National day of discussion: the gun issue in America
Forums › General Discussion › National day of discussion: the gun issue in America-
⚡🏀ʟєցi†ßɑʟʟєʀ🏀⚡ wrote:
But rights can be taken away. Not everyone has that right anymore. Felons can't buy guns. That's why they do background checks★Λubergine★ wrote:
Actually the 2nd amendment does give that right to everyone✂.
The 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms, but nothing says we have to give that right to everyone or not punish those who can't handle that right.
And re: your next post. The market for stolen guns will dramatically decrease if the penalties for losing guns increases. If you knew you'd go to jail for a year and never be able to buy another gun, you'd work a lot harder to keep that gun under control.
-
Add CARP wrote:
That's fucking stupid. The people fighting crime should have a higher degree of force available than the people committing the crimes.After gun laws in California banned the ownership of .50 cal Barretts by civilians, Ronnie Barrett (owner of the company) stopped all sales of the guns to Californian police, saying that he was not going to allow the police to have more firepower than the citizens. He was damn right in saying that. Any type of ban on any gun should result in the same gun banned for police.
-
There is too much 'I think' going on here so I did a little research and what I found surprised me a little.
I wanted to first know a little about how crimes are committed, the FBI keeps statistics on homicides that includes dozens of data points, including information about what kind of weapon (if any) was used in homicides. What I found was 67.5% of all homicides were committed with a firearm [4.2% of those were committed with a rifle for you anti assault weapon people out there]. This indicates that a reduction in firearms could have a real effect on the numbers of murders in the US.
Continued...
-
That only addresses homicides, which is just one of many types of crimes. The bureau of justice statics keeps statistics of non-fatal rape, robberies and assaults. A very different trend came up here. Only 22% of non violent crimes involved a weapon of any type, and only 8% involved a firearm. Does that mean that rapes, robberies, and assaults with a firearm became deadly and no longer contributed to the statistic, or does it mean than firearms are less used weapons in the commission of a crime?
Continued...
-
To answer this I wanted to find the mortality rate of gunshot wounds. According to an article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine (35:3 March 2000) only about 20% of total gunshot wounds are fatal. This indicates that a firearm does not turn a violent crime into a homicide, rather criminals choose firearms for murder, yet will commit violent crimes without regards to the availability of a firearm.
Continued...
-
There is a unique opportunity to see the end result of a gun ban; all we must do is look to australia. The National Center for Policy Analysis has compiled data from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics on violent crimes. Their findings were that violent crimes increased 42.2% following their gun ban. I could only speculate as the the reason, but there does appear to be a connection.
Continued...
-
http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/270085-Gun-Control-Statistics-from-the-FBI-hmm
Can anyone verify this?👆
I have seen it in multiple places.
-
My conclusion based on the information gathered is that a reduction in firearms could decrease the number of homicides. However, the availability of firearms does not appear to contribute to the amount of violent crime, and based on an observation of Australia a gun ban could increase the amount of violent crime. I will leave with a question: would it be better to reduce a relatively small number of murders or a relatively large number of violent crimes?
-
References:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1784
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
They carry guns in their cars. They rarely carry them on their person. Only n the toughest areas.Silent Arcani wrote:
Get with the times. The cops in the UK carry guns now.I say we copy British gun laws. In the UK it is illegal to own a handgun or an assault rifle. Hunters are allowed to own shotguns or hunting rifles but it is very hard to get them. As a result, there is much less gun violence then in the US. There is so little gun violence that cops don't even carry guns themselves.
-
ƑƦཇཇ☠ཀaʂ٥ท wrote:
I saw that too and looked for any hard evidence but couldn't find any. The closest thing I came to was the bjs stats that talk about non violent crimes. A baseball bat would fall under 'other weapon' but that makes up 7% of crimes so I don't believe that is true, at least for the baseball bat claim.http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/270085-Gun-Control-Statistics-from-the-FBI-hmm
Can anyone verify this?👆
I have seen it in multiple places.
I do wish it was true though...
-
My wife saw it on her Facebook last night as well.
