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 guess 24 hours for some to answer a question, even after answering other questions that were asked after I asked my question is really really really really hard for people, when they don't tell the truth....
My first question is how many of the 71% are second time offenders, because leniency upon first offense is generally granted, and I'm not sure that isn't appropriate. No doubt the statistics, circumstances and sentences change upon second offense and thereafter, but here again, either way, we're treating the effect rather than the cause. The U.S. already has just as exceptional an incarceration rate as it does a gun violence rate after all...
I like to look at the cause and reason there is a 2nd amendment in the first place, then you have the answer to the cause of gun deaths.
Those that wish to oppress another, find out quick, they may be the last words or actions they do on this earth.
I personally can only be oppressed by someone with a gun. Unarmed people cannot say the same.
Again with these sorts of arguments that are somewhat remedial, right? I mean of course making things illegal doesn't necessarily stop them from happening, but where does that reasoning take us? No point in having laws that make things illegal? Think a bit and you've got to realize that these laws are what allows law enforcement officials to pursue, apprehend and possibly incarcerate people who do illegal things, right? These laws also cause people to think a bit more as well, perhaps inclined to avoid such persecution and incarceration. Need this really be explained? How many burglars, for example, think better not to burglar with a gun given the penalty of committing a crime with a gun? Would be interesting to know...
Just as ridiculous is the claim that these laws don't matter simply because "those who want to kill will kill." So what? Murder should not be a crime?
I really don't know what to make of these "arguments" most of the time. They don't make much sense at face value and defy the obvious fact these laws have effect and are on the books for a reason, yet...
PS: Again, guns are the weapon of choice also for a reason.
When there are no guns what will be the weapon of choice?
The problem with your logic here is that criminals will still have guns. Only law abiding citizens will have given theirs up. What do you think that will accomplish?
My point is that you can't stop those who want to kill from killing. Nowhere did I say we should make murder legal. I simply said you can't stop those who are determined to kill. They will find a way. Making guns illegal won't work. Why pass laws that won't work? What I'm saying is outlawing guns simply will not work. You only disarm the law abiding citizen you had nothing to fear from in the first place.
Did you read the link I posted on shootings? Most aren't using legal guns. The problem is you want a simple answer to a complex problem. I WISH outlawing guns would work. I know it won't so I'm not wasting my effort on trying to make guns illegal. According to the data I posted you're 6 times more likely to use your gun to defend yourself than you are to get shot by a legal weapon used to commit a crime.
That said, I'm all for gun safety training, background checks and waiting periods. I'd be for requiring a gun safe in any home that has a gun. I'm not for any more gun control than that because gun control won't stop people from killing.
Yes you're right guns are the weapon of choice for a reason but the reason has nothing to do with guns. It's psychological and speaks to the mind of the killer not the nature of guns.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-07-2016 at 04:58 PM..
When there are no guns what will be the weapon of choice?
The problem with your logic here is that criminals will still have guns. Only law abiding citizens will have given theirs up. What do you think that will accomplish?
My point is that you can't stop those who want to kill from killing. Nowhere did I say we should make murder legal. I simply said you can't stop those who are determined to kill. They will find a way. Making guns illegal won't work. Why pass laws that won't work? What I'm saying is outlawing guns simply will not work. You only disarm the law abiding citizen you had nothing to fear from in the first place.
Did you read the link I posted on shootings? Most aren't using legal guns. The problem is you want a simple answer to a complex problem. I WISH outlawing guns would work. I know it won't so I'm not wasting my effort on trying to make guns illegal. According to the data I posted you're 6 times more likely to use your gun to defend yourself than you are to get shot by a legal weapon used to commit a crime.
That said, I'm all for gun safety training, background checks and waiting periods. I'd be for requiring a gun safe in any home that has a gun. I'm not for any more gun control than that because gun control won't stop people from killing.
Yes you're right guns are the weapon of choice for a reason but the reason has nothing to do with guns. It's psychological and speaks to the mind of the killer not the nature of guns.
I read through these comments since last I had a chance, and it's almost as if we're talking different languages...
Nothing I have written should suggest all these conclusions or responses. The fact that guns are the weapon of choice, whether for hunting or just plain killing, should not lead to this question or notion about "when there are no guns," for example. What makes guns the weapon of choice is why the problem of gun violence in America is the problem it is, that's all. The superiority of guns as a weapon is not an argument all guns be taken away, but somehow this manner of logic and reason is lost here.
I won't go into all the rest, because again I don't have the time and it always seems pointless, but this morning I did read this that touches upon another argument made in these gun threads that sure enough is mostly fantasy rather than fiction for those making the argument. This notion about how civilians with guns helps fight crime to any negligible degree statistically speaking (personal anecdotes notwithstanding).
"Most armed citizens fare worse than their police counterparts. In an independent study commissioned by the National Gun Victims Action Council, researchers put 77 participants with varying levels of firearms training through three realistic self-defense scenarios. In the first, seven of the participants shot an innocent bystander. Almost all of the participants in the first and second scenarios who engaged the “bad guy” were killed. And in the final scenario, 23% of the participants fired at a suspect who didn’t actually pose a threat."
"Overwhelming empirical evidence corroborates the simulation. Of the 160 active shooting incidents identified by the FBI from 2000 to 2013, only one was stopped by an armed civilian. In comparison, two were stopped by off-duty police, four by armed guards and 21 by unarmed civilians."
There is other interesting to read in this article (though LA Times) for those who might prefer not beating to death and/or repeating the same old about the 2A, bullies vs non-bullies, fighting tyrannical governments, no guns and the rest of the nonsense...
I live in an area with high gun ownership. Yet there is virtually NO gun crime. According to the anti-gun crowd, this is impossible.
Another perfect example of the nonsense...
I would not describe myself as part of the "anti-gun crowd," and I won't suggest I can speak for other than myself, perhaps just willing to consider both sides of this complex issue, but I doubt anyone worth considering has seriously argued a high gun ownership area must necessarily also be a crime area. This sort of straw man argument is exactly what I'm talking about, the inability to "connect the dots" sensibly.
Higher rates of crime generally occurs where there are higher rates of poverty and joblessness, and then the access and/or higher prevalence of guns in the hands of violent offenders takes its toll.
"What role do gun control laws play in these statistics? It’s difficult to say. One news report that compiled these same CDC numbers on firearm death rates, by 24/7 Wall Street and published by USA Today, listed several reasons besides gun laws that these states might have high rates of gun deaths (suicides included). Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult."
"But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote."
My first question is how many of the 71% are second time offenders, because leniency upon first offense is generally granted, and I'm not sure that isn't appropriate. No doubt the statistics, circumstances and sentences change upon second offense and thereafter, but here again, either way, we're treating the effect rather than the cause. The U.S. already has just as exceptional an incarceration rate as it does a gun violence rate after all...
We are not treating the effect rather than the cause... These people are the cause.
Guns are not the cause, guns don't inspire violent crime, violent criminals use the gun as a tool to perpetrate violence.
Segregate violent criminals so they don't create more victims.
Our rate of incarceration should have no bearing on the way that we pursue violent crime cases.
Your are in favor of leniency for a man that puts a gun to someones head to mug them.... as long as its their first time.... interesting.
We are not treating the effect rather than the cause... These people are the cause.
Guns are not the cause, guns don't inspire violent crime, violent criminals use the gun as a tool to perpetrate violence.
Segregate violent criminals so they don't create more victims.
Our rate of incarceration should have no bearing on the way that we pursue violent crime cases.
Your are in favor of leniency for a man that puts a gun to someones head to mug them.... as long as its their first time.... interesting.
I've been pondering this article by Scott Adams. Submitted for your comment:
We are not treating the effect rather than the cause... These people are the cause.
Guns are not the cause, guns don't inspire violent crime, violent criminals use the gun as a tool to perpetrate violence.
Segregate violent criminals so they don't create more victims.
Our rate of incarceration should have no bearing on the way that we pursue violent crime cases.
Your are in favor of leniency for a man that puts a gun to someones head to mug them.... as long as its their first time.... interesting.
Another remedial lesson about how it's people not guns that are cause for violence? Please...
Any idiot knows that guns don't do the thinking or want to kill anyone, that's people, yes.
Addressing the cause is a bit more what the article is about that begins this thread and the fact that guns make it so easy for people to act lethally aggravates the problem, much like a well armed militia is more powerful than one that is not, though again, the arms are not the ones doing the killing -- again, duh.
The rest of your comment makes little sense to me, and/or I'm not sure what more law enforcement officials can do to stop violent criminals beyond adding more law enforcement officials. How our rate of incarceration can have "no bearing on the way we pursue violent crime" is beyond me, since the rate of incarceration is often cited as the reason incidents of crime has declined in America. Indeed, there is something to be said for getting violent offenders off the street.
However, the CAUSE of violence is complex and varied, and as any well reasoned strategy to reduce such crime makes somewhat obvious, what can and should be done in the way of preventative measures is just as complex and varied. Again, as included in the article...
"The violence, rooted in segregation, unemployment, mass incarceration, and the “war on drugs”, can seem like a hopeless and intractable problem. But decades of justice department-funded research has identified several promising strategies for reducing gun violence – not over the long term, but immediately, in a matter of months.
Cities that have done in-depth analyses of their gun violence problem have found something surprising: the majority of violence is driven by a very small number of young men. In Oakland, for instance, just 1,000 members of a few active street groups were responsible for most of the city’s homicides. The violence was not fueled by turf wars or drug business, for the most part, but by long-running feuds and arguments among loose groups of young men engaged in other illegal activities.
Communicating directly with these young men – and offering both assistance and intense law enforcement attention – led to an immediate drop in violence. This “ceasefire” or “focused deterrence” strategy, first launched in Boston in 1996, requires coordination between police departments, prosecutors and community members in the neighborhoods most affected by violence."
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.
I simply said you can't stop those who are determined to kill. They will find a way. Making guns illegal won't work. Why pass laws that won't work? 
