A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?lite
I wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly by Gunmen?
I wonder what the statistics are on using the gun to defend ourselves versus using it to murder-could it be 2 times to defend and 98 times to murder?
This reckless taking of human life and we good gun owners simply fold our hands and do nothing.
Guns are so far integrated into your culture that it's too far gone to do anything about. Compare your TV and film industries with those of Europe and we see far more inclusion of the glorification of guns, violence, the 'good guys against the bad guys' than you would ever see in Europe. From the ages of two your children are exposed to cartoons which include gun violence.
The cry from your pro-gun lobbies are that to take the guns away from the good guys means that they will not be able to defend themselves against the bad guys. They also cling to an outmoded thinking about the right to bear arms as if they were still living in the Wild West or they hold on to crazy ideas of a New World Order, etc. The result is that your successive governments haven't the courage to do anything to stem the tide of gun usage.
Perhaps something is missing in your education system. Do your schools teach children about the evils of gun use or social responsibility? Is there something that can be done about the ammunition manufacturers such as incrementally reducing the power of the ammunition or restricting the amount that can be manufactured? What's wrong with outlawing certain types of guns?
What is needed is a long term phased plan of gun removal from your society perhaps over 50 years, and a reducation of your population. But alas this will never happen as you have far too many vested interests in gun culture.
Ralph,
We are forced to teach:
aids education
sex education
nutritional education
bullying education
skin cancer education
peer pressure education
character education
Even if I were to agree with you about the need to teach about guns in schools, and I don't, when would we have time to teach math?
Kids can't learn math (or anything else) if that are malnourished, victims of violence or bullying, or suffering from undiagnosed mental health problems. Ensuring health and safety in school is a precursor to learning, not an impediment.
Yes, it is a precursor, but when we spend too much time on the precursor, we get nothing accomplished. It's like watching the pregame show but never watching the game. Bureaucrats who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away know what I should teach? That's part of the problem in education. Somebody who has never even met my class thinks they know what my class needs more than I do. Just let me do my job; I'll teach any one of the "precursors" if it's needed.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
I suppose you have to look at the people to find the answer.
What sort of gun control would the US have to bring in to stop people killing people with guns. Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun controls in the world but we still have numerous shooting every year.
The bad guys and the nutters couldn't give a toss about gun control.
As one person said a while back "A gun can make the biggest coward feel brave!"
The problem is depending upon others to get the job done. If we as citizens sit back and simply do nothing what makes us think things are going to get better?
We still have far fewer shootings per 100,000 people than the US
Absolutely John, but the USA was born of the gun and there are said to be 300 million guns in circulation in the US, taking away the rights of the lawful citizen to own one will not stop the criminals and nutters from using them.
Its a very difficult situation but I doubt taking the right to own a gun will stop the killing it will just make it a little harder.
You are aware that it was perfectly legal to own a gun and carry it in public well into the 20th century in the UK?
What percentage of the population did John? And what percentage of the population owned a fire arm in the US at the same time period?
My grandfather owned a gun and had the relevant licences up to his death in 1984, as it happens he never went out and killed anyone.
As I said its the people not the guns.
How many people not in possession of a gun have shot and killed anybody?
Good point.
Now how would you collect 300 million guns from those who legally owned them and see it as their right to own them and how do you collect them from the criminals and nutters who take no notice of the law anyway?
Our gun laws are effective. In 2010 we had 39 gun related deaths. The US, with a population only 5 times larger, had over 30,000 gun related deaths. If our laws were only equally effective that would be 195 gun related deaths, so it is clear that gun controls are the way to reduce gun related deaths.
Both countries have similarities and differences. You've been able to exclude every factor and verify that gun control is the only reason there are fewer homicides in Britain?
You believe that you can totally eliminate these factors which seem to be more prevalent in America?
drugs
illegal aliens
gangs
a culture of violence
Did I say the only reason? It is a major reason though- There are other countries with a culture of violence, drugs and gangs with lower fun crime rates than the US.
You omitted any other reason, so it was and still is clearly implied.
Not at all, but I would counter that gang culture and the culture of violence are intrinsically connected to gun culture. Illegal drug use is connected to gang culture and illegal aliens are trying to protect themselves using the internal cultures- so it still comes down to gun culture.
Sustained education and gradual restrictions will lead to a long term solution- immediate prohibition will likely make things worse , at least in the short term.
But if guns, illegal or legal, we're harder to get hold of there would be a lot less gun related deaths.
Millions of Americans own guns and are not affiliated, in any way, with gangs or drugs. You're quite literally saying that gun ownership results in gangs and illegal drug usage? Seriously?
You must not understand America very well. Gradual restrictions will result in a massive run on both guns and ammunition. You'll have more guns and ammunition than ever if you do this. American gun owners will stockpile. Many Americans won't react to these kinds of regulations like they are European.
Yes, if we lose our gun rights and the government starts confiscating guns, there could potentially be fewer gun-related deaths. That doesn't sound American to me, and it doesn't necessarily mean there would be less violence or even homicides. It would be an erosion of freedom.
A link doesn't mean everybody- it means the gangs come together for protection and greater capacity for violence, which guns bring, will result in a greater draw towards Ganga. More gangs means more violence which means people in that strata of society will be drawn towards gangs. Guns aren't the only factor, bit they are a factor. Gangs and drug distribution have a long link.
And here is a novel approach- rather than worrying about the right to bear arms think about practical reasons why you need a gun? Self defence has no logic here because you are more likely to get shot if you confront a criminal than if you let insurance do its job. For the vast majority the only reason to have a gun is because you can have a gun.
I don't think they should ban guns- Like you I think the American obsession with personal freedom other social responsibility will create issues- I think they should make it harder to get permits and also link permits to potential use of weapons- hunting rifles would be easier to get permits for than concealable pistols, as one example.
Guns may be a part of gang culture, but they are also part of a culture of freedom. We need to target both gangs and their cause, not every gun owner.
I hate it when people say that I need to justify why I may have a gun. It is a constitutional right, and thus, it does not need to be justified. Next, we'll have people claiming that we need to justify freedom of religion or speech. I'm proud that Americans have an "obsession with personal freedom." Extremism in the pursuit of freedom is not a vice.
I can give many, many examples of people who protected themselves with a gun when necessary, so for me, I choose to own a firearm. That's my right, and as an American, I don't need to justify it.
Why do you so adamantly refuse to address the real problem behind violence?
You're right - there is no need to justify any "need" for a weapon (or anything else you want or have).
Instead there is a very definite need to justify denying you that weapon (or anything else you want or have). That someone else is afraid of black, scary looking guns is insufficient reason to deny you that gun. That they think the denial might save lives (without ever checking) is insufficient.
"Why do you so adamantly refuse to address the real problem behind violence?"
Because the goal is to get rid of those scary guns, not to save lives or end violence.
"And here is a novel approach- rather than worrying about the right to bear arms think about practical reasons why you need a"...whatever.
Lets just forget about novel and go really, really far out. Let's not worry about why we need anything - anything at all - and let each individual have whatever it is they want without requiring that a second person agrees that they need it.
See, it's called Freedom and although the peoples of America are gradually giving it all up to the control freaks, it's still around to a limited degree. Without very good reason it is something to hold dear and keep a firm grip on - that some people are afraid of black guns is not that "very good reason". That scared people don't concern themselves with facts and truth is not that "very good reason". That there will always be some people declaring they know better than anyone else how everyone should live their lives is not that "very good reason".
And that some people do not see a "need" to have guns is not a reason for others to give up the right to have them.
Bentham Pleasure/pain principal is what you are getting at here. There are many critiques available which will explain why the net result is less freedom, not more, so I won't bother citing any.
No. While giving "pain" to a small group (take away their guns) results in "pleasure" to the majority (we got the guns!) it is not the ethical thing to do although Bentham would say it is. "The greatest good for the greatest number".
Instead, the rights of the minority must always be looked after and protected from the stampede of the majority. It is the total failure to understand that which makes the gun debate so objectionable. Given that many, many people believe taking guns will result in fewer deaths, there are many more (seen in this forum) that don't care. They just want the guns gone, and the cost to others is irrelevant to that desire.
So no, the pleasure/pain philosophy of Bentham is not what I'm getting at. Voltaire and Bentham would never get along, and I'm firmly on Voltaire's side.
Voltiare's thoughts on natural rights (not his own by the way, he was just an archive of European thought, very little original came from Voltaire and his views were often contradictory- his position of eminence in the French courts and his gift as a writer gave him a voice which is why he is so famous) are very similar to Bentham's principals
Bentham would actually argue in favour of you keeping the guns because he was all about personal freedoms and the pleasure you get from guns is a certainty where as the pain from people being shot is not a certainty and anyway, you have no way of measuring their pain against your pleasure.
Of course, in the instance of knowing the consequence was somebody getting shot it would then change to NOT keeping the guns because now we know about the pain and we can see it is greater than the small pleasure of keeping a gun.
This is was moved on my Mills, one of Bentham's students, who would not accept pleasure/pain as a sound value and changed it to happiness/well being. At this juncture it would more likely be argued against keeping the weapons.
Voltaire and Bentham are both Enlightenment thinkers in the Liberal camp.
OK. That's not how I read the few paragraphs on Bentham that I looked at, but OK.
What do those great philosophers say about taking guns away when we know they will cause no harm? That the only reason for taking them is the pleasure of controlling others?
Depends on the school of thought.
If that is the only motivation then most would disagree. Most modern philosophers would probably say it should come down to shared community values, so move the decision from federal to state law makers as a starter.
The consequentialists would look at ways of reducing the deaths and making it more acceptable- but the measures suggested, as you have pointed out, are poor.
I am not an advocate of total gun control but I think it is too easy to get guns in the states- they need to do more thorough checks on mental health issues and criminal checks to disbar those likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Purpose of weapon is something that I feel should be looked at in the long term but in the short term it will cause too many issues- as I have said before if the only purpose of the weapon is too be potentially drawn on another person then you are increasing risks.
Rather than worry overmuch about keeping guns out of the hands of the insane or violence prone, I would like to see those issues treated so there aren't any violence prone people to keep guns away from. Realizing that it is impossible to ever see that at 100%, it could still be far, far better than it is now. Maybe even to the point that it is no long a worry large enough to require gun checks at all (doubtful, but I can dream, can't I?). And as that is the only solution that has any chance of working, it is what needs addressed; not methods to control gun ownership.
"if the only purpose of the weapon is too be potentially drawn on another person then you are increasing risks"
For some, this will indeed be the case. For other it is not; the purpose is the same as for roller skates. To have fun with. To enjoy. To improve one's skills with.
To the typical gun hater all of those are flat incomprehensible; the only purpose of a gun is to kill people. Everything else is set aside and buried; ignored as much as humanely possible. That doesn't make it right, though, or true. There are a variety of reasons to own a gun, reasons that do not involve drawing it on another person.
Not that any individual reason is the business of anyone else. As long as that purpose is not to murder, it doesn't matter what it is; it is no business of anyone but the owner.
At one point, didn't Britain require a purpose for owning a handgun too? Then, didn't Britain state that self defense wasn't an acceptable purpose? How many handguns do you now have in Britain? Do you have enough freedom to own an old revolver in Britain, or have all handguns been banned?
I do not want to justify freedom to some bureaucrat. That, in itself, is not freedom.
You can't own a gun for the purposes of self defence but if you own a gun it is permissible to use it for self defence.
I believe it is possible to own an historic hand gun, but professionally deactivated.
One man's freedom is another man's prison.
Goody, I might be able to own an old handgun that doesn't function if I live in Britain.
I don't even consider what Britain has done to be gun control. It's more like an incomplete ban on guns.
OK, I'll have all your money, your house and any vehicles that you have because I want them.
Of all developed countries, the UK is about middle for homicide rates. Not, mind you, gun homicide rates, but homicide rates in general. After all, how many murdered people have complained about the tool used to murder them?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2464923
In addition, the UK has a horrible record of homicide rates compared to gun ownership. Facts and figures prove beyond a doubt that the UK needs far more guns in the hands of it's citizens and, given those guns, that the homicide rate will go down.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2465535
Facts and figures prove beyond a doubt that give people guns and people get shot. Opinion pieces with selected statistics certainly don't show that more guns lead to less homicides.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/b … ed-deaths/
http://screen.yahoo.com/study-shows-bet … 00468.html
The US homocide rate is also 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to UK 1.2. Remember that accidental gun death, state gun death and gun death ruled as self defence won't appear on this statistic.
No argument - the correlation is a little weak but it is there. Give people guns and people die by guns. Unspoken by the anti gun crowd is that take the guns away and people still die, just not by guns. Which is why I insist on homicide rates, not the gun homicide rates your links talk about. If removal of guns merely means a different tool will be used (homicide rate does not drop) there is no reason to even discuss gun controls, let away take away a freedom guaranteed by our constitution.
Yes. US homicide rate is about 3 times that of the UK, with a gun ownership rate of nearly 15 times that of the UK (interesting difference, isn't it?). Is it your contention then that the guns are the cause of the higher homicide rate? Remember that 1) facts say otherwise and 2) equating correlation to a causal effect is one of the biggest fallacies around. Even if more guns equaled more homicides (it doesn't) that does NOT mean that guns cause the homicide rate to be high.
How do the figures compare if suicides and accidental shootings were included? There are a lot of gun suicides in this country, and quite a few accidental shootings.
Guns mean deaths. Full stop. You get angry and lash out with a frying pan 9/10 it is a bruised head. With a gun it is likely to be fatal.
If you are being robbed and you do nothing insurance pays out. If you pull a gun somebody is going to get hurt.
Of course, it is still people who cause the deaths, but guns make it more likely.
There is also what I call the machismo effect. People with guns feel bigger, stronger and are therefor more likely to be aggressive.
Gun culture is the problem and reducing gun ownership is one part of reducing gun culture.
Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that fewer guns in a society does NOT mean fewer homicides? In other words, your ridiculous comparison between a frying pan and a gun is plain wrong; the pan leaves a cracked skull on a corpse.
The numbers don't lie; why then ignore them? Or do you not understand that "homicide" means murdered, whether by frying pan, gun, car, hammer, baseball bat, fists, or anything else? All your little excuses don't mean a single thing when the bodies pile up.
Can you explain, for instance, just why the Machismo concept you introduce is relevant when the death rate does not go down with reduced gun ownership? Or can you explain the rationale behind your statement that "Gun culture is the problem and reducing gun ownership is one part of reducing gun culture." when reducing gun ownership does NOT reduce murder rates?
Gun culture is the problem? LOL Honestly and with all due respect, you sound frantic and irrational. May we please discuss facts? There will likely be facts that support both sides of this argument. Guns do not necessarily mean death. I will not necessarily hurt myself by pulling a gun. Many of us do not own guns for the "machismo effect" that you mention. "Gun culture" is not the problem. A culture of immorality, one that does not respect the value of life, is part of the problem. Prolific substance abuse is part of the problem. Gangs are part of the problem. A bad economy is part of the the problem. A lack of parenting is part of the problem. Gun laws that are not enforced contribute to the problem. Illegal aliens are part of the problem. A culture that bombards our children with violence is part of the problem. We could go on and on here. Why don't you address ANY of these issues? Is your solution only to remove guns? If it is, that's not a solution. That's like taking pain killers but not pursuing the cause of your pain. Banning guns is a quick one-size-fits-all, feel-good solution that avoids dealing with the real issues, the serious moral decay of a society.
195 gun related deaths are quite a lot when you consider there were 619 murders in 2010 in the UK, a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world yet over a quarter of its murders are gun related!
2010 murders
USA 14772
South Africa 15940
Mexico 24374
You ambiguously claim to be a "good gun owner," yet you seem to be for gun control. What is your clear stance on the issue?
It sounds like you're suggesting that "good gun owners" can't be for gun control. Lots of gun owners favor stricter gun control measures. In fact, it is in their own interest to do so.
I agree that gun owners can be for greater control. I disagree about it being in their best interest.
Maybe not in their best individual interest but as a group definitely in their best interest.
As there is one on this thread who likes to equate guns with cars let's take the equation a step further.
Most of us accept controls on our use of cars, why not guns?
When I took my test to get a license to drive, I was asked to show that I knew information about how to drive. I was also asked to prove that I knew how to drive. NOTHING on the test asked me to prove that I should be driving, only that I understood the laws and that I could drive.
