Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
there is viewing outside the norm, and then there is getting personally offended by a general statment to a large mass of people, and trying to play the victim.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
there is viewing outside the norm, and then there is getting personally offended by a general statment to a large mass of people, and trying to play the victim.
I have no idea... it think background checks are national... waiting probably isn't though. I don't think thorough background checks or waiting would have an impact though, but it wouldn't hurt anything either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
guns are still illegal in d.c.Quote:
I recall someone said before that the trial of tighter laws in DC was never going to have much effect (even though it was taken to court and removed anyway) due to neighboring states having more lax laws. So why not some consistency, at least trying something rather than nothing as appears to happen? Just seems like something worth considering.
Why not uniformity? in Wyoming there are cases where you will need a rifle that day to kill the coyotes killing your sheep. In NYC.. very few people own sheep.
Perhaps you'd like to point out where that occurred?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
I'm very willing to back up any claim or accusation I'll make of anyone, so I think it only fair anyone else should do the same, no?
When I looked at the statistic, I found out that the UK and the US have about the same amount of murders without firearms (the US have a little bit more), but the US have about 27 times as many murders resulting from use of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
The absence of an explanation for why our murder rate is high is not evidence that it is caused by our gun laws. Are you saying that "because US murder rates are high, it must be their gun laws"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Besides, there are numerous examples throughout the world where gun ownership is high and crime rates are low. There have also been numerous times that more strict gun laws were introduced and violent crime rates immediately increased (UK for example).
The fact remains that sane people (almost) always greatly outnumber insane people. Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone" due to a recently fought for and passed gun law. As we now know, the only people that didn't have guns were the sane people. What about that gun law prevented the insane person from illegally bringing guns onto campus? What about the fact that, had a sane person been allowed to have a gun on campus that day, it may have stopped at least some of the bloodshed, is escapable?
You can pass all of the gun laws you want. But, criminals are criminals because they BREAK laws. What is different about gun laws that will cause criminals not to break them?
Well, if you haven't prepared in advance (like any business) then couldn't you be made to fork out for a licensed shooter to have to come and do the job? I mean, in any business, if I haven't got a licence for something that is a part of my business, then should I just be able to do what I want?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
-----
I thought this article was interesting - with no claim as to the publication as a whole, just something I came across via Google news that seemed to make some logical sense, using the driving licence analogy for gun licences. Again, not saying you have to agree with it, just seemed to be worth a thought is all:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1403/81/Quote:
Prior to being able to operate a motor vehicle, it is necessary for the applicant to obtain a certain age, which varies from state to state, much like gun laws may vary from state to state. He/she must first obtain a learners permit, which involves producing evidence of identification and age, and take a test indicating that he/she knows some rudimentary tasks associated with driving: what a stop sign looks like, how to properly signal for a turn, and what the average stopping distance is if traveling at 50 mph.
Once that test is passed, a date is schedule for the driving test. The applicant then practices operating a vehicle, either with a formal instructor, or with someone who has already been licensed. At the scheduled date, the applicant takes a driving test with a government employee, who determines if the applicant is sufficiently competent to drive a car. These steps are necessary since the applicant will be operating a large piece of machinery which, if used improperly, can injure and kill
A person who wants to own a motor vehicle must register it. He or she will provide the vehicle identification number to a state-registered agency, who will check to assure that the title (ownership record) is free and clear. The applicant will be presented with a registration card, which must be produced when demanded by a law enforcement officer, and license plates. These items identify the vehicle and its owner. Should the vehicle then, for example, be involved in the commission of the crime, if a witness documents the license plate number, the owner of the car can be located and questioned about the crime.
One wonders why it is asking too much for gun owners and operators to do the same. One can apply for a license to shoot a gun, practice with someone already licensed, and then take a test to assure competency. Before a gun purchase is finalized, a serial number can be produced, and the new gun owner can be presented with a registration form, indicating that he/she owns the gun. Should the gun be used in the commission of a crime, and be located, the owner can then be traced and questioned about the crime.
The registering of cars and the licensing of drivers does not prevent unauthorized or incompetent people from operating motor vehicles. The inspections required do not assure that no unsafe cars are ever on the road. Thousands of people die in auto accidents each year. However, these regulations are necessary to establish some level of safety and responsibility. Without them, the number of traffic fatalities would skyrocket
Similarly, registering firearms and licensing those who use them will not prevent gun violence. However, over 30,000 Americans die by gun violence each year. It is expected that that number can be greatly reduced by the registration of guns and licensing of those who use them.
The licensing of drivers and the registration of cars is not the first step toward banning motor vehicles. These regulations have existed for years, and any talk of banning cars would be ludicrous.
two ways to interprit that data.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
1. having guns around makes you want to kill people more.
or
2. We have an element of our society that the u.k. does not.
Flash Lackey, possibly the best formed and worded argument to express how I view the situation, thank you for being well spoken on my behalf as well as yours ;)
well that is rather harsh, i would have expected your travels to make you a little more sympathetic to those living paycheck to paycheck, which a Wyoming sheep farmer would probably be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
licensing for the most part generally causes inflated prices and stunted growth... licensing is fascism.
