In countries with strict gun laws, criminals don't have guns, either.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
In countries with strict gun laws, criminals don't have guns, either.
You do understand there is a difference between "violent crimes of all kinds" and "gun violence", correct?
I do think that the rate of violent crimes has many more factors than gun ownership, quite possibly to the point were gun laws have no effect on the rate of violent crimes. That doesn't mean they have no effect on severity of violent crimes. For example, in a domestic dispute, a violent altercation involving a gun is several times more likely to be fatal than one that does not.
Considering that the stats being provided are singling out "gun violence" that seems like a silly question.
To me if a person wanted to stop gun violence then they would be far more against pistols than "assault rifles". Pistols kill more people each year in more shootings than "assault rifles" do.
Don't believe me? Go look it up.
Hartsock
Banned
I find this borderline impossible to believe. I would like to see the facts. The only facts I've seen are the ones that show violence increasing when guns are outlawed, but those may have been pushed on me by the conservatives so I'm open and willing to take in any other facts and statistics.
The US cannot even stop people from coming over the border. Do you seriously believe that they will stop guns? Removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will bring us to a society where only criminals have guns. No thank you.
MoTappin
Well-Known Member
This. Clearly we have intelligent, politically thoughtful people on this board on both sides. Nice to see people who care, regardless of position. Too many Americans are apathetic.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
So I'm wondering if this gun control nonsense has anything to do with the legalization of drugs.
The writing is on the wall that drugs will eventually be legal. And with drugs being the main reason our prisons are over crowded, the people making billions in that industry will need a new reason to keep putting people behind bars.
Or it could also be that drug offenses are what typically keep most people from being able to legally purchase a gun. Since convicted felons can't buy guns, and a large percentage of convicted felons are convicted of drug charges, once drugs are legal there will be more people who are "included" in the second amendment. This would give more power and more freedom to the people. (like the slave said in the movie, if the blacks had guns there wouldn't have been a civil war). Can't have that, so just make the guns illegal. Everyone "wins" (except we all really lose).
Still waiting to hear why it's a good idea to take our guns away, while simultaneously arming citizens in Libya/Iran/Egypt/etc.
And while I'm on the subject, why is it okay for us to criticize Iran/Libya/Egypt/etc for censoring the internet (particularly during their revolutions), while we're simultaneously pushing laws that create an internet kill switch?
Wake up people.
The writing is on the wall that drugs will eventually be legal. And with drugs being the main reason our prisons are over crowded, the people making billions in that industry will need a new reason to keep putting people behind bars.
Or it could also be that drug offenses are what typically keep most people from being able to legally purchase a gun. Since convicted felons can't buy guns, and a large percentage of convicted felons are convicted of drug charges, once drugs are legal there will be more people who are "included" in the second amendment. This would give more power and more freedom to the people. (like the slave said in the movie, if the blacks had guns there wouldn't have been a civil war). Can't have that, so just make the guns illegal. Everyone "wins" (except we all really lose).
Still waiting to hear why it's a good idea to take our guns away, while simultaneously arming citizens in Libya/Iran/Egypt/etc.
And while I'm on the subject, why is it okay for us to criticize Iran/Libya/Egypt/etc for censoring the internet (particularly during their revolutions), while we're simultaneously pushing laws that create an internet kill switch?
Wake up people.
To be honest I am not sure of this is sarcasm or not.
I do not think limiting ammo clips and "assault rifles" will do anything.
I think linking mental health evaluations and admissions to mental health facilities to back ground checks, adding background checks to gun shows, better training for CC permits (such as requiring Utah CC carriers to take a shooting course each time they renew), adding an armed guard or two to schools (not advocating armed teachers) and removing gun free zones at movie theaters, malls, parks, zoos... will do far more towards lowering gun violence.
I am open to making it some sort of crime (perhaps a misdemeanor) if you do not adequatly secure your weapons. As long as it is properly written and has to be proven and not just assumed.
Anyone here who favors banning assault weapons I'd really like to understand what you consider an assault weapon? What distinguishes it from any other rifle? For extra credit please explain how its unique qualities make mass shootings or crime more probable.
Pos rep for anyone who makes an honest effort at answering the questions and not just spouting off some party-line BS
Pos rep for anyone who makes an honest effort at answering the questions and not just spouting off some party-line BS
This is going to be good...
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Another great question is what "mental issues" should disqualify a person from owning a gun, and who is the judge to say if a person has these issues or not?
I know it's pretty standard procedure to refer anyone on probation to get a mental health evaluation, and the 3rd party company doing the evaluation almost always recommends some class or program (conveniently provided by the same company that did the evaluation, at a high cost, of course). Would these people be disqualified from ever legally owning a firearm?