What you are asking for is different. You want people to prove that they are sane and thus safe to own a gun. Trust me, there are plenty of people who have driving licenses but don't belong on the roads. How is a driving test the same? Hint - The answer is they are not the same.
Before you took your test did you not have to do something first?
Nope.
There were no tests to determine whether or not I should be driving, only a test to determine if I could drive.
How strange! In the UK before you can take your drivers test you have to obtain a provisional license.
I take it then in the US that anybody can drive as long as they don't apply for a test!
"I agree that gun owners can be for greater control. I disagree about it being in their best interest."
The common interest should control in making public policy, not the interests of the gun manufacturers lobby nor the paranoid militias running around in the woods with assault type weapons or the nut cases with big magazines killing little school children or Sikh worshipers in their temple or a Congresswoman meeting in a shopping center with constituents, or an abortion doctor in his church. These atrocities can be reduced without infringing anyone's rights under the 2nd Amendment.
I don't believe I have a clear stand on the issue because we have polluted this country with too many guns already therefore we have force people to become gunowners in order to protect themselves the problem however is there are too many people who are not mature enough to be owning guns.
So we screamed to the top of our lungs about not taking away our guns when the majority of murders in this country is by guns.
The idea of being a great nation When We Consistently allow these senseless gun murders to go on generation after generation says to the world "Great Nation We Are Not!"
I believe we need to address:
cultural violence
drugs
gangs
illegal aliens
unemployment
If we address these, and other issues, we'll get to the heart of our violence problem. In addition, we need to look at societal decay and a lack of moral values that so many Americans seem to have now days.
We can argue all day about how many guns there should or shouldn't be. We'll likely never agree. We can agree on a lot about the topics mentioned above and the fact that doing nothing results in a greater loss of life. Why doesn't our country start here? Instead, we waste so much time arguing about guns.
That's cute, but 1 out of 5 is not a good score.
The real issues behind the amount of violent crime in our country are the War on Drugs and, as you mentioned, gang violence. But really, you only need to end the wasteful War on Drugs and you'll see the number of gangs (and by correlation, incidences of gang violence) drop like a rock.
What's cute?
Here is one PARTIAL solution, and I am not saying it is the most important solution (mentioned in response to your drug statement):
We never have gotten serious about controlling our border porosity. Drugs and illegal aliens come across the border daily. The drugs often result in crime. Many, not all, of the illegal aliens commit crimes too. There's a reason Phoenix is the second most likely place, in the world, to get kidnapped. If we were to get serious about border security, we'd save lives. Liberals aren't willing to do that, because they feel that the "American dream" must be preserved for immigrants at any cost. The cost is pretty high.
Google illegal aliens and gangs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many illegal aliens are in our gangs.
Google illegal aliens and gangs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many Americans are killed each day by an illegal alien.
Google illegal aliens and drugs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many drugs enter our country through the hands of illegal aliens.
If America dealt with this one issue, how many Americans would we save? Who knows? I can say that it is a real solution, one that solves part of the problem. Blaming our homicide issue on guns is ridiculous; it's a problem with people. Let's start solving the problem by making sure our uninvited visitors are behaving. We should know who is in our country and for what purpose. Allowing anybody in our country, because we have lax security, is a joke, one that results in more loss of lives.
But, guns are not the cause of the majority of deaths in this country, or any other. If a one year old dies because of bullet meant for someone else does not change the death of a one year old involved in a traffic fatality. For example, instead of a gun, the assailant could have run them both over with a car. I can do a search on that and find all kinds of stories of folks using cars as a weapon.
How many people have been fatally run down by cars in their own homes?
If I could produce such incidents, which is not difficult considering internet search functions, would that provide sufficient reason to ban cars?
If I could produce more of them than can be produced the shooting of one year old babies, would that be enough reason to ban cars?
EncephaloiDead
I find it hard to accept what you're saying regarding guns not being a major issue in this country. I don't see the government agency focusing on banning vehicles even though they can be a potential threat. The country is inundated with guns, the military has stockpiled guns.
Your comments are talking about what if-I'm not talking about what if I'm talking about What Is. Generally when someone says they are going to kill you the first thought in your mind isn't that they're going home and get their car and drive up into your home to run you over with it. To watch a subject them go into the glove compartment of their vehicle or into the trunk of their vehicle there is usually is an assumption they're going for a Gun.
The country is far more inundated with vehicles than guns, which includes the amount of deaths as a result of vehicles over guns.
"What is" occurring are more deaths due to traffic fatalities than guns, that is certainly not a "What if".
Considering no one has ever said to me or anyone else I've ever known in my life makes it kind of irrelevant. Of course, if they don't own a gun, they'll use whatever means is available because the point is not so much the weapon as it is the intent.
Really? I usually see them grabbing for a road map or a suitcase. Going for a gun is one of least assumptions I would make.
I suspect that your neighborhood must be right in the middle of a war zone?
EncephaloiDead
I can't be certain what reality you are living in but it clearly at least to me seems bizarre that you are comparing a vehicle where when an accident occurs a death may happen while completely ignoring all the intentional murdering and killing by a gun as an issue we should not be concerning ourselves with like I said I don't know what reality you're living in but it is certainly is not the one this world is experiencing.
Not to mention accidental shootings and gun suicides.
Not to mention vehicle accidents and vehicle suicides.
I've been driving for close to half a century now. I must have driven in close proximity to millions of people. in all that time I have never injured anybody, let alone kill them.
If I had spent that time shooting a gun as close to so many people I would have killed thousands.
Don't make such ridiculous and false comparisons.
There are millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone. You have no point.
And when it comes to cars you have no point either.
Cars have been used as weapons to kill people.
Guns have been used as weapons to kill people.
Knives have been used as weapons to kill people.
Baseball bats have been used as weapons to kill people.
The list goes on and on. That IS the point. Being biased to only one weapon of choice is disingenuous.
I'm waiting for your many examples of when people have been killed in their own home by a car.
And, I've already taken your premise to it's ultimate logical conclusion, that if there are folks who have been killed in their homes by a car, we therefore have just as much reason to ban cars as we have to ban guns.
But you haven't provided one example of somebody breaking into a house and slaughtering the occupants with a car!
So what? You haven't provided any reasonable responses showing that the weapon of choice is more important than the intent to kill someone. You're just tossing out a red herring.
No, you threw out the red herring when you claimed that the car was just as likely a choice as a gun. I'm asking you to prove it and you either can't (most likely) or wont.
There are ample stories of people using cars as weapons, this is not even an issue. Why you choose to ignore that fact is very odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne_qc503dcA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hdoQjLFFAE
http://www.youtube.com/verify_controver … cWOK0Lfh7w
Breaking into houses and using cars as weapons!
That is a red herring.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … rring.html
You introduced the idea of the car as weapon remember?
Sorry, did you not see the links I provided in which people used a car as a weapon?
Ninth post in, by you -
"But, guns are not the cause of the majority of deaths in this country, or any other. If a one year old dies because of bullet meant for someone else does not change the death of a one year old involved in a traffic fatality. For example, instead of a gun, the assailant could have run them both over with a car. I can do a search on that and find all kinds of stories of folks using cars as a weapon."
Well you do seem to have a bit of a problem remembering what you have posted.
So why did you accuse me of introducing red herrings with cars when it was you who introduced cars to the discussion?
I introduced facts and evidence of cars being used as weapons? What is your point?
Motor vehicles have absolutely nothing to do with the need for effective gun control. However, contrary to gun control deniers, just about everybody accepts the need for speed limits, stop signs, etc., which REDUCE the number of needless accidents and deaths. Gun owners would do well to support reasonable regulations consistent with the Second Amendment.
True, it has to do with the need for effective motor vehicle control.
But, the average gun owner does indeed follow rules and doesn't use guns to kill people.
It isn't the average and responsible gun owner that is the problem, it is the intent to kill people that is the problem. The weapon of choice is somewhat irrelevant.
It is you who is ignoring the intentional murder by other means, which means you are ignoring the fact that it is the intent of killing someone that is the problem much more so than the weapons involved. You are focusing one single type of weapon.
I'm living in the same reality as you. You must live in war zone, yes?
Education Answer
Clearly you make a number of good points as to the proliferation of guns in this country.
The study of cultural violence has been and is an ongoing process which apparently hasn't achieved much success. We have the psychiatrist, the profilers yet violence in America continues to reach an all time low as killers brutalize, torture victims before killing them. Once again your point is apropos when it comes to lack of moral values.
How does one change the mindset of a country, a nation that idolizes violence? Are these cage fights not popular? Stand your ground law apparently does not mean just defending yourself. When some parents get upset with Little League coaches they like to get things straight with their fist! We as Americans undoubtably have a propensity for violence since we can see it on the roadways, in neighborhoods etc. the fact is we need to solve this problem the question is are we willing to?
Here is a scenario to consider:
Your driving to a motel because your wife says she's leaving you. You've got a less than favorable evaluation from your employer who tells you they are going to have to let you go. Some teenagers driving recklessly in front of you and giving you a hard time while cutting you off as you're driving. You suddenly remember there is a gun in the glove compartment of your car. Are you inclined to use it because all the right buttons have been pushed on you?
I could actually spend hours looking up and writing down these violents act utilized by guns. If vehicles were in fact such a threat I wonder why they don't have the same fear factor is when someone pulls a gun?
Maryland man wounds daughter before killing wife
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1435950
Husband shoots himself to death.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -dead.html
Police charged with shooting spouse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -dead.html
Wife of Belleville chef asks why police shot her husband 24 times
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/ … times.html
So, what you're saying there is more of a fear factor when someone pulls a gun on you as opposed to the fear of them trying to run you over?
What is your point with that?
If somebody tries to run you over you can dodge, jump up on a low wall, stand behind a lamp post and if the worst comes to the worst most cars these days are (unlike guns) designed to minimise damage to pedestrians.
What is your point?
The point is that people use cars to kill other people. What is your point?
How many people use cars compared with guns?
What is your point? Can you not research your own questions?
Because, unlike you, I have a good idea of the answer.
You must be very proud. Do you have a point?
Yes, that you introducing cars as deadly weapons is a red herring.
To the pro-gun people: If that man didn't have a gun, that child would still be alive. You can try and worm your way around it and throw up every statistic you want, but there is the obvious undeniable truth. Cope. In this case, your precious guns are responsible for the death of a child. Soak it up, roll around in it. Live with it however you choose.
To the anti-gun people: Not every child that is killed will be killed by a gun. Plenty of children, though, will eat because of one. Rarely, a child is even saved by a gun...albeit usually when someone ELSE has a gun too... but I digress. This gunman, however, is not every gun owner on the planet. This gun is not responsible for every death of a child on the planet either. Let's try and put things in perspective.
To both types of people arguing in the thread: All you are really doing is being contrary. Both sides on this thread are so deeply entrenched in their own viewpoints that neither is going to change. If you want to make a difference, then lobby. Write letters. Join a group. Hold a demonstration. Do something.
Cause right now all you all are doing is trolling each other for your own useless self-gratification.
I think Ralph Deeds said it all when he said (and I paraphrase) car drivers accept controls on their behaviour, why shouldn't gun owners?
Did you even read what I just posted?
You do realize in the time you spent not replying at all to what I said, you could have signed an online petition or joined a gun-control lobby site? Hell you could have even shared a facebook post by a group like mom's against guns, just to spread awareness.
Instead you posted a largely useless comment that will either be preaching to the choir or a song that falls on deaf ears.
SMH.
Yes, I read what you posted which is obviously more than you did for me!
What I was saying to you was that I fitted into neither of the camps you mentioned.
We have good (not perfect) gun control in the UK.
I also read what you posted Melissa, and I don't agree, except that it's true that we are repeating ourselves without convincing anybody to change their mind. However, public policy facts and logic support trying a bit harder to control guns more effectively. Big gun money interests have thusfar triumphed over sane public policy. Many things can and will eventually be done to reduce gun mayhem in this country without interfering with any necessary and appropriate use of guns.
You don't agree with what? I never said a word about which side of the fence I was on. I never gave my views either agreeing or disagreeing with any specific gun control laws or gun control laws in general.
You disagree that the gun man wasn't every gun owner? You disagree that a gun killed the child? You disagree that this gun wasn't every gun in America?
What exactly are you disagreeing with? Because I didn't say anything that wasn't a pretty obvious fact.
See... that's what I meant about arguing just for the sake of arguing.
My, aren't you pugnacious? You're comment struck me as saying that there are equally good arguments on both sides of the issue. If you have an opinion on what public policy is in the public interest why not share it with us rather than criticizing those of us who are willing to take a reasoned position?
There are equally good arguments on each side of the fence. Most issues are like that.
I'm pro-gun control, because those arguments appeal to me more. That doesn't mean that the other arguments are any less because they appeal to someone else more.
To ignore points just because the overall conclusion is different than what you personally believe, however, is short sighted and unproductive.
And to me, it would seem that you were at least equally pugnacious... if not moreso. After all, you DID choose to assume a viewpoint different than yours and then proceed to disagree with that assumption.
"There are equally good arguments on each side of the fence. Most issues are like that."
Most arguments are NOT like that. Ridiculous.
The arguments are not equal unless you attach importance to the profits of gun manufacturers and WalMart which is the largest retailer of rifles in the country and probably the world, and also to the nut cases who are running around in the woods in camo outfits with assault type weapons preparing to resist a tyrannical government. (BTW, I've been a gun owner since age 12 when I got my first shotgun.)
If you're just saying that we're wasting time beating a dead horse, I agree.
*sighs*
Just because the biggest/loudest proponent of an argument is repugnant and driven by profits doesn't make the entire argument void.
There are lots of repugnant people in the world. I share opinions with many of them. It doesn't mean the motivations are the same, nor does the source of an argument diminish the validity of that argument.
edit in response to you edit: The dead horse was vaguely my argument. It was also a general sense of futility about people firmly entrenched in their opinions. All that comes from failure to comprimise is a power struggle. When/if one side wins (and it has long since been about winning rather than solution) then that victory must be humiliating and no quarter given.
Such solutions tend to be the very worst possible solutions to everyone but the zealots.
Now who's arguing for the sake of arguing?
As I recall you've weighed in on gay issues in the past. Do you think that there are equally good arguments on both sides of the issues of whether homosexuality is usually innate or acquired, whether it is a sin, or whether conversion therapy is valid? What about issues over white racist dominance as argued by our HubPages friend whose name escapes me for the moment.
Saying that there are equal arguments on both sides of most issues is a denial of Judeo-Christian morality.
I believe those arguments come from exactly the same place... personal opinions. My desire for gay rights comes from exactly the same place as someone else's desire to deny them.
Yes, I do think there is some validity in someone not wanting something that is abhorrent to their faith to be made common, especially if they are trying to keep their children from being exposed to it.
Do I agree with it? No. However there are things that I try to shield my children from and it pisses me off that I am unable to do that because of somebody else's morals. So yes, I do get it.
There is also some small validity that homosexuality is chosen, at least to some. As a bi-sexual in a monogamous heterosexual relationship it would be hypocritical to deny that there is a choice there... at least for some.
As far as racial superiority... if backed into a corner, I would also admit that differences in race do provide superiority in certain aspects of life. That's just biology. Wishing that there were no differences doesn't make it so.
I didn't use the words "entire argument." I didn't say there was no validity to gun regulation denier's arguments. You are saying that their arguments are equal. Wise and practical public policies usually are resolved because ON BALANCE they serve the common interest of the majority.
I may a bit more cynical than you here, but I've found that public policies are generally resolved in favor of the party that screams the loudest. That's why partisanship has prospered... because it's damn effective.
I am indeed saying that the arguments are equally valid. There are good points on each side. If you were so inclined to be standing on the other side of the fence, I reckon you would be arguing those points just as loudly as they are.
Once again, denying a good point leads further away from a resolution... Unless you are just hoping that this is one of those arguments that is won by those who scream the loudest.
Just curious, what are the good points against more effective gun control? Your claim that there are equally good points on each side of every argument is mystifying to me. The goal of public policy is or should be what is in the common interest of the majority, taking into account the reasonable, significant rights of the minority under the Constitution. How you can equate all arguments is beyond me. This may be true of some arguments, for example, what to do about the civil war and use of poison gas in Syria, but it certainly isn't universally true as you are saying.
Honestly, my biggest problem with more effective gun control is that no such creature seems to exist. The second problem is that people will only be governed by laws if they choose to be. A wildly unpopular law to protect the minority isn't going to work. Especially when you consider that the enforcers of said law are largely pro-guns.