-----
you don't need a license to buy and own a car in the united states.. but you need one to drive a car on the road. Carry permits, especially concealed permits require a but load of background checking and regulationQuote:
I thought this article was interesting - with no claim as to the publication as a whole, just something I came across via Google news that seemed to make some logical sense, using the driving licence analogy for gun licences. Again, not saying you have to agree with it, just seemed to be worth a thought is all:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1403/81/
No, but it think that's a part of the explanation. Of course, there are other factors as well. But in this thread, many people says that murder rates aren't high because of guns, but except from TallGuyLittleCar, I haven't seen any suggestions on why the rates are high...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Of course criminals break the law, and many of them get easy access to guns. Still, I think that in situations where sane people could need a gun for protection, they don't have access to it or time to get it, even if they have one. I also think that with fewer guns, it will be easier for the police to catch those criminals who wear them (because the gun will be proof for crime). At last, there will also be more difficult for people like young kids, without any network, to get their hands on guns.
thank you sir. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGo_RK
Well, it's a business. I'm very sympathetic to anyone who has their own business, but should that go as far as not requiring licences?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
(if that was to be required)
And for all the sympathy I have for them, I don't know if a Wyoming sheep farmer is something to focus a discussion on gun licensing just quietly... ;)
Well, we certainly both have very fascist governments then, don't me? ;)Quote:
licensing for the most part generally causes inflated prices and stunted growth... licensing is fascism.
I think you got the point.Quote:
you don't need a license to buy and own a car in the united states.. but you need one to drive a car on the road. Carry permits, especially concealed permits require a but load of background checking and regulation
So question: IF that Gallup poll is correct, and the majority of Americans favour the idea of stricter gun licensing laws, then would it be unreasonable to consider some kind of learning and then testing stages along the lines of a driver's licence?
Or - again, IF the majority favour tighter laws - what other suggestion would you have?
stats say that citizens with guns stop crimes 7 times more often than the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Anecdotal, but I know quite a few people that have used their gun for protection, a few times out of the house and inside the house. I know more people that would be dead without guns than have been murdered with a gun.
So then is this true or not true from Magnus:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
"When I looked at the statistic, I found out that the UK and the US have about the same amount of murders without firearms (the US have a little bit more), but the US have about 27 times as many murders resulting from use of firearms."
IF true then it doesn't back up your claim, no?
Where where where where? Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
In the absence of any of us having the time to do our own extensive research into the matter, we're all very reliant on studies and stats, hence why I've been trying to look those up while reading all the verbiage about the issue. So would definitely appreciate your source. ;)
depends on the licences. I would say out in wyoming you don't need gun licences.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
well i hope you got my point that the states are different, and one rule won't effect all. In a way the u.s. is more like the eu than any one eu state.Quote:
And for all the sympathy I have for them, I don't know if a Wyoming sheep farmer is something to focus a discussion on gun licensing just quietly... ;)
yes we do.. and i blame that on the machine gun bans started in the 30s.Quote:
Well, we certainly both have very fascist governments then, don't me? ;)
well I would rather the pole be taken when emotions aren't so high. After 9/11 the majority favored kicking arabs out of the country.Quote:
So question: IF that Gallup poll is correct, and the majority of Americans favour the idea of stricter gun licensing laws, then would it be unreasonable to consider some kind of learning and then testing stages along the lines of a driver's licence?
Or - again, IF the majority favour tighter laws - what other suggestion would you have?
we are a nation of laws based on individual liberty, not on mob rule.
nra.. so the real number is probably 3 or 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
my personal experience, anecdotal i know, puts the number at over 10.
Ok. So, isn't the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it is indeed "part of the explanation" rather than the burden of explaining all murder on those that disagree?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
The law at VT was passed because a student had a concealed firearm in a class. You dont think that, if he had been in one of the classes attacked, with the weapon, that he might have had a chance to stop the attacker?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
The police have hardly had a difficult time tracing specific weapons to crimes. If a murder has occured and a suspect is detained with a weapon, that weapon can be checked. Ballistic testing has been used for many years now.
"Young kids" getting guns is more rare than bathtub drownings and barbecue related accidents. Most gun crimes are committed by adults. Gun crimes occur DESPITE gun control laws. Not in absence of them. What makes you think that abolishing guns will remove guns from society and from criminals that want to get them? People get guns illegally in the UK and its an island! here, we have Canada, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (and low crime rate i might add) and Mexico. I'm not sure what Mexicos gun laws are like but they seem to have enough of them along with one of the healthiest black markets in the world.
I also want to add a point about the "wild west" that people often times remark about. "So you want to go back to the WWIIILD WEST?! har har" It turns out that many of the crimes that are common today were practically non-existent in the "wild" west. If memory serves, the over-all crime rate was lower during the time of the "wild" west. The idea that the OK Corral and cowboy shootouts were happening all over the place is largely a thing of hollywood and european mythology. Read the short story "Blue Hotel" by Stephen Crane some time.
Wasn't taken after this event, it's from polling over a number of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070417cii.gif
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27229
So, any suggestion of what changes if the majority were able to vote on this?
Ehm... I'm not sure of what you're asking for, but the source of these numbers:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita
Murders per capita (with and without firearms):
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
US has about 3,5 times as many as UK total.
Murders per capita (with firearms):
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
US has about 27 times as many as UK with firearms.
So if we then takes the total numbers minus the numbers for firearms murders, we get numbers for murders without firearms.
Murders per capita (without firearms):
#8 United States: 0.0148749 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.01303751 per 1,000 people
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?