Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would such a 'buyback' be any more successful than the one in Australia? The last numbers I saw, in Aus firearms accounted for about 38% of homicides and knives were a close second at 36%. The US is similar, guns followed closely by knives, and at about the same ratio, accounting for nearly 80% of homicides.
It's not a gun problem, it's a crime problem. The imposition of more laws infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens does nothing to change the actions of criminals, who by definition aren't paying much attention to whether something is 'against the law' anyway.
And seriously I am so tired of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument. It is completely illogical. One, if laws don't work, then we shouldn't have any at all. Rapists gonna rape! Why try to stop it? Reckless drivers gonna drive recklessly, why try to curb it? Why are gun laws the ONLY laws that won't work? Doesn't make sense! That is pure rhetoric. Secondly, all these others countries with strict gun laws have criminals, drugs, gangs, and the mentally ill, yet their gun violence is low. I guess you think it is just some massive coimcidence? More guns = more gun violence. It is seriously that simple.
Personally, I can see why your opinions are part of the problem as to why we can't get anything passed in this country.
You, in two paragraphs, were able to call the opposing view racists, Theophobes, and gun nuts. This is a debate forum and name calling is certainly not going to get anything accomplished in this country. It will most certainly get you labeled as a troll though.
That is "xenophobes" and no I didn't call anyone specific to this thread or entire forum a name.
ETA: The funniest thing about this comment is (typically) conservatives are the ones crying about having to be PC all the time and how everyone is too sensitive, yet the second someone is direct about labing characteristics of SOME people from their party, they get offended and call them a troll.
Last edited by Pennies4Penny; 11-22-2015 at 04:50 PM..
And seriously I am so tired of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument. It is completely illogical. One, if laws don't work, then we shouldn't have any at all. Rapists gonna rape! Why try to stop it? Reckless drivers gonna drive recklessly, why try to curb it? Why are gun laws the ONLY laws that won't work? Doesn't make sense! That is pure rhetoric. Secondly, all these others countries with strict gun laws have criminals, drugs, gangs, and the mentally ill, yet their gun violence is low. I guess you think it is just some massive coimcidence? More guns = more gun violence. It is seriously that simple.
Have you seen what goes on in other countries? I am assuming that you're talking about countries with supposed strict gun laws as shining examples of what we should abide by.
However, if you look at say.... Dem. Rep. of Congo, for instance, there are warlords that control the drug/ivory/slavery businesses which were given weapons by our country (generally because we gave them the guns or through the black market) where it is routine to slaughter entire villages (that don't own guns).
In Liberia for example, one of the more famous warlords was a guy named General Butt Naked. He was known to fight in the nude. Before they went into battle, they would sacrifice a young boy, open him up from the backside, pull out his heart, and chop it up and feed it to his troops. General B. Naked has since reformed, but the fact is, they were an army supplied with American guns. They were even at one point asked to help fight in the Iraq war as our allies.
I feel that with the way our laws are written in this country, it's going to be a constant battle of two sides that will never agree to change anything here.
But I do feel that both sides could agree that our guns, in the hands of terrorists and warlords and drug dealers, and watching them murder people with those guns is a terrible issue that both sides could get behind to stop... Especially if we save a few billion in the process.
That is "xenophobes" and no I didn't call anyone specific to this thread or entire forum a name.
ETA: The funniest thing about this comment is (typically) conservatives are the ones crying about having to be PC all the time and how everyone is too sensitive, yet the second someone is direct about labing characteristics of SOME people from their party, they get offended and call them a troll.
When you talk about a party (such as the conservative party) and you use the term "THEY" when speaking about that party, that's you pretty much lumping the entire party into the conversation.
If you, however, used the term "SOME", to use your description of them as xenophobes and racists, it would make more sense as to your ETA: statement listed above.
But fact is, you used "THEY" which is part of the problem. This is a thinking that everyone on the other side of an issue that doesn't agree with your political position is a racist. Your words, not mine.
Over military spending, our second highest expenditure, yes. They are not putting the government in the hole. The senseless wars did that; we were at a surplus prior to them.
BTW, the Overseas Contingency Operations fund is part of Discretionary (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/c...cy-operations/) ... which means that individual income taxes alone are covering it, along with everything else from the FBI to NASA with money to spare.
Which Gun Control Policy Is Really More Important?
Whew! For a minute there I thought this was going to be a thread about our right to keep and bear....Thank God it's another thread about Jihadists in foreign countries.
Even copycat jihadists look for places where people are unarmed. Fortunately, those places are becoming increasingly rare here in America.
And seriously I am so tired of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument. It is completely illogical. One, if laws don't work, then we shouldn't have any at all. Rapists gonna rape! Why try to stop it? Reckless drivers gonna drive recklessly, why try to curb it? Why are gun laws the ONLY laws that won't work? Doesn't make sense! That is pure rhetoric. Secondly, all these others countries with strict gun laws have criminals, drugs, gangs, and the mentally ill, yet their gun violence is low. I guess you think it is just some massive coimcidence? More guns = more gun violence. It is seriously that simple.
More guns do not equal more gun violence, the U.S has 300 million firearms in the hand of private citizens and the firearm homicide rate for the last stats from the CDC shows 11,000 homicides from gun usage, the total homicide rate was 16,121. One would think that with 300 million firearms out there the homicide rate for firearms would be off the charts. The United States ranks 91st on the list for deaths by homicide, now for a country of 350 million people that's not to bad.
When you talk about a party (such as the conservative party) and you use the term "THEY" when speaking about that party, that's you pretty much lumping the entire party into the conversation.
If you, however, used the term "SOME", to use your description of them as xenophobes and racists, it would make more sense as to your ETA: statement listed above.
But fact is, you used "THEY" which is part of the problem. This is a thinking that everyone on the other side of an issue that doesn't agree with your political position is a racist. Your words, not mine.
Oh please. I never said every last conservative is a ranging racist or xenophobe, but that xenophobia is rampant among the conservative party. You can't deny that. I am immersed in conservative land; most of my friends and acquaintances IRL and on social media are staunch conservatives and I hear the talk of "dem Muslims" and see dozens of anti refugee menes on Facebook daily. I said based on the premise that jihad terrorists were going take guns from the US and use them for terrorist activities, I would assume that the conservative party would vote in favor of banning the sale and/or distribution of guns internationally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
More guns do not equal more gun violence, the U.S has 300 million firearms in the hand of private citizens and the firearm homicide rate for the last stats from the CDC shows 11,000 homicides from gun usage, the total homicide rate was 16,121. One would think that with 300 million firearms out there the homicide rate for firearms would be off the charts. The United States ranks 91st on the list for deaths by homicide, now for a country of 350 million people that's not to bad.
Yes it does. Have you read any of the links I've posted? The homicide rates in the US are off the charts in comparison to countries with strict laws and fewer guns floating around. US may rank 91st among all countries, but it is number one for gun violence in the industrialized world by a long shot.
And seriously I am so tired of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument. It is completely illogical. One, if laws don't work, then we shouldn't have any at all. Rapists gonna rape! Why try to stop it? Reckless drivers gonna drive recklessly, why try to curb it? Why are gun laws the ONLY laws that won't work? Doesn't make sense! That is pure rhetoric.
You call it rhetoric, which is interesting. I assure you, some gun laws work, others don't. I assure you, laws against MURDER don't seem to have the effect we all hope for. You're going into this argument with the assumption that laws meant to prevent loss of life 'work.' So if you're the next Adam L---a or gangbanger # 572, the latest penal code you introduce to make people feel better that "something has to be done," really isn't going to factor into their plans to kill people, and possibly be killed themselves.
Does this mean we need no laws? Of course not! We have many laws, like the ones that make KILLING innocent people ILLEGAL. That law will stop Willy Loman, who's worried about public backlash and not providing for his family if and when he's caught. It won't stop the MS-13 s---head who came into our country with a body count before his 18th birthday. In the case of the latter, the law failed to do what you WANTED it to do. So now we can prosecute him, but it doesn't bring his victims back to life. The laws which provide punishment for horrible acts are already on the books. They must be enforced to have teeth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Secondly, all these others countries with strict gun laws have criminals, drugs, gangs, and the mentally ill, yet their gun violence is low. I guess you think it is just some massive coincidence? More guns = more gun violence. It is seriously that simple.
I'll bite. You say their gun violence is low. Does gun violence make a victim's death more or less permanent than violence by other means? Because what you seem to want, which is what many law-abiding citizens want, is for innocent people to not die, am I right? But your focus is on the method, and not the result. Guns in the wrong hands is definitely a bad thing. We all agree on that. However, there seem to be no solutions being offered that will take guns away from criminals, only non-criminals. You want to pass a law which makes it illegal to say, be in possession of a handgun. Okay, so Mr. Smith, who obeys the law, turns his only firearm into the local police, collects $200, and continues to follow the law. Meanwhile, inner city thug # 61 takes his handgun, which he stole from his drug dealer, and breaks into Mr. Smith's home. Thug threatens Mr. and Mrs. Smith with his pistol, but doesn't shoot them because he doesn't want to wake the neighbors or leave evidence. So he beats them to death with Mr. Smith's golf club.
No gun violence there, just violence.
You say it is "that simple." So what is your vision? Keep passing more laws? A favorite seems to be a dream of door to door confiscation. The funny thing is this dream is had by the same people who fought against 'stop and frisk.' The same people who champion civil rights and spit on the police with or without all the facts. Who do you think is going to be doing this confiscation? And will they only have the balls to confiscate the guns in say, Beverly Hills?
Gun buy backs have been proven to be effective ways of reducing the amount of guns floating around a populous, but an overhaul is needed for true effectiveness here in the US. We have gone over the cliff. We can climb back up, but it's going to take a lot of work and gun nuts are unwilling to compromise.
Gun Buybacks are a Joke and a waste of Taxpayers Money. All they do is get guns off the street that no one would use, for safety reasons or some that qualify as antiques. No Criminal or Gang Banger is going to turn in a 1000 dollar Handgun for a couple hundred dollars or less. What they will do is turn in a clunker, so they can buy a better one.
We don't need any more Gun Laws. We have plenty, in fact too many. I hope Gun Owners stand by their commitment to "Not" Compromise, since you can't negotiate with people that want "Scary Looking" guns banned. I hope no Gun Law ever passes again, and even if it does, I hope everyone just ignores it, and all the other one with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
