There has been much debate (albeit often shrill, and often heated) between Gun Rights Advocates and Gun Control Advocates. As a Gun-Control advocate, however, here are my reasons for being in favor of Gun Control. The Gun Control Advocates are not trying to deprive hunters and target shooters of their sports, nor are they trying to deprive people who simply collect guns like others collect stamps, or whatever, of their collection, nor am I referring to security personnel, police officers, or those serving in the military who are authorized to carry guns.
While I favor an all-out ban on snubnosed handguns, I'm very much aware that total ban on snub-nosed handguns is not realistically possible. The NRA and the Gun Lobby in general, are too well-organized, too well-funded and too powerful for that. Unfortunately , however, for the past several decades, the NRA has affectively bullied various lawmakers (i. e. State Reps, Senators, and Congress members, for example) out of passing stronger, more affective firearms laws. Contrary to what many gun rights advocates point out, the slogan "Guns don't kill, people do", is a slogan that I have refused to buy into. Whether it's realized or not in many circles, a gun is designed to kill people. It is a weapon of war, and a whole way of life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of a pistol. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, on street corners or even in parking lots, among family, friends and/or acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of a firearm or firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely. Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they're actually loaded, play the typical kids' "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don't realize that the gun is actually loaded.
All too often, people who know each other get into nasty arguments, which turn deadly when firearms are present. Some people will say "Oh, I can control myself", but, in reality, they don't really know what they'd do until that bridge is actually crossed and they're faced with such a situation. All too often, it's far too easy, in a fit of anger, to just simply pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger, resulting in a death or permanent maiming. In many very poor urban areas, murders are rampant, due to poverty, lack of employment and education opportunities, and the presence of drugs, bad housing, and overcrowding. The prevalance of guns, which often come in illegally, or by mail order make this an even more deadly situation, upping the number of murders, and making whole areas extremely dangerous for law-abiding residents.
There are at least two ways in which the vast majority of guns end up in the hands of criminals: (A) Many guns are stolen from private homes, or even cars and/or trucks. When burglars break into private homes, guns are often the first thing they look for, and, all too often, end up using them in an armed robbery, assault, or homicide. (B) Another way guns falls into the hands of criminals is through the Black Market...inotherwords, illegally. Far too many rogue gun-dealers operate underground, not even requiring waiting periods, much less any extensive screening and background checks on perspective firearms buyers. As a result of both of the above-mentioned scenarios, all too frequently, many unstable people with histories of mental illness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, or anger-management issues get access to firearms, which have also led to horrific results. Many of the assassinations that occurred in the past (i. e. MLK, JFK, RFK and many others), could well have been avoided had there been stronger, more affective firearm laws in the books. The United States has the highest rate of murder by handguns per capita in the Western Hemisphere, because there's so little gun control present. I also believe that passing stronger, more affective gun laws would at least reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, or unstable people with the above-mentioned problems, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of lawmakers here in the United States have not had the temerity to stand up to the manipulative, bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby.
Many pro-gun people argue that one can kill or permanently injure a person by beating, stabbing, or even strangling their victim(s).
While it's true that a person who's hell-bent on murdering someone could stab, strangle or beat his/her victim to death, it's also true that it's far easier to fire a gun at a person from a distance than it is go right up to the person and beat, stab or strangle him/her. Sometimes, too, the chances of one surving and fully recovering from a stabbing, a beating, or an attempted strangulation can be and are a little better, depending on the depth and intensity and area that was injured due to the beating or stabbing or attempted strangulation, and how quickly the victim of such an attack gets help, is rushed to the hospital, and receives medical care. While a person can only beat up, strangle or stab one person at a time, a gun can kill and/or maim more people more quickly, due to the ability of a gun to spray bullets into the air, thereby hitting two or more people at a time. Gunshots also inflict much more damage than a fist, foot, or even a club, because, at least partly due to the fact that a gun is fired from a distance, bullets travel at a much, much higher velocity. A person who's angry at another person and has the urge to beat, stab or strangle him/her has to go right up to the person, thus increasing the chance of an angry person's regaining their cool, thereby preventing a deadly incident from occurring.
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody.
The Columbine shootings and other school shootings, as well as the number of drive-by shootings that regularly occur in many really poor urban areas not withstanding, one very catastrophic event occurred up in Vermont four years ago last fall, when a 13-year-old boy who was the victim of constant cyber-bullying by his classmates, took to heart a suggestion by one of his tormentors that he kill himself as a way out of it, got his father's loaded shotgun and committed suicide by shooting himself. I believe that a combo of the father keeping a loaded shotgun around the house unlocked and within reach of an extremely distraught child, plus the lack of parental supervision of young kids posting on the computers all contributed to the 13-year-old boy's taking his own life. After that, the father of the deceased boy waged an anti-cyberbullying campaign, thus helping to get anti-cyberbullying laws passed up in Vermont.
Having said all of the above, I am admittedly not a fan of firearms being in civilian hands, because, imho, they don't belong. However, if civilians want to own and keep firearms around the house, at least taking some responsibility and perventive precautions.
Here are some precautions that gun-owners can and should take:
A) Always keep firearms safely locked up and unloaded, and don't allow family members and/or friends with a history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or anger management issues, or young children have access to them. Keeping guns locked up will also prevent or minimize the chance of theft, in the event that someone's private home is broken into.
B) No matter where one lives, be it in an urban, suburban or rural area, never leave firearms out in plain sight on the dashboard of a car or truck, where somebody walking or driving by could take a fancy to the firearms in the vehicle, break in and steal the firearms.
C) See to it that your firearms are properly registered and teach family members how to handle guns responsibly.
Contrary to popular belief among many gun-rights advocates, most handguns DON'T end up getting used in self-defense, but are more often than not, used to kill other people in homicides. A gun can get taken away from an owner and used against him or her, because there'll always be someone who's quicker on the draw than they are. As the saying goes "No matter how great a person is, or thinks they are, there's always somebody who'll be their master".
There are certain things that gun manufacturers, as well as gun dealers, should be required to do also:
A) Gun dealers should be required to engage in extensive screening and background checks, as well as a waiting period, for perspective gun buyers, and deny people with histories of mental illness, emotional instability, substance and alcohol abuse and anger management issues access when such people's names come up on a gun dealer's computer screen.
B) Gun manufacturers should be required to install tamperproof locks in firearms to prevent unauthorized use in the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, or to prevent young kids from tampering with them.
C) The number of firearms manufactured in the United States should be better regulated than it is.
Unfortunately, however, the Gun Lobby and the NRA have affectively bullied legislators out of passing even such simple requirments as more extensive screenings, background checks and waiting period requirements for perspective gun buyers, and the implementation of tamper-proof locks into firearms by gun manufacturers, and more regulation in the number of guns manufactured here in the United States, which has led to catastrophic results. As a society whose culture has long been depended upon and revolved around the gun, the net results have now come into fruition; in many streets, homes, barrooms and among family and friends, in many cases.
--
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
Full Version: Gun Control; Why it's Important:
QUOTE (mapl @ Sep 20 2009, 07:17 PM) 
There has been much debate (albeit often shrill, and often heated) between Gun Rights Advocates and Gun Control Advocates. As a Gun-Control advocate, however, here are my reasons for being in favor of Gun Control. The Gun Control Advocates are not trying to deprive hunters and target shooters of their sports, nor are they trying to deprive people who simply collect guns like others collect stamps, or whatever, of their collection, nor am I referring to security personnel, police officers, or those serving in the military who are authorized to carry guns.
While I favor an all-out ban on snubnosed handguns, I'm very much aware that total ban on snub-nosed handguns is not realistically possible. The NRA and the Gun Lobby in general, are too well-organized, too well-funded and too powerful for that. Unfortunately , however, for the past several decades, the NRA has affectively bullied various lawmakers (i. e. State Reps, Senators, and Congress members, for example) out of passing stronger, more affective firearms laws. Contrary to what many gun rights advocates point out, the slogan "Guns don't kill, people do", is a slogan that I have refused to buy into. Whether it's realized or not in many circles, a gun is designed to kill people. It is a weapon of war, and a whole way of life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of a pistol. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, on street corners or even in parking lots, among family, friends and/or acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of a firearm or firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely. Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they're actually loaded, play the typical kids' "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don't realize that the gun is actually loaded.
All too often, people who know each other get into nasty arguments, which turn deadly when firearms are present. Some people will say "Oh, I can control myself", but, in reality, they don't really know what they'd do until that bridge is actually crossed and they're faced with such a situation. All too often, it's far too easy, in a fit of anger, to just simply pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger, resulting in a death or permanent maiming. In many very poor urban areas, murders are rampant, due to poverty, lack of employment and education opportunities, and the presence of drugs, bad housing, and overcrowding. The prevalance of guns, which often come in illegally, or by mail order make this an even more deadly situation, upping the number of murders, and making whole areas extremely dangerous for law-abiding residents.
