believe ready availability of guns increases the relative power of these types of offenders. It also (hopefully) removes guns from spree killers and the like.
I think these comments on US cops being corrupt is a bit out of line, I know that at least QLD had a really bad few years with corruptiin and what not back in the day (under Joh wasn't it?) Just saying we shoulsn't be the ones slinging mud.
Norn King wrote: Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.
If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?
Not the right tangent to go with against the yanks Their police force is that corrupt that it would be an issue.
If you're going to 'ban' guns outright, there also needs to be a buy-back program. No-one is endorsing suddenly making 75% of the population in violation of the law.
I don't understand why there is such terrible knowledge of gun ownership in the US. Shouldn't every single gun be registered to a single person, in the same way that a car is? It isn't that big a hassle to get the little bit of transfer-of-ownership done, and it doesn't prevent private sales.
I'm in favour of gun control to get guns out of the access of petty criminals. Organised crime will find a way to access guns, this can't really be prevented. But there should be a way to get guns away from muggers, shoplifters and street thugs; I believe ready availability of guns increases the relative power of these types of offenders. It also (hopefully) removes guns from spree killers and the like.
Car registration is simply just another name for tax. Furthermore, it's something enacted by the state, not the FedGov. Some states do have laws requiring registrations. Some don't.
And when I sell a car, I have zero obligation to check the driving record of the purchaser or even check if he/she is licensed or insured. All I need to do is sign over the title, provide a bill of sale, remove my tag and hand over the keys. It is incumbent on the purchaser to obey any registration requirements. There is no burden to me, the seller to sell my property as I wish.
New Orleans is the murder capital of America by murders per 100,000 people with 57.6 murders per, Detroit is hot on it's heels with 48.2. While Chicago has a significantly lower rate per capita (15.9) it's over all population gives it the crown for number of murders a year. To the surprise of no one, these areas have extremely high rates of gang activities. The key to reducing America's violent crime isn't the guns, it's fighting poverty, improving education and ending the war on drugs.
My Dad's perspective on all this is pretty interesting though. He grew up on the East Coast in the 60s and 70s, when the American violent crime rate was something like triple what it is now. He told my siblings and I in an email the other day "Well the statistics show that we're safer then we've ever been before, and we're certainly safer then I was when I was your age, yet if you listen to the media the streets of America are bathed in blood and the sky is about to fall. Usually when someone's making an over exaggerated fuss like that, they're trying to sell you something."
Shermaine Tyler, 32, was celebrating Mother’s Day just a block away from the barrage of bullets.
“Me and mom were going to the second line*. I told her I didn’t want to go because there are always shots at a second line,” Tyler told The Times-Picayune. “And the second I heard shots, I heard shots fired, we ran outside and one man fell in my lap who had been shot.”
*A second line is a kind of parade that's native to New Orleans.
Their police force is that corrupt that it would be an issue.