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.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
said stuff

Did somebody miss a warning earlier this thread?

Edited by Mannahnin

 Grey Templar wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

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

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.

Grey Templar... you should read your source....


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.

Those countries also never had the concentration of guns we have. And we were talking about the US, not other countries.

The difference is enough to make any comparison impossible.

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'd rather have a gun to defend myself than a baseball bat. If guns are illegal I won't have a choice, the criminal will.

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.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/new-data-gun-crimes-demonstrates-why-senate-limbo/64998/

Look at the charts.



from:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

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.

Gun crime has dropped 40% in the last 20 years, and American society HAS to change...

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

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.

I just know....that a vehicle and a fire arm have one main thing in common........an operator behind it

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.

http://bjs.gov/

 Grey Templar wrote:
The very fact their victim is armed is a major deterrent for mos criminals.

Clearly that is untrue as you have much more gun-related criminal offenses than other similar countries.

Which is misleading as we have way more guns than they do. You can't say they are similar because they are not.

 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.

Exactly, it shows how its silly to ban the object and not whats really the problem.

 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.

Even restricting guns for law abiding citizens violates the second amendment.

 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...

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

One victim is too many:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

djones520 wrote: Gun crime has dropped 40% in the last 20 years, and American society HAS to change...

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

One victim is too many:

There will always be one victim. Doesn't matter how many youtube video's you post, or forum boards you crusade on.

 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.

If we could just change constitutions willy nilly whats the point of having one?

The point of having an ironclad document is so we have a final authority to appeal to, because otherwise laws would be pointless.

Yes we can change it, and our founders made it so it would be damn hard to do.


You clearly don't appreciate the consequences of not having your constitution be an (almost) immovable object of law.

And what makes our constitution so special? Its our Constitution, not anyone elses constitution. You're not from here, you couldn't understand.

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?

How many times have we changed this document?