login
Gun control - The Answer?
-
No new posts
|
 2013-09-27 7:38 AM |
Champion  6503    NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete |  Subject: Gun control - The Answer?So a disgruntled, disturbed guy wants to cause chaos at the administrative HQ of the Navy in our Nation's Capital. Does he use an automatic weapon? A grenade launcher? A large magazine handgun? Nope. A shotgun. Just a shotgun. As we continue down the slippery slope of disarming our citizens, let us remember the weapons used in recent tragic attacks on US soil: Fireworks explosives - Boston Marathon - 2013 Shotgun - Navy Yard - 2013 Rifle - Sniper Attacks - 2003 Plastic knives & boxcutters - 9/11 - 2001 Letter Bombs - Unibomber - 1995 Car Bomb - Oklahoma City - 1993 Look up how many deaths & injuries have been caused in non-military use by high powered / high volume guns vs. other methods. Disarming or limiting the population to "hunting" guns won't change what bad people do. (Full disclosure: I am a liberal) |
| 2013-09-27 9:22 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
| Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? 1990 Happyland Nightclub - $1 worth of gasoline, 87 dead 1927 Bath School disaster, 38 students dead, 45 total, Improvised explosives. 1959 Poe Elementary School bombing - suitcase bomb 1970 Sterling Hall Bombing - car bomb 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing car bomb fortunately went off 200 yards early |
| 2013-09-27 1:59 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Expert 2180   Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Great Points. And I'm a "lib", too. Our Mental Health system needs to change. But that's a whole 'nother Thread.
|
| 2013-09-27 2:31 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? |
| 2013-09-27 2:33 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? |
| 2013-09-27 2:55 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. |
| 2013-09-27 3:59 PM in reply to: Justin86 |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. |
| 2013-09-27 4:07 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. Well you are in Chicago. It obviously has not worked in your town. It's amusing that you feel that the solution Chicago deployed is the answer for the rest of the country when your town is a complete and utter failure.
|
| 2013-09-27 4:19 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. I'm not talking about determent, I'm talking about getting them off the streets - for good. I realize that prison overcrowding is a huge issue, but I wonder what the percentage of people filling those cells are non violent drug offenders (why I am for legalization of all drugs, violent drug offenses are a different story). |
| 2013-09-27 4:32 PM in reply to: Justin86 |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 I'm not talking about determent, I'm talking about getting them off the streets - for good. I realize that prison overcrowding is a huge issue, but I wonder what the percentage of people filling those cells are non violent drug offenders (why I am for legalization of all drugs, violent drug offenses are a different story). Wholeheartedly agree, on all those points. |
| 2013-09-27 10:09 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? In DC, on average: Every week, two people die from from gunshots Every day, one person is injured by gunshots DC has some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the country I am an idealist. I wish that guns had NEVER BEEN INVENTED! But they have, and they are used. Not just in our country, but in EVERY COUNTRY. Switzerland, BTW is armed at about the same % as the US, but has the lowest homicide rate in the world. |
| 2013-09-28 3:57 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by pga_mike In DC, on average: Every week, two people die from from gunshots Every day, one person is injured by gunshots DC has some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the country I am an idealist. I wish that guns had NEVER BEEN INVENTED! But they have, and they are used. Not just in our country, but in EVERY COUNTRY. Switzerland, BTW is armed at about the same % as the US, but has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Switzerland and the US are apples and oranges. You really can't compare the two. Yes there might be a similar number of guns per capita, but the cultures and laws around the guns are totally different. Most pro-gun people would never accept the restrictions on gun/ammo ownership, licensing, and use that are in place in Switzerland. The guns there are highly regulated and there is almost no open or concealed carry at all, I believe. Training is mandatory and all guns have to be registered, which are both things that many pro-gun people in the US oppose.I'm sure someone more knowledgable can chime in. IMO, we need better enforcement of existing gun laws and a long hard look at the system of treating people with a history of psychiatric problems. Those are the two things that would make the most difference. Passing laws governing the guns themselves isn't completely without merit, but it doesn't come anywhere close to solving the problem by itself. I'm not a gun owner myself, but I've come around to understanding and appreciating the pro-gun side a lot more. Where I differ from most strongly pro-gun people is that I'm ok with making it marginally more difficult for a responsible/law-abiding person to get a gun if it means making it much more difficult for a potentially dangerous or irresponsible person from getting one. |
| 2013-09-28 5:48 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 432 Calgary, AB | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Switzerland and the US are apples and oranges. You really can't compare the two. (apples-and-oranges.jpg) Attachments ---------------- apples-and-oranges.jpg (175KB - 17 downloads) |
