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.
There should be no restrictions on private sales of anything. Does absolutely nothing to prevent the sale anyway, and there is absolutely no way to enforce a law like that if there was one.
Can you tell us how you would enforce that Law, if you didn't know about the sale in the first place? Are you really naïve enough to believe that any individual is going to "Not" sell his gun, if he wants to, because you made a Law that says he can't ?
Besides, no one can tell me how Gun Registration saves lives anyway. I could go buy a gun, and shoot a dozen people with that registered gun, then take it home and put it away. End of Story. Where did "Registration" help?
I am not talking about gun registration. I am talking about the purchase of guns. If you think that requiring a background check for the transfer of guns between two people neither of whom is a dealer is useless, then all gun background checks must be useless, right?
Until you rid society of the people committing the crimes you will have crime by whatever means.
It will happen, but not in any of our lifetimes. There are two main paths that will get us there: 1) a post-scarcity society (let's call this utopia) and 2) a post-annihilation world (we could call this dystopia but what I really mean is everyone's dead).
There are several routes to either one. In the meantime we're going to have crime and violent crime. We're also going to have over one hundred million illegal / unregistered guns in existence.
Were you the one that posted the two graphs that showed spikes in gun deaths in America vs other "developed" countries? If so, I think it's a good start for a discussion, but I didn't see you post up a graph showing the overall murder rates in the same countries, regardless of object used.
That missing graph answers a very important question:
Are people in other countries just as violent, just choosing other methods to kill? Or do guns make it "too easy", so all gun-less countries are safer?
According to the gun ban advocates, the availability of legal guns leads to more murders. Clearly that has not been the case.While I do agree that the drop in murder rates has been a complex process, there's a very clear picture here - more legal guns, less murders. Not more murders.
Quote:
Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.
"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.
I have three comments:
(a) "Many other countries" do not allow their citizens to possess an unlimited stockpile of assault weapons.
(b) As someone has said, the second amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia," but who exactly are these militia, since we now have the National Guard and state militias fulfilling this role? (c) America values the right of someone to own an unlimited number of guns more than the right of someone to be protected from being murdered. That is apparent.
Then you need to get out more. I live in the wine country. A LOT goes on to combat drunk driving.
Conversely, nothing goes on to combat gun violence. NOTHING. The gun freaks won't allow ANY sensible measures to even be discussed, as is exampled by this thread. So ultimately, the discussion will be taken out of your hands when enough people are killed and the majority that rules this country is sufficiently fed up. And when that happens, you people will have no one but yourselves to blame.
And yet drunk driving deaths still occur. A LOT.
Which just proves that point that doing "something" (even though liberals never quite know what that something is) about gun violence will probably result in deaths still happening. Look at Australia. They grabbed guns, and the mass murder rate stayed virtually the same. The only difference was that the method of killing changes from guns to fire, knives and beatings.
The same can be said about deaths from drunk driving, drugs and domestic abuse. Why no screaming about those deaths?
There has been plenty of screaming on those topics, and there has been lots of legislation aimed at helping law enforcement do their jobs and solve those problems. I guess that you didn't notice means that the legislation you're so afraid of did nothing to infringe on your rights. Interesting.
In the meantime we're going to have crime and violent crime. We're also going to have over one hundred million illegal / unregistered guns in existence.
Which brings us all back to the original, "Meh, stuff happens" response to mass murders in our schools.
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.