She also saw something about a senator righting up a bill that will ban military style weapons and magazine that can hold up to 30 rounds as well as the drums. I can't seem to find that one though.
-
*writing
-
If there are no guns there then there will be less access to them therefore less gun crime...?
-
ཀ〇ทㄎ丁ㄠཞ wrote:
If you could get rid of every gun tomorrow then yes, there would be no gun crime. If you have a plan of how to remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there I'm all ears. Although the criminally minded may just start using chain saws, then we have to eliminate every chainsaw ever made. Before you know it whiffle ball bats would be outlawed, and I'm willing to bet there would still be crime.If there are no guns there then there will be less access to them therefore less gun crime...?
-
Silent Arcani wrote:
Thanks for making my point. The police in the UK carry guns. Thanks.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
They carry guns in their cars. They rarely carry them on their person. Only n the toughest areas.Silent Arcani wrote:
Get with the times. The cops in the UK carry guns now.I say we copy British gun laws. In the UK it is illegal to own a handgun or an assault rifle. Hunters are allowed to own shotguns or hunting rifles but it is very hard to get them. As a result, there is much less gun violence then in the US. There is so little gun violence that cops don't even carry guns themselves.
-
Tweek wrote:
You can take the gun out of the hand of the criminal, but he is still a criminal. If we take away every gun in America, people will just use homemade bombs and knives to commit their deeds.
However, I do think that automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public.
Automatic guns are only allowed to be owned if they were made before 1982. Even so you have to go through an extensive background check before you own one. A criminal such as this one in this recent had no criminal record. So he was able to buy a firearm. I do not think he had a automatic firearm although I may be wrong. A criminal doesn't need a gun to commit crimes, he can easily use different methods of harm to hurt people. Taking away guns will be taking guns away from law abiding citizens who use them for good purposes, and it won't stop criminals.
-
I would also like to say that a semi-automatic weapon can be fired as fast as you pull the trigger, it is essentially as effective as a automatic weapon. No point in banning them.
-
❌❌ѦяƬяʏĦαя∂❌❌ wrote:
Excellent point, a full automatic weapon does not work like the movies would have us believe. If someone was going to be shooting at me, I'd rather they have a full automatic weapon. Less accuracy, more time spent reloading, better odds of survival!I would also like to say that a semi-automatic weapon can be fired as fast as you pull the trigger, it is essentially as effective as a automatic weapon. No point in banning them.
I really think the gun issue is one of fear and education.
http://youtu.be/w2PFY8MNVuY
-
Tweek wrote:
Our founding fathers said the most basic reason to own a weapon was to deflect tyranny of gov't. If the gov't has a monopoly on auto weapons, there is nothing to stop that tyranny.You can take the gun out of the hand of the criminal, but he is still a criminal. If we take away every gun in America, people will just use homemade bombs and knives to commit their deeds.
However, I do think that automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public.
-
★Λubergine★ wrote:
Hmm good idea but what if you are mugged or it is robbed from your house and you have no say in giving up your gun? Do they still receive jail time or can they report it?⚡🏀ʟєցi†ßɑʟʟєʀ🏀⚡ wrote:
But rights can be taken away. Not everyone has that right anymore. Felons can't buy guns. That's why they do background checks★Λubergine★ wrote:
Actually the 2nd amendment does give that right to everyone✂.
The 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms, but nothing says we have to give that right to everyone or not punish those who can't handle that right.
And re: your next post. The market for stolen guns will dramatically decrease if the penalties for losing guns increases. If you knew you'd go to jail for a year and never be able to buy another gun, you'd work a lot harder to keep that gun under control.
