- This topic has 335 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 30, 2012 at 10:53 PM #756970December 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM #756980
ucodegen
Participant[quote=craptcha]You responded to the initial post about Spengler. Your position was that new laws would make no difference since he was already banned from owning a gun. My point was that we should figure out how he got the gun and address the loophole.[/quote]The problem is that there is no way to address this so called loophole, because there was no loophole. What she did is a felony, already illegal, and it really looks like she is going to be in the pokey for it. She may also end up being financially liable. We have yet to see how he got the other bushmaster.. I suspect it may be something similar. Unfortunately this item may have hit the press before the police finished their investigation into the other weapon. In that case, the other person may have had time to get their story ‘cleaned up’.
December 31, 2012 at 9:19 AM #756984zk
Participant[quote=CA renter]
More on how the U.K. crime rates measure up to states with the lowest crime rate in the U.S. — some with very lenient gun laws. As others have already noted, some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates.
IOW, gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides. The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates.
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-…%5B/quote%5DTo say that “some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates” means, IOW, that “gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides.” is to ignore why those states have those gun laws in the first place, and it is also to ignore your main argument. (Besides which, “restrictive gun laws” and “gun bans” are not necessarily the same thing. And any gun ban, to be effective, would require a serious punishment for possessing a gun).
Say you have two towns. Town A is kind of rough and has a bunch of hoodlums living in it; town B is nicer. Graffiti is a big problem in Town A. Town A bans sales of spray paint and doubles the fine for spraying graffiti from $25 to $50. Lame measures, obviously. Similar to current gun-control laws. Those small measures aren’t going to do anything. So you look at these two towns and say, “Town A has tougher graffiti-control measures and still has a bigger graffiti problem.” Well, of course it does. It had a bigger problem to start with, and that’s why it enacted “tougher” measures. But those measures, while maybe technically more restrictive, don’t, in reality, have any effect at all.
So, in the case of these two towns, as you say, “The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates.” But that’s only part of the story.
Let’s say you have a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for possessing spray paint in Town A. Do you think graffiti would be reduced? Of course it would. Crime rates are a result of a combination of culture and the rule of law. The reason that’s so hard to see in our country as far as gun-control laws is that there is nowhere in the U.S. that has meaningful gun-control laws.
The same people who are against meaningful gun control laws are generally also for tough punishment for crimes (I happen to be for gun control and for tough punishment for crimes). Why are conservatives so strongly for tough punishment for crimes? Is it because they think it will reduce crimes or for some other reason? If they believe that being tough on crime will reduce crime, why don’t they think it will be effective against guns?
[quote=CA renter]
What we don’t know about the U.K. is whether or not the gun laws are effective at keeping **gun crime** down (overall, their violent crime rate is higher than ours, but they track things differently, so it’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison…they are well known for the under-reporting of crimes), or if their surveillance program is what keeps it down.
Here’s an interesting article on the subject:
“We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.”
“…What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
And, is this what we want from our government?
“Britain is ‘surveillance society’
CCTV cameras
There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain
Fears that the UK would “sleep-walk into a surveillance society” have become a reality, the government’s information commissioner has said.
Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people’s actions were increasingly being monitored.
Researchers highlight “dataveillance”, the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV.
Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.
There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain – about one for every 14 people.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/61084… [/quote]Here’s my favorite quote from the WSJ article:
“In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.”And they conclude from this that gun laws haven’t made people “noticeably” safer. I reach a different conclusion. It seems that the country has gotten more violent over that time, as indicated by the increase in assaults and sexual assaults. But homicides and armed robbery decreased. Probably due to the gun-control measures.
A lot of the article talks about how massacres still occasionally happen. And, without extreme measures, we won’t prevent them entirely. I agree that you’re not going to completely halt mass killings. You’ll probably reduce them, but in any case, mass killings aren’t the main problem; they’re only what brings gun violence to the forefront of our nation’s consciousness. The main problem is the daily gun violence that occurs.
