Jump to content

Gun Control 5


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Yes is what I was saying in earlier posts.

The issue isn't as simple as ""BAN ALL GUNS" or "BETTER HEALTHCARE" will solve the problem."

It's a combination of lots of different factors but just as it is evident that access to guns must be restricted in some way, it is also evident that we need much better outreach for people with mental illnesses.

The US has a very bottom-line attitude WRT social problems.

Better care for mentally-unstable persons is far more expensive than short-term hires of grief councillors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I agree with IheartTesla (from an earlier post) that seismic shift in attitude could happen with in a generation (with the example of gay marriage). And given that several posters who were before the silent majority have came out and posted that their attitude have now changed, I think that there are now sufficient political capital to push for if not a ban then more severe restrictions on gun ownership.

Second, I think that the idea of allowing teachers to carry guns into schools are beyond idiotic and should not dignify any further response from civilized human beings.

Third, I think that we're giving up too much ground when we allowed the conversation to be framed by the gun nutz that it isn't possible to deal with the 300 mils guns in circulation. On the contrary, I think that once a successful legislation have been passed banning all guns, a systemic and vigorous program consisting of amnesty for turning in, expanding power of searches and confiscation of guns by the police, severe prison sentences for arms traffickers, along with a generous incentive programs for people to report and collect rewards on those who are secretly stashing guns will be able to remove most if not all of the guns from circulation.

Heck, once the law is passed, they don't even have to pay me to tell ATF who among this forum are known to have guns and possible still hoard them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit. The best way is to have metal detectors at the door, drastically limit access to the schools, etc.

It is not to have a bunch of trigger happy moronic teachers running around with guns with a bunch of children present.

A friend just raised another great point .................. little kids could inadvertently found a gun laying around in a teacher's drawer, and in high school, some bigger kids could easily wrestle the gun away from the teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe another way to get at it, under the current SCOTUS cases, is to expand the list of criminal infractions that result in forfeiture of firearms.

even slightest hint of antisocial mala prohibita results in forfetiure: parking ticket? gimme guns. loitering? gimme guns. misdemeanor littering? gimme guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe another way to get at it, under the current SCOTUS cases, is to expand the list of criminal infractions that result in forfeiture of firearms.

even slightest hint of antisocial mala prohibita results in forfetiure: parking ticket? gimme guns. loitering? gimme guns. misdemeanor littering? gimme guns.

Let's also cast the net wider ............. complaints of domestic disturbance should also results in confiscation of guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to establish that many of the mentally ill will take advantage of such outreach, so the suggestion is ineffective in dealing with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Maybe they would if mental illness wasn't so stigmatized, if stuffing mentally ill people with pills wasn't the automatic go-to answer, if mental institutions weren't considered like prisons, if people in general were more educated about mental illness, if parents of mentally unstable children were taught how to deal with their sick child, if people (in particular men) were encouraged to talk about their feelings... etc etc.

Also, about Minority Report, read the book, the movie isn't bad in and of itself but it glosses over too much to really be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is mainly irrelevant. It doesen't answer anythign either way. (I mean, it's not that the constitution cannot be amended) "It's in the constitution!" is the weakest argument for anything in the history of ever.

Incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution as it rightly should be. Also, the reason right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, which is all about the guaranteed rights of individuals. So yes.. the fact that it is in.

US murder-rate is just way out of whack with all other criminal indicators. The crime rate in the US and say, Sweden, isn't that different per capita really, except the US has about three times the murder (per capita) If gang violence was the cause you'd probably see a greater discrepancy in other gang-related violence (robbery, assault, racketeering, drug-dealing, whatever else gangs do) but it's not really there.

Also, while gang-related violence is responsible for some degree of the difference, the fact remains that even "normal" interpersonal violence is out of whack in the US: Your neighbour is more likely to kill you over a dispute, your husband is more likely to kill you, you're more likely to get shot after angering someone at a bar. And this is probably at least partially attributable to the fact that guns are easily availible and easy to use: There's very little gap between "I want to kill that guy." and "I've now killed that guy." than in Sweden where you have to use a bread-knife (or, if you live in the countryside, an axe, if you really want to shoot someone and own both a rifle and a licensce you're going to have to unlock your safe and assemble your rifle before you can shoot someone)

If guns totally make you want to kill people, then as I mentioned Vermont would have a much higher crime rate than it does. Ditto with a state like North Dakota. It does not. This suggests that there is something else to blame. Most murders occur in urban centers with large concentrations of gangs....Hence it is probably due to factors other than owning guns. And all the guns used in those shootings are probably illegal.

But if that was the case you'd see that kind of argument from liberals in Europe too. And by and large you don't.

Liberals like controlling people's lives and telling people what to do via the gov't. Both Bloomberg and Mrs. Obama are liberal last time I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If guns totally make you want to kill people, then as I mentioned Vermont would have a much higher crime rate than it does. Ditto with a state like North Dakota. It does not. This suggests that there is something else to blame. Most murders occur in urban centers with large concentrations of gangs....Hence it is probably due to factors other than owning guns. And all the guns used in those shootings are probably illegal.

Don't be silly. Of course poverty links to crime, that's always been true. But people who shoot their wives in the head aren't doing so because they are in gangs. The do so because they have guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the Communist Control Act of 1954 must have been passed in in a parallel universe.

And little black children in the South couldn't attend schools with little white children.. which was also clearly unconstitutional. In present day, there isn't school segregation and the Communist Party exists. Nobody votes for them, but it isn't like in Europe where parties can just be decertified by an election commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be silly. Of course poverty links to crime, that's always been true. But people who shoot their wives in the head aren't doing so because they are in gangs. The do so because they have guns.

And people who shoot their wives in the heads have probably been abusive in the past. I have no problem with a judge ordering an ex to turn over guns as part of a restraining order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Ralph Nader expert.

Btw know it all, 90% of stats are made up on the spot

Perhaps this is the way you operate, but the people posting on this forum ask that evidence be provided. The people who post newspaper articles click through reports the newspaper articles use for their statement to check the validity of statements made. I don't think statistic gathering organizations like governments, the census bureau, universities and research firms "make-up" 99.9% of their statistics.

You, and others, have been repeatedly been asked to back up the "facts" you throw around, and then people get accused of making personal attacks. Open-ended rhetorical statements and anecdotal evidence are not evidence of anything.

ETA: And just what the hell is a Ralph Nader expert? You, for example? The man is famous for attacking the auto industry using the cold, hard facts, practically single handedly making cars safer for all of us by pointing out car companies ignored the dangers built into the cars they made. "Unsafe at Any Speed" relied on the accuracy of the information it contained, otherwise Ford, GM, Chrysler and American Motors would have fire-bombed him straight to hell. If you don't even know what Ralph Nader actually does, don't label yourself the Ralph Nader of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And people who shoot their wives in the heads have probably been abusive in the past. I have no problem with a judge ordering an ex to turn over guns as part of a restraining order.

That actually should be a part of the law already, but I haven't heard of it being enforced. A restraining order should constitute a mental illness on the person that is receiving it and as such should automatically make it illegal for that person to posses a firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't seeing it are you? If you are in the same room as an intruder there is a risk he will shoot or stab you. So, your best option is to ensure you are not in the same room as an intruder. Any action in which you seek the intruder is detrimental to your safety, the only sensible course of action is to call the police, loudly. The sensible burglar will then leave. Now, the main reason a person will be entering your house is burglary. If this is the case, they will attempt to pass unnoticed, and can gain no advantage from harming you.

Please do not assume that the only precaution I take, is to have a gun. There is an alarm system covering all potential points of entry. That alarm triggers multiple strobe lights designed to impair the intruders vision. If he proceeds, anyway, to the room where I am likely to be, it is obvious that his intent isn't burglary. I'll also have the advantage of knowing where he must enter, he will be back-lighted and without knowledge of my exact location and type of cover and concealment I'll be using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not assume that the only precaution I take, is to have a gun. There is an alarm system covering all potential points of entry. That alarm triggers multiple strobe lights designed to impair the intruders vision. If he proceeds, anyway, to the room where I am likely to be, it is obvious that his intent isn't burglary. I'll also have the advantage of knowing where he must enter, he will be back-lighted and without knowledge of my exact location and type of cover and concealment I'll be using.

Do you possess the secret to Col. Sanders recipe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...