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.
I dunno. I come from New Jersey and grew up in a house full of guns (Dad was a hunter and had handguns as well). It's pretty much impossible to own an AR-15 there and almost no one has a CCW permit or permission to open carry except law enforcement. I live in Colorado now. My awareness of the difference between the two states is very acute.
I currently live within easy driving distance of multiple mass shooting sites, including two of the worst in our country's history (Columbine and Aurora). I grew up visiting some of the most violent cities in the country - Trenton, Newark and Camden. I was never worried because I was not going to the "bad" areas and I had no gang affiliations. People who get shot in New Jersey tend to either live in high-crime areas or hang out with the wrong people - gun violence is generally an outgrowth of very explainable social issues like environments involving poverty and drugs. It's tragic, but it's kind of understandable. I grew up privileged in that gun violence was something that it never even occurred to me to worry about, though I have friends who lived in bad areas who HAVE lost loved ones that way.
A few stats - New Jersey has a population density that is 24 times that of Colorado. It has twice as many guns in terms of raw numbers and is a very small state, so the density of the "gun" population is many times greater than in Colorado. Its gun violence rate is something like 3% vs. 2% for Colorado - given the density issues, I don't really consider that extra 1% to be significant. In fact, I think the rate of gun violence is remarkably low, considering.
Jersey also has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. People keep saying California has strict gun laws, but, um, you can still get an AR-15 legally there as well as an insane amount of ammunition. That's not "strict" by my definition. [And - let me digress for a moment - an essay I read by an ex-con once made the argument that he didn't see how someone like an Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner could have gotten his mitts on such a gun illegally since it requires a certain amount of social adeptness and stability to get through such a transaction. People selling illegal guns aren't going to take the chance on you if you seem flat-out crazy. I also actually know an ex-con who had some gang involvement, and he agrees with this. Not scientific data -just food for thought.]
When I first moved to Denver, I moved into what some generously termed a "marginal" area - I lived across from a crack house and the home next to the crack house was the hangout for a bunch of gang members who were doing some dealing based on the way cars were pulling up and pulling away minutes later all hours of the day. It wasn't exactly something that concerned me - I even let the crackheads in my house when they stopped by asking for money so they could see that I owned nothing of resale value, kept no cash on hand and that I had dogs that could deliver a nasty bite. I practiced being smart and alert when I was on the streets at night and kept my house well-lit. My area was bad, but there were worse areas. I didn't feel unsafe, but I also didn't get complacent. Doors were locked; outdoor lights were maintained; I kept to streets I knew well and where I was known when walking at night. Then Aurora happened and I started to consider the situation beyond my neighborhood and pay a little more attention to the news and where I went beyond my neighborhood.
Unlike Jersey, I feel like here in Denver you can't "escape" the threat of gun violence easily. It's not something you can avoid by virtue of working your way out of a bad neighborhood or only associating with "good" people. The somewhat seedy bar I frequented in my new "low-crime" neighborhood (and trust me, I spent a lot of time in horrendous dives in Jersey - this place is actually pretty nice) has had patrons pull guns inside, according to the waitresses I know there - something my friends who waited tables in Jersey never had to contend with. On a well-traveled mountain highway outside the city, a guy with an AR-15 type of gun just ran down the middle of the road spraying cars with bullets one day (and incidentally, in this well-armed state, no "good guy with a gun" ended this situation) while trying to carjack someone. Someone's been shooting people south of Denver in random incidents around I-25. Weird stuff like that happens all the time here and it was never anything I would have worried about in Jersey.
Look, I'm not anti-gun. I come from a family of hunters and am friends with a lot of gun owners. I think they are great for home defense and hunting, and I know how to shoot. But in my opinion, gun control works more often than it doesn't, and tightening up the standards for gun ownership across the board in this country would not be a bad thing at all.
Psych evaluations for anything more than your standard hunting equipment should be a given. Limits should be put on the amount of ammo you can own. Rules should be made on how the weapons are stored, with gun owners providing proof of proper storage. Written and practical tests should be administered before gun licenses of any kind are granted, with regular recertification required. All firearm transactions should be conducted at a licensed gun store or (if between individuals) at a government office - not at a gun show. There should be a national registry.
Excuse me, the federal government helps fund the Oregon Health Plan and in 2011-2012 Oregon Health Plan funded over 4,000 abortions. So tell me again the government doesn't fund abortions.
I dunno. I come from New Jersey and grew up in a house full of guns (Dad was a hunter and had handguns as well). It's pretty much impossible to own an AR-15 there and almost no one has a CCW permit or permission to open carry except law enforcement. I live in Colorado now. My awareness of the difference between the two states is very acute.
I currently live within easy driving distance of multiple mass shooting sites, including two of the worst in our country's history (Columbine and Aurora). I grew up visiting some of the most violent cities in the country - Trenton, Newark and Camden. I was never worried because I was not going to the "bad" areas and I had no gang affiliations. People who get shot in New Jersey tend to either live in high-crime areas or hang out with the wrong people - gun violence is generally an outgrowth of very explainable social issues like environments involving poverty and drugs. It's tragic, but it's kind of understandable. I grew up privileged in that gun violence was something that it never even occurred to me to worry about, though I have friends who lived in bad areas who HAVE lost loved ones that way.
A few stats - New Jersey has a population density that is 24 times that of Colorado. It has twice as many guns in terms of raw numbers and is a very small state, so the density of the "gun" population is many times greater than in Colorado. Its gun violence rate is something like 3% vs. 2% for Colorado - given the density issues, I don't really consider that extra 1% to be significant. In fact, I think the rate of gun violence is remarkably low, considering.
Jersey also has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. People keep saying California has strict gun laws, but, um, you can still get an AR-15 legally there as well as an insane amount of ammunition. That's not "strict" by my definition. [And - let me digress for a moment - an essay I read by an ex-con once made the argument that he didn't see how someone like an Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner could have gotten his mitts on such a gun illegally since it requires a certain amount of social adeptness and stability to get through such a transaction. People selling illegal guns aren't going to take the chance on you if you seem flat-out crazy. I also actually know an ex-con who had some gang involvement, and he agrees with this. Not scientific data -just food for thought.]
When I first moved to Denver, I moved into what some generously termed a "marginal" area - I lived across from a crack house and the home next to the crack house was the hangout for a bunch of gang members who were doing some dealing based on the way cars were pulling up and pulling away minutes later all hours of the day. It wasn't exactly something that concerned me - I even let the crackheads in my house when they stopped by asking for money so they could see that I owned nothing of resale value, kept no cash on hand and that I had dogs that could deliver a nasty bite. I practiced being smart and alert when I was on the streets at night and kept my house well-lit. My area was bad, but there were worse areas. I didn't feel unsafe, but I also didn't get complacent. Doors were locked; outdoor lights were maintained; I kept to streets I knew well and where I was known when walking at night. Then Aurora happened and I started to consider the situation beyond my neighborhood and pay a little more attention to the news and where I went beyond my neighborhood.
Unlike Jersey, I feel like here in Denver you can't "escape" the threat of gun violence easily. It's not something you can avoid by virtue of working your way out of a bad neighborhood or only associating with "good" people. The somewhat seedy bar I frequented in my new "low-crime" neighborhood (and trust me, I spent a lot of time in horrendous dives in Jersey - this place is actually pretty nice) has had patrons pull guns inside, according to the waitresses I know there - something my friends who waited tables in Jersey never had to contend with. On a well-traveled mountain highway outside the city, a guy with an AR-15 type of gun just ran down the middle of the road spraying cars with bullets one day (and incidentally, in this well-armed state, no "good guy with a gun" ended this situation) while trying to carjack someone. Someone's been shooting people south of Denver in random incidents around I-25. Weird stuff like that happens all the time here and it was never anything I would have worried about in Jersey.
Look, I'm not anti-gun. I come from a family of hunters and am friends with a lot of gun owners. I think they are great for home defense and hunting, and I know how to shoot. But in my opinion, gun control works more often than it doesn't, and tightening up the standards for gun ownership across the board in this country would not be a bad thing at all.
Psych evaluations for anything more than your standard hunting equipment should be a given. Limits should be put on the amount of ammo you can own. Rules should be made on how the weapons are stored, with gun owners providing proof of proper storage. Written and practical tests should be administered before gun licenses of any kind are granted, with regular recertification required. All firearm transactions should be conducted at a licensed gun store or (if between individuals) at a government office - not at a gun show. There should be a national registry.
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.
Firstly, how many of these cases was there someone present with a gun? None?
Secondly, how do you prove what could of happened when someone is shot dead?
Let me ask you this, during the Paris attack when those terrorists were systematically shooting people one by one if there had been someone there with a gun would 100 people have been killed? You can't answer that question and neither can I. A gun guarantees nothing, it's like wearing a seat belt. It may save your life or it may not.
Actually drunk driving has been cut in half since 1980 when MADD first appeared and started their fight against it. The heftier punishments and zero tolerance laws have worked quite well.
Sober people still have to go to driving school, they still have to pass a driver's test, they still have to buy insurance and register their cars and renew their driver's license. Sober people still have to abide by traffic laws and are expected to drive safely. Should we get rid of all those things because a few bad apples decide to drink and drive or speed down the highway and run stop lights? No. Because traffic laws reduce traffic accidents. Drunk driving laws reduce the amount of drunk drivers. Gun control reduces gun violence.
If you want to go down that path murder rates have been more than halved since the 90's.
Excuse me, the federal government helps fund the Oregon Health Plan and in 2011-2012 Oregon Health Plan funded over 4,000 abortions. So tell me again the government doesn't fund abortions.
Excuse me, but if you read the link it says federally funded clinics that preform abortions must keep the funding separate.
Oregon made that ruling at the STATE level and it's only for women living in poverty, not just anyone.
I find it humorous that gun advocates swear intense gun control will never occur. [Cue me laughing so hard!]
It will be done, the groundwork is currently being laid down (Step 1: encourage the biggest bulk of citizens into feeling unprotected, violated and helpless. Step 2: social unrest begins. Step 3: lawmakers will step in to assure guns are being harder and harder to acquire. Step 4: it will then eventually become a crime to own assault weapons. It could take 10 or 20 years before we get through these steps, but it will evolve into this.). Easy, easy. Step one is already well under way.
Again you are living in a fantasy world.... such tactics you describe worked for example with smoking in public places. Smoking however isn't spelled out as a right in the Constitution with repeated SCOTUS rulings reaffirming that right. You might as well be saying you are going to be able to limit the freedom of speech.
Again you are living in a fantasy world.... such tactics you describe worked for example with smoking in public places. Smoking however isn't spelled out as a right in the Constitution with repeated SCOTUS rulings reaffirming that right. You might as well be saying you are going to be able to limit the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is limited. Not much, but it is. The restrictions were created to protect people.
Quote:
The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains. "Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak.
In summary, your chances of getting killed in a mass shooting are still about the same as getting hit with lightning. It's like Shark attacks. It just sounds really scary but not very likely.
I think this is what people tell themselves to cope.
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.