| 2013-09-28 8:19 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by pga_mike In DC, on average: Every week, two people die from from gunshots Every day, one person is injured by gunshots DC has some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the country I am an idealist. I wish that guns had NEVER BEEN INVENTED! But they have, and they are used. Not just in our country, but in EVERY COUNTRY. Switzerland, BTW is armed at about the same % as the US, but has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Switzerland and the US are apples and oranges. You really can't compare the two. Yes there might be a similar number of guns per capita, but the cultures and laws around the guns are totally different. Most pro-gun people would never accept the restrictions on gun/ammo ownership, licensing, and use that are in place in Switzerland. The guns there are highly regulated and there is almost no open or concealed carry at all, I believe. Training is mandatory and all guns have to be registered, which are both things that many pro-gun people in the US oppose.I'm sure someone more knowledgable can chime in. IMO, we need better enforcement of existing gun laws and a long hard look at the system of treating people with a history of psychiatric problems. Those are the two things that would make the most difference. Passing laws governing the guns themselves isn't completely without merit, but it doesn't come anywhere close to solving the problem by itself. I'm not a gun owner myself, but I've come around to understanding and appreciating the pro-gun side a lot more. Where I differ from most strongly pro-gun people is that I'm ok with making it marginally more difficult for a responsible/law-abiding person to get a gun if it means making it much more difficult for a potentially dangerous or irresponsible person from getting one. That!!! That is exactly what the 2A supporters are screaming for. The problem is that politically, that does not further the agenda of the hoplophobic control freaks who just want society to obey their utopia of total control by the state. Sorry.. I just despite authoritarians regardless of what letter they put by their name. |
| 2013-09-28 8:27 PM in reply to: Justin86 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. I'm not talking about determent, I'm talking about getting them off the streets - for good. I realize that prison overcrowding is a huge issue, but I wonder what the percentage of people filling those cells are non violent drug offenders (why I am for legalization of all drugs, violent drug offenses are a different story). I'm in total agreement with this perspective as well. I don't care if person X smokes pot all day. Just don't tax me to support him and don't tax me to put him in jail. If he works a minimum wage job and scrapes by but doesn't hurt anyone in the process, he is OK in my book. I think prisons should be for violent criminals and they should have have zero amenities. No TV, no school, no gym equipment, no basketball. You lost all that when you committed a violent crime and the taxpayers are not responsible for your entertainment. You know what.. make them farm their own food too. Nothing is free! |
| 2013-09-28 9:49 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Pector55 Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. I'm not talking about determent, I'm talking about getting them off the streets - for good. I realize that prison overcrowding is a huge issue, but I wonder what the percentage of people filling those cells are non violent drug offenders (why I am for legalization of all drugs, violent drug offenses are a different story). I'm in total agreement with this perspective as well. I don't care if person X smokes pot all day. Just don't tax me to support him and don't tax me to put him in jail. If he works a minimum wage job and scrapes by but doesn't hurt anyone in the process, he is OK in my book. I think prisons should be for violent criminals and they should have have zero amenities. No TV, no school, no gym equipment, no basketball. You lost all that when you committed a violent crime and the taxpayers are not responsible for your entertainment. You know what.. make them farm their own food too. Nothing is free! I agree mostly. I think first time offenders deserve a second chance, people do make mistakes and a product of a bad upbringing. It seems to often not though that many of these people are repeat offenders, with whom I have no sympathy for. They made their life choices, they can deal with it. I agree that our prison systems are a joke, they are way to comfortable. You are there to serve time for a crime against society, not a vacation. There are certain things such as socialization that I wouldn't take away, I would think that would fall under 'cruel and unusual punishment'. But cable TV? Heck I don't even have cable TV. I would also like to see them put back to work, doing something, I don't know what but something. |
| 2013-09-28 10:37 PM in reply to: Pector55 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Pector55 Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. I'm not talking about determent, I'm talking about getting them off the streets - for good. I realize that prison overcrowding is a huge issue, but I wonder what the percentage of people filling those cells are non violent drug offenders (why I am for legalization of all drugs, violent drug offenses are a different story). I'm in total agreement with this perspective as well. I don't care if person X smokes pot all day. Just don't tax me to support him and don't tax me to put him in jail. If he works a minimum wage job and scrapes by but doesn't hurt anyone in the process, he is OK in my book. I think prisons should be for violent criminals and they should have have zero amenities. No TV, no school, no gym equipment, no basketball. You lost all that when you committed a violent crime and the taxpayers are not responsible for your entertainment. You know what.. make them farm their own food too. Nothing is free! Sounds good, but from a practical perspective, any prison guard will tell you that the so-called amenities are vital for keeping the prison population under some semblance of order. Take away TV, school, libraries, exercise, etc, there's not much else for them to do but try to escape, or try to kill themselves, each other, or the guards. Prison guards don't make enough to put up with that kind if environment and you'd never get anyone to work there. |