There are at least two ways in which the vast majority of guns end up in the hands of criminals: (A) Many guns are stolen from private homes, or even cars and/or trucks. When burglars break into private homes, guns are often the first thing they look for, and, all too often, end up using them in an armed robbery, assault, or homicide. (B) Another way guns falls into the hands of criminals is through the Black Market...inotherwords, illegally. Far too many rogue gun-dealers operate underground, not even requiring waiting periods, much less any extensive screening and background checks on perspective firearms buyers. As a result of both of the above-mentioned scenarios, all too frequently, many unstable people with histories of mental illness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, or anger-management issues get access to firearms, which have also led to horrific results. Many of the assassinations that occurred in the past (i. e. MLK, JFK, RFK and many others), could well have been avoided had there been stronger, more affective firearm laws in the books. The United States has the highest rate of murder by handguns per capita in the Western Hemisphere, because there's so little gun control present. I also believe that passing stronger, more affective gun laws would at least reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, or unstable people with the above-mentioned problems, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of lawmakers here in the United States have not had the temerity to stand up to the manipulative, bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby.
Many pro-gun people argue that one can kill or permanently injure a person by beating, stabbing, or even strangling their victim(s).
While it's true that a person who's hell-bent on murdering someone could stab, strangle or beat his/her victim to death, it's also true that it's far easier to fire a gun at a person from a distance than it is go right up to the person and beat, stab or strangle him/her. Sometimes, too, the chances of one surving and fully recovering from a stabbing, a beating, or an attempted strangulation can be and are a little better, depending on the depth and intensity and area that was injured due to the beating or stabbing or attempted strangulation, and how quickly the victim of such an attack gets help, is rushed to the hospital, and receives medical care. While a person can only beat up, strangle or stab one person at a time, a gun can kill and/or maim more people more quickly, due to the ability of a gun to spray bullets into the air, thereby hitting two or more people at a time. Gunshots also inflict much more damage than a fist, foot, or even a club, because, at least partly due to the fact that a gun is fired from a distance, bullets travel at a much, much higher velocity. A person who's angry at another person and has the urge to beat, stab or strangle him/her has to go right up to the person, thus increasing the chance of an angry person's regaining their cool, thereby preventing a deadly incident from occurring.
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody.
The Columbine shootings and other school shootings, as well as the number of drive-by shootings that regularly occur in many really poor urban areas not withstanding, one very catastrophic event occurred up in Vermont four years ago last fall, when a 13-year-old boy who was the victim of constant cyber-bullying by his classmates, took to heart a suggestion by one of his tormentors that he kill himself as a way out of it, got his father's loaded shotgun and committed suicide by shooting himself. I believe that a combo of the father keeping a loaded shotgun around the house unlocked and within reach of an extremely distraught child, plus the lack of parental supervision of young kids posting on the computers all contributed to the 13-year-old boy's taking his own life. After that, the father of the deceased boy waged an anti-cyberbullying campaign, thus helping to get anti-cyberbullying laws passed up in Vermont.
Having said all of the above, I am admittedly not a fan of firearms being in civilian hands, because, imho, they don't belong. However, if civilians want to own and keep firearms around the house, at least taking some responsibility and perventive precautions.
Here are some precautions that gun-owners can and should take:
A) Always keep firearms safely locked up and unloaded, and don't allow family members and/or friends with a history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or anger management issues, or young children have access to them. Keeping guns locked up will also prevent or minimize the chance of theft, in the event that someone's private home is broken into.
B) No matter where one lives, be it in an urban, suburban or rural area, never leave firearms out in plain sight on the dashboard of a car or truck, where somebody walking or driving by could take a fancy to the firearms in the vehicle, break in and steal the firearms.
C) See to it that your firearms are properly registered and teach family members how to handle guns responsibly.
Contrary to popular belief among many gun-rights advocates, most handguns DON'T end up getting used in self-defense, but are more often than not, used to kill other people in homicides. A gun can get taken away from an owner and used against him or her, because there'll always be someone who's quicker on the draw than they are. As the saying goes "No matter how great a person is, or thinks they are, there's always somebody who'll be their master".
There are certain things that gun manufacturers, as well as gun dealers, should be required to do also:
A) Gun dealers should be required to engage in extensive screening and background checks, as well as a waiting period, for perspective gun buyers, and deny people with histories of mental illness, emotional instability, substance and alcohol abuse and anger management issues access when such people's names come up on a gun dealer's computer screen.
B) Gun manufacturers should be required to install tamperproof locks in firearms to prevent unauthorized use in the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, or to prevent young kids from tampering with them.
C) The number of firearms manufactured in the United States should be better regulated than it is.
Unfortunately, however, the Gun Lobby and the NRA have affectively bullied legislators out of passing even such simple requirments as more extensive screenings, background checks and waiting period requirements for perspective gun buyers, and the implementation of tamper-proof locks into firearms by gun manufacturers, and more regulation in the number of guns manufactured here in the United States, which has led to catastrophic results. As a society whose culture has long been depended upon and revolved around the gun, the net results have now come into fruition; in many streets, homes, barrooms and among family and friends, in many cases.
--
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
While I favor an all-out ban on snubnosed handguns, I'm very much aware that total ban on snub-nosed handguns is not realistically possible. The NRA and the Gun Lobby in general, are too well-organized, too well-funded and too powerful for that. Unfortunately , however, for the past several decades, the NRA has affectively bullied various lawmakers (i. e. State Reps, Senators, and Congress members, for example) out of passing stronger, more affective firearms laws. Contrary to what many gun rights advocates point out, the slogan "Guns don't kill, people do", is a slogan that I have refused to buy into. Whether it's realized or not in many circles, a gun is designed to kill people. It is a weapon of war, and a whole way of life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of a pistol. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, on street corners or even in parking lots, among family, friends and/or acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of a firearm or firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely. Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they're actually loaded, play the typical kids' "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don't realize that the gun is actually loaded.
All too often, people who know each other get into nasty arguments, which turn deadly when firearms are present. Some people will say "Oh, I can control myself", but, in reality, they don't really know what they'd do until that bridge is actually crossed and they're faced with such a situation. All too often, it's far too easy, in a fit of anger, to just simply pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger, resulting in a death or permanent maiming. In many very poor urban areas, murders are rampant, due to poverty, lack of employment and education opportunities, and the presence of drugs, bad housing, and overcrowding. The prevalance of guns, which often come in illegally, or by mail order make this an even more deadly situation, upping the number of murders, and making whole areas extremely dangerous for law-abiding residents.
There are at least two ways in which the vast majority of guns end up in the hands of criminals: (A) Many guns are stolen from private homes, or even cars and/or trucks. When burglars break into private homes, guns are often the first thing they look for, and, all too often, end up using them in an armed robbery, assault, or homicide. (B) Another way guns falls into the hands of criminals is through the Black Market...inotherwords, illegally. Far too many rogue gun-dealers operate underground, not even requiring waiting periods, much less any extensive screening and background checks on perspective firearms buyers. As a result of both of the above-mentioned scenarios, all too frequently, many unstable people with histories of mental illness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, or anger-management issues get access to firearms, which have also led to horrific results. Many of the assassinations that occurred in the past (i. e. MLK, JFK, RFK and many others), could well have been avoided had there been stronger, more affective firearm laws in the books. The United States has the highest rate of murder by handguns per capita in the Western Hemisphere, because there's so little gun control present. I also believe that passing stronger, more affective gun laws would at least reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, or unstable people with the above-mentioned problems, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of lawmakers here in the United States have not had the temerity to stand up to the manipulative, bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby.
Many pro-gun people argue that one can kill or permanently injure a person by beating, stabbing, or even strangling their victim(s).
While it's true that a person who's hell-bent on murdering someone could stab, strangle or beat his/her victim to death, it's also true that it's far easier to fire a gun at a person from a distance than it is go right up to the person and beat, stab or strangle him/her. Sometimes, too, the chances of one surving and fully recovering from a stabbing, a beating, or an attempted strangulation can be and are a little better, depending on the depth and intensity and area that was injured due to the beating or stabbing or attempted strangulation, and how quickly the victim of such an attack gets help, is rushed to the hospital, and receives medical care. While a person can only beat up, strangle or stab one person at a time, a gun can kill and/or maim more people more quickly, due to the ability of a gun to spray bullets into the air, thereby hitting two or more people at a time. Gunshots also inflict much more damage than a fist, foot, or even a club, because, at least partly due to the fact that a gun is fired from a distance, bullets travel at a much, much higher velocity. A person who's angry at another person and has the urge to beat, stab or strangle him/her has to go right up to the person, thus increasing the chance of an angry person's regaining their cool, thereby preventing a deadly incident from occurring.
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody.
The Columbine shootings and other school shootings, as well as the number of drive-by shootings that regularly occur in many really poor urban areas not withstanding, one very catastrophic event occurred up in Vermont four years ago last fall, when a 13-year-old boy who was the victim of constant cyber-bullying by his classmates, took to heart a suggestion by one of his tormentors that he kill himself as a way out of it, got his father's loaded shotgun and committed suicide by shooting himself. I believe that a combo of the father keeping a loaded shotgun around the house unlocked and within reach of an extremely distraught child, plus the lack of parental supervision of young kids posting on the computers all contributed to the 13-year-old boy's taking his own life. After that, the father of the deceased boy waged an anti-cyberbullying campaign, thus helping to get anti-cyberbullying laws passed up in Vermont.
Having said all of the above, I am admittedly not a fan of firearms being in civilian hands, because, imho, they don't belong. However, if civilians want to own and keep firearms around the house, at least taking some responsibility and perventive precautions.
Here are some precautions that gun-owners can and should take:
A) Always keep firearms safely locked up and unloaded, and don't allow family members and/or friends with a history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or anger management issues, or young children have access to them. Keeping guns locked up will also prevent or minimize the chance of theft, in the event that someone's private home is broken into.
B) No matter where one lives, be it in an urban, suburban or rural area, never leave firearms out in plain sight on the dashboard of a car or truck, where somebody walking or driving by could take a fancy to the firearms in the vehicle, break in and steal the firearms.
C) See to it that your firearms are properly registered and teach family members how to handle guns responsibly.
Contrary to popular belief among many gun-rights advocates, most handguns DON'T end up getting used in self-defense, but are more often than not, used to kill other people in homicides. A gun can get taken away from an owner and used against him or her, because there'll always be someone who's quicker on the draw than they are. As the saying goes "No matter how great a person is, or thinks they are, there's always somebody who'll be their master".
There are certain things that gun manufacturers, as well as gun dealers, should be required to do also:
A) Gun dealers should be required to engage in extensive screening and background checks, as well as a waiting period, for perspective gun buyers, and deny people with histories of mental illness, emotional instability, substance and alcohol abuse and anger management issues access when such people's names come up on a gun dealer's computer screen.
B) Gun manufacturers should be required to install tamperproof locks in firearms to prevent unauthorized use in the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, or to prevent young kids from tampering with them.
C) The number of firearms manufactured in the United States should be better regulated than it is.
Unfortunately, however, the Gun Lobby and the NRA have affectively bullied legislators out of passing even such simple requirments as more extensive screenings, background checks and waiting period requirements for perspective gun buyers, and the implementation of tamper-proof locks into firearms by gun manufacturers, and more regulation in the number of guns manufactured here in the United States, which has led to catastrophic results. As a society whose culture has long been depended upon and revolved around the gun, the net results have now come into fruition; in many streets, homes, barrooms and among family and friends, in many cases.
--
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
You have researched your position well and you are right, guns kill people. However, have you ever tried to purchase or register a firearm in, say, New York? Good luck. The purpose of the second amendment still holds true today - it is not about about the right to hunt. It is the fundamental right of a person to protect him/herself as part of a well regulated militia, to secure a free state. If you don't understand this, then I am very sad.
QUOTE (gabriele @ Feb 22 2010, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (mapl @ Sep 20 2009, 07:17 PM)
There has been much debate (albeit often shrill, and often heated) between Gun Rights Advocates and Gun Control Advocates. As a Gun-Control advocate, however, here are my reasons for being in favor of Gun Control. The Gun Control Advocates are not trying to deprive hunters and target shooters of their sports, nor are they trying to deprive people who simply collect guns like others collect stamps, or whatever, of their collection, nor am I referring to security personnel, police officers, or those serving in the military who are authorized to carry guns.
While I favor an all-out ban on snubnosed handguns, I'm very much aware that total ban on snub-nosed handguns is not realistically possible. The NRA and the Gun Lobby in general, are too well-organized, too well-funded and too powerful for that. Unfortunately , however, for the past several decades, the NRA has affectively bullied various lawmakers (i. e. State Reps, Senators, and Congress members, for example) out of passing stronger, more affective firearms laws. Contrary to what many gun rights advocates point out, the slogan "Guns don't kill, people do", is a slogan that I have refused to buy into. Whether it's realized or not in many circles, a gun is designed to kill people. It is a weapon of war, and a whole way of life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of a pistol. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, on street corners or even in parking lots, among family, friends and/or acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of a firearm or firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely. Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they're actually loaded, play the typical kids' "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don't realize that the gun is actually loaded.
All too often, people who know each other get into nasty arguments, which turn deadly when firearms are present. Some people will say "Oh, I can control myself", but, in reality, they don't really know what they'd do until that bridge is actually crossed and they're faced with such a situation. All too often, it's far too easy, in a fit of anger, to just simply pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger, resulting in a death or permanent maiming. In many very poor urban areas, murders are rampant, due to poverty, lack of employment and education opportunities, and the presence of drugs, bad housing, and overcrowding. The prevalance of guns, which often come in illegally, or by mail order make this an even more deadly situation, upping the number of murders, and making whole areas extremely dangerous for law-abiding residents.
There are at least two ways in which the vast majority of guns end up in the hands of criminals: (A) Many guns are stolen from private homes, or even cars and/or trucks. When burglars break into private homes, guns are often the first thing they look for, and, all too often, end up using them in an armed robbery, assault, or homicide. (B) Another way guns falls into the hands of criminals is through the Black Market...inotherwords, illegally. Far too many rogue gun-dealers operate underground, not even requiring waiting periods, much less any extensive screening and background checks on perspective firearms buyers. As a result of both of the above-mentioned scenarios, all too frequently, many unstable people with histories of mental illness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, or anger-management issues get access to firearms, which have also led to horrific results. Many of the assassinations that occurred in the past (i. e. MLK, JFK, RFK and many others), could well have been avoided had there been stronger, more affective firearm laws in the books. The United States has the highest rate of murder by handguns per capita in the Western Hemisphere, because there's so little gun control present. I also believe that passing stronger, more affective gun laws would at least reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, or unstable people with the above-mentioned problems, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of lawmakers here in the United States have not had the temerity to stand up to the manipulative, bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby.
Many pro-gun people argue that one can kill or permanently injure a person by beating, stabbing, or even strangling their victim(s).
While it's true that a person who's hell-bent on murdering someone could stab, strangle or beat his/her victim to death, it's also true that it's far easier to fire a gun at a person from a distance than it is go right up to the person and beat, stab or strangle him/her. Sometimes, too, the chances of one surving and fully recovering from a stabbing, a beating, or an attempted strangulation can be and are a little better, depending on the depth and intensity and area that was injured due to the beating or stabbing or attempted strangulation, and how quickly the victim of such an attack gets help, is rushed to the hospital, and receives medical care. While a person can only beat up, strangle or stab one person at a time, a gun can kill and/or maim more people more quickly, due to the ability of a gun to spray bullets into the air, thereby hitting two or more people at a time. Gunshots also inflict much more damage than a fist, foot, or even a club, because, at least partly due to the fact that a gun is fired from a distance, bullets travel at a much, much higher velocity. A person who's angry at another person and has the urge to beat, stab or strangle him/her has to go right up to the person, thus increasing the chance of an angry person's regaining their cool, thereby preventing a deadly incident from occurring.
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody.
The Columbine shootings and other school shootings, as well as the number of drive-by shootings that regularly occur in many really poor urban areas not withstanding, one very catastrophic event occurred up in Vermont four years ago last fall, when a 13-year-old boy who was the victim of constant cyber-bullying by his classmates, took to heart a suggestion by one of his tormentors that he kill himself as a way out of it, got his father's loaded shotgun and committed suicide by shooting himself. I believe that a combo of the father keeping a loaded shotgun around the house unlocked and within reach of an extremely distraught child, plus the lack of parental supervision of young kids posting on the computers all contributed to the 13-year-old boy's taking his own life. After that, the father of the deceased boy waged an anti-cyberbullying campaign, thus helping to get anti-cyberbullying laws passed up in Vermont.
Having said all of the above, I am admittedly not a fan of firearms being in civilian hands, because, imho, they don't belong. However, if civilians want to own and keep firearms around the house, at least taking some responsibility and perventive precautions.
Here are some precautions that gun-owners can and should take:
A) Always keep firearms safely locked up and unloaded, and don't allow family members and/or friends with a history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or anger management issues, or young children have access to them. Keeping guns locked up will also prevent or minimize the chance of theft, in the event that someone's private home is broken into.
B) No matter where one lives, be it in an urban, suburban or rural area, never leave firearms out in plain sight on the dashboard of a car or truck, where somebody walking or driving by could take a fancy to the firearms in the vehicle, break in and steal the firearms.
C) See to it that your firearms are properly registered and teach family members how to handle guns responsibly.
Contrary to popular belief among many gun-rights advocates, most handguns DON'T end up getting used in self-defense, but are more often than not, used to kill other people in homicides. A gun can get taken away from an owner and used against him or her, because there'll always be someone who's quicker on the draw than they are. As the saying goes "No matter how great a person is, or thinks they are, there's always somebody who'll be their master".
There are certain things that gun manufacturers, as well as gun dealers, should be required to do also:
A) Gun dealers should be required to engage in extensive screening and background checks, as well as a waiting period, for perspective gun buyers, and deny people with histories of mental illness, emotional instability, substance and alcohol abuse and anger management issues access when such people's names come up on a gun dealer's computer screen.
B) Gun manufacturers should be required to install tamperproof locks in firearms to prevent unauthorized use in the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, or to prevent young kids from tampering with them.
C) The number of firearms manufactured in the United States should be better regulated than it is.
Unfortunately, however, the Gun Lobby and the NRA have affectively bullied legislators out of passing even such simple requirments as more extensive screenings, background checks and waiting period requirements for perspective gun buyers, and the implementation of tamper-proof locks into firearms by gun manufacturers, and more regulation in the number of guns manufactured here in the United States, which has led to catastrophic results. As a society whose culture has long been depended upon and revolved around the gun, the net results have now come into fruition; in many streets, homes, barrooms and among family and friends, in many cases.
--
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
While I favor an all-out ban on snubnosed handguns, I'm very much aware that total ban on snub-nosed handguns is not realistically possible. The NRA and the Gun Lobby in general, are too well-organized, too well-funded and too powerful for that. Unfortunately , however, for the past several decades, the NRA has affectively bullied various lawmakers (i. e. State Reps, Senators, and Congress members, for example) out of passing stronger, more affective firearms laws. Contrary to what many gun rights advocates point out, the slogan "Guns don't kill, people do", is a slogan that I have refused to buy into. Whether it's realized or not in many circles, a gun is designed to kill people. It is a weapon of war, and a whole way of life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the squeeze of the trigger and the crack of a pistol. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other; in the home, in barrooms, on street corners or even in parking lots, among family, friends and/or acquaintances. When heated situations arise, the presence of a firearm or firearms makes a murder or permanent maiming far more likely. Another frequent occurrence is when young kids get access to guns, not realizing that they're actually loaded, play the typical kids' "bang-bang" game, where one pretends to shoot the other dead, and actually ends up killing a sibling, relative or friend, because they don't realize that the gun is actually loaded.
All too often, people who know each other get into nasty arguments, which turn deadly when firearms are present. Some people will say "Oh, I can control myself", but, in reality, they don't really know what they'd do until that bridge is actually crossed and they're faced with such a situation. All too often, it's far too easy, in a fit of anger, to just simply pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger, resulting in a death or permanent maiming. In many very poor urban areas, murders are rampant, due to poverty, lack of employment and education opportunities, and the presence of drugs, bad housing, and overcrowding. The prevalance of guns, which often come in illegally, or by mail order make this an even more deadly situation, upping the number of murders, and making whole areas extremely dangerous for law-abiding residents.
There are at least two ways in which the vast majority of guns end up in the hands of criminals: (A) Many guns are stolen from private homes, or even cars and/or trucks. When burglars break into private homes, guns are often the first thing they look for, and, all too often, end up using them in an armed robbery, assault, or homicide. (B) Another way guns falls into the hands of criminals is through the Black Market...inotherwords, illegally. Far too many rogue gun-dealers operate underground, not even requiring waiting periods, much less any extensive screening and background checks on perspective firearms buyers. As a result of both of the above-mentioned scenarios, all too frequently, many unstable people with histories of mental illness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, or anger-management issues get access to firearms, which have also led to horrific results. Many of the assassinations that occurred in the past (i. e. MLK, JFK, RFK and many others), could well have been avoided had there been stronger, more affective firearm laws in the books. The United States has the highest rate of murder by handguns per capita in the Western Hemisphere, because there's so little gun control present. I also believe that passing stronger, more affective gun laws would at least reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, or unstable people with the above-mentioned problems, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of lawmakers here in the United States have not had the temerity to stand up to the manipulative, bullying tactics of the NRA and the Gun Lobby.
Many pro-gun people argue that one can kill or permanently injure a person by beating, stabbing, or even strangling their victim(s).
While it's true that a person who's hell-bent on murdering someone could stab, strangle or beat his/her victim to death, it's also true that it's far easier to fire a gun at a person from a distance than it is go right up to the person and beat, stab or strangle him/her. Sometimes, too, the chances of one surving and fully recovering from a stabbing, a beating, or an attempted strangulation can be and are a little better, depending on the depth and intensity and area that was injured due to the beating or stabbing or attempted strangulation, and how quickly the victim of such an attack gets help, is rushed to the hospital, and receives medical care. While a person can only beat up, strangle or stab one person at a time, a gun can kill and/or maim more people more quickly, due to the ability of a gun to spray bullets into the air, thereby hitting two or more people at a time. Gunshots also inflict much more damage than a fist, foot, or even a club, because, at least partly due to the fact that a gun is fired from a distance, bullets travel at a much, much higher velocity. A person who's angry at another person and has the urge to beat, stab or strangle him/her has to go right up to the person, thus increasing the chance of an angry person's regaining their cool, thereby preventing a deadly incident from occurring.
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody.
The Columbine shootings and other school shootings, as well as the number of drive-by shootings that regularly occur in many really poor urban areas not withstanding, one very catastrophic event occurred up in Vermont four years ago last fall, when a 13-year-old boy who was the victim of constant cyber-bullying by his classmates, took to heart a suggestion by one of his tormentors that he kill himself as a way out of it, got his father's loaded shotgun and committed suicide by shooting himself. I believe that a combo of the father keeping a loaded shotgun around the house unlocked and within reach of an extremely distraught child, plus the lack of parental supervision of young kids posting on the computers all contributed to the 13-year-old boy's taking his own life. After that, the father of the deceased boy waged an anti-cyberbullying campaign, thus helping to get anti-cyberbullying laws passed up in Vermont.
Having said all of the above, I am admittedly not a fan of firearms being in civilian hands, because, imho, they don't belong. However, if civilians want to own and keep firearms around the house, at least taking some responsibility and perventive precautions.
Here are some precautions that gun-owners can and should take:
A) Always keep firearms safely locked up and unloaded, and don't allow family members and/or friends with a history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or anger management issues, or young children have access to them. Keeping guns locked up will also prevent or minimize the chance of theft, in the event that someone's private home is broken into.
B) No matter where one lives, be it in an urban, suburban or rural area, never leave firearms out in plain sight on the dashboard of a car or truck, where somebody walking or driving by could take a fancy to the firearms in the vehicle, break in and steal the firearms.
C) See to it that your firearms are properly registered and teach family members how to handle guns responsibly.
Contrary to popular belief among many gun-rights advocates, most handguns DON'T end up getting used in self-defense, but are more often than not, used to kill other people in homicides. A gun can get taken away from an owner and used against him or her, because there'll always be someone who's quicker on the draw than they are. As the saying goes "No matter how great a person is, or thinks they are, there's always somebody who'll be their master".
There are certain things that gun manufacturers, as well as gun dealers, should be required to do also:
A) Gun dealers should be required to engage in extensive screening and background checks, as well as a waiting period, for perspective gun buyers, and deny people with histories of mental illness, emotional instability, substance and alcohol abuse and anger management issues access when such people's names come up on a gun dealer's computer screen.
B) Gun manufacturers should be required to install tamperproof locks in firearms to prevent unauthorized use in the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, or to prevent young kids from tampering with them.
C) The number of firearms manufactured in the United States should be better regulated than it is.
Unfortunately, however, the Gun Lobby and the NRA have affectively bullied legislators out of passing even such simple requirments as more extensive screenings, background checks and waiting period requirements for perspective gun buyers, and the implementation of tamper-proof locks into firearms by gun manufacturers, and more regulation in the number of guns manufactured here in the United States, which has led to catastrophic results. As a society whose culture has long been depended upon and revolved around the gun, the net results have now come into fruition; in many streets, homes, barrooms and among family and friends, in many cases.
--
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
You have researched your position well and you are right, guns kill people. However, have you ever tried to purchase or register a firearm in, say, New York? Good luck. The purpose of the second amendment still holds true today - it is not about about the right to hunt. It is the fundamental right of a person to protect him/herself as part of a well regulated militia, to secure a free state. If you don't understand this, then I am very sad.
Mapl, please explain the one constant variable, people. The squeeze of the trigger? You also stated that people might believe that they can control themselves or are under that misconception and do not really know what they would do until they crossed that bridge. Right?
You can not remove the one constant variable, PEOPLE. Yes you can remove the guns from the equation by adding more gun control. But does this really solve the problem?
How do you deal with the mental instability of a person that (could possibly) commit a violent crime?
So you do not subscribe to the belief that "Guns do not kill people. People kill people". Okay
You say that guns kill people. Okay
Explain to me this. How does that bullet, that is intended for another person, leave the barrel of a gun?
You might say that if the guns were not present then the individual would not be tempted to commit a violent crime. Right?
Please explain how you would remove the mental instability from the equation. Because it is quite evident that this instability is the very motivator behind a violent crime.
And I quote:
<START QUOTE>
Having guns around the house often present other dangers; Suicide is more likely if a person's feeling quite down, and there's a firearm within reach. All too often, one reads/hears about someone hearing somebody walking around in the kitchen, shoots that person and finds out that the person walking around was a spouse, sibling or offspring who'd just wandered into the kitchen for a drink of water or a midnight snack. Cases also abound when a person comes homes, finds his/her spouse in bed with their best friend's spouse, or even the milkman or the mailcarrier, and shoots both his/her spouse and the person they had the affair with dead or permanently crippled. Improper and/or careless handling of firearms, too, can cause them to go off, killing or permantly crippling somebody. <END QUOTE>
These are you words
Do you really believe that more gun control would prevent spontaneous crimes like the ones you have stated above? Yes/No
Do you believe that there are other methods of implementing such violent acts? Yes/No
Do you believe that if a person, who is suicidal, is less likely to commit suicide if a gun is not present? Yes/No
Do you believe that a person, who is suicidal, can comprise a method of action to take his or her own life without the assistance of a gun? Yes/No
In regards to your last sentence "Improper and/or careless handling of firearms".
Do you own a firearm? Yes/No
Let say if you, would or do, own a firearm. Would you own a firearm without the proper knowledge of how to handle it properly? Yes/No
Do you believe yourself to be responsible citizen that is, in most cases, mentally stable? Yes/No
What are your answers to these questions?
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
Yes, who show up after the fact.
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 9 2010, 07:47 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
Yes, who show up after the fact.
Not always, and not even as a rule, but you knew that already.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 9 2010, 07:47 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
Yes, who show up after the fact.
Not always, and not even as a rule, but you knew that already.
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area. But you knew that already.
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 10 2010, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 9 2010, 07:47 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
Yes, who show up after the fact.
Not always, and not even as a rule, but you knew that already.
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area. But you knew that already.
Not in my observation. What is your basis for stating that police only show up after a crime has been committed? Have you never heard of police reports, restraining orders, things like that? They're not psychic, they are not going to know there's a problem unless people tell them there is one. Try using the system we have for protecting citizens before saying there is none. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment starts off saying "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the first four words being "A well regulated militia." That means cities, counties, and states maintain the right to regulate arms as they see fit so as to provide for those militias.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 10 2010, 07:51 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 10 2010, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 9 2010, 07:47 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 9 2010, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE
You want more gun control? Okay. But explain how you are going to deal with the mental instability that obviously leads to the inherent lack of judgment that can result in a violent act. Because if I am not mistaken, unless this mental instability is dealt with there is no assurance that a violent crime can be prevented. Because the last time I checked, a gun is not necessarily needed to commit a violent crime. How are you going to deal with this problem when it occurs. That is, the violent crime when no firearms were used?
This is why we have police, Drake.
Yes, who show up after the fact.
Not always, and not even as a rule, but you knew that already.
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area. But you knew that already.
Not in my observation. What is your basis for stating that police only show up after a crime has been committed? Have you never heard of police reports, restraining orders, things like that? They're not psychic, they are not going to know there's a problem unless people tell them there is one. Try using the system we have for protecting citizens before saying there is none. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment starts off saying "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the first four words being "A well regulated militia." That means cities, counties, and states maintain the right to regulate arms as they see fit so as to provide for those militias.
What you speak of is only true IF the people have already struggled with a situation before. Sure, restraining orders and such--what about all the other types of situations. We can't leave those out of the equation.
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 10 2010, 10:23 PM)
What you speak of is only true IF the people have already struggled with a situation before. Sure, restraining orders and such--what about all the other types of situations. We can't leave those out of the equation.
And that's the thing, isn't it? How many gun nuts (and I make a distinction between the sane people and the arm-everyone fanatics) have ever really tried to go through the existing system before making up their minds that it doesn't work or is too corrupt? I took a film appreciation class a couple of years ago that discussed the Western genre and its elements, and one of the trends inherent in it is the prevailing notion that law or government is either too incompetent or corrupt to help. I see a lot of that kind of cultural conditioning in the rhetoric of the gun nut crowd, and people who have taken a more reasonable position on gun control end up being lumped in or ignored, so their message gets lost. And one of those messages is that yes, the police can and do protect civilians. It's their job. I'd like to see some statistics about the claim that police only take action after a crime has been committed, because in a nation this large and with as many people in it as there are, I would think that some stats exist to show what the facts are. Yet no gun nuts seem able or willing to produce them.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 11 2010, 08:06 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 10 2010, 10:23 PM)
What you speak of is only true IF the people have already struggled with a situation before. Sure, restraining orders and such--what about all the other types of situations. We can't leave those out of the equation.
And that's the thing, isn't it? How many gun nuts (and I make a distinction between the sane people and the arm-everyone fanatics) have ever really tried to go through the existing system before making up their minds that it doesn't work or is too corrupt? I took a film appreciation class a couple of years ago that discussed the Western genre and its elements, and one of the trends inherent in it is the prevailing notion that law or government is either too incompetent or corrupt to help. I see a lot of that kind of cultural conditioning in the rhetoric of the gun nut crowd, and people who have taken a more reasonable position on gun control end up being lumped in or ignored, so their message gets lost. And one of those messages is that yes, the police can and do protect civilians. It's their job. I'd like to see some statistics about the claim that police only take action after a crime has been committed, because in a nation this large and with as many people in it as there are, I would think that some stats exist to show what the facts are. Yet no gun nuts seem able or willing to produce them.
Police cannot take action before someone's house gets broken into. Police cannot take action before a store gets robbed. Police cannot take action before someone gets mugged. These random types of occurrences cannot be covered by police BEFORE the action has taken place unless it was known beforehand, somehow, that these incidents were being planned by specific individuals. They can only come into place AFTER the action has occurred. I don't think I've ever run across someone who is pro-guns who SERIOUSLY thinks guns should replace restraining orders or witness protection programs, or replace security officers at businesses. I've never heard of such a mindset, so in my opinion, you are being disingenuous.
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 11 2010, 10:38 PM)
Police cannot take action before someone's house gets broken into. Police cannot take action before a store gets robbed. Police cannot take action before someone gets mugged. These random types of occurrences cannot be covered by police BEFORE the action has taken place unless it was known beforehand, somehow, that these incidents were being planned by specific individuals. They can only come into place AFTER the action has occurred. I don't think I've ever run across someone who is pro-guns who SERIOUSLY thinks guns should replace restraining orders or witness protection programs, or replace security officers at businesses. I've never heard of such a mindset, so in my opinion, you are being disingenuous.
No, but we do have such things as security alarms, which help alert police to come as quickly as possible in the event of a break-in, and for stores, surveillance cameras and silent alarms help raise the alarm that help is needed. Police can't be everywhere, but they are around — and they do actually come when needed. Reaction times vary, obviously, depending on the severity of the crime and the state of funding and equipment (layoffs can result in delays as fewer officers are available to deal with more crimes). Furthermore you are essentially arguing that unless police can arrive before a crime is committed so they can stop it from happening, then it necessarily follows that police as a whole are ineffectual and that's why it's necessary to arm everyone and hope things work out. That is essentially what you are arguing.
The problem is that such reasoning is not only unrealistic, but quite dangerous. For your preconditions to be met, we would have to turn into a police state wherein there is an officer (or several) in every home, on every street corner, and in every place of business. It is both impossible and undesirable. What's more, regular civilians are not likely to be trained to the point where they can take the place of police officers, whose job is a daily one that even they sometimes have trouble carrying out effectively.
If you doubt the mindset of gun nuts, all you have to do is look through the threads both here and on other forums where guns are discussed. I sent a private message to El Duderino asking him to look up gun control threads at OTL since I'm banned from here and he is not. This is what he provided.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?...st&p=235476
Basically the clown says that it is perfectly okay to pump five more bullets into a perp who is already down on the ground bleeding.
That is not the kind of "crime fighting" we want going on, and most of the posters there seem to agree — even the pro-gun members.
Here are a couple other, slightly off-topic discussions that were pointed out to me.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23697
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloo...r_b_312339.html
QUOTE
Ever wonder how criminals are able to get guns so easily? It's depressingly simple. On any given weekend, at dozens of gun shows held in states across the country -- criminals can buy guns from "private sellers" who are not required to perform background checks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has identified gun shows as the source of more than 30% of all illegally trafficked guns in the country. Those are the guns most likely to be used in crimes -- and to kill innocent people, including police officers.
Today, New York City is releasing the results of a multi-state investigation into this activity: "Gun Show Undercover." We sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.
Our investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.
Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.
These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what we found. We found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.
At 2 p.m. today, you can watch our hidden camera videos and learn more about our investigation at www.nyc.gov/gunshow.
Now, why is the Mayor of New York City investigating gun shows in places like Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada? Good question. And the answer is: because I have no other choice.
Even though New York is the safest big city in the country, and safer than most mid-sized cities, and even though we have the nation's toughest law against illegal possession of a loaded handgun, drug dealers and criminals continue to obtain guns from inter-state traffickers.
According to ATF, 89% of guns used in crimes in New York City last year originated out of state. Many cities around the country find themselves in the same situation. It is clear that we can't solve this problem by working only within our state. We need leadership from Washington to close loopholes that criminals exploit, and we need stronger enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.
The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.
Visit http://www.nyc.gov/gunshow.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has identified gun shows as the source of more than 30% of all illegally trafficked guns in the country. Those are the guns most likely to be used in crimes -- and to kill innocent people, including police officers.
Today, New York City is releasing the results of a multi-state investigation into this activity: "Gun Show Undercover." We sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.
Our investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.
Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.
These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what we found. We found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.
At 2 p.m. today, you can watch our hidden camera videos and learn more about our investigation at www.nyc.gov/gunshow.
Now, why is the Mayor of New York City investigating gun shows in places like Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada? Good question. And the answer is: because I have no other choice.
Even though New York is the safest big city in the country, and safer than most mid-sized cities, and even though we have the nation's toughest law against illegal possession of a loaded handgun, drug dealers and criminals continue to obtain guns from inter-state traffickers.
According to ATF, 89% of guns used in crimes in New York City last year originated out of state. Many cities around the country find themselves in the same situation. It is clear that we can't solve this problem by working only within our state. We need leadership from Washington to close loopholes that criminals exploit, and we need stronger enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.
The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.
Visit http://www.nyc.gov/gunshow.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24132
QUOTE
Both Democrats and Republicans attempt to link gun laws to crime. Democrats insist anti gun laws decrease the murder rate, while Republicans insist anti gun laws increase the murder rate. Both parties treat guns laws like they are the primary factor in a nation's murder rate, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Both the left and the right are dead wrong on this issue.
If you look at the international murder rates among nations Switzerland and Japan both have very low murder rates despite being on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to gun control. Japan has very strict (Draconian by NRA standards) gun laws, and a very low murder rate. Switzerland has very liberal gun laws. Every male is required to enter the national guard at age 18, and is required by law to take his automatic assault rifle home with him. Like Japan Switzerland has a very low homicide rate when compared to the USA. If you look at the 3 nations of Japan, Switzerland, and the USA it should be obvious and beyond any doubt that both strict gun control laws where the citizens are disarmed and mandatory assault rifles in every home can both function with a homicide rate that is much lower than ours.
The primary factors in crime/homicide are the drug trade, poverty rate, employment rate, high school drop out rate, and fathers being involved in their children's lives. The affect of gun control laws on crime rates when compared to other factors is as minuscule as the affect of pomegranate juice on lung cancer rates when compared to the affect of tobacco smoking on lung cancer rates.
If you look at the international murder rates among nations Switzerland and Japan both have very low murder rates despite being on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to gun control. Japan has very strict (Draconian by NRA standards) gun laws, and a very low murder rate. Switzerland has very liberal gun laws. Every male is required to enter the national guard at age 18, and is required by law to take his automatic assault rifle home with him. Like Japan Switzerland has a very low homicide rate when compared to the USA. If you look at the 3 nations of Japan, Switzerland, and the USA it should be obvious and beyond any doubt that both strict gun control laws where the citizens are disarmed and mandatory assault rifles in every home can both function with a homicide rate that is much lower than ours.
The primary factors in crime/homicide are the drug trade, poverty rate, employment rate, high school drop out rate, and fathers being involved in their children's lives. The affect of gun control laws on crime rates when compared to other factors is as minuscule as the affect of pomegranate juice on lung cancer rates when compared to the affect of tobacco smoking on lung cancer rates.
I found that post interesting because it appears to confirm something I've suspected ever since watching Bowling for Columbine: that it isn't the guns or the gun policies, but something else that causes such violence in America and that it won't be solved by loosening or eliminating regulations on guns.
Here's another post that was quoted to me from the same thread.
QUOTE
Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.
Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.
As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.
Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.
Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.
As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.
Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.
And another:
QUOTE
Murder rates and total number of murders are 2 totally separate beasts. Murder rates are calculated by deaths per 100,000 people per year. India and China will have the most numbers of murders because they have the most people, but Columbia has the highest murder rate because they have the highest violent crime rate fueled by drug wars. China is a much safer nation when it comes to murder rates than Columbia
Ethnic diversity is not the primary cause of a high murder rate. Look at top 3 nations for murder rates in the world: Columbia, South Africa, and Jamaica. All 3 of them lack ethnic diversity and have sky high murder rates. The only nation in the top 3 with any ethnic diversity is South Africa and ethnic diversity is not a cause of their crime as it's almost entirely black on black crime that happens in their shanty towns. The USA is actually #24 in the world for murder rates, and every nation with a higher murder rate on the list is less ethnically diverse than we are. My link
Gun laws are also not the primary cause of a high murder rate. The swiss have guns, mandatory assault rifles in every home to be specific, and their murder rate is low. The Japanese have some of the most draconian gun control laws on the planet, the longest and strictest history of gun control starting as soon as guns were introduced to their island, and a very low murder rate.
The primary causes of a high murder rate is a high crime rate. High crime rates are caused by a mixture of poverty and failed drug prohibition laws.
Ethnic diversity is not the primary cause of a high murder rate. Look at top 3 nations for murder rates in the world: Columbia, South Africa, and Jamaica. All 3 of them lack ethnic diversity and have sky high murder rates. The only nation in the top 3 with any ethnic diversity is South Africa and ethnic diversity is not a cause of their crime as it's almost entirely black on black crime that happens in their shanty towns. The USA is actually #24 in the world for murder rates, and every nation with a higher murder rate on the list is less ethnically diverse than we are. My link
Gun laws are also not the primary cause of a high murder rate. The swiss have guns, mandatory assault rifles in every home to be specific, and their murder rate is low. The Japanese have some of the most draconian gun control laws on the planet, the longest and strictest history of gun control starting as soon as guns were introduced to their island, and a very low murder rate.
The primary causes of a high murder rate is a high crime rate. High crime rates are caused by a mixture of poverty and failed drug prohibition laws.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 14 2010, 09:54 AM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 11 2010, 10:38 PM)
Police cannot take action before someone's house gets broken into. Police cannot take action before a store gets robbed. Police cannot take action before someone gets mugged. These random types of occurrences cannot be covered by police BEFORE the action has taken place unless it was known beforehand, somehow, that these incidents were being planned by specific individuals. They can only come into place AFTER the action has occurred. I don't think I've ever run across someone who is pro-guns who SERIOUSLY thinks guns should replace restraining orders or witness protection programs, or replace security officers at businesses. I've never heard of such a mindset, so in my opinion, you are being disingenuous.
No, but we do have such things as security alarms, which help alert police to come as quickly as possible in the event of a break-in, and for stores, surveillance cameras and silent alarms help raise the alarm that help is needed. Police can't be everywhere, but they are around — and they do actually come when needed. Reaction times vary, obviously, depending on the severity of the crime and the state of funding and equipment (layoffs can result in delays as fewer officers are available to deal with more crimes). Furthermore you are essentially arguing that unless police can arrive before a crime is committed so they can stop it from happening, then it necessarily follows that police as a whole are ineffectual and that's why it's necessary to arm everyone and hope things work out. That is essentially what you are arguing.
I said that in the specific types of scenarios I mentioned, and those situations ONLY, police are ineffective. It has no reflection on police as a whole. To claim that's what I'm saying is to be disingenuous.
QUOTE
The problem is that such reasoning is not only unrealistic, but quite dangerous. For your preconditions to be met, we would have to turn into a police state wherein there is an officer (or several) in every home, on every street corner, and in every place of business. It is both impossible and undesirable. What's more, regular civilians are not likely to be trained to the point where they can take the place of police officers, whose job is a daily one that even they sometimes have trouble carrying out effectively.
I wasn't suggesting that would be a good thing--quite the contrary.
QUOTE
If you doubt the mindset of gun nuts, all you have to do is look through the threads both here and on other forums where guns are discussed. I sent a private message to El Duderino asking him to look up gun control threads at OTL since I'm banned from here and he is not. This is what he provided.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?...st&p=235476
Basically the clown says that it is perfectly okay to pump five more bullets into a perp who is already down on the ground bleeding.
That is not the kind of "crime fighting" we want going on, and most of the posters there seem to agree — even the pro-gun members.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?...st&p=235476
Basically the clown says that it is perfectly okay to pump five more bullets into a perp who is already down on the ground bleeding.
That is not the kind of "crime fighting" we want going on, and most of the posters there seem to agree — even the pro-gun members.
Ok. So there are people with extreme beliefs out there. So what. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? I don't think so.
QUOTE
Here are a couple other, slightly off-topic discussions that were pointed out to me.
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23697
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloo...r_b_312339.html
http://www.ontheleft.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23697
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloo...r_b_312339.html
So, I think you may be agreeing with me on this more than you may think.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 11 2010, 04:06 PM)
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 10 2010, 10:23 PM)
What you speak of is only true IF the people have already struggled with a situation before. Sure, restraining orders and such--what about all the other types of situations. We can't leave those out of the equation.
And that's the thing, isn't it? How many gun nuts (and I make a distinction between the sane people and the arm-everyone fanatics) have ever really tried to go through the existing system before making up their minds that it doesn't work or is too corrupt? I took a film appreciation class a couple of years ago that discussed the Western genre and its elements, and one of the trends inherent in it is the prevailing notion that law or government is either too incompetent or corrupt to help. I see a lot of that kind of cultural conditioning in the rhetoric of the gun nut crowd, and people who have taken a more reasonable position on gun control end up being lumped in or ignored, so their message gets lost. And one of those messages is that yes, the police can and do protect civilians. It's their job. I'd like to see some statistics about the claim that police only take action after a crime has been committed, because in a nation this large and with as many people in it as there are, I would think that some stats exist to show what the facts are. Yet no gun nuts seem able or willing to produce them.
Ever seen the Tv show COPS? Been on for like 20 years.
Police officers are "First Responders"
What are they are they responding to? [drumroll] Reports of crimes being committed.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 14 2010, 05:54 PM)
No, but we do have such things as security alarms, which help alert police to come as quickly as possible in the event of a break-in, and for stores, surveillance cameras and silent alarms help raise the alarm that help is needed. Police can't be everywhere, but they are around — and they do actually come when needed. Reaction times vary, obviously, depending on the severity of the crime and the state of funding and equipment (layoffs can result in delays as fewer officers are available to deal with more crimes)
This is by no means a threat to you, and I hope you are never encountered with this situation, but how long do you think it takes for someone to break into your "alarmed" house or business and attack you, leaving you hurt or dead?
Have you ever thought about that kind of confrontation, and what would you do?
QUOTE (BigMike @ Apr 16 2010, 05:35 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 14 2010, 05:54 PM)
No, but we do have such things as security alarms, which help alert police to come as quickly as possible in the event of a break-in, and for stores, surveillance cameras and silent alarms help raise the alarm that help is needed. Police can't be everywhere, but they are around — and they do actually come when needed. Reaction times vary, obviously, depending on the severity of the crime and the state of funding and equipment (layoffs can result in delays as fewer officers are available to deal with more crimes)
This is by no means a threat to you, and I hope you are never encountered with this situation, but how long do you think it takes for someone to break into your "alarmed" house or business and attack you, leaving you hurt or dead?
Have you ever thought about that kind of confrontation, and what would you do?
Also, should be noted that "funding" has little to do with preparedness. No one can be there, like YOU can be there in that kind of situation.
If I lived in a rural town, say Mayberry, where they only had a couple of LEO's....shouldn't you actually then be advocating pro-activeness considering Barney Fife may not be swinging by for a while?
Kizzume, you claimed the following:
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
And now for my responses to BigMike.
So we're agreed that the police more or less negate the need for armed vigilantes.
There's really nothing I have that's worth losing my life over. I've been in situations where guns have been pulled on me, and I have fired a gun on at least one occasion. Depending on the situation, I will opt for the life-saving option, which would be to do whatever is necessary to prevent or minimize needless bloodshed. I simply do not have the training or coordination to be trustworthy with a gun. I'd be as big a danger to innocent bystanders as an armed thug. For that matter, so are most civilians.
If we're talking about a small town like Mayberry, the dynamics are much, much different than they would be in a large city. Crime rates are affected by poverty levels and public action. I was an auxiliary police officer (unarmed, no arrest power) for four years, and routinely went on weekly evening patrols throughout my neighborhood. I also used to attend neighborhood watch meetings, and neighborhoods with strong awareness of who is doing what and where in public help deter crime. Criminals prefer neglected areas where public apathy is obvious. I can tell you that from experience.
QUOTE
Yes, who show up after the fact.
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
QUOTE
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area.
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
QUOTE
I said that in the specific types of scenarios I mentioned, and those situations ONLY, police are ineffective.
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
And now for my responses to BigMike.
QUOTE
Ever seen the Tv show COPS? Been on for like 20 years.
Police officers are "First Responders"
What are they are they responding to? [drumroll] Reports of crimes being committed.
Police officers are "First Responders"
What are they are they responding to? [drumroll] Reports of crimes being committed.
So we're agreed that the police more or less negate the need for armed vigilantes.
QUOTE
This is by no means a threat to you, and I hope you are never encountered with this situation, but how long do you think it takes for someone to break into your "alarmed" house or business and attack you, leaving you hurt or dead?
Have you ever thought about that kind of confrontation, and what would you do?
Have you ever thought about that kind of confrontation, and what would you do?
There's really nothing I have that's worth losing my life over. I've been in situations where guns have been pulled on me, and I have fired a gun on at least one occasion. Depending on the situation, I will opt for the life-saving option, which would be to do whatever is necessary to prevent or minimize needless bloodshed. I simply do not have the training or coordination to be trustworthy with a gun. I'd be as big a danger to innocent bystanders as an armed thug. For that matter, so are most civilians.
QUOTE
Also, should be noted that "funding" has little to do with preparedness. No one can be there, like YOU can be there in that kind of situation.
If I lived in a rural town, say Mayberry, where they only had a couple of LEO's....shouldn't you actually then be advocating pro-activeness considering Barney Fife may not be swinging by for a while?
If I lived in a rural town, say Mayberry, where they only had a couple of LEO's....shouldn't you actually then be advocating pro-activeness considering Barney Fife may not be swinging by for a while?
If we're talking about a small town like Mayberry, the dynamics are much, much different than they would be in a large city. Crime rates are affected by poverty levels and public action. I was an auxiliary police officer (unarmed, no arrest power) for four years, and routinely went on weekly evening patrols throughout my neighborhood. I also used to attend neighborhood watch meetings, and neighborhoods with strong awareness of who is doing what and where in public help deter crime. Criminals prefer neglected areas where public apathy is obvious. I can tell you that from experience.
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 18 2010, 03:47 PM)
Kizzume, you claimed the following:
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
QUOTE
Yes, who show up after the fact.
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
QUOTE
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area.
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
QUOTE
I said that in the specific types of scenarios I mentioned, and those situations ONLY, police are ineffective.
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
So, it's all black and white? I don't think so.
No, it's not a failure of police to show up until after a crime. It's just the way things are. We can't expect the impossible.
If someone is armed and one of those types of crimes is ATTEMPTED, the crime CAN be avoided altogether. We cannot rely on police to take care of those kinds of things before they happen unless we were living in a total police state, which is undesirable. That's just a fact, it's not a failure of police. But I suppose you'll try to STILL turn this into a "either you think police do a good job or you don't" kind of thing. Your argument is making no sense.
QUOTE (Kizzume @ Apr 19 2010, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (Optimus Mike @ Apr 18 2010, 03:47 PM)
Kizzume, you claimed the following:
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
QUOTE
Yes, who show up after the fact.
That was in response to my saying that crime is why we have police. Your response was this:
QUOTE
True, sometimes they show up much later than that. They hardly ever show up before something has taken place unless they were already patrolling the area.
Then, when challenged on that, you turned around and claimed the following:
QUOTE
I said that in the specific types of scenarios I mentioned, and those situations ONLY, police are ineffective.
Which is it, Kizzume? Is the failure of police to show up until after a crime is committed the rule, or the exception? You also mentioned that police might come if they are already patrolling a given area, indicating that they do maintain enough of a presence that they can be relied upon more often than not to show up when needed — thus lessening if not removing the need for armed vigilantes.
So, it's all black and white? I don't think so.
No, it's not a failure of police to show up until after a crime. It's just the way things are. We can't expect the impossible.
If someone is armed and one of those types of crimes is ATTEMPTED, the crime CAN be avoided altogether. We cannot rely on police to take care of those kinds of things before they happen unless we were living in a total police state, which is undesirable. That's just a fact, it's not a failure of police. But I suppose you'll try to STILL turn this into a "either you think police do a good job or you don't" kind of thing. Your argument is making no sense.
Yes, it's black-and-white. You made contradictory statements and haven't explained them adequately.
So if we're agreed that police can't be everywhere, what is your solution. Just passing laws letting anyone who wants to own and carry guns isn't a solution, never was, and never will be.
There's no evidence I've seen that would suggest that armed civilians solve that problem.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/sma...lian-casualties
According to the web site linked to above, small arms (guns) account for 90% of civilian deaths.
In fact, a google search turned up an MSNBC article from March that reports the jury is still out on whether more armed civilians really results in lower crime rates.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389
QUOTE
even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.
Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.
Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.
QUOTE
Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.
Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”
Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”
Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
QUOTE
Because the gun death rates parallel an overall drop in crime, Hemenway suspects that the decline “has nothing to do with concealed-carry laws.”
While other researchers point to numerous, complex reasons for fluctuations in the crime rate, Hemenway said the surge that began in the 1980s and the subsequent decline were "all about inner-city gun crime." Crime "declined nationwide after the crack wars died out," Rand agreed.
Hemenway said valid studies of the effects of more concealed weapons permits on firearms deaths could only be obtained by studying shooting deaths that involved concealed-carry permit holders.
But such data is not collected by most law enforcement agencies and not compiled nationally, said Rand of the Violence Policy Center. Her group would like to see nationwide reporting of the number of concealed-weapons permit holders, a “systematic collection of arrest and conviction data” for them as well as hard data on the number of justifiable homicides they’re involved in.
While other researchers point to numerous, complex reasons for fluctuations in the crime rate, Hemenway said the surge that began in the 1980s and the subsequent decline were "all about inner-city gun crime." Crime "declined nationwide after the crack wars died out," Rand agreed.
Hemenway said valid studies of the effects of more concealed weapons permits on firearms deaths could only be obtained by studying shooting deaths that involved concealed-carry permit holders.
But such data is not collected by most law enforcement agencies and not compiled nationally, said Rand of the Violence Policy Center. Her group would like to see nationwide reporting of the number of concealed-weapons permit holders, a “systematic collection of arrest and conviction data” for them as well as hard data on the number of justifiable homicides they’re involved in.
http://www.dailytoreador.com/opinions/ramo...nswer-1.2218451
From the third link above, chances are that your fellow civilians will probably view you, the armed civilian, as at least as big a threat as any criminal.
QUOTE
But even though I believe in the right of being able to have a licensed gun in my home to protect my family and myself, guns, although a defense, are not the answer. I don’t think I could sit comfortably beside a guy I know is “packing heat.” It’s almost intimidating and definitely distracting.
And what if this becomes a trend? Are we supposed to be OK with the idea everyone can bring their guns to campus? This definitely would give a whole new meaning to “get your guns up.”
Of course, even if the current legislation was to pass that would allow this, think of all the flaws that are behind it. If we all were allowed to bring our licensed concealed handguns to campus or keep them in our residence halls, who’s to say some unlicensed owners won’t get lost in the mix. Would the faculty have to take time from class to verify licenses for those guns from every student with a full holster? And what about faculty and staff? Are they allowed to carry handguns as well?
In no way do I condemn those who support this idea. I understand where it comes from and I believe there should be an effective and reasonable defense tool against cases like on-campus shootings and violence. But let’s not blur the lines of defense and fighting violence with violence.
Let’s imagine a scenario of a disturbed individual walking into a large classroom and starting to shoot at everyone like a crazed criminal. Now let’s throw five more individuals with guns shooting at him in the picture. It’s not a pretty painting — it’s warfare. Students against student.
And through all this chaos, let’s not forget the one binding factor: the disturbed student. In this world there is good and there is bad, and people who lose themselves and do horrible, destructive and tragic things always will be out there. No day is promised and we cannot all create a bubble for ourselves or for those we love, but we have the right to protect ourselves and them — under what pretenses is the question.
Students with licensed handguns would be students with a right to kill, and having a license doesn’t mean a gun will always be used with good or legal intentions. It does not prevent the licensee from being flawed or susceptible to human error.
For the record, after I read the article and gave it some thought — much of which I haveexpressed in this article — I went back to the poll and voted no. I don’t want to sit in a classroom and feel like I’m in an episode of “Law and Order: College Campus Unit,” because even though in the back of my mind there is a thought about the possibility of a raging lunatic coming through those doors, I know I feel safe in class. I know when I walk to class or walk to my car after an evening exam I, although cautious, am not scared.
I, as a student on campus, have the right and benefit to be protected by my campus, but to whom that privilege is designated to should not be the guy sitting next to me in class.
And what if this becomes a trend? Are we supposed to be OK with the idea everyone can bring their guns to campus? This definitely would give a whole new meaning to “get your guns up.”
Of course, even if the current legislation was to pass that would allow this, think of all the flaws that are behind it. If we all were allowed to bring our licensed concealed handguns to campus or keep them in our residence halls, who’s to say some unlicensed owners won’t get lost in the mix. Would the faculty have to take time from class to verify licenses for those guns from every student with a full holster? And what about faculty and staff? Are they allowed to carry handguns as well?
In no way do I condemn those who support this idea. I understand where it comes from and I believe there should be an effective and reasonable defense tool against cases like on-campus shootings and violence. But let’s not blur the lines of defense and fighting violence with violence.
Let’s imagine a scenario of a disturbed individual walking into a large classroom and starting to shoot at everyone like a crazed criminal. Now let’s throw five more individuals with guns shooting at him in the picture. It’s not a pretty painting — it’s warfare. Students against student.
And through all this chaos, let’s not forget the one binding factor: the disturbed student. In this world there is good and there is bad, and people who lose themselves and do horrible, destructive and tragic things always will be out there. No day is promised and we cannot all create a bubble for ourselves or for those we love, but we have the right to protect ourselves and them — under what pretenses is the question.
Students with licensed handguns would be students with a right to kill, and having a license doesn’t mean a gun will always be used with good or legal intentions. It does not prevent the licensee from being flawed or susceptible to human error.
For the record, after I read the article and gave it some thought — much of which I haveexpressed in this article — I went back to the poll and voted no. I don’t want to sit in a classroom and feel like I’m in an episode of “Law and Order: College Campus Unit,” because even though in the back of my mind there is a thought about the possibility of a raging lunatic coming through those doors, I know I feel safe in class. I know when I walk to class or walk to my car after an evening exam I, although cautious, am not scared.
I, as a student on campus, have the right and benefit to be protected by my campus, but to whom that privilege is designated to should not be the guy sitting next to me in class.
So with the argument that more guns equaling less crime being so unclear, it's just not credible to suggest that because police can't be everywhere that means we must have more guns. Drops in crime rates happen for various reasons, including reduction in poverty in some areas and more effective policing in others.
And here's another reason why it's a bad idea to let just anyone have access to guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_..._airport_arrest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_..._airport_arrest
QUOTE
Ohio man arrested as Obama leaves NC faces hearing
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – An armed man who was spotted at a North Carolina airport parking lot just after Air Force One departed and said he wanted to see the president was to appear before a judge Monday.
Authorities arrested Joseph Sean McVey, 23, of Coshocton, Ohio, on Sunday afternoon at the Asheville Regional Airport and charged him with going armed in terror of the public, a misdemeanor.
A first appearance in court was scheduled for Monday, said Sgt. John Lutz of the Buncombe County jail, where McVey was being held on $100,000 bond.
McVey told an officer in the airport parking lot he wanted to see the president and he had a car equipped with police gear, including a siren and flashing lights, though he did not work in law enforcement, authorities said.
Security was heightened at the airport Sunday because President Barack Obama was leaving after spending the weekend vacationing in Asheville.
At about 2 p.m., airport police saw McVey get out of a maroon car with Ohio plates and that he had a sidearm, airport police Capt. Kevan Smith said. Both airport police and the Secret Service questioned him and he was taken into custody. The suspect was nowhere near the president's plane, which had just departed, and was in a rental car return lot that is open to the public, Smith said.
His car was equipped with clear LED law enforcement-style strobe lights in the front and rear dash, Smith said. The car also had a mounted digital camera in the front window, four large antennas on the trunk lid, and under the steering wheel was a working siren box.
When McVey got out of the car, he was listening to a handheld scanner and radio that had a remote earpiece, Smith said. Police said he was monitoring local agencies and had formulas for rifle scopes on a note in his cup holder. Police did not immediately elaborate on what the formulas might mean.
McVey gave authorities an Ohio driver's license, but a computer check failed to show the number was valid, police said. His hometown of Coshocton is about halfway between Pittsburgh and Columbus, Ohio.
When Officer Kaleb Rice asked him what he was doing, McVey told him he heard the president was in town and wanted to see him.
Rice removed the firearm and took McVey into custody.
The investigation into what McVey was doing with a gun, with formulas for rifle scopes and why his car was equipped with police gear was continuing, Smith said. The Secret Service had no comment on the arrest Sunday, deferring to airport police.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – An armed man who was spotted at a North Carolina airport parking lot just after Air Force One departed and said he wanted to see the president was to appear before a judge Monday.
Authorities arrested Joseph Sean McVey, 23, of Coshocton, Ohio, on Sunday afternoon at the Asheville Regional Airport and charged him with going armed in terror of the public, a misdemeanor.
A first appearance in court was scheduled for Monday, said Sgt. John Lutz of the Buncombe County jail, where McVey was being held on $100,000 bond.
McVey told an officer in the airport parking lot he wanted to see the president and he had a car equipped with police gear, including a siren and flashing lights, though he did not work in law enforcement, authorities said.
Security was heightened at the airport Sunday because President Barack Obama was leaving after spending the weekend vacationing in Asheville.
At about 2 p.m., airport police saw McVey get out of a maroon car with Ohio plates and that he had a sidearm, airport police Capt. Kevan Smith said. Both airport police and the Secret Service questioned him and he was taken into custody. The suspect was nowhere near the president's plane, which had just departed, and was in a rental car return lot that is open to the public, Smith said.
His car was equipped with clear LED law enforcement-style strobe lights in the front and rear dash, Smith said. The car also had a mounted digital camera in the front window, four large antennas on the trunk lid, and under the steering wheel was a working siren box.
When McVey got out of the car, he was listening to a handheld scanner and radio that had a remote earpiece, Smith said. Police said he was monitoring local agencies and had formulas for rifle scopes on a note in his cup holder. Police did not immediately elaborate on what the formulas might mean.
McVey gave authorities an Ohio driver's license, but a computer check failed to show the number was valid, police said. His hometown of Coshocton is about halfway between Pittsburgh and Columbus, Ohio.
When Officer Kaleb Rice asked him what he was doing, McVey told him he heard the president was in town and wanted to see him.
Rice removed the firearm and took McVey into custody.
The investigation into what McVey was doing with a gun, with formulas for rifle scopes and why his car was equipped with police gear was continuing, Smith said. The Secret Service had no comment on the arrest Sunday, deferring to airport police.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.