[quote=CA renter]
More on the U.K. — all of
Submitted by CA renter on December 28, 2012 – 4:04am.
More on the U.K. — all of this during the period that guns have been banned. As many of us have stated, it’s not the guns that are the problem…the people using them to commit violent acts are the problem. We need to focus on mental health and the obsession with sadistic violence in our society. [/quote]I agree that we need to focus on mental health issues. Our country is really quite horrible at dealing with the mentally ill. Whose job is it to deal with them? I don’t want to turn this into a left/right thing, but, really, conservatives don’t want to spend the required taxpayer dollars on the mentally ill.
[quote=CA renter]
————–
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
By James Slack
UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 27 October 2009
Comments (29)
Share
gun crime
Gun crime has increased five-fold in some parts of the UK
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: ‘In areas dominated by gang culture, we’re now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
‘We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
——————–
It’s also important to note that the U.K.’s homicide rate was always lower than the homicide rate in the U.S., even before the gun ban.
——————–
More on how the U.K. crime rates measure up to states with the lowest crime rate in the U.S. — some with very lenient gun laws. As others have already noted, some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates.
IOW, gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides. The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates.
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-… [/quote]A culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. And the number of firearm offenses has almost doubled nationwide.
First of all, they don’t say what they mean by “offenses.” If possession wasn’t an offense before, and it is now, then that would explain some of it.But far more importantly, a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. This is obviously a big change. Gun violence has increased since ban. This can’t automatically be taken to mean that the ban had no effect or made things worse. If their culture has changed that much for the worse, then quite possibly without the gun ban, gun violence would have increased significantly more than it has with the gun ban.
An interesting read:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/December 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM #756988all
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]You responded to the initial post about Spengler. Your position was that new laws would make no difference since he was already banned from owning a gun. My point was that we should figure out how he got the gun and address the loophole.[/quote]The problem is that there is no way to address this so called loophole, because there was no loophole. What she did is a felony, already illegal, and it really looks like she is going to be in the pokey for it. She may also end up being financially liable. [/quote]
What about preventative measures? What is the point of a ban if it can be circumvented that easily? Would it make sense to have some kind of periodic evaluation of armed people? Annual safety check (what protection does broken gun give you?)? Mandatory training (guns handling and face biting)?
The main argument for the ease of access seems to be the ease of access itself.
December 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM #756997LuckyInOC
Participant[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]
I only have two recent examples to prove you wrong – Egypt and Syria…
If they did not have hand weapons at all, they would not have any chance. A semi-automatic weapon with numbers is good odds. The underdog with inferior weapons and numbers seem to win.
Regardless of the army, it will be always more deadly to fight someone in their own town.
Lucky In OC.[/quote]
“Desperate for weapons, Syrian rebels make their own, fix tanks” ALEPPO PROVINCE, Syria (Reuters) –
http://news.yahoo.com/desperate-weapons-syrian-rebels-own-fix-tanks-153542107.html“Sacks of potassium nitrate and sugar lie nearby. In a neat row against the wall is the finished product, homemade mortars.”
“We’re volunteers, we were workers, we were never soldiers. They’re locally made.”
“We aren’t able to get any weapons from abroad. We have nothing except for the rifle to fight with,” said another man at the workshop.
Our forefathers correctly understood then and now, that personal (fire)arms in the hands of the people will always be the best defense of tyranny. What do you think would happen if you take their firearms away? Will they have more life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or less?
http://news.yahoo.com/desperate-weapons-syrian-rebels-own-fix-tanks-153542107.html
BTW, I do not own any firearms, but I do respect the right of others who will also protect my personal freedom.
Lucky In OC
December 31, 2012 at 11:51 AM #756998ParticipantDo you believe that the war in Syria is being fought with billions of $$ in Russian weapons by one side and sacks of sugar by the other?