A population will only be governed if it CONSENTS to be governed. A law will only be enforced if the enforcers agree to enforce it.
The problem, as I see it, is that every law proposed is a slippery slope because there is no clear definition of what is sufficient. You yourself have shown adequate contempt of the concerns of gun owners for them to reasonably believe that you care nothing of their needs. The people that keep proposing these laws share the same attitudes.
Yet the gun owners very much need their guns, they rely on them for a feeling of safety. Whether you believe this need is justified or not is irrelevant to their situation. You calling them "nut cases" does nothing to remove these fears. In addition, some of these gun owners rely on their guns to feed their families. More than you could imagine, I think.
These proposed gun control laws, when taken individually, seem reasonable. Yet they are numerous and the push is almost rabid. There is a pattern developing and it appears, rightfully in my opinion, that the goal is to chip away at gun rights through a million paper cuts.
In addition, many of the laws proposed will do almost as much... if not more... damage to legal gun ownership than to illegal arms.
For any gun-control laws to actually work, they will have to be supported by gun owners. Those "nut cases" that you talked about earlier. To do this, there will need to be a compromise that allows them to feel safe. No law that threatens the feelings of safety or the security of food on the table is ever going to be upheld, even if you do managed to get it passed.
The attempts to pass such laws with no regard to the concerns of gun owners is just going to make more " nut cases who are running around in the woods in camo outfits with assault type weapons preparing to resist a tyrannical government." Essentially because you are providing a tyrannical government for them to resist.
"reasonably believe that you care nothing of their needs. The people that keep proposing these laws share the same attitudes. "
As I said, I have been a gun owner since age 12. I respect the legitimate needs of gun owners. I don't respect their "need" for assault type weapons, armor piercing bullets, large magazines, their ability to buy guns without thorough background checks (the gun show loophole) and the nut cases who are collecting guns to use against the government, against abortion doctors, elected officials, profiled African-Americans or Muslims, or other drug gangs or in fights in bar parking lots, let alone school invasions by mentally ill individuals. Sensible public policy demands more effective ways of preventing gun mayhem. "Insecurity feelings" on the part of gun, "enthusiasts," if you prefer, are not primary public policy considerations, in my opinion.
Gee, I would think the feelings of every individual would matter. This being a democracy and all. Obviously it's only the feelings of those that you agree with that matter. Sensible public policy must mean something different to you.
So, ignoring the concerns of a large population to institute laws that you agree with... just because you feel you are morally justified to do so...
That's not too far off from that whole tyrannic thing that the gun nuts are worrying about. Silly them.
The anti-gun lobby is just as responsible for that child's death as the pro-gun lobby is. No quarter given, no compromise reached, no action taken. Congrats. Keep on fighting the good fight.
By your reasoning we should take into account the feelings of pedophiles and purveyors of child pornography. They are citizens just like the rest of us. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a basic human right not subject to common sense regulations.
Wow. You really are comparing pedophiles to gun owners.
That's pretty unreasonable hatred aimed at a large percentage of the US population. How wrong of them to think that anti-gun advocates are rabid and see them as unworthy of having an opinion.
I used to think you were reasonable and fair... this kind of personal animosity makes me question that.
And I'm FOR gun control. No wonder the "gun nuts" this kind of behavior as a threat.
I thought the pedophilia argument was only used by the religious right to compare completely unrelated groups in a cheap attempt to prove their point. It's distressing to learn that the practice has spread. So what's the difference between you and them again?
Have you heard of the term "reductio ad absurdum?" My intention was to point out the absurdity of your position that the sensitivities of gun fanatics deserve consideration and your silly position that both sides of all arguments deserve equal consideration. I certainly was not equating gun nuts with pedophiles or child pornographers. Please don't put your words in my mouth.
Ah, well I wouldn't know anything about that, your education obviously is superior to mine.
Because what I assumed was you were using a clearly unrelated example meant to elicit an emotional response in order to avoid the subject of your obvious personal prejudices and how you use hyperbole and personal insults to justify your position that it is fine to disregard the wishes and needs of a large group of individuals because of your own personal morals. In essence, stereotyping them and dehumanizing them in your mind in order to negate the fact that their opinions/psychological needs are worthy enough to warrant consideration in the decision making process.
But, as I said, it is obvious I was mistaken. It was clearly a case of reductio ad absurdum... whatever those strange words must mean. Are they French?
Yes, you were mistaken as you often are. Look them up. (Google)
I sure will do that.
Gee... I wish colleges in WV offered philosophy classes.
Then we'd have all these fancy words for bulls**t.
Excellent point, if I don['t mind saying so myself! Ha!
It's should be pretty obvious that the United States is behind the parade of nearly all civilized nations on gun control. I'm tired of reading in my morning paper about drug shootings, drive-by shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, mass killings, accidental shootings and so forth. Citing accidental and intentional car wrecks is a totally absurd argument. You may as well cite measles deaths due to un-vaccinated babies or hospital-acquired staph infections as a reason for not adopting sensible gun control regulations consistent with the Second Amendment, i.e, the needs of hunters, target shooters and self-protection, when prudent.
Responsible gun owners aren't the people that we need to worry about. If people in Chicago could legally own and carry guns, the gun crimes would drop quickly. In 2012 more than 400 people were killed by gunfire. Killed by bad guys with guns.
Imagine living in a city where only the bad guys have guns and more than one person per day is murdered.
Gunowners.org has the statistics you are looking for.
Don't think I'm on your side. The truth is sites like gunowners.org etc. are simply making an agreement impossible.
They are essentially protecting the bad guys by stopping the laws that would take the guns out of the bad guys hands.
It's the dead-lock that is getting people killed. Both sides OWN that.
If the solution is just to arm everybody so they are on the same playing field, everybody deserves exactly what they get... which is everybody dies equally.
This isn't Dodge City.
I doubt that the people of Chicago think that losing their loved ones to murder is dying equally, when they cannot defend themselves. Bad guys don't turn in their guns just because their are gun-control laws.
Legal gun owners are not responsible for the choices that criminals make, so I disagree that "Both sides OWN that."
Here is a link to Forbes with additional statistics for the successful use of home and personal defense by gun owners.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 … rol-lobby/
EncephaloiDead
John Holden got the point when he asked you how many deaths by cars in comparison to guns?
Below you made the following statement:
"But, the average gun owner does indeed follow rules and doesn't use guns to kill people."
The examples I gave regarding shootings these were not hardened criminals using guns to kill. There a number of cases where people in a fit of rage and grabs a gun and kills.
When someone grabs a gun there is usually an immediate reaction unlike when someone gets into a car every day.
You're still missing the point entirely, as is John. People will use whatever means at their disposal to kill someone if that is their intent, which is the point.
Apparently they are not using whatever is at the disposal since whenever people especially a group of people feels threatened they don't rush out and buy a box of forts, knives, Lexuses, Buicks but they consistently buy guns.
That is just pure denial in light of the facts.
Very true, but irrelevant. To the anit-gun nuts, a gun is not a tool than can be used or abused; it is an instrument of the devil, designed and constructed for the sole purpose of murdering helpless human beings.
The proven fact that murderers will use a different tool when a gun is not available just doesn't enter the equation. As it does not promote the removal of guns from society it will always be ignored.
The fine folks who live in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, The Netherlands, Finland, and Norway didn't seem to search for other implements once guns were out of the picture...
And they have a far lower rate of murder. A crime that, contrary to crime dramas, is generally committed on impulse by young and/or drunken idiots.
"And they have a far lower rate of murder"
Lower than what? For every country that you might point to with a low murder rate I can point to a country with a higher gun ownership rate coupled to a lower murder rate (or vice versa; lower gun rate with a higher murder rate).
Comparing those two throughout the world pretty plainly shows there is no connection and thus no causal effect.
There is only one such country, and that is Switzerland. Switzerland is the wacky exception that proves the rule.
?? Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying that Switzerland has both the lowest gun ownership rate AND the lowest murder rate in the world?
No. Switzerland is the only country that has more guns but lower rate of violent crime.
More than what country and lower than what country?
Because that simply isn't true. I mean exactly what I said - give me any developed country in the world and I will give you either a country with fewer guns and more murders or more guns and fewer murders. Any country, including Switzerland.
When governments control the guns, they control the people. The link is to evidence of what happens when only government has guns. 56 million people have been slaughtered after they gave up their guns.
http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html
There is a world of difference between the government controlling guns and the only guns being in the hands of government.
I think you may be afflicted by the "Tea Party Syndrome."
http://hubpages.com/search/Tea+Party+Syndrome
I think it's self-explanatory. Did you click on the link?
Yes I clicked on the link, hence my puzzlement. You seemed to be accusing me of being aligned to the tea party!
Not you. The anti-gun rights crowd. I'm generally in agreement with you. I think it was intended for "lifelovemystery." Sorry.
Well although you obviously aren't addressing me as I am no anti gun nut nor do I argue for the complete removal of guns from society but still I feel the need to respond.
Let's leave murderers out of the equation for now and discuss the small children who get their hands on their parents loaded gun and kill their playmate or sibling.
Consider this -
"In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%)."
OK, for the moment you aren't an anit-gun nut.
According to you, the US saw 48 deaths in 2010 from children under 6 using guns. The stats for people under 25 are meaningless; they present data that is of no value.
So, 50 deaths per year to protect the rights given by the constitution. Considering that the death toll from automobiles is many, many times that and quite well accepted, I would think that is a reasonable figure.
Not to say it can't be lowered, and not by removing guns. I support trigger locks (not sure what a loading indicator is) and potentially an owner recognition device. Just not removal of guns.
And you? Do you support removal of guns from mentally healthy individuals without a criminal record? Keep in mind that removing guns won't affect the murder rate one iota...
Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong with would be owners having to prove that they are mentally healthy either.
Maybe. The problem I see is that few people would accept taking mental health tests to own a gun, particularly when the anti-gun crew is designing the acceptable answers.
Do we need a mental health test for a bow and arrow? A car? A nail gun? Obviously not, and the only reason can be that either there aren't enough deaths OR that society won't accept it (the car). So why a gun?
And there is one other wee problem; in the US we're innocent until proven guilty. If you want to deny mentally ill people the right to carry, it is up to society to prove they are unstable, not the other way around.
Why should a responsible person object to proving they are responsible? They have to do that to drive a car.
And why assume that any test should be administered by the anti gun lobby?
Not being a gun owner I'm not too sure but I think in the UK obtaining a gun license involves your Doctor saying that he thinks you're a fit person.
In the UK we are innocent until proved guilty, who do you think administers gun laws in the UK if not society?
They certainly do NOT have to prove sanity to drive a car. At least not in the US - just take a written and driving test about how to drive safely.
Assume the test will be administered by the lobby because it will. Just as the anti abortion people continue to push wherever and however they can to totally ban abortions, that group will continue to push wherever and however they can to limit gun ownership. Writing the test is an obvious method of limiting guns.
If you are assumed innocent (of insanity) then you don't need to prove it in order to buy a gun. But you're not assumed sane at all - you have to have a Dr. tell society that as proof you are not insane.
And in the USA
The physician’s duty to report potential physical and mental conditions that may impair a patient’s ability to drive has been a subject of interest for some time. In 1997, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association studied the issue and recommended that physicians assess driving risk in cases of concern and have open discussions with patients and their families about any risk of damage to self and others [4]. In some cases, negotiating a workable driving plan with patients can render reporting unnecessary. In those situations where clear evidence of substantial driving impairment implies a strong threat to patient and public safety, and where physicians’ advice to discontinue driving privileges is disregarded, physicians have an ethical duty to notify the state department of motor vehicles of the patient’s safety-related medical condition. This duty exists even when reporting impaired drivers is not mandated by law [4].
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2010/ … -1012.html
No, the point is that it is a lot easier to kill with a gun without intent.
Which is the more likely - you get into an argument and feel that you might come off worse so you reach into your pocket, pull out your gun and shoot the other person dead.
Or, you get into an argument and feel that you might come off worse so you go to your car, get in and drive to where the person was and run them down?
Whether I personally had a gun in my pocket or not, I certainly wouldn't pull it out and kill someone over an argument. That is absurd.
Perhaps yes, if I was a drug dealer going into an argument, I would carry a gun and have the "intent" to use it.
It might be absurd but absurd things happen every day.
Like folks using cars to run over people?
The gun nuts in this forum must have watched too many episodes of "All in the Family."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
Why must people resort to name calling when they disagree with someone?
Fear. And in most cases, ignorance, but most fear.
At least that's all I could come up with...
Do you prefer gun "enthusiasts?"
By the way, I've listed a number of quite good arguments in favor of more effective gun laws and enforcement which no one has bothered to respond to. Feel free:
1. What is the justification for high capacity magazines?
2. Why does anybody need armor piercing bullets?
3. Why not close the gun show loophole?
4. What useful or necessary purpose do military style semi-automatic assault weapons serve.
5. Why should people be allowed to bring weapons into bars, restaurants, schools, fairs, etc.?
6. What is the rational basis for people thinking they need to have arsenals to protect themselves from the government?
1. People want them
2. Less damage to game, people want them.
3. People want to sell guns themselves to friends and strangers.
4. People want them.
5. People want to.
6. People want them.
The question is not why people should have/do these things, the question is why they should be prohibited from having/doing them. Until that question is fairly answered (and not with a handful of negative examples scattered over a decade and 300,000,000 people) then the answer that "people want to" is sufficient.
But that's a difference in philosophy, isn't it? When the basic reason to control someone, to remove rights, is "It scares me." some find it enough. Others do not.
People want hard drugs.
People want to have sex with minors.
People want to drive their cars at dangerous speeds.
People want to be drunk all the time.
People want to take that which is not theirs.
Get it?
All but #4 have immediate negative consequences to others in a high percentage of even 100% of cases. Carrying a weapon to a fair, owning armor piercing ammunition or a semi-automatic weapon does not.
So, the fear from a pedophile or a thief is very real, the fear from someone with a semi-automatic weapon is primarily in the viewers mind.
Get it?
Here are 12 victims of the Venice Beach car rampage. Would you like to tell them your denial of cars being used as weapons?
Who's ever denied the use of cars a s weapons?
I only asked how many people had been killed by cars in their own homes, a question you have refused to address.
ETA, the vast majority of people accept controls on their use of cars.
You.
That is a red herring, which is the answer to your question.
The vast majority of gun owners accepts control on their use of guns.
But you introduced the concept of the car as a deadly weapon! Do you now admit that you had raised a red herring?
The vast majority of gun owners in the US do not accept controls on their use of guns.
If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I can see there's no reasoning with you, John.
You mean I hold you to what you say and don't allow you to chop and change?
No, I don't get it. Try and tell that to Gabby Gifford, to the military men slaughtered at Ft. Hood, the abortion doctor shot in his church, the little children and teachers killed at Sandy Hook by the son unfortunate to have a gun nut for a mother, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.
I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere near that neighborhood. Are those the kind of folks you're acquainted with, John? Is that normal where you live?
"the question is why they should be prohibited from having/doing them."
The answer is obvious to most people--because we are tired of all the unnecessary gun mayhem in our country. Sensible public policy should outweigh the gun lobby and the paranoid lunatics running around with guns.
I think that's what I said, isn't it? Irrational fear that everyone with a gun becomes a murderer. And the irrational feeling that, as guns kill, removing guns will limit murders. And always tied to the irrational opinion that any controls required for "the good of the people" are right and proper. Because simple control of a tool is the "sensible public policy". After all, there are so many murders carried out with armor piercing slugs and if we can call a semi-automatic rifle an "assault" weapon, used only to assault fortified enemy positions, it will help raise consciousness of what such guns are actually designed and used for. Especially if they're black and scary looking (there's that fear factor again, too).
Who's talking about removing guns?
The car you drive is subject to controls without it impinging on your ability to own one.
John, John. Just as in the abortion issue, the ultimate aim of the gun haters is to remove all guns from society. We all know that, even as it is vehemently denied (while pushing efforts to remove some guns).
This fight isn't going to die any time soon. To a great many people, there are NO guns that should be allowed to remain; it will just take time to get them all, just as it will take time to get rid of all abortions. It's how modern day politics works; pick at the problem a tiny bit at a time, all the while claiming a "compromise" is necessary. A "compromise" that will be extended the next year with more "compromise".
And I don't see anything in the US Constitution about the right to own and use a car. Just guns.
Strangely cars weren't around when the constitution was drawn up, and neither were guns as we now know them.