-
The subject of banning assault weapons comes up every time something like this happens, I realize it is an emotional issue but the fact remains that the second amendment wasn't written so we could go hunting. The second amendment was put there in case our government became tyrannical and tried to take away our other rights, and to do so requires the same firepower that the government has. So the "...
nobody need a assault weapon" argument is just an excuse to partially disarm the population. Stricter gun laws would have had very little effect on the outcome as the nut-case the did the shooting didn't own any guns, and don't even try the if the person that he got them from hadn't had them it wouldn't have happened when some one of this type (insane) wants to kill they will find a way. Remember Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 more and destroyed a building, using fertilizer and heating oil. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
U didnt get my point. In the UK cops only have to have 1 gun per 2 cops that can be left in the car. almost no need for cops 2 have gunsSilent Arcani wrote:
Thanks for making my point. The police in the UK carry guns. Thanks.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
They carry guns in their cars. They rarely carry them on their person. Only n the toughest areas.Silent Arcani wrote:
Get with the times. The cops in the UK carry guns now.I say we copy British gun laws. In the UK it is illegal to own a handgun or an assault rifle. Hunters are allowed to own shotguns or hunting rifles but it is very hard to get them. As a result, there is much less gun violence then in the US. There is so little gun violence that cops don't even carry guns themselves.
-
❌❌ѦяƬяʏĦαя∂❌❌ wrote:
He had a semi automatic rifle, a target a gun. Not meant for hunting only meant for killing people. Each six year old child killed was shot several times. And I'm sure several aka three is low balling it. Hundreds of rounds in a short period of time. Now what do you think would have happened if he had a normal hand gun? What purpose do you think a normal citizen has for a rifle not meant for hunting?Tweek wrote:
.
.
.
Great job quoting the NRA's pitch. But the facts are, assault rifles kill more people in a short period of time. Our founding fathers did not intend for us to have the right to mass murder each other. They were dealing with muskets and if you were great at it then you could get off 4 shots in a minute...I'm sure the idea of a 100 rounds a minute was beyond their comprehension with a bushmaster.
-
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
------------
Curious where tyrannical government is in there. You can read it how you want to, just as people do with the Bible. Fact is the words just aren't there.
-
NO founding father said that the 2nd amendment was necessary to protect citizens from their own government, that's just silly. They would have been horrified by the thought that the peaceful form of government they had created would require gun violence to resolve disagreements. Not sure where this idiotic argument originated, but it's pure NRA propaganda. The SOLE reason for the second amendment was to maintain an armed militia, or reserve soldier corps. Maintaining standing armies during times of peace was considered a bad idea by most at the time. I'd venture to say history has proven them right.
-
AMENDMENT II(b)
Despite the fact that we've provided for every possible contingency for you to peacefully resolve disagreements and ensure that the government continues to serve the will of the people, feel free to arm yourselves to the teeth and try to overthrow the government if things don't go your way.
Seriously, what kind of government would provide it's citizens, in it's founding documents, a means to violently overthrow itself? Idiotic.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
He had a semi automatic rifle, a target a gun. ✂.
✂What purpose do you think a normal citizen has for a rifle not meant for hunting?Ummmm. I go target shooting with my "semi automatic target gun". I'm a "normal citizen"(aka not a mass murder) & I love going to the shooting range with my family to shoot my revolvers, semi auto pistols, pump action shotguns, side by side double barrel shotgun, bolt action shotgun, semi automatic shotgun, bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, black powder rifle, and yes, (gasp) even my semi automatic "military style" rifles. I do hunt, but I also shoot them because I think it's really fun. Target shooting is an enjoyable sport and that is a good enough "purpose" for me. If you haven't tried it & you ever end up in NC hit me up & I'll take you. Maybe you could have fun blasting a watermelon or 2. 👍
-
4nick8r wrote:
I'm sure I would have fun. I love to shoot, but I value our children's lives much more so I'd certainly sacrifice the experience. You're fun is in no way worth 20, 6 year old lives though. Sorry, I support you doing something else for fun if it means preventing this from happening another 30 times after the last 30 since Columbine. And 70% of gun owners agree with having much stricter regulations. It's time our representatives listen to the majority rather than the minority.★Λddi★ wrote:
✂.
✂Maybe you could have fun blasting a watermelon👍
-
Just because we've turned guns into toys as a society doesn't mean that is their original intent and that we should blindly keep treating them as such no matter how many lives we needlessly lose. Don't misunderstand me, though, I'm not real keen on on control like the rest of the 1st world countries. I like having my hand gun for home defense. But we have no need for semi auto weapons aside from sport. And that just real never justify the bad that comes from it.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC