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.
Where did anyone say they want to take all your guns away? There is at least one mass shooting every day, not all of them are going to make the news.
The NRA is a huge problem. They make and spend tons of money ensuring that no gun regulations pass. They make money every time there is a mass shooting. They even had research on gun violence banned. BANNED! Why do you think that is? It's because they don't want the public to know the truth.
Even the strictest laws won't stop every crazy person from doing violent crazy things. No one believes that, no one expects it, but why make it so easy for them? If we pass a few laws and reduce overall gun violence by even just 20 or 30% and cut mass shootings in half, well then we have saved some lives now haven't we? I agree that income and opportunity inequality are a factor, but guns are too and it DOES matter.
(1) where in my post did I say I thought the goal was to take all my guns away? I didn't. And since I have never owned one, its moot.
(2) The NRA is an advocacy group for gun owners. They are not evil. Unless of course you would like to take away the first amendment rights of gun owners, you can't expect them to stand by and have their second amendment rights slowly eroded away.
(3) And there is no evidence that passing more gun laws in the US will reduce overall violence. Has it worked in California? Detroit? DC? Philly? If you make them virtually legally unobtainable nationwide, do you really think we wouldn't see a flood of them entering the US from the various drug cartels to the south of us? And why does it matter to you how many guns and/or rounds of ammo you neighbor has? It doesn't to me.
(1) where in my post did I say I thought the goal was to take all my guns away? I didn't. And since I have never owned one, its moot.
(2) The NRA is an advocacy group for gun owners. They are not evil. Unless of course you would like to take away the first amendment rights of gun owners, you can't expect them to stand by and have their second amendment rights slowly eroded away.
(3) And there is no evidence that passing more gun laws in the US will reduce overall violence. Has it worked in California? Detroit? DC? Philly? If you make them virtually legally unobtainable nationwide, do you really think we wouldn't see a flood of them entering the US from the various drug cartels to the south of us? And why does it matter to you how many guns and/or rounds of ammo you neighbor has? It doesn't to me.
and Mele Kalikimaka from the Big Island!
1) That's what you implied in your other post.
2) You may to research who the NRA actually represents. Less than half of their funding comes from memberships, the rest comes from gun manufacturers who pay them to fight any and all gun legislation and to take the heat and handle the press when a shooting makes national headlines.
3) Seriously? There are mountains of evidence that prove gun regulations do work. The problem with gun "advocates" is that they
think that just because shootings haven't been obliterated, they are worthless, but if you look at the actual numbers and see that there has been significant REDUCTION in places with strict laws, then yeah they ARE working.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in almost 20 years. New Zealand hasn't had one in over 20 years. Norway had one in the span of a decade. The recent one in France was the first one in many years. We have one or more PER DAY. Who is doing things right?
Europe is could be flooded with guns from nearby nations, still gun violence isn't a problem there. Studies done show that when guns and even bullets are restricted, their black market value skyrockets, as much as $50 a bullet. Your average criminal doesn't have that kind of money to be blowing bullets away. Will SOME people still find a way. Yes. No one believes it will be 100% effective 100% of the time, but right now we make things too easy for them and our death toll clearly represents that.
I am for strict gun laws, but honestly I don't see a point in restricting the number of guns a person owns with a few stipulations, because if you are safe and can be trusted with one, more than likely you can be trusted with ten. However, the probablem lies with the people around you, whether they are friends, family members or acquaintances that have bad intentions know you have an arsenal or a criminal that breaks into your house and notices your collections and steals them then commits violent crimes with them. For these reasons, if you are going to have a bunch of guns you must prove that you are sane, have no criminal record, obtain licenses that must be renewed periodically (to ensure previous statuses haven't changed) and here's the big one: all your guns must be locked in a safe unloaded with ammunition locked in another safe in a separate location of your house. This is completely reasonable. These are hunting guns, so the "protection" excuse doesn't even apply here. If they are securely stored, you get to have your guns and I don't have to worry about someone taking them and doing things they shouldn't with them. If they do get stolen or if someone you know gets a hold of them and commits a crime with them, YOU gotta pay a price. This ensures responsibility from the owner.
So you would blame the victim of a burglary? I know of a recent burglary where the elderly couple didn't even know they had been hit until I knocked on their door and asked them to see if everything was still intact.
Your pipe dream doesn't even cover purchases such as if a felon gets his girlfriend to buy a weapon.
How does one prove they are sane? What "exam" are you proposing 150 million people have to take?
It's already a felony to steal weapons and commit crimes with them.
So you would blame the victim of a burglary? I know of a recent burglary where the elderly couple didn't even know they had been hit until I knocked on their door and asked them to see if everything was still intact.
Your pipe dream doesn't even cover purchases such as if a felon gets his girlfriend to buy a weapon.
How does one prove they are sane? What "exam" are you proposing 150 million people have to take?
It's already a felony to steal weapons and commit crimes with them.
Yes, because if your gun/s is locked away properly it can not get stolen. You would not be held responsible for the crime committed by the thief, but you would be held responsible for allowing your guns to get stolen. It's that "personal responsibility" thing conservatives are always harping about.
There are many countries like Japan and New Zealand that require a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun license. It's not a new idea.
If a straw man purchases a weapon and gives it to a felon and that felon commits a crime or gets caught with it, the buyer should also be charged for arming a criminal. Not hard.
Yes, because if your gun/s is locked away properly it can not get stolen. You would not be held responsible for the crime committed by the thief, but you would be held responsible for allowing your guns to get stolen. It's that "personal responsibility" thing conservatives are always harping about.
There is no safe so secure that a determined their cannot break into it. Your are holding crime victims to a standard that is simply impossible to meet.
How's that gun control thing working out in Colombia? Venezuela? Brazil? Mexico? Etc..?
Here is my rundown of Brazil from another thread. Reduction means they are working; reduction is progress.
Okay, for those who keep bringing up Brazil, here is the breakdown. Firstly it's not even a fair comparison, because Brazil is a third world country and the US is a first world country, but since you all insist.....
Gun control has had a life saving impact there. Is it still a problem, yes, but reduction is better than sitting around and doing nothing. And you all seem to be of the consensus that they are worse off than us, yet they are still trying to do something about.
Quote:
"From the analysed data, we concluded that the greatest impact of firearms control policies was their enormous capacity for preventing juvenile homicides. Young people represent 27% of the total population, but these policies helped to save the lives of 113,071 young people out of an overall total of 160,036. That is 70.7% of the averted deaths were young people", says Julio Jacobo
Per the article 95% of deaths are homicides. The remaining 5% are suicides, accidents or unknown causes of gunshot death. There was an increase in homicides in Aragolos (sp?) areas, but:
Quote:
The Southeast region decreased by 39.8% during the same period, driven by the states of São Paulo (-58.6%) and Rio de Janeiro (-50.3%).
So yeah it was effective at saving lives in two major states.
One problem Brazil has, is that they have a weak justice system and many gun violence cases are often just dropped. Gun crimes just aren't taken very seriously there, which also perpetuates the problem. The US is heading that way with more and more justified shootings through open/conceal carry and "stand your ground laws." Cops aren't even held to high standards for murdering people!
The NRA also can't seen to mind their own business and was instrumental in preventing a gun ban law in Brazil that was supported by 70% of residents in 2005. It would quite interesting to see where Brazil would be today if they hadn't intervened (and don't venture a guess on this unless you can back it up with data).
Now you give me a run down on gun laws in one of these countries Australia, New Zealand, or Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
There is no safe so secure that a determined their cannot break into it. Your are holding crime victims to a standard that is simply impossible to meet.
This is a policy in other countries that works successfully.
A solid gun safe would take a lot of time to break into. Hours or even days of work. Thieves are not going to stand around a stranger's house all day trying to beat a safe open. It's too risky. But if it makes you feel better, we can make a stipulation that if your guns are stolen and your safe is beat to death and someone else's fingerprints are on it, you get a pass.
Blah blah blah. Look at total homicide rates in the UK versus Switzerland. (hint, UK rate is higher.) And quit fixating on "mass shootings". Total US crime rates have been declining for the past 25 years. And the NRA members are a very law abiding group. (Cherry picking data is soooo much fun, isn't it?)
If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. Stop living in fear that if I have one I am a threat to you. Actually I'm the nicest old guy you'd ever want to meet.
Where did anyone say they want to take all your guns away? There is at least one mass shooting every day, not all of them are going to make the news.
The NRA is a huge problem. They make and spend tons of money ensuring that no gun regulations pass. They make money every time there is a mass shooting. They even had research on gun violence banned. BANNED! Why do you think that is? It's because they don't want the public to know the truth.
Even the strictest laws won't stop every crazy person from doing violent crazy things. No one believes that, no one expects it, but why make it so easy for them? If we pass a few laws and reduce overall gun violence by even just 20 or 30% and cut mass shootings in half, well then we have saved some lives now haven't we? I agree that income and opportunity inequality are a factor, but guns are too and it DOES matter.
How is that different than say.... the planned parenthood lobby? Or the teacher's union lobby? The teamsters? Or the World Wildlife fund? I can name about 1000 lobbies than have at some point been violent, had violent protests, endorsed murder and harming of others, you need to open your eyes and start seeing that even the lobby groups on your side of the argument are part of the problem.
I'm assuming that by saying there's a mass shooting every day, you are talking about gang violence? Because, when I do my research, the only "daily" mass shootings taking place in this country are done by juvenile gangs, with an occasional terrorist or crazy person thrown into the mix every once in a while.
The solution to curbing mass shootings on the juvenile gang level has nothing to do with gun control. The reason they shoot each other is to control "turf" in order to sell drugs. Legalize the drugs, bring back manufacturing (to give these kids jobs), and start to re-introduce religion and family structure into their lives, and maybe, just maybe they stop shooting each other by the dozens.
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.