December 31, 2012 at 1:29 PM #757001Participant“Some rebel groups are receiving supplies from Gulf states, and Western countries say they are giving non-lethal aid. But many rebels say they have not received anything.”
No…I am sure the gulf states are providing some light military supplies as the article indicates (3000 rounds of ammo per month). I can get that at my local gun shop today…
If the non-lethal aid comes in the form of sugar and fertilizer (ammonia nitrate), I am sure they will use whatever they can.
Lucky In OC
December 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM #757003Participant[quote=LuckyInOC]”Some rebel groups are receiving supplies from Gulf states, and Western countries say they are giving non-lethal aid. But many rebels say they have not received anything.”
No…I am sure the gulf states are providing some light military supplies as the article indicates (3000 rounds of ammo per month). I can get that at my local gun shop today…
If the non-lethal aid comes in the form of sugar and fertilizer (ammonia nitrate), I am sure they will use whatever they can.
Lucky In OC[/quote]
I’ve been seeing ‘rebels’ and ‘activists’ with hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of gear (per person) on the news. Also in the news, reports of seasoned non-domestic ‘volunteers’ participating in the war.
December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM #757005Participant[quote=LuckyInOC]
ZK, the same individuals who fought the english with weapons as the same firepower as the english armies wrote the 2nd amendment. The ‘arms’ referred to in the 2nd amendment is for protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not for sporting or hunting. If england banned weapons in the new world as it currently has, there would not be an United States. Like or not, our country exists because of the end of a gun barrel.
[/quote]18th century America was a completely different thing from 21st century America. And also,England hasn’t “banned weapons.” Nor have I advocated banning weapons.
[quote=LuckyInOC]
A real example of the need for semi-automatic weapons for the citizens against non-government aggressors would be the 1992 L.A. riots and the Korean shop owners. They protected their stores from hundreds of looters. The local police would not help. They were too busy protecting fire fighters and government buildings.Who would willing to pay the compensation for the losses of these store owners if they did not have the semi-automatic weapons and shotguns for personal protection, not hunting? I assume you would be the first in line to pay up.
[/quote]Not sure I follow your logic here. Why would I (the taxpayer) pay for the damage caused by the criminals? How about this: How about those who are proponents of weak gun control laws pay the families of all the victims of gun crimes? Again, I’m not sure I follow your logic, but if I do, it’s the same thing.
[quote=LuckyInOC]
In the time of major emergencies (earthquakes, riots, etc.), one will need to protect, secure, and feed your family for at least 3 days. Even after 3 days, your local police or national guard may not be able to protect you on a hourly basis. If you really needed them, they might be there in hours, not in minutes.
[/quote]And?
[quote=LuckyInOC]
I have always believe one should vote with his/her feet. May be you should live in UK if you would feel safer.
[/quote]Really? You think that if someone finds a place not perfect they should move instead of trying to improve it? You must have found a utopia. Either that or you move an awful lot.
January 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM #757038KIBU
ParticipantFights in bar brought to shooting and then street shooting. 2 killed. Police canceled second fireworks.
40,000 people, families and young children didn’t see the second fireworks because some guys have their liberty with the guns.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/us/california-new-years-eve-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
NRA will come out with new smart ass advice again to Americans: it’s better to arm 40,000 people than to disarm a few. The 40,000 people will be able to shoot the killer in an instance.
January 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM #757041bubba99
ParticipantEach year we loose about 30 thousand people to gun deaths. The first 17 thousand are suicides, then 9 thousand or so to hand guns, and around 3 thousand to rifles, shotguns, and assault weapons. Assault weapons are less than 10% of the murders by gun.
Other weapons like knives kill about 3thousand people/year and blunt objects about 800/year. An assault weapon ban would appear to be targeting one of the smaller groups of dangerous weapons. A group that is on par (size wise) with knives, as far as the big picture goes, it addresses the wrong guns. It’s easy to target military weapons as the villain, but practically they are not the big killer they are advertised to be. The real threat I see is from the 17000 annual suicides.