While in individual instances, people who are in favor of some sensible restrictions intended and perhaps arguably capable of reducing horrific public slaughters of innocents may actually be sincere, their point of view loses credibility with me because it is caught up in the old socialist strategy called "incrementalism", or gradualism. We have examples of this sort of political change towards the stated UN policy goal of total disarmament of everyone across the whole world, everywhere we look.
Going along with any step in this direction is just being compliant with the whole objective, ultimately.
Unless One Brow can break ranks with his political ideologues and take a stand against incrementalism, I call his arguments dishonest. Meaning if he didn't change his argument every time a new regulation is being called "reasonable", and always going for more regulation. Nope, just another incrementalist and a devotee of the lordly theory of government by the superior and for the superior as he fancies himself.
At what point do we actually realize the intent of the language, written by the then-recent subjects of the English Crown in 1789, after years of harassment and whittling on personal rights. People being forced to let the finest armed soldiers take possession of their homes, feed them, protect thereby the hordes of English bureaucrats harrassing the colonists' every economic effort as well, confiscating weapons needed for the self-defense of colonists against the Indians who were typically trading partners with the British who were promising to keep settlers out of Indian lands, and such. It was only when the contest between France and England for the Indian trade became hot that the British sought help from the colonists for specific campaigns. . . . other than that, the Indians were always being pitted against the colonists by the British themselves.
The intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure people had sufficient firepower to protect their own lives, their property, and their freedom from all threats including the universal tendency of "government" officialdom to make serfs or peasants of the populace, completely subservient to and dependent on the lordly "government".
It was the intent of the Constitution to empower the people to reject such government.
Well, if our right to vote was not compromised, and if our people were not subject to government-managed indoctrination falsely being peddled as "education", we might have the sense to understand our own interests, and act to protect ourselves in other ways.
The meaning of the words "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes every regulation that impairs the citizen's self-defense unlawful in this country.
In England, after going down this incremental road of total disarmament, a law abiding citizen in the recent past, oh a few years ago I think, found a rifle in a bag in his yard, and dutifully went to police to turn it in, since it was illegal to possess such a gun. The police arrested him, and threw him in jail, saying the law was the law, and it didn't matter how he got the gun, or what his intention was when he took it to the police. He is still in jail, regardless of a substantial public outcry.
Unless One Brow can recognize that as the consequence of incrementalism, and the objective of his progressive mentors, he's just got his head in the sand, and nothing he can say will even be worth discussing. Can't see the forest for the trees is one way to describe him. Looking at each piece of the incrementalist trail without being able see what it the whole mass of regulations is becoming.
babe mentioned increases in violent crimes after gun control was enacted. Are you claiming this is gun-related violence? To what studies do you refer?
Of course. Many more people own pistols than own assault rifles. Naturally they get used more. Why would that be relevant to this discussion?
MoTappin
Well-Known Member
No sarcasm intended. I haven't read the entire thread but at least people here care. Like I said, too much apathy. I consider myself pretty libertarian but can appreciate when people actually study the issues, then form an opinion even if I don't share it.
I haven't even seen that evidence, and certainly no facts that indicate gun violence increases. When Australia tightened up its gun control, crime continued to decrease at about the same rate it had been decreasing before. Where did it increase?
As for evidence that criminals don't use guns in countries where gun control is strict, you need look no further than Europe.
I don't recall advocating any action for the USA. I am only pointing out the complete evidentiary barrenness of your position. In societies where gun controls are strict, criminals don't have guns. You think the USA would be an exception. Do you have any evidence for that?
I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks?
I agree on adding checks for gun shows and better training.
I don't think armed guards will make schools or other areas safer. Most of these mass shooters expect to die.
I don't really expect anyone to answer. In my opinion the distinguishing factor is that it's easy to say "assault weapon" and get people to agree that "normal people" shouldn't have them, without really even understanding what makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon. Needless to say that what gun control advocates call assault weapons are distinguished more by cosmetic features than by their function in comparison to any other modern gun. As an assault weapon contains a combination of features that are widely available on other types of guns that are not currently being discussed in regard to any sort of ban.
Well, going by the answers you've given (and I acknowledge I may have misunderstood them), perhaps we could slightly reduce the fatality levels in mass shootings by restricting all but three types of gun:
1) Revolvers, which take a little longer and more effort to load repeatedly than magazine weapons
2) Rifles that load bullets directly into the stock
3) Shotguns and similar instruments that load from the rear
Going by that, an "assault weapon" might be any magazine-loaded weapon.
I see no reason to think your call has merit.
The political reality is that SCOTUS has said the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. So, I am trying to consider ways that can be respected, while making things safer and still respecting that as the law of the land. Until SCOTUS reverses that ruling, all your cries of "incrementalism" are just garden-grade conspiracy-mongering.