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.
From its inception in 1993 until it was abolished in 2012, Canada's long gun registry did not help to solve a single crime. It did however, waste $2 billion in government funds that could have been used to pay for any number or methods to effectively reduce crime - like hiring more police officers, for example.
The same thing happened in Maryland, they required a spent casing.
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.
Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.
But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.
The only practical way of reducing gun violence, is to reduce the criminal incentive to commit such things .
Since the criminal chooses the weaker, and irresponsible to abuse , they need protection of the more responsible .
Police cannot be there, so it is up to the responsible and the parents and guardians to be their for the family in the most effective way possible ,armed as well as law enforcement .
Dis establish laws the liberals have established; like plea bargaining, and mistrials for some procedure when the facts still remain,, the criminal is guilty,. age limitations and so on .
Just for starters.
And citizens have been successful at thwarting criminal assault using guns many times , USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION.
Many of you have missed the topic. It was about how to stop all the gun violence. The answer is simple. Murder someone with a gun and the penalty is automatic death. Two appeals, and then you're done. None of this 20 years to put someone to death. It's simple and effective. Its also just. You take someone elses life, then you don't deserve that. God taught us that. Will it perfectly stop all the crime, no. But it will put a big whole in the problem. Obviously. There will not be any getting out of jail and doing it again, as has been true in so many cases. And finally, we punish the criminal, not honest citizens.
Is limiting it to two appeals effective?
One of the theories behind a jury sentencing someone to death is that the common man does it because he believes that if he has made a mistake of judgement, there is plenty of time to catch it.
Now, let's say we change it to just two appeals or even take the convicted out and shoot him 30 minutes after the verdict. Would the common man be so willing to say "guilty" if he knew there was a decent chance, especially with the current, consistent news of planted and withheld evidence, he could be wrong?
If one person on the jury disagrees because of the fear of being wrong, there is another chance. If, however, all err on the side of caution and say "not guilty", that's it for that crime, it's over.
Be careful for what you wish for; you may find that the wish, if granted, goes in unintended directions.
..........People like you ARE a part of the problem. Your unwillingness to take a step back and say "oh **** we do have a problem here" and refusal to compromise is a reason why 30,000 plus people are killed by guns in this country every year. You have fallen prey to the fallacy that guns make us safer, yet there are no FACTS to back that up. In fact, if that were true, we should be the safest country in the world as we have more guns per capita than another country, except Yemen, yet we have the highest rate of gun violence, by a land slide, in the first world. Explain that! And gangs, drugs, the mentally ill and violent movies aren't to blame as every other country has those same problems.
Now, since you seem to be so fond of FACTS, when explaining yourself and answering these questions I proposed to you (again) I want you to provide those facts and evidence that support what you are claiming.
But we have compromised over the decades, again and again but part of the problem is that the other side keeps coming for more.
We can't have machine guns (not easily), our guns must meet certain standards (ie, no zip guns), if a person has a domestic charge against them their guns go away, guns can't be sold without the NICS, some states say (or try to say, not sure how that vote worked out) that one can't even loan a gun, other states say 7 round magazines only, etc, etc, etc. Now, I am not saying whether I agree with each of these or not, I'm just saying these are some of the restrictions over the decades.
Yet, here we are, once again, with the opposite side calling for more, more, more.
Help me understand something.....does the 2nd forbid liability insurance requirements for gun owners? Does it guarantee cheap guns and ammo? Does it allow for individuals to have a tank in their driveway? Rocket launchers? Drones? Does it define a militia as individuals? Just asking. I really don't think the writers of the 2nd got into that much detail. They could not have imagined.
They did imagine, firstly the Constitution can be changed. That process has been purposely made very difficult so a majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. Sans a Constitutional amendment it's the Supreme Court's domain to interpret whether laws are constitutional.
Can we require insurance to use the internet, would it pass SCOTUS?
Limits on what type of weaponry citizens can have can easily be defined, IMO if the police can justify having it so can the citizen.
As far as the wording of the Constitution and debates about it's meaning I think you can look to State Constitutions created before it to understand it's intent because many of the people involved with the US Constitution helped write the States.
1776 Version of the Pennsylvania Constitution
Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Current version:
Quote:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
But we have compromised over the decades, again and again but part of the problem is that the other side keeps coming for more.
We can't have machine guns (not easily), our guns must meet certain standards (ie, no zip guns), if a person has a domestic charge against them their guns go away, guns can't be sold without the NICS, some states say (or try to say, not sure how that vote worked out) that one can't even loan a gun, other states say 7 round magazines only, etc, etc, etc. Now, I am not saying whether I agree with each of these or not, I'm just saying these are some of the restrictions over the decades.
Yet, here we are, once again, with the opposite side calling for more, more, more.
Is it any wonder why we are reluctant?
We have more guns per capita than any country on earth. Forget the stupid arguments for and against. They don't matter because guns are here to stay. We lack a unified resolve and without an autocratic system of government nothing will change. No meaningful GC will ever take place. We will continue to deal with these horrific shootings - really if a certified wackjob walking though a school and shooting kids does not cause any action what will ?
Don't like it ? Move to the countryside or to another country with no guns. Otherwise just live with it.
Help me understand something.....does the 2nd forbid liability insurance requirements for gun owners? Does it guarantee cheap guns and ammo? Does it allow for individuals to have a tank in their driveway? Rocket launchers? Drones? Does it define a militia as individuals? Just asking. I really don't think the writers of the 2nd got into that much detail. They could not have imagined.
It might benefit you a bit to read the "Federalist Papers" this will give you some insight as to the thinking of the founding fathers in the construction of the Constitution. Yes, they did go into detail about the 2nd amendment and why it is worded the was it is.
Due to, at the time, standing armies were always seen as a detriment to a free society, this is why the constitution puts the control of the military under civilian control and not military control. Knowing that freedom and liberty are fragile the founding fathers secured these freedom into the hands of the PEOPLE and not the government. To secure these freedoms WE the People are the "citizen" militia spoke about in the 2nd amendment, and the founding fathers suggested that the citizens and military be armed equally. Now I understand, at the time, the only fire arm that was used was the Brown Bess, but, the point is, should the government rise up against the people, WE the people, have the means to fight back.
Aside from assault weapons, I never said anything about "taking your guns." Keep all your handguns and rifles.
I want you to define for me the fundamental difference between the AR-15 and any other semi auto hunting rifle.
Quote:
All that is doing is ensuring that the person buying the gun is mentally sound ...
I want you to define for me what is mentally sound. This raises numerous issues. Firstly most people in the medical community are firmly on the anti gun side, who is it you are going to employ to make these decisions that can set their biases aside? Probably the most important issue I want you to address is how are you going to account for the person who may be feeling a little nutty and decides to not seek treatment because you are going to take their guns?
Quote:
It's so funny that you claim anti gun people don't use facts, yet I have already stated, with a link, that an armed civilian has NEVER stopped a shooting...
Firstly How many people were armed where these incidents have occurred? Secondly how do you determine if an incident was stopped if the person was shot dead?
Quote:
and refusal to compromise is a reason why 30,000 plus people are killed by guns in this country every year.
This number includes suicides, justifiable homicides etc. Murders accounted for about 8,500 of this number in 2013, down from about 9,200 in 2008. That's not anomaly, it's the trend.
The reason it happens is because our system is flawed. I mean a person can go ahead and kill several people and depending on the state and how likable that person is, he will either get several life sentences or the death penalty which it actually takes years to go through and when it does, we are so worried about how much pain the person will feel, his last wishes, etc, etc.
We need better penalties for such crimes. I say, with solid evidence and guilt admission, it shouldn't take too long. Implement a firing squad, hang them or simply use a guillotine. Since everyone is into the media now days, stream it live for everyone to see. "BUT THE KIDS" they may watch it. Well police your kids or actually teach them what happens if you kill somebody. I can guarantee the crime rate will dramatically go down.
People need to stop being so afraid and stand up for themselves. Gun control will never fix the problem, it will only increase gun smuggling and profit those who don't follow the law.
Tell me about one high-profile, modern mass massacre that was stoped by a legal "good" gun owner.. (Not law enforcement teams).
Go ahead and rack your brain to find JUST one.
I'll be waiting.
Because in most places that these d bags start showing are gun free zones or states where guns are very regulated. Very regulated to carry by people. Look if you don't want to carry a gun or shoot one ok. Don't own or shoot one. But what exactly gives you the right to stop ME from having the ability to defend myself or my loved ones and by extension of me being there at the location innocent people around me.
Come try to get a permit to carry a gun in LA or OC California. It's practically impossible. There was a change in the application process for OC Sheriff. I think they had over 5000 applications. Now they're back to the BS good cause reason.
Another reason why I want to carry is because it's inconvenient to carry a cop in my back pocket.
A criminal or bad guy doesn't care about laws. That's why they are criminals or bad guys. That's the part you don't get. I as a law abiding citizen follow laws. That's why I'm not a criminal or bad guy. You view gun owners as these blood thirsty savages just one step away from going nuts and getting ready to kill everyone.
You also don't understand that you simply cannot stop crazy people. You can make guns illegal. Btw how is the war on drugs going? I understand those are illegal too.
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.