| 2013-09-29 7:19 AM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. Well, you had your chance a little over 200 years ago. The framers of the Constitution wisely realized that their ability to throw off ole George's tyranny resided in the fact that they were all "armed to the teeth." Sorry, I just had to savor the irony of an Englishman showing up here with an argument that basically boils down to: "Only landed gentlemen shall be able to carry a sword." |
| 2013-09-29 4:21 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there? |
| 2013-09-29 6:10 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there? Kenesaw GA, which is the place I believe you're referring to, is really too small a sample to try to extrapolate it out to a large metropolis. Their total population is only about 30k, which is no bigger than a good sized state college. If high levels of gun ownership automatically correlated to less crime, places like Houston and Phoenix, which are large cities with permissive gun laws would have less crime than NYC, which has very strict gun laws, but in fact the opposite is true. That doesn't mean that stricter gun laws always means less crime either. DC is a good example of that. What it does mean is that crime is an immeasurably complex statistic that involves a ton of variables--economic, social, even meteorological, and trying to tie it to any one statistic, whether it's gun ownership or education is almost always going to be unsuccessful. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-09-29 6:13 PM |
| 2013-09-29 10:01 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Clempson Kenesaw GA, which is the place I believe you're referring to, is really too small a sample to try to extrapolate it out to a large metropolis. Their total population is only about 30k, which is no bigger than a good sized state college. If high levels of gun ownership automatically correlated to less crime, places like Houston and Phoenix, which are large cities with permissive gun laws would have less crime than NYC, which has very strict gun laws, but in fact the opposite is true. That doesn't mean that stricter gun laws always means less crime either. DC is a good example of that. What it does mean is that crime is an immeasurably complex statistic that involves a ton of variables--economic, social, even meteorological, and trying to tie it to any one statistic, whether it's gun ownership or education is almost always going to be unsuccessful. Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there?
Only if permissive gun laws also translate into higher rates of gun ownership. Which may, or may not, be the case. Common sense says that it might. Also, there's probably some "tipping point" where the increased rates of gun ownership make for a significant deterrent. In Kenesaw, you're breaking into a house with a 100% chance that the owner has access to a gun. In most other cities, the odds are much, much lower. You probably CAN extrapolate out, but only if you know the shape of the curve... which is probably not linear. |
| 2013-09-29 10:13 PM in reply to: moondawg14 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? From interviewing and watching interviews of probably close to or over 1000 burglars I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of them are looking for a house that is not occupied....or at least that used to be the case where I work. These days the majority of burglars are heroin junkies....and all bets are off with those folks. They can rarely remember what they did or even where they were.....and sometimes when they actually commit the crimes they are in a complete blackout and many have entered homes where people are indeed present. In interviews with heroin junkies they usually say that they didn't even give a thought to whether someone may be armed or not. The only saving grace for homeowners is that these idiots almost universally NEVER have a gun....and if they ever run across one they sell it as fast as they can to get more heroin. It's a pretty weird view from my perch.....crime almost never being what you think it is by watching the news and TV shows. I don't know if gun ownership lowers crime or not, but one thing is absolutely clear.....it hasn't increased crime.
|
| 2013-09-30 9:58 AM in reply to: moondawg14 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by moondawg14 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Clempson Kenesaw GA, which is the place I believe you're referring to, is really too small a sample to try to extrapolate it out to a large metropolis. Their total population is only about 30k, which is no bigger than a good sized state college. If high levels of gun ownership automatically correlated to less crime, places like Houston and Phoenix, which are large cities with permissive gun laws would have less crime than NYC, which has very strict gun laws, but in fact the opposite is true. That doesn't mean that stricter gun laws always means less crime either. DC is a good example of that. What it does mean is that crime is an immeasurably complex statistic that involves a ton of variables--economic, social, even meteorological, and trying to tie it to any one statistic, whether it's gun ownership or education is almost always going to be unsuccessful. Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there?
