- This topic has 335 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 21, 2012 at 9:43 PM #756755December 22, 2012 at 3:28 AM #756759
CA renter
ParticipantOne look at how the Japanese behaved after the tsunami in 2011 vs. how Americans behaved after Katrina…and you’ll see why the homicide rates are so different.
You cannot compare a country with a long-standing culture based on integrity, honor, etc. with ours. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.
—————-
For a better comparison, look at Switzerland, where all males are required to own a gun.
Interesting to note that nationality (culture) has more to do with crime than gun ownership does.
“The crime rate among resident foreigners (“immigrant criminality”) is significantly higher (by a factor 3.7 counting convictions under criminal law in 2003).[7] In 1997, there were for the first time more foreigners than Swiss among the convicts under criminal law (out of a fraction of 20.6% of the total population at the time). In 1999, the Federal Department of Justice and Police ordered a study regarding delinquency and nationality (Arbeitsgruppe “Ausländerkriminalität”), which in its final report (2001) found that a conviction rate under criminal law about 12 times higher among asylum seekers (4%), while the conviction rate among other resident foreigners was about twice as high (0.6%) compared to Swiss citizens (0.3%).[8]
In 2010 for the first time was a statistic published which listed delinquency by nationality (based on 2009 data). To avoid distortions due to demographic structure, only the male population aged between 18 and 34 was considered for each group. From this study it became clear that crime rate is highly correlated on the country of origin of the various migrant groups. Thus, immigrants from Germany, France and Austria had a significantly lower crime rate than Swiss citizens (60% to 80%), while immigrants from Angola, Nigeria and Algeria had a crime rate of above 600% of that of Swiss population. In between these extremes were immigrants from Former Yugoslavia, with crime rates of between 210% and 300% of the Swiss value.[9]”December 22, 2012 at 3:41 AM #756760ParticipantMore on the Swiss:
“Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.”
“…One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.
“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.
“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.
That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire.”
Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/#ixzz2FmQKK5S4
December 22, 2012 at 8:11 AM #756763desmond
ParticipantJim Jones killed 914 people with some koolaid. The point is, it is going to be very hard to do anything meainingful to stop these types of killings. Deep down in the mind is a hard place to reach.
December 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM #756764NotCranky
ParticipantWhen we want to rationalize something, things like “two wrongs don’t make a right” just fly out the window.
When I was a kid average people, if they had any guns, they had a bird gun, a varmint and small game gun and a deer rifle. That’s what gun ownership was. It wasn’t the freak show we have now. I can understand having something that would take down a pit bull at close range but other than fighting the government, it is insane to love guns to the extent some people do.
I was thinking about what Squat250 said yesterday. If your gun is involved in a crime, all charges fit you. If a minor commits a crime with a gun half sentence for the parents.
December 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM #756768dumbrenter
Participant[quote=squat300]I have an actual proposal for getting people serious about at least keeping the guns they have safe from others —
if you own a gun….
and you don’t take the required steps to secure it…
which involves say a locked safe that costs about 2 grand…
and that gun is used by any other person, even a thief, to commit a crime…
you share equally in the liability for whatever crime that gun was involved in.
I would consider that a step toward taking responsibility for your gun.[/quote]
We should have something similar for dogs and dog owners before we even consider something like this for guns.
We have serious problem in practically all hiking trails with dog owners who let their dogs run around off leash in spite of warnings not to do so posted all over.
We have had more dog attacks in carmel valley than shootings in the last 2 years.
The dog owners have an alternate reality and a total lack of consideration: Oh he is just a cute fella, referring to their dog bigger than my kid, barking and with all teeth showing.Dogs don’t kill people, it is the dog owners that do.
Every dog owner is a potential Lanza as far as I am concerned. And since it takes 90 secs for cops to help out, I need guns to protect myself.BTW if everybody obeyed laws, we would not have had a dog problem in San Diego. And we would not have had a gun violence problem either.
December 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM #756770ocrenter
Participant[quote=CA renter]More on the Swiss:
“Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.”
“…One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.
“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.
“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.
That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire.”
Sounds like you are advocating for gun control with the swiss example here. Since we do not have the sense of civic and social responsibility necessary for gun ownership without tight restriction… [insert your own conclusion here]
December 23, 2012 at 12:01 AM #756774ParticipantNo, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.
I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?
December 23, 2012 at 5:22 AM #756775scaredyclassic
ParticipantWhat if the background check were meaningful …
Say as in depth as a check to work for the FBI.
It’s probably the disgruntled who are the most dangerous.
December 23, 2012 at 6:42 AM #756777Participant[quote=CA renter]No, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.
I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?[/quote]
hmmm… how many here are not in favor of “sense of civic and social responsibility”…
I think under the big umbrella of “gun control”, issues such as background checks as well as maybe even psychiatric assessment and mandatory reporting by physicians and psychiatric professionals should all be part of the discussion. squat1000’s point about responsibility and liability on part of the gun owner and I’ll add the gun owner’s estate should be on the table as well.
December 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM #756778Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]No, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.
I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?[/quote]
hmmm… how many here are not in favor of “sense of civic and social responsibility”…
I think under the big umbrella of “gun control”, issues such as background checks as well as maybe even psychiatric assessment and mandatory reporting by physicians and psychiatric professionals should all be part of the discussion. squat1000’s point about responsibility and liability on part of the gun owner and I’ll add the gun owner’s estate should be on the table as well.[/quote]
Can we do the same for dog owners? A psych test, a background test and also a compulsory insurance (and liability & estate and all).
December 23, 2012 at 9:49 AM #756779Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]No, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.
I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?[/quote]
hmmm… how many here are not in favor of “sense of civic and social responsibility”…
I think under the big umbrella of “gun control”, issues such as background checks as well as maybe even psychiatric assessment and mandatory reporting by physicians and psychiatric professionals should all be part of the discussion. squat1000’s point about responsibility and liability on part of the gun owner and I’ll add the gun owner’s estate should be on the table as well.[/quote]
Squat 1000 is a little ridiculous.
Insuring and regulating dogs guns and other dangerous things makes sense.
Our love for dogs in this nation has truly reached psychotic levels.
December 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM #756784Participantpretty compelling personal story about a guy who almost shot his dad when he was 9.
December 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM #756785Participanta psycholgoical background test to own a gun, similar to law enforcement psych tests, would be useful, but only if you ahve to submit to the psych testevery 6 months or so, as conditions change. so the profiling should be 2x annualy, with a computerized safety check statement bi-monthly in which you are in touch with federal counselors by email to sanswers interim questions regarding mental health.
plus a 5,000 a year annual licensing fee.
December 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM #756788ParticipantLet’s look at this another way…
Is there any evidence showing that gun bans reduce homicides or violent attacks?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.