We've had gun control in the UK for around a hundred years - nobody has tried to ban them completely.
Yeah, the UK hasn't banned guns completely. Why, the ownership rate is just under 7% that of the US - certainly not zero! (Have to wonder, though, just how many of that 7% are legally owned!)
But wait; the US has had gun controls for a long time, too. Machine guns, for instance, or private cannons. It's just in the last few decades that the general attack on all guns has occurred - that guns in general have been found to be only owned by madmen wanting only to murder.
When Ralph wants to ban my grandson's little .22 as an "assault weapon" with a "high capacity magazine" and part of a 3-gun "arsenal" it becomes pretty plain what the agenda actually is...
Why no mention of the fact that we have one of the lowest figures for killing by gun in the world?
China, Iceland, Japan, Romania; all are lower for gun homicides.
Far more important is that:
Australia, Austria, China, Cuba, Cypres, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland
all have lower homicide rates. The UK is on the lower end of gun ownership rates, but about center of the pack on homicide rates. It would seem that taking the right to own guns away from your people didn't help much. Not surprising as there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.
So why do you do it? For that "feel good" feeling that you are attacking the homicide problem with a solution, even one that doesn't work? Does it quell the fear that your neighbor might have a gun and rush out and shoot you with it? Why does the UK impose such strong limits on gun ownership if it doesn't prevent murders?
As the murder rate does not fall, the inescapable conclusion is that murder by firearm turns into murder by something else when you take away that specific murder tool.
So why do you remove the right to bear arms? Because it makes you feel good to control others? Because it allays your fear of being shot (you'd rather be bludgeoned to death, maybe, or stabbed)? Why?
Murder rate per 100,000
USA 4.8
UK 1.2
Norway 0.6
Why is your false conclusion inescapable?
I don't want to remove the right to bear arms, just control it as any other activity that is dangerous to others is controlled.
UK, with gun ownership at 6.2 has a homicide rate of 1.5.
Denmark, with 2X the guns has half the murders (12.0, .07)
Austria, with 5X the guns has a third the murders (30.4, .05)
Australia, with 3X the guns has 4/5ths the murders (15, 1.2)
Cuba, with 2/3 the guns has 3X the murders (4.8, 5.0)
India, with 2/3 the guns has double the murders (4.2, 3.4)
Romania, with 1/10th the guns has a third again the murders (.7, 1.9)
Explain to me again how taking guns away decreases the murder rate? Looks to me like the exact opposite is true. (moral of the post; don't try to cherry pick with me; I'll drown you in figures clearly showing the exact opposite. And specifically don't throw out numbers that have nothing to do with anything)
Nothing to do with anything!
You stated that guns had no effect on the murder rate, I showed you some figures that suggested that wasn't true.
Notice the difference!
You can be shot and never even see your assailant.
To be bludgeoned or stabbed you have to be up close with your assailant with all the disadvantages for your assailant in that scenario.
"general attack on all guns has occurred "
There is no "general attack on all guns." Certainly not by me.
"When Ralph wants to ban my grandson's little .22 as an "assault weapon" with a "high capacity magazine" and part of a 3-gun "arsenal" it becomes pretty plain what the agenda actually is..."
What? There you go again!
It is a semi-automatic weapon - obviously a military type assault gun.
It holds some dozen rounds - a high capacity magazine
It is but one of three weapons in the household - part of an arsenal.
From your own questions, it is obvious you would have it banned. Or are your questions without meaning?
Not all semi-automatic weapons are military-style assault guns. However, I'm skeptical of the advisability of buying a semi-automatic gun for a little kid. A bolt action single shot .22 would make more sense in my opinion.
Never mind Ralph, it'll help to convince the kid that a gun is the answer to all life's problems.
Odd - This is the first time I've had anyone say that only some semi-automatics are assault rifles. I'ts either all or none. Maybe, just maybe, generalizations don't work quite so well when the speaker is called on it.
But what about those large magazines? The .22 still has that, so must be banned. And it is still part of an arsenal of weapons - more than any family could ever need - and again must be banned. Or are those generalizations as well, generalizations that should be ignored?
Won't argue the bolt action, though. I would tend to agree, although there are pros and cons. I might, for instance, argue for a bolt action with a magazine as that's most likely what the 10 year old will grow into.
I think the people who want to ban those guns would ask a few extra questions to determine if it is in fact an "assault weapon."
1. Is it black?
2. Is it scary looking?
3. Does it have a hand grip?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are in possession of an "assault weapon."
When people talk about stopping the violence the focus is almost never on picnic tables, cooking utensils and what ever ridiculous idea some so-called, self absorbed mental giant seems to think is comparable to a gun.
No, it is the tool we call a gun that the so-called self absorbed mental giant chooses to pick on. Unreasonable, unrelated to reality, but there you have it - they choose guns rather than the people that murder. Easier, I suppose, and more PC.
Wilderness -
https://www.gov.uk/driving-medical-conditions
A libertarian's view of gun control and the law:
The Limits of Nullification
By ROBERT A. LEVY
Published: September 3, 2013 1 Comment
BILTMORE LAKE, N.C. — ON Sept. 11, anti-gun-control legislators in the Missouri General Assembly are likely to pass a bill, over the governor’s veto, that renders almost all federal gun laws void in the state, and even makes it a crime for federal agents to enforce them.
Related
Missouri is only the latest state to push back against federal gun laws. In Montana, the Firearms Freedom Act, passed in 2009, purports to exempt any gun manufactured and kept within the state from federal regulations; despite a federal appellate court decision last month invalidating the statute, it has served as a model for new or pending laws in more than a half-dozen states.
But while states are not powerless in the face of federal law, there are limits to what they can do to prevent enforcement of constitutionally valid regulation.
The bills are based on the theory of nullification, which has its roots in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and holds that the federal government exists by the will of the states, and that states therefore have the right to decide which federal laws are constitutionally valid within their borders.
When it comes to gun control, the claims of nullification advocates are threefold: no state is required to enforce federal gun regulations, states may prevent federal officials from enforcing laws declared by the state to be unconstitutional, and some federal gun restrictions are in fact unconstitutional — either because they violate the Second Amendment (says Missouri) or are outside the scope of the federal government’s power to regulate commerce (says Montana).
On the first point, the nullifiers are correct: in a 1997 decision, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” That case involved the Brady Act of 1993, which established a national system for background checks and commanded state law enforcement officials to conduct them.
Of course, background checks are still required in every state. That’s because federal officials are authorized to enforce their own laws, even if they cannot compel the states to do so. Thus, on the second point, the nullifiers are wrong: states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.
Yes, state legislatures or governors can assert that a federal law offends the Constitution. But as James Madison wrote in his Report of 1800, such declarations are “expressions of opinion” for “exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.” In assessing constitutionality, our system of governance recognizes one Supreme Court, not 50 individual states.
Strangely, if nullification proponents had their way, Chicago’s gun ban, which the Supreme Court invalidated in 2010, might still be in effect. Moreover, if the court had not held in 1960 that nullification “is illegal defiance of constitutional authority,” many public schools might have remained segregated.
That brings us to the third point: whether the Constitution holds that federal gun laws are unconstitutional. If it does, then states would be justified in preventing enforcement. But despite pleas from the gun rights community, the Supreme Court has not gone that far.
Indeed, when the Court overturned Washington’s handgun ban in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — in which I was co-counsel to the plaintiff, Dick Heller — Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, was careful to note that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.
He wrote that his opinion did not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications” — like background checks — “on the commercial sale of arms.”
Subsequent cases will determine which regulations are allowable. But until the courts say otherwise, federal gun laws are presumptively consistent with Second Amendment rights.
What about Montana’s argument that federal restrictions on guns made and transported entirely within the state exceed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Over protests from some libertarian activists, myself included, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the federal government’s power to regulate commerce to cover any economic act that, in the aggregate, could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce — even if the act is not strictly commercial and is wholly within one state.
Meanwhile, nullification battles extend beyond gun laws. Nearly two dozen states have condoned medical marijuana use in defiance of federal restrictions. Washington and Colorado have even legalized recreational marijuana use. At least 23 states have considered bills that nullify the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
I fully support those who see risks in the expansion of federal power, particularly when it comes to intrusions on basic rights like gun ownership. However, to defend those rights, we can’t begin by flouting the very document that inspires that fight in the first place: the Constitution.
Robert A. Levy is the chairman of the Cato Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opini … n&_r=0
The fruit of NRA, Florida Redneck stand your ground law:
By Nicole Fllatow on September 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm
man gun
CREDIT: Shutterstock
William T. Woodward is facing murder charges for the alleged shooting of three people on Labor Day, two of whom have now died. In his defense, his lawyer is not only making a novel legal argument that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law applies, saying he was protecting himself against “imminent death” because of an ongoing dispute between him and the men he shot. HE ALSO INVOKED THE "BUSH DOCTRINE," THE FOREIGN POLICY BUSH USED TO JUSTIFY AGGRESSIVE MILITARY INTERVENTION, TO ARGUE THAT THAT PREEMPTIVE ATTACK CAN BE A FORM OF SELF-DEFENSE, Florida Today reports.
According to police, Woodward stealthily approached a Labor Day barbecue around 12:30 p.m. and fired 31 rounds. When police arrived, three men had been shot. Two died, while a third who was hit 11 times, survived. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, the neighbors had unsuccessfully tried to get “repeat violence” injunctions against one another. Woodward, a veteran who says he is being treated for psychiatric problems that prevent him from controlling his anger, was caught on surveillance video crawling on his belly toward the neighbor’s house. He told police afterward he considered himself on a “mission” and that he was in a “war zone,” according to WFTV.
In his motion seeking immunity from murder charges, Woodward’s lawyer cites a recent Florida court decision that interprets “imminent” criminal activity in another context to mean “not only impending or ready to take place, but also expected, likely to occur, or hanging threateningly over one’s head.” He reasons that one can likewise use deadly force to prevent “imminent death” under the Stand Your Ground when a threat of death hangs over one’s head.
As broad as Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is in authorizing deadly force, a judge would be hard-pressed to infer that the Florida legislature intended to authorize shootings in which “imminent” effectively means “preemptive.” But the legal motion demonstrates the mindset of at least some of the state’s lawyers, who apparently feel comfortable citing a doctrine of war in the context of a self-defense killing. That mindset also seems to be infecting those individuals who, citing expansive self-defense laws, choose vigilante justice over calling the police.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 … -barbecue/
Sarah Silverman--Arm all the black people!
http://thebigslice.org/sarah-silverman- … ple-video/
Another lunatic with a gun goes postal in the DC Navy Yard:
"WASHINGTON — The police were searching Monday morning for an armed individual who fatally shot one person and wounded several others, including one police officer, at a naval office building here not far from Capitol Hill and the White House."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/sh … a_20130916
When will we ever learn???
Sadly, not anytime in the near future. Instead we will keep poking helplessly at cold pieces of iron while the people responsible for murder keep right on going. It's easier, it's the PC thing to do and it calms the masses if idiots that think guns kill people.
Article in my local newspaper; seems the furor over SandyHook has died down and there isn't much being said anymore. The demands to take the guns away are mostly gone now. As there never WAS any real effort to address the roots of the problem we can all sit back and wait. Wait until it happens again or until someone else "goes postal", whereupon we'll spring up shouting "GET THE GUNS" all over again. While the killing goes on...
Perhaps you'll explain to this idiot what actually killed these people if guns didn't.
Perhaps the gun man had a lethal force field, like in Marvel Comics!
But I can't - I don't know. Mental illness, social acceptance of violence, a desire for violence? I don't know and our wonderful government would rather play around with banning tools than with find what actually killed them. Partially, I'm sure, because they have so many idiots demanding they ban those nasty, scary guns rather than work on the real cause.
Wait - you meant the immediate tool rather then what actually did the deed? That would be the lead slug capping a brass tube filled with gunpowder.
Well, that's what I said, isn't it? Play make believe that we're doing something of value while the carnage goes on and on and on and...
So you don't believe that making guns harder to obtain, making ammunition harder to obtain and making the carrying of guns harder would make any difference at all!
If you take the guns away (the ultimate control) it doesn't make any difference - Why would you think a lesser control (make getting ammunition harder to get) would?
I'm not quite following your logic here, John...
And that has what to do with the comment? It does, after all, point out that controls don't work, whether the ultimate control of removing guns (I know you did not propose that) or lesser controls. It doesn't save lives.
Who do you think is proposing to take guns away? There are no serious proposals to take guns away.
Why are you ignoring the statement that removing guns doesn't save lives? Doesn't fit with the desired action of further gun controls?
Further gun controls doesn't = taking guns away. How hard is that for you to get through your head?
There are plenty of sensible steps that would reduce gun deaths which are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.
Further gun controls, right up to total confiscation, DO NOT produce a lower murder rate. How hard is that for you to get through your head?
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about taking ammunition, banning rifles with a hand grip or sheet metal covering on the barrel, it won't affect the murder rate. Taking all semiautomatic guns with a folding stock won't help and neither will confiscating any magazine over 5 rounds. We know this because taking ALL guns doesn't help; restricting or taking a small subset won't either.
So. What is a "sensible" step? One that will reduce that horrific murder rate or one that soothes our anguish or reduces our fear while leaving the homicide rate right where it is?
To me, the answer is obvious; one that will reduce that murder rate. That plainly excludes further gun control from consideration, so why do you and others persist in traveling that road? I've asked that question over and over, but never get an answer - just silence. Or a change of subject, usually to something completely irrelevant, such as a discussion of gun homicide rates (presumably on the theory that the dead person cares whether the tool was a gun or something else). Or maybe the new subject is pointing to a specific murder case as if one crazy man murdering a handful of people is justification for taking freedom from millions of others. Personally, I don't find such reasoning "sensible" (and neither do you or you would be fighting for better automobile controls).
If you don't believe that taking guns won't cut the homicide rate, say so! If you don't want to look at real evidence or even talk about it, say so! If you don't like people having guns period, then say so!
Just, please, quit making the same lame claim time after time that gun controls are a sensible reaction to a high homicide rate. We see the result all over the world in dozens of countries and locations - no change. No correlation between murder rates and gun controls. You can ignore that or talk about it until hell freezes over but all the talk in the world won't change it.
So, if you're going to argue that "taking guns away" doesn't stop people from dying....
Why bother trying to cure cancer because people could die from a gun shot wound?
Actually I thought it pretty plainly stated that taking guns away won't reduce the homicide rate. Where you come up with "doesn't stop people from dying" is beyond me. Or was it a debate tactic to ridicule true facts so that they will be disregarded?
If you disagree, can you provide proof that taking guns WILL reduce the murder rate? You might want to review an earlier post: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2465535 before responding...
Right.....because so much of this debate has been rooted in fact.
NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY!
The fact that you even suggest that is ludicrous and dishonest.
But just to humor you....
Its like saying lets not cure cancer because it won't reduce the rate of people who die from diseases.
Would you stand in the way of a cure for cancer?
From an earlier post you replied to:
"I've asked that question over and over, but never get an answer - just silence. Or a change of subject, usually to something completely irrelevant". Nice change of subject, to cancer research.
From the post you replied to but ignored: "If you disagree, can you provide proof that taking guns WILL reduce the murder rate? You might want to review an earlier post: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2465535 before responding..." Care to respond with some truth as opposed to opinion?
Only about 1/4 of gun deaths are homicide- the other 20 odd thousand deaths could be avoided. Also crimes of passion with a gun are more likely to result in deaths than with other weapons.
Bull****. I do not believe for one moment that of all gun deaths that 3/4 are accidental.
Can you support that statement at all?
If, as CAN be shown, removing guns will not reduce homicide rates, then the statement that crimes of passion are more likely to produce a death when a gun is used is also false. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
You watched Archie Bunker one to many times!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE
Still refusing to address the unwanted reality, are we? Well, you're not alone - very few seem to want to discuss it at all.
Should you change your mind and decide that it might help to try and figure out why Americans kill so often, let me know. I'd be very interested, not in a debate so much as in trying to stop the death toll.
"I'd be very interested, not in a debate so much as in trying to stop the death toll."
Any suggestions?
I read in my morning paper nearly every day about gun killings and shootings of every imaginable type--drug wars, murders, drive-by shootings, ex-husbands shooting former wives, sons killing parents and siblings, road rage shootings, accidental shootings, sometimes by police officers, etc, ad nauseam.
Not if all you're interested in is stopping gun crime. We can do that by taking all the guns away (although getting them away from the people that will commit crimes with them may be a little tough).