Only if permissive gun laws also translate into higher rates of gun ownership. Which may, or may not, be the case. Common sense says that it might. Also, there's probably some "tipping point" where the increased rates of gun ownership make for a significant deterrent. In Kenesaw, you're breaking into a house with a 100% chance that the owner has access to a gun. In most other cities, the odds are much, much lower. You probably CAN extrapolate out, but only if you know the shape of the curve... which is probably not linear. 100%? Not even close. Kennesaw's PD estimates about half of their residents don't own a gun (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/georgia-town-ordering-gun-ownership-undaunted-by-massacre.html). That puts Kennesaw gun ownership pretty much in line with, maybe a little bit higher than, estimates of the rest of the country as a whole. |
| 2013-09-30 10:32 AM in reply to: Clempson |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there? That does surprise me, primarily because it's demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of guns in under-priveleged areas of every major urban area, and crime is rife. Pointing out statistically insignificant case studies isn't relevant. My point was that restrictions around gun owndership should be tighter. People want to own guns, for a variety of reasons (hunting, safety, paranoia, etc...), that's just a fact of life, but I don't feel that guns should be handed out without proper due diligence. I feel that your fixation on my nationality is muddying my message. Surely you can't disagree that appropriate due diligence is necessary. |
| 2013-09-30 10:39 AM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Gun control - The Answer? Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by Justin86 This is one of the things I disagree with a lot of people with similar opinions to myself, I am quite liberal. However I am a proud owner of a rifle, and a handgun, and I'll be a damned if the government is going to take them away from me. Mental health, and strict punishments for the unlawful abiding people who have firearms is where the control is needed. I don't see how my guns cause any issues. I don't think strict punishments will have any deterrent impact. Nobody who breaks rules, regardless of what "rule" that is - speeding, shoplifting, fraud, rape, murder - ever expects to be caught, so the thought of the punishment isn't something which enters their mind until after the fact, when they're consumed with regret. While I'm very anti-gun, I appreciate that the collective American psyche will never fully relinquish their desire to be armed to the teeth. I also believe that stricter gun control is absolutely necessary, with respect to legally being able to procure a weapon. Alexis bought his gun 100% legally, in spite of his mental health issues, prior gun crimes, and armed forces discharge. The fact that literally anyone can go to a gun show, and purchase any gun they choose, no matter what their mental capacity, or criminal background seems ludicrous. In my opinion, purchasing a weapon should be almost prohibitively difficult, with multiple checks and balances along the way to ensure only the most capable members of society can be armed. If this results in permits costing $1,000, and requiring 60 days notice - so be it. this may surprise you.. but gun ownership is a deterrent of crime. there is actually a place in our country where it is required to purchase a firearm to own a home. guess how much crime they have compared to the rest of the area/country? much much much less. you tend to think twice about committing a crime with a gun when the chances of the other person also having one are pretty much 100%. but hey, maybe one day we wont have guns anymore like the UK, and we can move on to banning steak knives instead... and then who knows what... sticks? is that next over there? That does surprise me, primarily because it's demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of guns in under-priveleged areas of every major urban area, and crime is rife. Pointing out statistically insignificant case studies isn't relevant. My point was that restrictions around gun owndership should be tighter. People want to own guns, for a variety of reasons (hunting, safety, paranoia, etc...), that's just a fact of life, but I don't feel that guns should be handed out without proper due diligence. I feel that your fixation on my nationality is muddying my message. Surely you can't disagree that appropriate due diligence is necessary. The ONLY due diligence that is necessary is to actually enforce current laws and hand out very stiff sentences for violent offenders. That's all. One of the biggest obstacles to that simple solution is that our prisons are full of non-volent offenders. We can come up with other sanctions/penalties for those folks. Prison shold be used to separate the truley violent people from the rest of us. There...........let's move on to the next problem, that one is solved. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK