Printable View
I was referring to the change rather than the current level. The rate of violent crime in the UK went markedly up immediately after they effectively banned guns. If the rate of crime increases at its current rate. The over-all level in the UK is set to exceed that of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
none, unless it was done on a national level... and national verse local government is another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
And you don't think that, if a proper background check process had been in place that checked mental history, it might have stopped the slaughter altogether?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
And which "might" is more realistic: They discover his mental history via a background check, or that a kid in a Uni class is carrying a gun? Even where laws are lax, I don't know if it's that common for a 20 year old student to carry a gun on campus*. May change now of course.
(*Would certainly have added some spice to some of my Uni friends flirting with guys' girlfriends!)
Well... in questions like this, we can look at statistics and I will say that there's a connection. What do you think is the reason for the high rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
When writing of "young kids", i meant at the age of those involved in school shootings (should probably have wrote teenagers instead).
I call you: cop out! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Talk about ducking the question. I'm merely interested in an idea, not how it would happen. And future reality all starts with a simple idea...
I agree that there should have been a background check on this guy, he was apparently involuntarily committed, and the U didn't even know about that. So obviously the ball in communication for crazies was dropped somewhere.
The point of the right to bear arms, as i understand it, is another power to the individual citizen to not have to rely on the state to provide for their personal protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
I don't have an argument with including mental history in background checks for guns. So, no, I don't think that would be an unreasonable gun law. I am not against all laws about guns period. I am against any laws that limit law abiding (and sane) citizens from owning and possessing guns.
Did it? Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
(and excuse me if it was posted before and I missed it)
Ah ha! Then we have some agreement! Ta da!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
And like you said, I don't find the idea of tighter laws/background checks unreasonable, which is why I find it so bizarre that some can be so offended at the mere suggestion of such a thing.
Yes. You can say that there's a connection. But, without evidence, you shouldnt expect anyone to believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
I believe there are many factors to the high rates. But, ultimately, I believe the highest factor is fatherlessness. Of course, as I have already said, whatever my theories might be on the murder rate are irrelevent to the discussion unless a positive correlation can be demonstrated (which it hasnt).
What do you think is the reason for low rates in Canada despite high gun ownership?
the reason is that background checks are a minor part of what people consider "gun laws". when you talk about tighter gun laws, people are usually referring to waiting periods, limits on where you can have the guns, the number of guns, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
if all legislation was put to a national vote there most likely would be tighter gun control laws. No abortion, prayer in school etc etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
dont have time to look up the source today. im pretty sure that ive posted it much earlier in the thread the last time it came up months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Still ducking...Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Putting Ali to shame! ;)
Come on TGLG, just a little idea... promise to not hold you to it if you run for Pres!
So what's your take on those then? Do you think it reasonable to have a waiting period? A limit on how many guns? The calibre?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
how am i ducking.. you asked how it would turn out in a vote, i answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
The statistic discussed in this thread, seems to show some correlation.
I think that there is a connection. That's not an argument, as I have no intention (or hope) in convincing you in this matter (or any political matter;)).
When it comes to Canada, do you think there can more hunting rifles and less hand guns?
no on the waiting period. it has not been shown to have a positive effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
no on the number of guns. not sure what the point of that would be.
the calibre. mostly not. but, obviously, there should be some line drawn when it comes to bazookas, rocket launchers, etc. that should be decided by the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_KingdomQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Figures here show a rise and then a fall. And some of the numbers quoted per year are so small that annual rises and falls in percentage seem much higher than in real numbers.
Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.
And a view through the history of gun control on that page suggest that gun laws were well and truly in place for many types well before the 1997 handgun ban.
Ah, you misunderstood my question:Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
IF it came to pass that the apparent majority got their way, what "tighter" gun laws would you suggest?