If you're interested in stopping violence in the US, look to the drug scene. Look to violent movies, video games, sports and other entertainment. Look to the people we hero worship (movie stars and others) that make their living from violence. Look to poverty stricken areas, where gang violence is rampant. Look to our teens with too much time on their hands. Look to our southern border and get it closed. Look to huge cities, with very high population densities.
And when you've looked at these things, compare them to other countries. Look specifically for areas the US is different. Analyze the information, don't just assume that because your answer sounds reasonable it really is.
Your turn - what else can you think of that causes our countrymen to be so violent? Fast cars, stimulating adrenaline and testosterone? Do women look for "bad boys", the toughs that like to fight? Do bars contribute significantly to the violence problem? Would mandatory military give people a taste of violence - enough to last a life time? What are your thoughts on the cause of violence?
I don't have any, Ralph. That's the point - that no one has any or is interested in finding any. Only in controlling others by taking their guns away.
Finding fixes is what responsible public policy is all about.
With you 100%. So isn't it time that our esteemed lawmakers quit trying to implement a "solution" that is known to have nothing to do with the problem and look for a real answer? Isn't it time that the public did the same - quit requesting that lawmakers institute laws that will not work (based on world wide experience)?
I agree. It is time for responsible public policy.
Now. Knowing that gun controls aren't the answer - what does being "responsible" mean? We should institute more gun controls, even knowing it won't work, or we should look for something else?
" We should institute more gun controls, even knowing it won't work, or we should look for something else?"
That's where we and the majority of Americans who support improved background checks and other practical, sensible measures disagree with you. You have made it clear that you support huge magazines, steel jacketed bullets, the gun show loophole, and military style rifles and you oppose improved enforcement of existing regulations. That is, you are opposed to any efforts to control gun mayhem in this country.
"You have made it clear that you support huge magazines, steel jacketed bullets, the gun show loophole, and military style rifles and you oppose improved enforcement of existing regulations." Typical lies, Ralph. You cannot point to one single post of mine supporting any of those things.
"That is, you are opposed to any efforts to control gun mayhem in this country." If the cost is to ignore the huge numbers of murders in the country, you're right. The "gun mayhem" takes second priority to saving lives; scaring people with black guns pales beside a funeral as far as I'm concerned. You obviously have a very different priority.
But I give. I asked you earlier (twice, in fact):
"If you don't believe that taking guns won't cut the homicide rate, say so! If you don't want to look at real evidence or even talk about it, say so! If you don't like people having guns period, then say so!
Just, please, quit making the same lame claim time after time that gun controls are a sensible reaction to a high homicide rate. We see the result all over the world in dozens of countries and locations - no change. No correlation between murder rates and gun controls. You can ignore that or talk about it until hell freezes over but all the talk in the world won't change "
You won't answer the questions (for, I assume, obvious reasons) and have now deteriorated to lying about what I support (steel jacketed bullets, military rifles in civilian hands). I'm just not interested - you have a good day, Ralph. I'm sure we'll find another subject, one you're interested in actually discussing, one day.
"You won't answer the questions (for, I assume, obvious reasons) and have now deteriorated to lying about what I support (steel jacketed bullets, military rifles in civilian hands). "
So far as I've seen you are opposed to any additional gun control measures, including a prohibition of steel jacketed bullets, huge magazines, more effective background checks, and a prohibition on the sale of AR15s. If that's not true, please let me know. And I would appreciate it if you would not call me a liar. I try to engage in civil discussions on these forums.
"So far as I've seen you are opposed to any additional gun control measures, including a prohibition of steel jacketed bullets, huge magazines, more effective background checks, and a prohibition on the sale of AR15s"
Let's see. At this point I have not mentioned any of those things. Nevertheless, I am very much against a prohibition on the sale of the AR15 - a civilian semi-automatic version of a military assault rifle. Yes, I know it can have a folding stock and a hand grip, but do not find that sufficient reason to ban them. I'm sure you do.
Before agreeing to additional work designed to give "more effective background checks", I'd like to see hard figures on how many criminals pass the check. Or how many crazies, if you think you can design a check to stop that, too. In other words, just how ineffective is the current check?
Steel jacketed bullets I have not mentioned, but am against them. Don't know what made you think otherwise, because I sure haven't said anything of the sort. Huge magazines - I have nothing against magazines up to around 15 rounds. Magazines of 100+ should not be available outside military sources. In between, I'd want further information.
I would not normally call anyone a liar, Ralph, (least of all you - I do respect you {surprise!}) but this case is special. "So far as I've seen you are opposed to any additional gun control measures..." Bull. You haven't "seen" anything from me on any of those questions. At least not in this thread; I have in the past agreed with the armor piercing ammo ban. So that statement was, plan and simple, a lie. A story made up in your own mind without a hint of truth behind it, and it was seriously irritating. I do not count such outright falsehoods as civil discussion whether you do or not.
Although I do not support hardly any of the ridiculous suggestions being floated as a "solution" to the killing, there are a few that seem sound. The armor piercing ammo ban. Possibly a requirement for owner recognition, depending on technology. Better and more extensive CW requirements/training. A ban on huge (and I don't mean 5+) magazines. A limit on ammunition purchases, say no more than 200 per month for larger calibers (not .22). Maybe a few others.
None, however, are likely at all to save hardly any lives and I would support any of them only as a concession/compromise to getting some real money to study/fix the violence problem in America. Looking back through a variety of sites studying that problem it is obvious that we've known for a long time (at least a decade) that guns aren't the problem, but here we sit without making a move to fix anything. Whining about which tool we want the murderers to use, for God's sake! While the killing goes on. And on and on and on.
But I ramble. You know this already, you just don't care. You're interested only in controlling people and their guns, not in saving lives; you've made that abundantly clear by consistently refusing to even discuss any other possibility than controls on guns. You haven't said, but I don't believe you've read the hub, or any of the other links I've provided in this thread showing lack of causality between guns and homicide rates. At least one of which debunks the theory that guns cause more suicides as well.
"Steel jacketed bullets I have not mentioned, but am against them. Don't know what made you think otherwise, because I sure haven't said anything of the sort. Huge magazines - I have nothing against magazines up to around 15 rounds. Magazines of 100+ should not be available outside military sources. In between, I'd want further information."
Well, that represents a little progress at least. But you couldn't actually bring yourself to say that you support laws prohibiting steel-jacketed bullets and magazines greater than 15 rounds. (Hunters have been doing just fine with four or five-round magazines for ever, and target shooters have plenty of time to re-load.) What further information do you need wrt magazines between 15 and 100? Why are you opposed to universal background checks?
Perhaps gun control progress for the foreseeable future will occur at the state level. New York and Connecticut and several other states since the Newtown slaughter of first graders and teachers, several states have passed significant new gun control laws and others are considering additional regulations. Gun violence is more prevalent in urban areas than in states like North Dakota. The main problem that can't be dealt with at the state level are the illegal gun pipelines from states with lax gun laws to states like New York where gun problems are prevalent and laws are stricter.
"But you couldn't actually bring yourself to say that you support laws prohibiting steel-jacketed bullets" ?? Sorry, I thought it pretty plain I would support a ban on them.
"What further information do you need wrt magazines between 15 and 100?" While I understand that you will take freedoms away based on a hunch that large magazines might significantly raise the death toll, I'm not. How many deaths each year can be positively attributed to magazines in that size range? Playing hit and miss, trial and error with our freedoms is not something I accept although I recognize you do.
I believe we already have near-universal background checks. What would be gained, and at what cost, by expanding it to every gun sold? Although you do not require a cost/benefit analysis (including non-monetary costs) before implementing a new law, I do. If the cost is that thousands cannot sell a gun to their brother or that the cost of a gun jumps $50 and we prevent the sale each year of 10 guns to criminals, it isn't worth it.
Yes, maybe gun controls will be passed by states or even smaller localities. Then we can have more and more cities like Chicago with strict or confiscatory controls and huge murder rates. Makes sense to the control people, with their goal of ultimate confiscation, but I'm not real comfortable with it.
Actually, maybe I need to backtrack. Digging through the musty corners of my failing memory, it seems like I saw somewhere something about steel jacketed ammo. That it does far less injury than a plain lead slug.
So, thinking of that cost/benefit concept - is the price of allowing jacketed ammo that a hand full of cops get killed in spite of their vests but the benefit is that 500 civilians are merely injured rather than dead? Obviously I haven't a clue as to actual numbers or even the beginnings of an answer, but is the thought worthy of consideration before arbitrarily banning all ammunition? Or should we require that all bullets be steel jacketed?
Or is that just something else to be shunted to the corner in the effort to maximize gun controls?
Well, I've read that police don't like steel jacketed bullets. And quite a few police groups support other gun controls as well.
I presume that means that because the cops, who have not examined the problem in that light, don't like jacketed bullets that we should ban them.
Not much a reason, but I can see where that would be enough for you. Just like that the same cops support other gun controls because they don't want to see a gun facing them so that, too, means controls are always a good thing. I completely understand that, too, but it still isn't a reason to curtail freedoms. Don't forget that in general the cops sole purpose for existence is to curtain freedoms...
The government isn't the solution to every problem. In fact, sometimes, the government is part of the problem.
That's pretty obvious, we're exposed to all the same violent media as the US, our population density is greater, we have high levels of poverty.
What we don't have is easily and legally obtained fire arms and we have much stricter penalties for possession, restrictions on carrying arms and resrictions on the sale of ammunition and despite all your claims we have a much lower murder rate.
An intrinsically violent culture that worships guns.
Really? You have similar marijuana laws and reaction from citizens? I doubt it.
You have a similar variance between rich and poor? With half the country living off the efforts of the other half? I doubt it.
You say the US culture worships guns, but that is false. I have known a handful of real "gun nuts" - gun collectors - and not one of them would harm a flea. On the other hand, we've heard of others (Waco) that collect large numbers of guns, but not from worshiping guns. From a desire to use them to kill other people, or in other words from worshipping violence, not guns. Those people tend to collect explosives and higher order weapons (bazookas maybe) as well.
So you don't have easily purchased guns. Guns that do not correlate with a high murder rate.
Next suggestion? The UK does not have near the car ownership rate the US does - shall we get rid of 2/3 of our cars in the hope that something else with no correlation might help?
I'm struggling to see the correlation between drug laws and murder!
Maybe not as extreme but we certainly have those earning millions a year and those earning thousands a year.
But look at you, an otherwise sane and sensible sort of guy arguing for the right to arm yourselves up enough to take on a small army!
Maybe that isn't worship but neither is it normal.
You say that, how else do you explain, all other things being pretty equal, why you have such a high murder rate?
Even in the US use of cars is quite heavily controlled! Why aren't you arguing for the relaxation of controls?
You know, stop forcing people to drive on the same side of the road as everybody else, stop making them obey traffic signs and controls, abolish all speed limits, even in residential areas?
I can't offer any, although I can show a very strong correlation between homicide rates and prohibition in the 20's. I throw it out as a possibility, nothing more.
Not in your culture; by US thinking you are a pack of sheep, completely abnormal to any reasonable way of life
I don't. That is why I ask if Ralph (or anyone else) is interested in a discussion of what the causes might be.
Do you think it would help? While I agree that it would help at least as much as taking the guns away, that isn't saying much.
Bottom line: There is absolutely no correlation between the number of guns owned in any country and the homicide rate in that country. Nevertheless, a great many people continue to suggest that removing guns will lower the homicide rate. They do this, not only with no evidence that it will work, but in the face of very strong evidence it will NOT work.
I'm on the other side; every bit of evidence we have says removing guns (or, by deduction, stronger controls) won't help the violence in the US one little bit and am therefore not interested in doing that. Particularly as it violates the intent of our Constitution if not the ("interpreted") letter of the law. Everything we know says removing guns won't help; let's forget that idea then, and look for something else.
Your response is that we're abnormal; thanks for the comment. (Although, truthfully, I do not find that to be a slur but instead a compliment.) And then suggest that we remove traffic laws as well as guns in an effort at ridicule again. Thanks again for your help.
If your idea of normal is wholesale killing of strangers with no restrictions at all then praise be abnormality! Baa baa.
What would doing away with traffic regulations help with?
Well where is the very strong evidence that it will not work? Where is the evidence that making guns more difficult to obtain and carry will have no effect?
So, it won't stop the violence but it may prevent that violence turning into murder.
It was actually you who introduced the car comparison, not I.
I already told you; the raw data, graphs and conclusions are on a hub on my carousel. There is at least one more hub written on the subject as well, although I do not remember the title or hubber.
If you don't like that, check out:
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/08/28/harv … der-rates/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org … online.pdf
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (interesting UK information part way down)
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … -realities Includes the statement that "yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures."
Want more? Google "homicide rates and gun control", visually deleting any and all that reference "gun homicide". Finding those took about 2 minutes.
I might add as well, that researching for the hub failed to produce a single site that claimed general homicide rates fell with gun ownership. Every single site I found either talked about the subset of gun homicide rates or agreed with the conclusion I was forced into. No correlation.
Boy! Aren't they (you) clutching at straws!
52% higher since the 1968 gun control law or an increase from about 7.5 per million to about 15 homicides per million. That is statically insignificant and may be related to improved detection rates neither does it take into account our increasingly violent society.
It is just an abuse of statistics like the media reporting that the chances of being killed by toilet waste dropped by aircraft has increased 100%. Everybody goes into panic mode and wont leave the house without an armour plated umbrella when all it really means is that one person was killed thus last year and two people were killed thus this year.
After that example I couldn't be bothered to look at any other of your "sources".
I'd call a 52% raise significant, yes. In addition, a homicide rate of 1.5 per 100,000 population is about in the middle of the pack of developed worlds and most definitely statistically significant. Likewise, an increase of .75 per 100,000, half that of the rate in the UK and more than several other countries, is also significant.
Did you see what happened when Florida instituted the right to carry law? And the murder rate fell for 16 years, from 11.5 down to 5? Insignificant, I suppose. (Although to be fair, no causal effect was proven).
But you will of course make your own call. I presume I should put you down as "I don't believe it even when it's shoved in my face and proven true"? Or would "I don't believe it because guns scare me" be more appropriate?
I wonder why they chose a base of per million rather than the more common per 100,000. It couldn't be because per 100,000 would have produced an almost straight line could it?
As for being shoved in my face - there's lies, damned lies and statistics.
What have you been smoking? Whether the figure is 15 per million population or 1.5 per 100,000 doesn't change a thing. Identical graphs.
Yeah, John, you're right about the lies and statistics. But if you haven't a clue about how statistics works, how can you tell the difference? If it agrees with what you want it is statistics and if it doesn't it's a damn lie?
No, they wouldn't be identical graphs, per 100,000 would produce an almost flat line. Try it.
I rather think it is you who is struggling to understand how statistics work, especially graphs and percentages.
OK, John. Whatever you say. If it keeps you happy to deny mathematics in order to think guns are bad, OK.
However, if you really want to try it, change the y axis numbers to 1/10th of what they are now. Then change the X axis numbers to 1/10th of what they are. You won't have to move a single point on the graph. Voila! an identical graph!
You see, John, 15/1,000,000 is the same number as 1.5/100,000. Amazing, isn't it?
Wow, change everything in the same proportion and what do you know, nothing changes!
Leave the x and y axis's at exactly the same scale but let the y axis show 100,000s rather than millions. and what do you get! An almost straight line.
I can't really believe you find that so difficult to grasp - it's all arbitrary.
"Further gun controls, right up to total confiscation, DO NOT produce a lower murder rate. "
I'm not sure where you get that, but accidents and suicides and gun injuries should be considered as well as murders. Focusing on murders is misleading. Sensible gun controls will reduce shootings of all types. Limits on big magazines will certainly reduce mass killings.
Yes, you know where I get that. I've told you several times, and you can read it all again in my hub on gun controls. Raw data, graphs and conclusions; all laid out for anyone to see and come to their own conclusions.
No argument with any of that.
I do not, however, feel it in the best interests of the people of the US to protect a handful of idiots that own but misuse guns by giving up the people's freedom to own what they wish. Certainly, giving up the right to own a semi-automatic weapon, but only without a barrel shroud, in the hopes it might save some fool from shooting himself doesn't make sense. It is not a "sensible" approach IMO. Or do you disagree and feel that if we remove all the shrouded semi-automatic weapons it will save idiots from hurting themselves?
Same for suicides. Giving up the right to own any semi-automatic weapon, with a hand grip or not, isn't going to help the suicide. Neither is giving up large magazines - if the suicide can't get it done in 5 shots, the ability to try 20 more times isn't going to change anything.
Nor do I agree that limits on large magazines will limit mass killings; I do not recall ever hearing of more than a couple of dozen killed, and that very rarely. That is to say, the murderer would have to change magazines a few times - something any "gun nut" can learn to do without trouble. Or do you have evidence showing that limiting large magazines will save appreciable numbers of lives? A handful I'll grant you, but a handful of lives saved is demonstrably insufficient reason to curtail freedoms. At least not freedoms we want; freedoms of others, that we don't personally enjoy, are open to destruction any time.
Or is your position that even one life saved is sufficient reason to take away any "assault" weapons? If so, do you take the same stance with high powered cars, phones that are usable at 60 mph, and ethanol containing drinks available at gas stations (and cold to boot!)? The list is nearly endless of things we allow, knowing that people will be injured or killed, because they are popular - can you explain why guns should be different?
It will be interesting to see where and how this mentally ill individual got the rifle and what kind it was. (None of the gun control proposals I saw advocated "coming for the guns.") As I recall Connecticut and New York passed laws on tighter background checks, magazine size and so-called (semi-automatic) assault weapons. None of the laws or proposals I've seen called for taking guns away from anybody.
Of course they did, Ralph - you just don't want to talk about it. Nearly half the proposals, and all of the radical ones, are about removing guns from people's homes.
Where can I find one of the proposals to confiscate guns? Please provide documentation.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-fein … le/2516648
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory."
"Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback."
"Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."
"Some liberal activists want the policy [Australian forced gun buyback] imitated here. “That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today,” the Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country."
Need some more?
There have been a few radical proposals, but none of the serious ones and none of the ones passed at the state level involved confiscation of weapons owned lawfully prior to the effective date of the law.
"none of the serious ones" - Highly disagree, for the proponents are completely serious. Not that they can pass such a thing now, but in getting the word out, in "testing the waters" and in sloowly changing public opinion into something that will be accepted in a few years. First step is to introduce the concept, after all, just like introducing the concept that people can't smoke in a restaurant. Now it's up to a personal, private car and an open 500 acre public park. That's how we work it now, Ralph; a little chip here and a little chip there, all in the name of "compromise".
Well, okay, but I don't believe any such bills were actually introduced and none were passed so far as I know. I'm not impressed by slippery slope arguments. It's pretty obvious that stricter gun control is needed and can be passed without infringing anybody's 2nd Amendment rights.
"It's pretty obvious that stricter gun control is needed "
You just ignore any facts that don't fit what you want to hear, don't you? You and I have been over this and over it - you have been presented with irrefutable truth that gun controls will not affect homicide rates. Why do you ignore it? Is it just an innate desire for control? A fear of guns? Why?
As far as I know there have been none introduced that actually stood a chance in hell of passing.
But they will - that is a foregone decision. Let another couple of school shootings occur. Or worse, another Gifford, where the victim is a congressperson. It will happen.
Not in this country. We associate sensible background checks and other security measures as akin to taking your guns outright.
Consider that in states such as West Virginia, Arkansas and Alabama, only 8 in 10 kids get their high school diploma. Almost 8 in 10 residents of that state don't even go to college.
Its gonna be real easy for the NRA to dupe them for years to come.
There is truth in that. Probably because that's how the political process of control starts any more - one small step at a time.
There's nothing invevitable about going beyond sensible, practical, effective regulation in the public interest. The slippery slope is not a valid concern or argument against regulation.
I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope concept is that once something has started it is easy to continue it further downhill.
Taking armor piercing ammo might be the start of a slippery slope leading to more, but when that action is but a part of a well defined and thought out plan to remove guns it is no longer a slippery slope; it is but the first step of the staircase leading to a specific goal.
You are paranoid. I haven't heard any responsible person say they want to take guns away. That would require repealing the 2nd amendment which isn't remotely likely. The responsible proposals call for more thorough background checks to keep criminals and mentally ill people (not easy in the case of mentally ill people for a variety of reasons) from buying guns and limiting the sale of large magazines and military style "assault" type weapons. None of these restrictions would infringe anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.
Perhaps I am a little paranoid at that. It is so very difficult (generally impossible) to regain freedoms lost...
Still, you are very rude. Calling Sen. Feinstein, Gov. Cuomo and Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller all irresponsible. Uncalled for, I think, even though I agree.
No, no Ralph. You have defined (along with a great many other people) an "assault style weapon" to be any semi-automatic weapon. Nothing to do with "assault", just semi-automatic. Including a .22 rifle or pistol.
I'm well aware that the term assault weapon doesn't have a single, generally accepted definition. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Different proposed laws have defined it differently. So far as I know none of the proposed bills would outlaw semi-automatic weapons of the kind commonly used for hunting.
Nice picture. Plastic model?
But what is your point?
My point is that my Model 12 Winchester which is designed for hunting is a semi-automatic shotgun which would be legal under proposed laws banning assault weapons while those depicted above which are a favorite of the militia nutters running around in the woods in camo outfits would not.
I was surprised to learn from Wikipedia that the Model 12 was once used as a military weapon as well as a favorite of duck and pheasant hunters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1912
People don't have the right to be smoking in public places....
Don't see how that is an issue
Not legally, no. Not anymore, anyway.
Ethically? A cigarette in a 500 acre park, 100 yards from anyone that cares, is a different matter. Except to those that wish to control others...
No, same deal.
The only time I see smoking around others is OK is if you are in your own home.
And even then, you're still being a jerk for subjecting others to your cancer-filed smoke.
Is the next claim that a cigarette 100 yards away will affect a non-smoker? That's nearly as bad as the lies that taking guns will save lives.
New NY State Gun Control Law:
"BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: The Safe Act banned the sale of assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips and closed loopholes on sales at gun shows. Those restrictions were approved on a bipartisan vote and made it through the state's Republican-controlled Senate. The law is still popular in urban parts of New York. But in upstate counties, the Safe Act sparked a ferocious backlash."
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/10/220932979 … troversial
New Connecticut Gun Control Law Revised to Clarify It
"The new bill allows individuals to possess and register assault weapons they purchased or placed on consignment prior to or on April 4, the day the gun control law was passed, but did not receive until after that date." (AS I SAID, NOTHING ABOUT CONFISCATION.)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 … z2f5oz0JUB
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 … confusion/
Washington Navy Yard Shooting: Live Updates
Sep 16, 2013 10:52 AM EDT
At least seven people are dead after a shooting at Washington D.C.’s Navy Yard on Monday. Follow the latest developments here.
The latest count is 12 fatalities.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … at%20Sheet
Aaron Alexis, 34, contractor at Navy Yard, formerly of Ft. Worth has been identified as the shooter. He was apparently killed by the police according to this source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 … 35770.html
Aaron Alexis has been identified by police as the dead Washington Navy Yard shooter, NBC News reports.
Alexis, 34, originally of Fort Worth, Texas, recently began working at the Navy yard as a civilian contractor, the station reported. USA Today and CBS News also report that an unnamed source identified Alexis as the shooter, who was confirmed dead by police earlier today.
At least 13 people were killed -- including Alexis -- and more were wounded at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building after at least one gunman opened fire after 8:20 a.m. Monday, a Defense Department official said.
Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said at a press conference that a Metropolitan Police officer is among those who have been shot, among other "multiple victims inside who are deceased." There were other reports that a naval security guard was reportedly among the wounded.
The suspect was reportedly killed at that location, but few details about the death were immediately available. One other person of interest is still on the loose. He's described as a black male, 50, with an olive military-style uniform who may be in possession of a long gun.
A third person of interest was cleared.
The FBI released a photo and description of Alexis, asking the public for any information about the deceased suspect:
Alexis was formerly a Navy Reservist.
MORE ABOUT AARON ALEXIS, THE NAVY YARD SHOOTER:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
The dead gunman in Monday’s shooting at the Washington Navy Yard is Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy veteran and native of Brooklyn, an FBI official said Monday afternoon.
Police say it is unclear if Alexis acted alone. Authorities are still searching for another possible suspect: a black man in his 40s with gray sideburns, wearing an olive-drab military-style uniform.
(Courtesy of FBI) - Aaron Alexis, who has been identified as the dead gunman in the shooting at Washington Navy Yard.
LiveNavy Yard shooting
5:21 PMThe trail of blood
5:18 PMBoehner: ‘This has been a dark day’
5:08 PMVideo: Dead suspect identified as Aaron Alexis
5:06 PM‘The Navy family…suffered a horrific attack’
5:02 PMStreet closures, bus detours remain
4:42 PMGraphic: Deadliest U.S. shootings
Aaron Alexis, identified as dead gunman in Navy Yard shooting
Aaron Alexis, identified as dead gunman in Navy Yard shooting
Carol D. Leonnig, Theresa Vargas and David A. Fahrenthold 4:46 PM ET
Police say it is unclear if Alexis acted alone.
Video: Suspect ID’d as Aaron Alexis
Video: Suspect ID’d as Aaron Alexis
WATCH | The FBI confirms the dead Navy Yard shooting suspect is Aaron Alexis in a news conference.
Gray says death toll rises to 13
Witnesses: Navy Yard shooter aimed at us
Navy Yard employee: ‘Hard’ to enter without ID
Obama on Navy Yard shooting
Navy Yard shooting
Twitter and Instagram updates from news outlets, witnesses and others.
"There's 13 people who are dead, and probably a dozen or more who are wounded," D.C. Mayor Gray said
Mark Berman
@themarkberman
via Twitter about 53m ago
Witnesses recount gunshots, confusion at Navy Yard
Witnesses recount gunshots, confusion at Navy Yard
Susan Svrluga, Jenna Johnson and Steve Hendrix 3:57 PM ET
Navy officer who escaped says a civilian worker he was talking to was fatally shot right next to him.
Navy Yard is home to several major Navy commands
Navy Yard is home to several major Navy commands
About 16,000 military and civilian employees work in the complex’s 2.2 million square feet of offices.
Another mass shooting. And this one hits very close to home.
Another mass shooting. And this one hits very close to home.
Petula Dvorak 2:35 PM ET
At least 12 are dead at the Navy Yard, and again we wonder if this is the rampage that will change things.
Alexis died at the scene of Monday’s shooting, in which at least 12 other people died. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray said no motive is known.
FBI Assistant Director Valerie Parlave asked the public to call 1-800-CALL-FBI with any information about him: “No piece of information is too small. We are looking to learn everything we can about his recent movements.”
By Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He left the Navy in 2011, and until recently was a regular—if unusual—figure at a Buddhist temple....
Predictable:
"Three weapons were found on the (Navy Yard) gunman: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol, an official said. "
Let's wait and see what the investigation yields. As it stands right now, there is some doubt as to whether or not he owned all three guns.
"Police said Alexis also had an assault rifle inside the building, but it was unclear whether he had brought it with him. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/nav … story.html
It's likely that fewer people would have been killed if he had only a pistol or only a shotgun.
Obviously that would be worst. Are grenades legal? If they are they shouldn't be.
Its likely he was an insane criminal who would have obtained the weapons whether they were controlled or not.
Criminals (especially insane ones) don't care about laws.
Turns out he only came into the Navy yard with a shotgun according to a report I heard just now on the radio. There has been quite a bit of misinformation floating around.
Here's an interesting bit of information. Alexis tried to buy an AR15 in Virginia but was refused because he was from out of state. Instead he bought a semi-automatic shotgun which he brought into the yard disassembled and put it together in a men's room. It's true that all guns, even hunting guns, are lethal weapons. However, hunting guns don't have huge magazines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/st … ay.html?hp
Do violent video games promote violence in real life? Yes. We've had this discussion before. What we have is a culture of violence; our video games, movies, television, and culture bombard our children with sex and violence, and then we wonder why our kids act like they do? Our problem with violence largely stems from cultural rotting, a vacuous sense of morality and parental irresponsibility. Further gun control won't do a thing to correct the real issue(s) that we have in America.
I'm waiting to hear about Alexis's childhood and whether or not he had parents who showed responsibility. How was he raised? Was this particular tragedy related to his upbringing or not? Only time will tell.
We do know that, as an adult, he had a "checkered past." "Aaron Alexis, the suspected gunman in the U.S. Navy Yard shooting episode that left 13 people dead, had a checkered past that included run-ins with gun charges, violent video games and alcoholism." We've also talked about illegal drugs. Maybe we need to change that discussion from illegal drugs to substance abuse. Further gun control won't do a thing to address that issue either though.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 … -past.html
Sorry read your post wrong.
The official figures were 41 but we wont split hairs about 2 extra deaths will we.
However my point is that in a country where we have tight firearms restrictions we still have gun crime.
In England and wales there were over 11000 reported incidents of gun crime (excluding air weapons) in 2010.
A high percentage of that 11,000 are likely imitation or air weapons. They are classified as full weapons unless they are 100% sure they are imitation or air weapons- the majority that didn't lead to arrests will not be real weapons so the actual stat is much lower.
It is also worth remembering that if we had American style gun laws a lot of the remaining offences would not be illegal and therefore not crimes.
Number of offences
• In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all
recorded crimes.
• There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air
weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the
general decline since 2005/06.
• There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during
2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak
recorded in 2002/03.
• In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm,
a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four
years.
• A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than
in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the
previous year.
Type of offence
• In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%)
accounted for almost two-thirds of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11.
Criminal damage offences represented 29% of all firearm offences recorded.
• Due to the different legal system in Scotland it is not possible to provide directly
comparable data. ‘Reckless conduct with firearms’ accounted for 21% of alleged firearm
offences in 2010/11, minor assault for 17% and robbery for 14%.
• 9.3% of all homicides committed during 2010/11in England and Wales involved the use
of a firearm, the highest proportion since 2001/02. By contrast 2.2% of Scottish
homicides involved the use of a firearm.
House of commons report
Yes, and if they don't know if it is real, replica or an air weapon it is classified as real for the purpose of these reports.
What are you trying to prove with these figures?
That in a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world we still have gun crime.
Some seem to think that gun control will remove gun crime.
Then they are fools!
However comparing life in the UK with life in the US give me gun control any day.
I've heard it said that the reason why Americans are so polite is because they are afraid that if they aren't they'll be shot!
"Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday."
"According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.
Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.
In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … in-US.html
Maybe a gun on the hip helps out.
Hm, 2001, well so be it.
Doesn't it make you think though, we are a much more violent society than you, but with a much lower murder rate!
As Mark says, what offenses are counted makes a huge difference. Another article I looked started with much the same data and analyzed to try to compare apples to apples. Their end conclusion was that the UK may well be higher, but it is not possible to actually make the comparison between the UK and the US. Or any other countries, either.
However. I have wondered in the past if something like that might be true. Regardless of the number of violent crimes, does the UK and other locations have as much or more violence, it just doesn't reach the level of murder? So far, I haven't been able to find any kind of real answer and probably won't.
The US only classifies 4 offences as violent crime- we classify a whole range of offences as violent. For example if you are pushed that would qualify as a violent offence in the UK. Pathetic but true.
LOL you found the same site I referenced in my answer to you. No real comparison possible.
I did wonder why you introduced a "fact" that was in direct contradiction to your previous argument that the US was a much more violent society than the UK!
This time, more for a giggle than anything else. A response to "rather live in the UK".
I don't know which one is "more violent" and doubt that anyone else does either. Even people that have lived considerable time in both countries won't know as different areas of the same country have much, much different crime and crime rates.
And, of course, it give the opportunity to promote the old west, with a .45 on every hip. A time of peace and love.
Different areas of the same city even!
And then there is perception as well. Some people seem to walk around with a big flashing sign on their head saying "victim" whilst others have virtual signs saying "don't mess with me".
Then of course there are the heroes who when seeing a group of youths peacefully (well what passes for peaceful when you're sixteen or so) will go off on a tirade and goad the youths into choice language and fist shaking prompting said hero to write to the local paper about violent youths.
All true. Except that in the US the virtual sign isn't so virtual. It's that chunk of iron he's wearing.
Truly, I just don't see a way to compare. You, I or any combination of others could spout off all day with personal experiences and it won't mean a thing.
It was inevitable that you would be right one day...
Total number of gun deaths over 30,000 per year: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Total number of gun homicides: around 10,000 per year. (I apologise, the source I previously used had this at 8,000 so that is why my estimates were out) http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Of course the 20,000 might not all be accidents but they are gun related deaths.
The Crimes of passion this is purely logical- crimes of passion are not premeditated so people will use whatever is at hand. If you have a gun you will use that, if not you will use a knife or bludgeon. A gun is more effective at killing so the victim has more chance of surviving if you don't have a gun. Probably not a huge amount but it will shave a few of the fatalities number.
In round numbers, 30,000 gun deaths, of which 10,000 are homicides. Of the remaining 20,000 gun deaths, 16,000 are suicides. That's about 1/2 of the total suicides; do you have any real data showing that removing guns will drop that 1/2 to 1/10 or 1/100th? Or will taking guns away accomplish nothing at all?
The link also indicates about 800 non-intentional gun deaths per year. Accidents, and of those accidents, some 700 of them are from handguns. Handguns that no one is seriously proposing to regulate any more than they are now. Only 100 accidental deaths per year from the long guns that are the thrust of current legislation for more controls. Certainly not something we need to concern ourselves with when there are 30,000 murders to worry about.
Next is Undetermined gun deaths (whatever that means) and "Other" Undetermined gun deaths. Plus a handful of Justifiable gun homicides (sounds like an oxymoron to me) - total of all these other things is fairly small. So removing guns from society may reduce suicide figures - we don't know. Why then is the push to further regulate "assault weapons"? Do people really think that suicides prefer the a "assault weapon" to kill themselves with?
Didn't ask for an opinion and theory that crimes of passion will be more deadly with guns; I asked for proof. Facts and figures. Do you have any, or merely making up unsubstantiated theories in the hopes they will be accepted as truth?
"A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?
The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/jenn … %E2%80%A8/
As I've said before, homicide rates don't tell the entire story. Neither does a single study from Harvard or anywhere else. All gun deaths and injuries should be included--accidents, suicides, murders, deaths and injuries, etc. I wonder who paid for the Harvard study??
Doesn't really matter, does it now? After all, whether the problem is guns or not, we still have to get rid of them.
Harvard is not known for its conservative ideals. Are you really saying that the professors were paid off by conservatives to come to the conclusion that gun control doesn't work? Please provide evidence that this occurred.
The FBI largely came to the same conclusion recently. Do you think conservatives paid the FBI to come to the same conclusion?
Do two studies start to tell the "story" that you mention?
By the way, the Joyce Foundation largely funds Harvard studies on gun control. Their mission is:
"The Joyce Foundation supports the development of policies that both improve the quality of life for people in the Great Lakes region and serve as models for the rest of the country. The Joyce Foundation's grant making supports research into Great Lakes protection and restoration, energy efficiency, teacher quality and early reading, workforce development, gun violence prevention, diverse art for diverse audiences, and a strong, thriving democracy. The Foundation encourages innovative and collaborative approaches with a regional focus and the potential for a national reach."
Do you still want to claim that the funding of this study skewed the conclusion?
Who funded the study you cited. Harvard is actually quite a conservative place. For example, W. Bush's economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, is a professor at Harvard. So is that jackass right wing historian, Niall Ferguson.
Claiming Harvard is conservative because you can mention two right-leaning professors who work there would be like saying Fox News is left-leaning because of two or three token liberals they have employed. You're too funny! Harvard is LIBERAL! Fox News is conservative. Let's call it like it is, and stop playing spin games to "win" a debate. Everybody knows that Harvard is liberal, everybody! Harvard is not a conservative place, and if you want to pursue absurd views about Harvard's general political ideology, we can certainly look at studies, demographics, geopolitical realities, and many other statistics to show how wrong your are. Yes, I know that you want to explain away Harvard's gun control study by saying that Harvard showed political bias, but your true intent is transparent. It's okay to concede a point from time to time, even if it means admitting a loss.
You avoid talking about the FBI study. Do you consider the FBI to be conservative too?
CHICAGO — A gunman who shot and wounded 13 people at a South Side park on Thursday night was armed with an assault-style rifle equipped with a high-capacity magazine, the police said on Friday.
“A military-grade weapon on the streets of Chicago is simply unacceptable,” Garry McCarthy, the Chicago police superintendent, said at a news conference, where he issued another of his frequent calls for tighter state and federal gun laws.
Among the wounded was a 3-year-old boy, who was struck in the face and is expected to survive. The boy and two other victims were hospitalized in critical condition. Mr. McCarthy said it was a miracle that no one was killed.
The police said that no arrests had been made and that investigators were uncertain about the intended target, the motive, or even the number of people who fired weapons. There may have been one gunman, Mr. McCarthy said, or as many as three.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/ch … p&_r=0
As Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country I have to wonder how someone got a fully automatic "military grade assault weapon" into operation there.
It seems that gun controls aren't particularly effective in preventing shootings, doesn't it? Maybe Chicago, with 80 more homicides last year than NYC (with 3X the people) needs to look at something else besides gun controls...
Of course I also have to question that only 16 shots (the reported number) were fired from that automatic weapon. Perhaps it was set on burst or single shot. Maybe they passed it around the 3 possible shooters, each taking one shot.
"As Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country I have to wonder how someone got a fully automatic "military grade assault weapon" into operation there.
"It seems that gun controls aren't particularly effective in preventing shootings, doesn't it? "
Guns flow into Chicago and NY from states where gun regulations are less strict. This is hard to prevent.
Do you know that this is the cause of the majority of homicides in Chicago because of data, or are you supposing it is true to justify your belief? Do you have evidence, or are you assuming this is true?
"Incidentally, in Chicago, according to FBI data, the chance of being stabbed or beaten to death is 67 times greater than being murdered with a so-called 'assault rifle.'"
http://www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=107
Well, yes. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun if they want one - we know that. And it won't make any difference if every state in the union goes gun free, they will still get guns.
So your point is?
Good column by Mitch Albom here:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3309220067
The Ionia case, conversely, is like manna from heaven for the anti-gun crowd. How many times do you hear pro-gun voices claim, “People getting CCWs are responsible gun owners”?
Pullum and Taylor had licenses to carry concealed weapons.
“People who get CCWs respect guns because they have to learn about them.”
Again, both men had CCWs — and Taylor knew plenty about guns, as the prosecutor told mlive.com that Taylor, apparently a collector, might have owned more than 100.
“Regular folks aren’t the ones you have to worry about with guns — it’s the criminals.”
So far, there is no indication Pullum or Taylor had any serious criminal past. Taylor did lose his concealed weapons permit for three years after a drunken-driving misdemeanor. But in 2010, he was able to get it back. And the prosecutor described him as “a polite, law-abiding citizen.”
So there are your basic facts. The guns weren’t illegally obtained, this wasn’t crossfire from a drug war, and the shooters weren’t deranged lunatics walking through a defenseless workplace.
Instead, this appears to be about tempers flaring over an everyday occurrence — traffic anger — but culminating in two deaths because, when the anger peaked, each man had a gun within reach and each used it to try to settle matters.
Same as we did in the Wild West.
Ralph,
You never have answered my question. You said that the reason there are so many gun-related homicides in Chicago is because people get guns in other areas where there isn't gun control and bring the guns to Chicago. Do you know that this is the cause of the majority of homicides in Chicago because of data, or are you supposing it is true to justify your belief? Do you have evidence, or are you assuming this is true?
Where do you think the young gang bangers get their guns? Have you read about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to interdict the pipeline of illegal guns from Virginia to New York City? If you doubt what I say look it up and show me where I'm wrong. I'm not here to do your research for you. I'm not into 20 questions.
On-line Internet sales are also a big source of illegal guns:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 … ecks-video
Nope. It's not unreasonable for somebody to ask for proof when a bold claim is made.
YOU made a statement that YOU have not proven. I'm not asking you to do research for me; I'm only asking that you provide data to prove what YOU claimed. You made the statement, so prove you're right. Prove it, or stop making up "facts." Prove that those "gang bangers" are getting guns in other areas and taking them to Chicago. Prove that the majority of guns used in murders in Chicago come from outside of Chicago.
Not when you are disputing a perfectly logical and well known claim that mouth breathing redneck nutters are supplying inner city gangs with illegal guns.
However,
http://blog.timesunion.com/guns/the-iro … guns/2295/
Please go to the link, read it and admit you are wrong.
First off, your article isn't about Chicago. Also, it doesn't say that the majority of gun homicides come from out of the region; it only says that CONFISCATED guns were coming from other areas. Confiscation can occur for many reasons, and it doesn't mean a homicide has taken place.
Again, where is your evidence that the majority of guns used in homicides in Chicago come from other areas other than Chicago?
It seems you're more interested in winning a debate than being accurate in your facts and statements. I will be happy to "admit" I am wrong when you are able to provide evidence.
Apparently you have a reading disability. The article does mention Chicago and other cities. You have a problem admitting you are wrong. This is a dumb conversation.
"However the latest data that Commissioner Kelly provided gives the fullest picture yet of the ”Iron Pipeline,” in which guns are transported from Southern states to states throughout the country, particularly the North East and as far away as Chicago and Los Angeles. “The iron pipeline is one of the biggest factors in thwarting New York’s efforts to keep guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals” Commissioner Kelley stated ”
Apparently Indiana is a significant source of illegal guns in Chicago:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 … trafficker
But the biggest source is a single local dealer who skirts the law with straw purchaser sales and dealers outside the Chicago city limits.
Whether it be booze or guns, do you think the liberals wanting guns gone are smart enough to eventually figure out that making laws limiting the freedom of law abiding people doesn't have much affect on the criminals? Or that such laws won't limit the killings?
I do begin to see some hope as I'm finding more and more articles being written with just that information; that removing guns doesn't stop the killing.
Ralph,
Why are you getting so emotional and personal? Let's keep our eyes on the facts.
My reading comprehension is fine; I just don't believe that your article describes gun homicides in Chicago. It mentions Chicago but is about New York. It is not about guns that were used in homicides in Chicago.
Your second article broaches the topic by saying, "The scheme exposed by law enforcement illustrates the tidal wave of illegal guns confronting Chicago police as they battle surging numbers of homicides and shootings." It does not, however, provide data. We keep hearing gun-control advocates, such as yourself, claim that the only reason gun control isn't working in Chicago is because of guns coming in from other regions. We all know that guns do in fact come from other areas where there is less gun control. There are plenty of resources that confirm that. Are the majority of gun homicides in Chicago committed with guns that were purchased outside of Chicago and imported there? This is something many gun-control advocates claim. I merely want to see if this is true or not.
Again, please provide evidence that the majority of homicides in Chicago involve guns that were purchased outside of Chicago. Further, are most of these weapons that would have been banned for purchase in Chicago?
The point is, they don't make guns in Chicago. They are coming in from somewhere else, from multiple sources. My point was that its very hard or impossible to keep guns out of the cities when they are coming in from other states or outside the city via various methods including Internet sales. It's not accurate to say that strict gun laws, now declared unconstitutional, in Chicago haven't prevented gun mayhem. I could post one or more articles every day from shootings in Detroit--car jackings, drug gang shootings, drive by shootings, bar parking lot shootings, accidental shootings, road rage shootings, spouses killing mates and girl friends, grandmothers shooting grandsons, etc.
I confess I have a hard time understanding the uproar over guns from other states. After all, isn't everyone saying they don't want to take away guns, just military weapons, steel ammo, and other gun accessories they don't like?
What do people selling guns in other states have to do with it when nobody wants to take guns away?
They also want universal background checks including better mechanisms for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and more effective enforcement of gun control laws, consistent with the Second Amendment. Nobody's saying that these measures will end gun and other kinds of violence, but they would be a step in the right direction.
Experience from all over the world says otherwise, but that's all right.
Keep up the good work and gather those scary guns in.
You appear to be saying that the reason gun control isn't working in Chicago is because of a flood of illegal guns coming from other areas. May I remind you that not all guns are banned in Chicago. What percentage of gun homicides in Chicago are committed with a "controlled" gun that was imported, perhaps a weapon that you might call an assault weapon? The FBI has an answer:
The FBI states that you would be 67 times more likely to be stabbed or strangled to death in Chicago versus being killed with an "assault weapon."
Assault weapons aren't the biggest problem, but they sometimes are used in sensational mass killings. Pistols are more numerous and are used in more shootings of all types--accidents, murders, suicides, etc. So what's your point?
Are you trying to say that pistols should be banned?
Chicago tried that but the law was, in a split decision, was declared unconstitutional by a federal circuit court. There's some Chicago history at this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 … 05694.html
"Shootings have plagued the city this summer: where shootings are a daily occurrence, and a recent survey found that more Chicago residents have been killed in 2012 than U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the same time period."
“There’s just way too many guns in this city," Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said at a press conference following the ruling. "There’s way too many guns in the state of Illinois. And it’s one of those situations that if we don’t do something about it – and everything we do matters--if we don’t do something about it, it’s just going to continue at the rate that it is.”
What would you like to see? Do you favor a banning of pistols? What, specifically, do you propose?
No, I don't support banning pistols. I do support tighter regulation of them.
1. Universal background checks
2. Ban armor piercing bullets
3. Ban big magazines (5 bullets would be sufficient for non-military sport or self defense purposes)
4. Ban military style "assault weapons"
5. Tighten up concealed carry regulations on who can get a permit and where guns can be carried--ban from bars, all public buildings including schools, court houses, libraries, all government buildings, bars, athletic events
6. Increased voluntary buy back programs for hand guns and so-called assault weapons.
All the above are consistent with the Second Amendment and would reduce gun violence in this country.
Do you mean to say that YOU consider these measures to be consistent with the second amendment? Millions of people heartily disagree with you on this. In 2008, the Supreme Court’s decision, in Heller v. District of Columbia, stated that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” The Court also held that restrictions short of complete bans could also fail constitutional muster. Limiting handgun magazines to five rounds seems completely inconsistent with what the Supreme Court would allow; thus it does not seem to be consistent with the second amendment.
You want to ban a six-shot revolver? My little .22 revolver would be outlawed under your plan? Wow, now I see that you really aren't talking about gun control as much as you are talking about a partial ban. That kind of move would be considered extreme, and you wouldn't be able to get anywhere near the majority of Americans to agree to it.
What do you consider a "military style assault weapon" in your plan? How would you define it?
How do you know that these measures would decrease gun violence in this country when Harvard, the FBI, and Duke studies disagree with you?
"You want to ban a six-shot revolver? "
I could live with six. I take it you are opposed to any additional restrictions on guns? If that's not so, tell us what you would do. Do you support ANY effort to deal with gun violence?
Illegal guns are a big problem in Chicago, NYC, Detroit. They aren't made there, so they must be coming in from somewhere. Why is this simple fact so hard for you to grasp? Where do you live? Somewhere out in the boonies I'll bet. Or possibly Arizona, if memory serves which has the absolutely most fascist sheriff and governor in the country. I'll bet you're a stalwart supporter of both of them. This "discussion" is going nowhere. It's a waste of time.
I proudly live in Phoenix, Arizona. Violence is a problem in Phoenix too. You, sir, are the one having a difficult time grasping the facts. It is patently obvious that guns are imported, but that doesn't mean that all imported guns violate each of these cities' gun laws. Reread what I asked in my last post and what you ignored.
Would you like to denigrate my state some more? You clearly show disdain for people who live in rural areas. What exactly are you saying? I've heard you bash Mitt Romney for making his "47 percent of people" statement. How is it any better when you bash people who do not live in a populated state? Bias is bias.
I favor the following in order to deal with violence:
1. I favor no additional gun laws.
2. I favor enforcing the existing laws.
3. I favor getting control of our border and developing a comprehensive system for legal immigration and green cards. Illegal aliens kill Americans daily. Illegal aliens often bring drugs; drug trafficking results in more homicides.
4. I favor getting serious about the flood of illegal drugs that enter our country. I might even consider legalizing some drugs. (See number 3.)
5. I favor job creation. Studies confirm that when unemployment is up, homicide rates go up too.
6. I favor looking at the real cause of violence, an erosion of moral values. This is a bit harder, because you can't legislate morality.
7. I favor greater security in schools and other public areas. I don't have a problem with arming well trained employees who have been screened.
8. I favor concealed carry. I firmly believe that an armed society is a polite society.
9. I favor more realistic jail sentences and helpful support for minor drug offenders. Locking people away isn't working, and instead, it's teaching people more about being a criminal.
10. I favor more intensive efforts to target gang behavior and removal of illegal aliens who are in gangs.
You avoided answering either of my questions, so I'll ask one of them again. What do you consider an assault weapon? What's your definition?