Each of those highly depressed, highly disturbed people has the potential to pick up a gun, or car, or mix up some amfo, or . . . and bring us the next murderous rampage. I saw on article that estimates 4.3 million Americans walking around with an untreated serious psychosis that makes them a real threat to be the next nut job that kills children.
January 1, 2013 at 11:35 AM #757044Participant[quote=bubba99]Each year we loose about 30 thousand people to gun deaths. The first 17 thousand are suicides, then 9 thousand or so to hand guns, and around 3 thousand to rifles, shotguns, and assault weapons. Assault weapons are less than 10% of the murders by gun.
Other weapons like knives kill about 3thousand people/year and blunt objects about 800/year. An assault weapon ban would appear to be targeting one of the smaller groups of dangerous weapons. A group that is on par (size wise) with knives, as far as the big picture goes, it addresses the wrong guns. It’s easy to target military weapons as the villain, but practically they are not the big killer they are advertised to be.
[/quote]
Lumping knives, blunt weapons, and assault weapons into the same group because they kill about the same number of people doesn’t really make sense. Knives are used millions of times every day for thousands of purposes by hundreds of millions of Americans. It wouldn’t be practical to outlaw them. Of course you can’t outlaw blunt objects. Assault rifles are for what useful purpose? There’s no good reason we can’t outlaw them and save those lives.
[quote=bubba99]
The real threat I see is from the 17000 annual suicides.Each of those highly depressed, highly disturbed people has the potential to pick up a gun, or car, or mix up some amfo, or . . . and bring us the next murderous rampage. I saw on article that estimates 4.3 million Americans walking around with an untreated serious psychosis that makes them a real threat to be the next nut job that kills children.[/quote]
I think 4.3 million is a pretty high number for untreated “serious” psychosis. In any case, I agree that something needs to be done about mental illness in this country. Bubba, do you think taxpayer money should be spent to work on the mental illness problem in America? If not, what do you think we should do about it?
January 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM #757045scaredyclassic
Participantt-shirt spied in temecula home depot yesterday…
had three images of different blood splatters
beneath each, a caption….
hi velocity assault rifle
medium velocity weapon
low velocity weapon.
(worn by slouchy obese totally lame looking dude).
gun culture USA…
January 1, 2013 at 5:12 PM #757048CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=squat300]t-shirt spied in temecula home depot yesterday…
had three images of different blood splatters
beneath each, a caption….
hi velocity assault rifle
medium velocity weapon
low velocity weapon.
(worn by slouchy obese totally lame looking dude).
gun culture USA…[/quote]
Jesus.. Im pro-gun… and I find that completely tasteless.
CE
January 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM #757050ParticipantYou are right, I lumped assault weapons with the “other fringe” weapons because of size alone. The elephant in the room is Handguns – three times the deaths as rifles and assault weapons. A shooter with a 10 round magazine handgun (not high capacity) can do a lot of damage – with a mag change a lot more.
And even if we could outlaw all assault weapons, I don’t think it would save lives, only change the choice of murder weapon.
And yes I see mental health as a problem. We used to do a much better job of managing the lunatic fringe. But since the early 70’s, mental health has been losing funding and managed by incarceration rather than treatment. More money might help give options to patients and their families, but avoiding the next homicidal rage – I doubt it. Even if 4.3 million walking “psychotic” is over estimated by a factor of 10, it still leaves 430 thousand possible rampage killers walking around waiting to make themselves famous. If its societal pressure driving these horrors, we are lucky that we only see 1 of our 311,000,000 citizens going homicidal per year
And if the rumored connection between psychotropics (Prozac, Zoloft, et. al.) and murder/suicide is real, more access to mental health facilities and prescription treatment might raise the number of murderous rampages. The only comfort I can take is that statistically the chances of being the victim of one of these horrors is 1 in hundred thousand range.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.