Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it illegal for gang members to have guns?

Depends how they got them, their age, if they have prior convictions, etc.

I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.

Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.

Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?

Current gun laws don't stop gang violence. More restrictive laws pulling guns away from folks currently allowed to have them or making it harder for these folks to obtain them will also not stop gang violence. I think that is all I've notice folks say in this thread. Bluntly, more gun laws does not address gang violence.

As for other gun deaths, I'll go down that old rabbit hole that folks get sick of. Is your goal to prevent deaths? If so, does the tool/cause of the death matter? If so, should you not focus limited resources on the tools/causes which are responsible for the most deaths?

If so, guns should not be the target of your ire.

Ban swimming pools and bathtubs!



And of course, as someone who has sworn to uphold and protect the constitution as part of your ROTC contracting, you may want to look at what the constitutional role of the federal gov't is in all this. A lot of what you are advocating is maybe within the realm of state and county governments, but well outside of what the feds should be involved in.

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.

Regardless of what percentage of gun deaths are due to gang violence, there still fething deaths due to gun violence. Is a man who dies to a common act of terrorism such as suicide bombing any less of a victim of terrorism than someone who died in 9/11?

Current gun laws don't stop gang violence. More restrictive laws pulling guns away from folks currently allowed to have them or making it harder for these folks to obtain them will also not stop gang violence. I think that is all I've notice folks say in this thread. Bluntly, more gun laws does not address gang violence.

As for other gun deaths, I'll go down that old rabbit hole that folks get sick of. Is your goal to prevent deaths? If so, does the tool/cause of the death matter? If so, should you not focus limited resources on the tools/causes which are responsible for the most deaths?

If so, guns should not be the target of your ire.

Ban swimming pools and bathtubs!

We focus trillions on fighting terrorism and it kills less American's each year than sharks.

EDIT: Me and many others have talked about ways to help stop gun violence outside of just "Not let people get guns" several times in this thread.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would think the issues lies more in that people in this thread seem to think that a majority of gun related crime being done by gangs is a totally okay thing and that we should just twiddle away our lives safe in the knowledge that political passiveness in response to the ever growing gang issues in this country will just totally not cause a problem later on.

Gang violence is not OK, but thus far, there has been no way to really get rid of it... Can't get rid of guns, because the gangs will still have them. Probably the best thing to do would be to legalize many of their money makers.... namely prostitution, gambling (across the country, not just on Reservations and Nevada), and various drugs.

Of course, there are already Outreach programs, which earlier in the thread you were so high on.... Those don't or haven't really done anything to help stem the "gang problem"

I do think there's something to be said about the political/societal element that kind of sits back and says, "well let the animals (gangs) kill themselves, so long as they don't bother us" and would rather deal with other issues first.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

We focus trillions on fighting terrorism and it kills less American's each year than sharks.

And surprisingly, one of the things the constitution allows the fed gov't to do is fund and maintain a military. If your congress critters want to fund the use of that military against terrorists, so be it. If we don't like that we need to vote them out. Fighting sharks and domestic gangs isn't in the fed mandate.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

EDIT: Me and many others have talked about ways to help stop gun violence outside of just "Not let people get guns" several times in this thread.

Yep, your answers continue to go towards fed gov't involvement, which should not be the answer at all. Just as the crap ton of money spent on the War On Drugs and the War On Poverty have stopped neither, you will find a federal War On Gang Violence will result in a crap ton of tax dollars spent, bureaucracies built, and gang violence not stopped.

One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.

Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."

For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

And, just because I haven't said it in this thread yet: the anti-gun crowd operates in exactly the same way as the anti-abortion crowd. We all know the goal of both movements is a complete ban, but we also know a complete ban would be unconstitutional. So, they do their best to chip away with incrementally tougher and tougher laws, with the goal being a ban in all but name.

How do you feel about an expanding back rounds check system with a national data base that links up with mental health data bases?

I ask because, well, now that Obama is doing what most president's do (republican or democrat) when faced with an obstructive congress: use executive orders, so stuff like this will happen.

I'm for it, if done prudently.
You'll find his executive action will do nothing. It is blocked at the state level by the hippy tree huggers and the ACLU.
Do yo9u know if you join the ACLU they will harass you for money and your caller ID will say "Washington DC." Its disconcerting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...

Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?

Better diagnosis...

Better treatment...

Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.

I'm down with this too.

There isn't a country in the civilised world that has a total ban on guns.

 MWHistorian wrote:
One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.

Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."

For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There isn't a country in the civilised world that has a total ban on guns.

There are a lot that have bans in all but name for the explicit purposes of firearm ownership as outlined in the Constitution.

It's impossible to assert that the answer to stopping (or helping prevent) gun violence is less federal intervention since we have not seen any real action by the Fed in regards to guns since the AWB in the Clinton era.

The "states" have shown that the reason the Fed does what it does time in and time out in things outside "guns" is because often states will just go hog wild with out considering what might happen to others state as a consequence. To say nothing of that idiot Rick Perry cutting the Texa's fire department budgets as parts of the state were literally on fire.

I'm not claiming we will find a miracle solution to the issue of gun violence, but I would like to think people on both sides of the isle could work togeather on it rather than just having this conversation.

D: I want to discuss a better back round check system and more invesment in mental health

R: No, slippery slope.

D: It has to be addressed.

R: No

I: Alright well what about laws mandating better fire arm training for carriers and say better laws to hold those who do not secure there fire arms responsibly accountable.

R: No, slippery slope, one day it's having to prove you can stop you kids from getting ahold of guns the next I'm in a gulag serving ultra communist satan president

You see why this is frustrating? Many of you keep shooting down possible solutions or things to help (Sometimes for silly reason's such as the slippery slope one) and refuse to provide any solution of your own.

 Rotary wrote:
I don't want to see our gun freedoms leeched away because i believe the end goal is to remove all fire arms from the street. Granted that would be in the far distant future but that is the direction I believe it is headed.
One day while I was on duty an intruder broke into our house and chased my wife who was carrying our six month old up the stairs with a steak knife. She barricaded the door with the baby crib and after a few moments he was able to start breaking through it, the only thing that saved my family was the fact that we keep a loaded .40 in a lock box in the bedroom. I was able to make it from my station home before pd was able to get a responding unit. I know the media focuses on all of the negative shootings that happen but there are equally as many examples of when guns are used for good things as well.

I'm glad your wife and son were ok after. That reminds me of this;

I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?

He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it illegal for gang members to have guns?

In most cases, yes.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?

He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...

Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.

A lot of municipalities don't have enough money, and most don't have it in the right places (that money spent on an armored transport could probably have been better spent elsewhere, especially if you're some sheriff out in the boondocks).

A bigger problem is that people are antagonistic with the cops and the cops are antagonistic with the people. There isn't enough respect or appreciation flowing in either direction which is a culturual and social problem in the US. Doesn't help that cops tend to only get news service when the feth up (which in some places is way too often *glares at NYC*), and people love comparing them to nazis.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy

 carlos13th wrote:
Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.

If you have a knife I may be able to run.

If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.

I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.

Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.

Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.

Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.

Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.

In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.

Edit: spelling.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

You do a hell of a lot of talking for someone who clearly hasn't done enough listening in his 18 years.

Police departments are getting fething MRAPs, and yet cops in NY can't even be trusted with handguns as they seem to have a better track record of shooting bystanders and innocent people than criminals. You really want to throw more weaponry at people who are, at best, trained to mediocrity with handguns?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.

Here's a parable.
Say you were given a cake. Then someone comes along and says "Hey, you have too much cake, that's unreasonable. Give me a slice."
"Okay, sure. Here you go."
A little while later the same guy comes back.
"You still have way too much cake. Give me a slice."
"Alright, but that's your last one."
"Of course. I won't ask for another."
Then later the same guy comes back.
"I want half your cake."
"Half my cake? Are you crazy? Feth no."
"Alright, we'll compromise. Give me a quarter."
"That's not compromise, that's just you taking."
"Now you're just being unreasonable and refuse to compromise."

For the pro gun control crowd, yes, there are many politicians that want to ban all guns and confiscate them. You say, "yeah, but they're on the extreme side. That will NEVER happen." But that is their goal and they aim to do it piece by piece. You say "But just a little reasonable legislation is a good thing!" I say "No, it isn't when it does nothing but punish law abiding people and does nothing to stop the problem it was supposed to stop." If you want to tread on my Constitutional rights, you're going to need a much better excuse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. even the President is held to it. Yes, it can and does change, but that does not lessen its importance to the American system of government.
Take for example: How would you react if the government said you had to register and take a test before you could exercise your free speech? Or is that somehow different and special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0


Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Video blogger Jason Mattera has Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.



Dianne Feinsteins wish:




Attorney General Eric Holder
The Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t suggest banning or confiscating guns. He just thinks we should brainwash the American people into wanting to get rid of guns.



You mean this slippery slope?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

You do a hell of a lot of talking for someone who clearly hasn't done enough listening in his 18 years.

Police departments are getting fething MRAPs, and yet cops in NY can't even be trusted with handguns as they seem to have a better track record of shooting bystanders and innocent people than criminals. You really want to throw more weaponry at people who are, at best, trained to mediocrity with handguns?

It's NYC. What do you expect. Upstate we are very intelligent about our gu-- Wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a laugh, we're incompetent too.

If I learned anything from law and order, it's that Albany is the bastion of corrupt cops and New York City is the bation of incompetent cops And I wish Jack McCoy was a real person, cause that be awesome.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?

He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...

Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.

Not really my problem that you cant handle truth.

 LordofHats wrote:
If I learned anything from law and order, it's that Albany is the bastion of corrupt cops and New York City is the bation of incompetent cops And I wish Jack McCoy was a real person, cause that be awesome.

That's actually a pretty good description. We have had a lot of political corruption lately too.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
.

D: I want to discuss a better back round check system and more invesment in mental health

This is a mental health issue, not a ugh control issue. The background checks we presently have find what they should. Again, you can't force people into a mental health facility or force them to be diagnosed unless they've presented a clear and present danger to themselves or others.

I: Alright well what about laws mandating better fire arm training for carriers

These are already in place for CCWs. To put them in place to own a firearm is a gross violation of the 2nd amendment as forcing people to take said classes is an unfair burden to ownership.

and say better laws to hold those who do not secure there fire arms responsibly accountable.

I doubt you'd find any responsible gun owner that would have a problem with this, but only reactively or through the course of a criminal investigation. Requiring "checks" from the government to ensure proper storage of firearms prior to any crime being commited is grossly unconsititional.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?

He really ought to pull his head out and up and take a peek around at reality...

Considering your posting history, that's rather rich.

Not really my problem that you cant handle truth.

Fortunately, I don't have to handle your "truth", so let's just leave it at that, shall we?