FYI, I like Arizona. I have a brother and sister in Tucson where I've spent many enjoyable vacations. Until recently my brother and I had a sailboat in San Carlos, Mexico. I just don't like your sheriff or your governor. Further I'm not prejudiced against rural areas. Most of my relatives on both sides of the family are from rural Nebraska where I spent many summers when I was growing up. I am prejudiced against ignorant, mouth breathing rednecks.
I'm not interested in re-hashing the definition of assault weapons. I think these military style weapons should be banned whether they are fully automatic or semi-automatic. The term doesn't have an accepted definition. Here's what Wikipedia says:
This article is about the American legal and political term. For fully automatic military rifles, see Assault rifle. For other uses, see Assault weapon (disambiguation).
U.S. Firearms Legal Topics
Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. In this context an assault weapon often defined as having a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapon definitions are limited to rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.
The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban,[2] as well as state and local laws often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired Federal Law.
Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[3][4][5][6][7] As a political and legal term, it is highly controversial.
It has also been asserted that the term is a media invention[8] or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms,[9] while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself in the 1980s[3] and used as a marketing tactic to stimulate sales of certain guns that had an unfamiliar appearance in the wake of slumping handgun sales.[10]
The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle" which refers only to military rifles capable of selective fire, including fully automatic fire and/or burst fire.[11] In the United States, fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, as well as by state and local laws.
The term "assault weapon" is also used to refer to some weapons that are used by the military for offensive operations in battle, such as portable rocket launchers used for anti-tank and bunker destruction purposes and various other weapons using flammable munitions and/or explosives.
This should be banned whether it's fully automatic or semi-automatic:
"I think these military style weapons should be banned whether they are fully automatic or semi-automatic. The term doesn't have an accepted definition. "
You would remove all military style weapons while slyly leaving the term undefined.
And this differs from a long range goal to remove all guns how?
But even if we accept the wiki definition, can you describe what makes you think removing weapons with certain cosmetic appearances, or with a folding stock, is more effective than removing weapons without those appearances or folding stock? What is about the folding stock that makes the gun with such a terrible thing more deadly? Or painting it black turns it from a hunting rifle to an instrument of human death?
I swear, this looks like another way to achieve a long range goal of no guns; if you can make people think "Military! Bad! when they see that black gun it's easier to get it out of circulation, isn't it? All about perception, not fact.
"You would remove all military style weapons while slyly leaving the term undefined.
"And this differs from a long range goal to remove all guns how? "
I didn't say anything about "removing" any guns. What I said was quite clear. I said I would "ban" military style weapons, both automatic and semi-automatic.
Defining military style weapons is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
"What is about the folding stock that makes the gun with such a terrible thing more deadly? Or painting it black turns it from a hunting rifle to an instrument of human death? "
The large magazine makes the AR15 more lethal for mass killings. Moreover, the military-style features apparently appeal to nutters. Where I come from these guns aren't "hunting rifles." They are mainly for sickos such as the militias who run around in the woods in camo pajamas like these:
People often equate a ban with removal. By "ban" what do you mean? Do you mean remove these weapons? Do you mean grandfather all weapons prior to the ban?
I mean prohibit the sale of these weapons. Sorry for the ambiguity.
So, you're willing to let people who already possess these guns to continue owning them? Would they be able to sell them to foreigners?
"Would they be able to sell them to foreigners?"
That probably be prohibited by U.S. laws already on the books limiting international arms sales. Not sure. I wouldn't like to see them being sold to al Qaida other troublesome terrorist groups. I would support a city, state and/or federal voluntary buy back program but not confiscation, except of course when they are used in a crime.
You'd have a run on them the minute you tried to ban them. See, IF I knew that my gun rights would be protected in perpetuity, I'd be glad to give up the right to own an assault weapon. The problem is that I don't believe this would be the end. I believe that once you start banning additional guns, it leaves it open to ban more guns. Pretty soon, I won't even be able to own a six-shot .22 or a semi-automatic .22 that holds twenty rounds. I know you won't like hearing this, but it's a slippery slope.
Let me ask my question a different way. What percentage of the guns used in homicides in Chicago were purchased legally and in accordance with the Chicago regulations?
I have seen little evidence that Chicago's gun control measures have worked or that they haven't worked, because people are importing guns that are considered illegal in Chicago. Where is a single shred of evidence?
Three killed and 5 injured at Elks Club shootout in Muskegon, Michigan.
MUSKEGON — Western Michigan authorities say a shootout outside a social club has killed two men and a woman and has left five others with gunshot wounds.
MLive.com says Muskegon police authorities got a call about 2 a.m. Sunday saying there was gunfire at the Elks Charity Lodge.
Police say they found two men dead outside the club. They say a 20-year-old woman was shot and then was run over by a driver trying to flee police.
Police say the woman died at a hospital.
MLive.com reports that there have been arrests, but no other details were immediately available.
Muskegon Public Safety Director Jeffrey Lewis says investigators are trying to sort out what happened.
He says they have “a lot of stories” and think they have evidence that will help investigators.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130922/N … e-shooting
Another one from my Sunday paper:
At 4 a.m. Tuesday, a man and woman were stopped at an intersection near Conant and Outer Drive when two armed men approached the car, according to Detroit police. The men forced the pair out of the car, robbing the man. They then took the woman between two houses and sexually assaulted her before fleeing in the vehicle, which was later found abandoned near Ryan and Nevada.
The attackers were both in their 20s and about 6 feet tall, wearing dark sweatshirts with hoods.
One more:
Also on Monday, Detroit Police found the stolen vehicle abandoned on the city’s west side. Bloomfield Township Police detectives found evidence inside indicating the men were involved in an armed robbery in Detroit where one of the victims was stabbed.
The men, all in their 20s and from Chicago; Memphis, Tenn.; Shreveport, La.; and Birmingham, Ala., said they’d been in metro Detroit selling magazines for the past two months, according to police. [Beware of door-to-door magazine salesmen. Bible salesmen can be worse!]]
They are being held by Detroit Police pending charges in Detroit and Bloomfield Township.
Another from today's paper:
Bruce Butler, a General Motors retiree who played the lottery for 40 years, didn’t gun down a Southfield party store employee because he was angry he’d left a winning ticket on the counter months earlier, his attorney says.
If Butler had won a $1-million prize, he would have known better than to try to cash it at a party store, attorney Joe Niskar said in his opening statement today, rejecting what he said were the stories circulating about the case.
But while Niskar contends police got the wrong man, prosecutors say they have evidence to prove Butler, 60, of Southfield fatally shot Mike Khmoro, 48, in the parking lot of Cronin’s Liquor Store on Northwestern Highway near 12 Mile Road on Oct. 6, 2010.
Butler is now on trial, charged with first-degree murder, in Oakland County Circuit Court.
Note: Not all of these incidents occurred yesterday or even last week but they were all in today's paper.
One more:
The initial call made to 911 reported a fight involving five or six people, including one with a gun, but police said that the four suspects who left as police arrived had attempted an armed robbery there.
Police said the officer fired three shots at the vehicle that hit him, but nobody was hit by those bullets.
The suspect vehicle went on to hit a stop sign and parked car. The driver ran from the accident but was caught by police near the area.
Here's one I might put on the list--a dinosaur gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rKHXTsDcc
Video isn't there, but here's one for you:
7 year old suspended for one year from school for shooting an airsoft pellet gun in his own yard.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1465745
Think the school is over reaching it's bounds just a little here?
"voted to suspend Larkspur Middle School student Khalid Caraballo for one year,"
Yes. I agree the school over-reached. That's the trouble with zero tolerance policies. They tend to come up with conclusions that defy common sense.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … z2frLxD59t
"They tend to come up with conclusions that defy common sense. " Much like taking away guns that are painted black, have a hand grip or a barrel shroud, right? Completely defying common sense (at least unless the unstated goal is simply to get all guns away from the citizenry...).
Wrong! These pseudo military weapons might be okay without big magazines and if every buyer had to have a psychiatric exam!
We must have a very different mother/grandmother giving us our "common sense" then. Because for sure a barrel shroud does NOT make any gun more deadly. Nor does painting it black.
We would have to have a psychiatric exam to purchase a gun? That's your solution? Seriously? Does this exam take place in any other nation? Is there any data to suggest that it would be a good idea?
Who would pay for the exam? In education, a psychiatric exam typically costs our district a minimum of $500. Are you simply trying to make an "assault weapon" cost so much that the average person can't purchase one?
My mention of a psychiatric exam was tongue in cheek.
Oh, I'm glad to hear that. We often hear so many gun-control proposals that are similar to this that I thought you might be serious.
"Children and Guns, the Hidden Toll"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/ch … p&_r=0
A Detroit man has been charged in the fatal shooting of a man who yelled at him to slow down while driving because children were nearby, according to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.
Thyrone Evans, 32, was arraigned today in 36th District Court on first-degree premeditated murder and felony firearm charges, the prosecutor’s office said in a news release.
Evans is scheduled for a preliminary examination on Tuesday.
Evans is accused of shooting Cleveland Dunklin, 23, on Sept. 30 in front of a house on Detroit’s west side. Dunklin had seen Evans driving an SUV at a high rate of speed in the 13900 block of Braile Street about 7 p.m. and shouted at him to slow down because children were playing in the area, the release said.
The prosecutor’s office said Evans returned to the same block about 50 minutes later and shot Dunklin.
Dunklin was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead.
Contact Eric D. Lawrence: elawrence@freepress.com
http://www.freep.com/article/20131004/N … t-shooting
How many more of these suicidal nutjob shootings have to occur before our politicians have the guts to do something about them?
"...Ciancia had at least five full 30-round magazines with him, police said..."
"The gunman who opened fire inside Los Angeles International Airport, killing a security agent and injuring several others, was carrying a note describing himself as a "pissed off patriot" who wanted to shoot "pigs", it has been reported.
'In the hours after Friday's deadly attack, suggestions began to emerge that the shooter - identified as Paul Ciancia, 23 - was motivated by extremist anti-government views as well as emotional problems that had pushed him towards thoughts of suicide.
"Authorities have declined to address his motivation publicly but a law enforcement official told the Los Angeles Times that a note was found on Ciancia expressing "disappointment in the government" and claiming he had no interest in harming "innocent people".
'Instead, he wanted to "kill TSA", the note reportedly stated, a reference to the Transport Security Administration created in the wake of the September 11 attacks to increase safety on US transportation. The written rant was said to detail Ciancia's belief that his constitutional rights were being violated by TSA searches and his anger at former Department of Homleand Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
"As he embarked on his shooting spree, dressed in fatigues and carrying a high-powered rifle, Ciancia asked several cowering members of the public if they were TSA, witnesses claimed. He found his target, shooting dead 39-year-old agent Gerardo Hernandez, the first TSA officer to be killed in the line of duty since the agency's creation.
"The deadly attack threw one of the world's busiest airports into chaos as terrified passengers fled Terminal 3, some gathering on the airside tarmac under the wings of waiting planes. Others locked themselves in bathrooms as security officers sought to fell the shooter, ultimately engaging him in gunfire which resulted in shots to his mouth and leg, and taking him into custody..."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lax-shoo … z2jcno2hKm
http://www.businessinsider.com/lax-shoo … emailshare
Another depressed, mentally ill young man brings a gun designed to look like a military assault weapon into a shopping mall. Fortunately, he was the only one killed. These weapons that look like AK47s apparently appeal to mentally ill individuals.
"A man who walked through a large northern New Jersey mall on Monday night firing a weapon and sending thousands of people running shot and killed himself early Tuesday morning, the authorities said.
"The man, identified as Richard Shoop, 20, of Teaneck, N.J., entered the Garden State Plaza in Paramus around 9 p.m. Monday, shortly before the mall was scheduled to close, and roamed the hallways before taking his own life, according to the Bergen County prosecutor, John Molinelli.
"No customers or employees were injured.
"It is unclear when Mr. Shoop shot himself, but his body was found by the authorities at 3:20 a.m, “very, very deep in an area that was under construction” in the mall, Mr. Molinelli said.
"Mr. Shoop was found with a firearm that was meant to look like an AK-47 assault rifle, Mr. Molinelli said.
“It was a lawful weapon that was owned by his brother,” he said. The authorities said they believed Mr. Shoop stole the gun before heading to the mall..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/nyreg … ey.html?hp
Ralph, do you think our nation will ever grow up enough to take on the problem of mental illness and violence?
Or will we forever remain in the "Get rid of guns!" thing because it's PC and we're more interested in keeping a congressional seat or in pretending we're doing something rather than actually taking on the problem to find a solution?
What's wrong with our people that they will pay lip service to ending violence and death, but refuse to make any real effort? Why do we become fixated on the tool rather than the problem? Are we afraid to look inside ourselves for answers (because that's where they are, not in a chunk of steel)?
I believe the answer is simple, just like the proposed solution. It's a "quick" fix, a shortcut to actually dealing with the problem.
I don't know whether we will ever be able to take on the issue of mental illness and violence. We are capable of doing a better job of providing mental health care for those in need. And we are capable of doing a better job of keeping guns out of their hands although that won't be easy for a variety of reasons.
As I've said before, I've owned several guns ever since I was 12 or so. I'm not in favor of "getting rid of guns." However, there are a number of practical steps that could be taken that would be helpful without infringing anbody's 2nd Amendment rights to guns for hunting, target shooting or self-protection. I've enumerated them previously and won't bother to repeat them here, except to point out that the airport shooter was equipped with three or four 30 round magazines.. There may be a copy cat feature motivating some of these recent (past several years) mass shootings. Those appear to becoming more frequent. However, there are still plenty of regular old, murders, armed robberies, road rage shootings, jealous boyfriend shootings, drug gang drive by shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, etc. which we could be doing a better job of preventing.
Yeah. That'll work great, I bet. You go ahead and tell the operator of a 6,000 pound weapon that you're going to take away his gun 'cause he has road rage. That'll take care of everything!
You can say you don't want the guns gone, but when you continue to post dozens of reports about gun violence while ignoring the underlying causes and pretending that taking guns will fix everything, I have to doubt. Sorry about that.
I'm not "pretending that taking away guns will fix everything." I haven't even proposed taking away any gun that was purchased and owned legally. However, every once in a while I read about a road rage incident that ends in one of the drivers pulling a pistol and shooting at the other driver. Similar incidents are common in parking lots outside bars.
And I'm not ignoring the underlying causes of these incidents. I support improvements in mental health care.
And as you confiscate the handgun of the road rage maniac, we will ignore that 6,000# weapon he is piloting. Until, at least, it hits us...
Personally, I'd rather be shot at. But I understand - any excuse to get a gun out of the hands of the citizenry. I'm sorry, Ralph, but your protestations to the contrary every time you post another report about gun violence it reinforces that you find those chunks of steel to be the problem, not the madman behind it. Were it otherwise, we'd be seeing a barrage about violence of the mentally ill, including non-gun violence.
Another killing from my morning paper:
"Police are investigating the Detroit shooting death of the brother-in-law of Greater Grace Temple's Bishop Charles Ellis III Monday afternoon.
“We have to bring an end to gun violence and violence period,” Ellis said today,. “Really we are just disheartened. And hopefully we will understand why this happened and who’s responsible. And hopefully they’ll be brought to justice.”
"Dwayne Green, 48, the brother of Ellis’ wife, Crisette Ellis, was shot twice in the head, said Ellis.
"Two cousins had planned to visit Green Monday at the two-flat home in the 6600 block of Barlum, near Livernois and West Warren. Instead, he was found bleeding from a head wound at 4:10 p.m., Detroit Police Sgt. Michael Woody said. Police are investigating the case as a homicide, Woody added.
“They found the door ajar and him lying on the dining room floor apparently already dead from a gun shot wound,” Ellis said.
"Investigators are still trying to determine if anything was taken.
“He lived alone, so that’s difficult, as to what he had and what’s not there,” Ellis said.
"Green led the maintenance staff at the mega church at 23500 Seven Mile, near Telegraph on the city’s west side, for more than 10 years. He supervised about eight people, Ellis said.
'Ellis said Green, an accomplished chef who has never been married, is survived by a son who’s a freshman at Jackson Community College and a daughter who lives in Atlanta."
http://www.freep.com/article/20131105/N … law-killed
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” Many rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the...
by Josh Ratzburg 7 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
by flacoinohio 11 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by news-usa 11 years ago
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing at least 26 people, including 18 children, by blasting his way through the building as young students cowered helplessly in classrooms while their teachers and classmates were...
by Don Bobbitt 8 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |