REAL MAN TRUCKWORKS & SURVIVAL
WEAPONS => Firearms => Topic started by: TexasRedNeck on October 11, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
-
Aside from the oft quoted mantra, that Gun Control is hitting what you aim at, I wanted to seriously open up to factual data and other points of view and discuss Gun Control in a rational fact based manner.
I believe that the founding fathers knew and had experienced first hand the oppressive yoke of government. The 2nd amendment is clearly meant for the individual and not a militia, and it is intended to be the one thing that stands between us and a tyrannical government. Not only does the constitution illustrate this, but period writings of the founding fathers, and history tells us as much.
I believe that history has shown the utter and complete failure of laws intended to deter law breakers.
Mexico: Strict gun control laws. Some of the worst gun violence in the world from drug cartels with full auto weapons and other military hardware.
Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit: Worst gun violence in the US despite strictest gun laws.
The examples of the lack of correlation between gun laws and violence is well documented here:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/
GB confiscated weapons in 1977 and gun violence has escalated greatly since.
Switzerland requires every home to own a military rifle and ammo....and has one of the lowest crime rates.
It should be noted that all the mass murders with a firearm of late, happened in locations that guns were prohibited. Schools, colleges, movie theaters, etc.
Don't see much in the way of mass murders at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, etc. Coincidence? I think not.
Someone please offer some alternate views on gun control that would be effective in stopping gun violence.
-
If you the suicide numbers into their own category and stop using them twice, don't count gang or drug violence, there is probably no story here. The grabbers/liberals/socialist can't allow that to happen in the name of "they know what is best for us all." There are many effective, unenforced laws on the books now.
http://mic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced
We also have the soft on crime folks. All of the plea bargains and such remove the deterrent effect from the Justice system. Prison is a big industry already, but look at what it would be if all of the laws were enforced. Defense folks and defendants families decry over charging suspects but, if all of the charges that could be levied were, imagine how many crimes wouldn't happen as the suspect would still be in for the punishment of his last crime or deported and not back here illegally. There is a deterrent effect in having armed citizens that leaves the criminals guessing. What would happen if they thought there would be a harsh penalty for their crime?
Here is a word from Uncle Joe Biden: We don't have the time or manpower to enforce the existing laws, so we need to make new ones.
http://humanevents.com/2013/01/18/biden-we-cant-enforce-the-old-laws-so-we-need-more/
-
There are over 20,000 gun laws now. A few more won't hurt, and will not be enforced. Kinda sounds like immigration huh?
Honestly, plea bargains are not all bad. It is a win without the expense and have to be approved by judges. Bad part is to many judges are soft on crime.
-
I agree that not all are bad. It is generally the soft on crime problem. The answer to fighting crime is not to stop fighting or let it go unpunished.
-
I agree that not all are bad. It is generally the soft on crime problem. The answer to fighting crime is not to stop fighting or let it go unpunished.
Who would not agree with that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,liberal
-
Prison is not a deterrent when the ACLU requires no forced labor. Air conditioning, cable TV, exercise yards, and gender change surgery...
-
Federal prisoners get 6 days a month good time (with afore mentioned amenities) and our military folks only get 2.5 days a month leave. See anything wrong?
-
OK This post hasnt taken the track I wished.
Let me practice a different technique. I will take the role of the gun control advocate and you guys beat me down.
If Australia can go it so can we....
http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10
-
The numbers can be cooked to make your argument. Especially for the low information got my free stuff voters. The grabbers will not waste an opportunity to lie in your face but occasionally they tell the truth. Diane fienstine said during the debate for the Clinton ban that if she could get 51 votes on the floor of the Senate she would take all of the guns.
See the link from Joe bidden above to see the liberal grow the government take care of everyone because we know best mentality.
I can tell them that I can think for myself and the First Amendment says that I have the right (not just a right but a duty) to speak up and the Second says I can have a weapon to defend myself doing it.
-
Matt, no argument. But how about the specific success of what happened in Australia? Forget for a moment that we have and believe in the second amendment. How do you dispute the success there?
-
How is that success? It is almost totally illegal to own a gun and the death rate from guns only fell 59 %. It proves that criminals are not going to obey the law no matter what it says.
-
Only 59%?? That's 19,569 fewer deaths per year in the US (extrapolated from the Australian percentages). That is success.
-
There graph contains total deaths by firearms, which includes suicides and accidentals. That should be broken down and I don't feel like doing it. Shame on you proxy mr liberal !
I tried to copy a paragraph from that article for reference but couldn't ( the one that basically says that the downward trend is happening worldwide in developed countries). Go figure.
As far as mass shootings, our country just has the most mentally unstable numbnuts in the world. That's all.
( not much of an argument, but that's all I got !!)
Oh, we have a few graphs here in the states as well...here's a couple...one's a bit outdated but is on a downward trend for homicides:
-
If you'll take time to notice, the second gragh also shows a dramatic fall around the same year of the Australian buyback...1996
-
Sure, when you take what guns you can get easy there will be a big decline. But if so wonderful, why isn't it zero???
Have you noticed the so called shootings are more prominent in the last 6 years? As the nation gets divided more and the current guy up tops fuels the fire on every occasion possible? I think much of this is more the stress of that and the media being in his pocket.
Now what I would like to see is a graph with just murder rates, regardless of how.
-
It isn't success, it is an improvement however. Again, it is prove that a criminal will not follow the law.
Simply enforcing existing law would be a great start. After we execute that we evaluate any needs we may have.
-
I would love to see the existing laws enforced, say like for immigration too!!
Do you know that under current law for every 1 us born citizen, 7 are allowed to immigrate in the next 20 years!!!
Probably needs it own thread, but the 14th am does has nothing to do with giving citizenship to illegals? Only congress has the right to set the rules,,,,,,,,,,
-
After we EXECUTE all currently on Death Row, then with a 2 year window from initial conviction to application of sentencing (all appeals get fast tracked with no delays), going forward, our laws and deterrents will work just fine!
-
Contrarian RedNeck… :)
My 2cts. There is no doubt that if you removed ALL guns from the USofA that gun crime would drop. That would be possible if the Constitution was amended and laws were created and enforced to confiscate and then penalize those that possess guns. This would be followed by law abiding individuals. I have a feeling that it would create more non law abiding individuals but how many would be hard to say. It would probably take a couple of generations to confiscate all of the guns. They would work on the kids similar to smoking so it would be a negative social impression to want guns and encourage them to spend more time on video games or virtual guns.
Australia was a success in reducing gun events. The biggest impact was on suicides. They already had a very low murder rate so the actual reduction impact is statistically diminished. After the ban there were still mass killings. (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/devastated-lockhart-vows-never-again-after-hunt-family-murdersuicide/story-fnj3rq0y-1227057541426) (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/21/cairns-mother-charged-with-over-deaths-of-eight-children) (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-decade-on-childers-remembers-hostel-fire-tragedy-20100622-ywgx) They just elected to use a legal shotgun, knife or fire. Bad people do bad things.
Australia is also much different in what I would call the acceleration to violence or predilection to commit violent acts. They have very restrictive immigration and visa rules. You have to be a producing individual or have significant assets to relocate to Australia. No unfettered immigration is allowed. Being on an island doesn’t hurt as well. The income disparity is much less than in the US. The culture of entitlement I would imagine is much less. They probably don’t have Black Live’s Matter like initiatives that are teaching at Yale that it is ok to loot and vandalize property, attack or disrespect authority if you feel disenfranchised. I have never lived in Australia but from speaking to those who have, there is a country pride that they are hard workers and want to keep it that way. Heck they used to be a prison colony.
The US on the other hand has welcomed and financed millions of immigrants both legally and illegally. Our “refugee” classification and acceptance has been crazy over the past 30 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg&feature=share When you continue to hand out there is always a desire for more. People can justify just about anything now. We have white guilt that feels hard work and reward is not the goal for every individual. That stokes the flame of resentment of those that don’t have enough and feel like it is the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to provide what they need. If the GOV doesn’t do enough they can TAKE what they want. That is why you need self and property defense. Or I guess you could just give everything to them.
Back to gun confiscation. The USA is much different than most any other country is 1000 of ways. To compare us to any country is too simplistic and not relevant. Are the other countries built on the same foundation of the USA? No. We have evolved. The reason there is a USA today is because our fore fathers wanted to escape the very thing we are becoming now. That is why they wrote the Constitution and set up the governing bodies so it would be very difficult to change. They knew over time the have nots would overwhelm in population the haves and it would be detrimental to the nation.
Our rights and liberties are greatly infringed now vs 100 years ago.
If the Gun Confiscation activist were not so lazy (guns are easy pickens) they would actually take on Mental Health issue. No responsible, productive, god fearing, individual kills wantonly. If you drive through a neighborhood and shoot at everyone in sight, they are mentally deficient. If you walk in a church, theatre, gathering, etc… and shoot people you are mentally deficient. If you are quick to violence, you are mentally deficient.
There is way to determine if most individuals are potentially harmful to themselves or others. We just need a sane compassionate method of handling those individuals. Others you just let the gene pool cleanse itself.
-
Well written.
-
Yes, the contrarian Redneck
I'm tired of hearing: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” or “ Limiting guns will only lead to violent people simply using other methods of killing large numbers of people”
While it is true that guns are simply tools and have no ability to harm anybody on their own, the assertion that they have no part in the perpetration of violence is absurd.
If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.
Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.
There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderer’s weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:
Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).
Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.
Cars can been used to kill people but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you can’t exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).
A tool may simply be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn’t fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving a result. A man with a hammer and a man with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun certainly makes it more likely that the person will succeed, faster in their killing spree, and more likely to kill their specific targets.
Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. However, people with guns can easily and quickly kill a lot of people, while those who don’t have guns, cannot. In a country flooded with guns, the mass murderer (or simply the person who wishes to kill one person) is able to obtain their weapon easily and without much risk. Gun control laws may not be perfect, but they are a start on a long road towards a safer America
-
Yes, guns do give a person a sense of power which can lead to going over the top.
So lets throw in the media and games to the mix.
The media only really reports if the killings are over 4 people, otherwise it is just a blip on the news.
Throw all the first person shoot games in then. Rack up the points and you are famous.
Funny, when most of us grew up, we watched all the movies, played cowboys and indians, war and such.
Why aren't we out there killing by the droves??
-
While it sounds like a logical argument to assert that increased violence in games and culture could lead to increased violence in real life, this relationship has simply not been borne out in reality. Numerous studies, over many years, refute the idea that video games and movies are the cause of violence in society and the assertion that this correlation exists is simply incorrect.
The idea that gun violence is caused by media/video game brainwashing is a convenient solution for society and, most of all, for the gun enthusiast crowd. Society would much rather believe that violence is caused by external factors and that, if only we can remove violent video games, movies, and song lyrics, we can solve our society’s violence problems. If violent media can be blamed for gun violence, then we don’t have to deal with the complex web of psychological and societal issues that lead us to be violent. Those who love guns are particularly willing to fall into this solution, as it absolves them of having to deal with the gun problems within society and lets them blame gun violence on things which they don’t care about.
If you would refer to the below graph, you will see that the United States remains the gun violence outlier when we look at a comparison between video game consumption and gun crime.
Put plainly, our country consumes the very same video games which are distributed across much of the developed world—there isn’t a subset of violent “American” video games and sterilized “foreign” video games—yet it has far higher levels of gun violence than any other country. When we look at the evidence, the assertion that video games correlate with gun violence, simply is not supported by the evidence and is not a valid argument.
If you want further information about the lack of a statistical correlation between gun violence and video games, you can refer to the book “Grand Theft Childhood” by Cheryl Olsen and Lawrence Kutler—two Harvard Medical school professors.
Violent video games are a fact of life across the developed world and the idea that we will change the levels of violence within our society by altering our media consumption will only lead us to focusing on the wrong thing. If we are side-tracked in pursuing videogame and movie violence, we will likely miss the very simple solution to our real-life violence problem: our country is flooded with guns and it is very easy for violent people to gain access to weaponry.
Whenever somebody attempts to utilize this argument, the supporters of gun control should simply reject their argument on its face; direct these people to the studies that have debunked this correlation and refuse to engage in non-factual speculation. An argument not based upon the evidence will inevitably be flawed and it is not worth wasting time arguing over specious correlations.
-
Tex, you're being a little too convincing. It's hurting my head again.
-
Well, studies can be made to look however you want. I am not debunking them totally, just not falling for them hand over foot. I would look at who is paying for the study.
Then there are the studies and books about more guns less crime.
Most mass killings are done by someone who is an outcast, has obvious mental issues or on mood drugs. People keep guns around them or allow access to them.
Plus many are looking to be in the limelight or that 15 minutes of fame. That has been stated over and over.
Look at the movies. The bad guys are the good guys now. Going after cops is the thing to do. The current admin, so called preacher and community leaders are dividing much of the country and won't call terrorism what it is. They make speech's before the facts are in and place blame fast, but never call for calm.
I think people are just getting made at everything going on, some can't handle it, some have to react. But it is never the normal guy next door.
As for more gun violence, I would dispute the gun again is a tool. In countries that don't have easy access to guns, they are using bats, knives or whatever is handy.
Then look at advanced or industrialized nations with mass killings, we are not even in the top 5 and we have looser firearm laws than most.
-
I agree with you RN that if a gun is used in a crime then by all means it is part of the equation. I think the problem is the focused attention on the gun. You could do a search of all crimes and then parse out the topics for "Fixing" the crime problem. The great majority of the focus, discussion, remedies, spend money here, etc... would be on the instrument (gun) rather than what possessed the person to commit the act to start with. That is why I look at root cause to commit crime. The gun is the path of least resistance. People by nature will always take the path of least resistance if they have mental deficiencies. Why try to smother a crowd if I can use a gun. I would probably run into some resistance after the first one.
Then thing that always grinds me on crime stats is that they cast the wide net. Gangbangers shooting each other are equal to a suicide. When you look at the root cause for both they are so objectively different they shouldn't even be in the same data pool. But they are for GUN statistics.
RN, are you saying we should ask congress to remove the 2A? Or just being a contrarian :)
I honestly couldn't care less how someone gets killed. I am more interested in why. There are endless ways to kill people and for even more reasons. Is it OK to kill 100 thousand people with a nuke but not one gangbanger with a gun? Killing is killing. WHY they or we kill is the question. Self preservation, defense, lust, control, fear, etc... the instrument is almost irrelevant.
P.S. As far as video games creating or enhancing a violent behavior, I don't believe there is any link or causation at all. My comment about directing kids to safer fantasy worlds than reality just would be one vehicle to get them to abhor guns rather than embrace them. I think if you are mentally deficient and have homicidal fantasies then you could find video games to play where you could enjoy living out those fantasies. I don't think the video game would cause a normal well adjusted individual to commit murder. My son has played a wide array of video games for the past 8 years. Everything from COD to GTA. If he only focused on the killing of hookers in GTA that would worry me. I wouldn't blame GTA. I would blame his upbringing and personal character.
-
Interesting argument/presentation of information here
Interesting also from the perspective of how it illuminates how deep you all can go. Real intelligence here. Fact based argument, hinting at conclusion. You folks are showing up to play with well fed brains here!
Carry on...
-
Guns are low hanging fruit for politicians in this country. Not the real problem, but a tool occasionally used by those involved in all manner of symptoms of the sin problem. There has been a moral decay in this country over the last few generations.
We, as Americans, have become desensitized to taking lives in a number of ways. Liberals say that abortion is no big deal while it is accepted that especially in late term abortions, that the baby is viable. Millions of babys have been killed due to abortion. Planned Parenthood and other “women’s health clinic”, read abortion centers, receive hundreds of million dollars per year of government funding to carry out these abortions.
Media, to include songs, books, magazines, movies, video games, radio, internet, facebook and other sources demonstrate, not only is it ok to commit violent acts, but encouraged, even rewarded. Individual recognition and glorification are advertised. Individuals who are the best, “Worst” , are instantly hailed and glorified. Word is passed instantly now due to facebook and instant messaging worldwide. It is a badge of honor to have your video go viral. No matter the reason. Evening news is rarely about good stuff. When drivers move down the road, they never slow down to look at good things but will almost ask the officer to move so they can see the dead guy better as they pass and attempt to take selfies with him to be shared on facebook and twitter.
Drugs and gang related violence have made death, rape and other violent actions a daily news occurrence. We see it all of the time and it is almost taken for granted.
I am not saying that video games or other media make people do violent acts. I am saying that it gets us more accustomed to seeing and even taking part in violence and accepting it as part of our daily lives.
Suicide is terrible and affects not just the person committing it but the family also for generations.
Any time a gun is used for anything other than a good purpose, defense or deterrent, it is reported far and wide. Virtually no reporting is made or statistics kept of good usage. All numbers for bad gun usage, murder, suicide, accidental, are lumped into gun usage reports and statistics. Studies and reports are naturally slanted to the view of the sponsor/funding organization and usually have a predetermined outcome.
Lack of individual responsibility. This is brought about in our society by several factors. One of which is the breakdown of the family. In these situations, there is no stabile family structure to provide life skills and education/upbringing and the children are left to fend for themselves as the remaining parent struggles to support them or doesn’t through their own dependence on entitlement programs and or lifestyle choices. Another is the entitlement system. It was meant to be a short term helping hand. Not a way of life. This removes the self-reliance and motivation for improvement of those dependent on entitlement providers, ie, the government. There is nothing wrong with parents telling their kids that they are special. The danger comes when they are told that and it destroys relations with others as they attempt to treat others in a demeaning way like they are beneath them. Everyone is special in their own way but they are also part of the community and society as a whole, not above it. Laws and rules should be applied equally to all. In the event of an injustice, that is not an excuse for some people to act like laws and rules don’t apply to them or that there needs to be a lawsuit to ensure that they get treated exactly the way they want instead of the same as everyone else. This, above the law, rules don’t apply to me, I can do whatever I want to attitude is detrimental to good order and discipline and the ability to relate to others in society.
Grabbing guns is not about safety for a liberal. It is about control. It ensures that it is easier to control the population when they want to. It follows along with the entitlement system. See Katrina in New Orleans. Liberal Mayor has law enforcement go house to house to seize guns. They knew where to go due to registration requirements. This gets and keeps people lined up for Big Brother to provide what they need. It also consolidates victims so that criminals don’t have to work so hard.
If you look at Baltimore, Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago, California, they have the most restrictive laws and are the worst places for gun violence. Those facts are not the flashy, nightly news get a statement from a national Politician that you hear about. They make a quick, local news show and that is it. Where is the President concerning these issues in his hometown? It is run by a Democrat and the have the most draconian laws to no avail. There is no pass a law to feel better option for them, so they don’t talk about it.
Liberals don’t want to fix the problems that we have. They only want to tell you what they are going to do about it that the Republicans’ are preventing. Simply passing a knee jerk reaction law is enough for them. They then can move to something else worthy of their finest efforts. Otherwise, the laws that we already have on any number of subjects would be enforced.
My last point is, again, a friendly reminder that the only people affected are the law abiding citizens. Criminals, are by definition, not law abiding and don’t care how many laws you have or what they say.
-
Yes, concur, good points
-
Sure wish I could write as well as the posters on here. Mental issues seem to be the key words for most violent acts with guns lately. One that sticks in my mind is the kid from this area who was jolted by his girl friend so he takes the gun to school and takes care of the "problem". We do need to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental problems , but maybe if we spent more time with the kids and set some rules for them to follow we wouldn't have so many mental problems.
Many many years ago when I was growing up we also had the boy/girl friend issues and yes guns were just as easy to come by as now. The problem was taken care of after school behind the gym or in a back yard. Other than a fat lip and sore hands nothing bad happened. No charges were filled for bullying, assault, or whatever the local law enforcement/concerned parent could think up.
We were not able to head down town and march through the streets blocking traffic, breaking windows, costing the city money for crowd control, etc. because that was a right we had. We would have been on the chain gang cleaning up garbage or in the woods clearing trails, and living away from home for a while.
If we got into trouble at school, we not only had a problem there but when we got home. My son skipped school and was kicked out of school for a week for doing it. Really, skipped one day so they tried to give him another week off as punishment. My parents never had the cops show up because of abuse, they just did what parents did. If the cops did show up at a disagreement, most any disagreement, they tried to settle things down, and let everyone know if they were called back some one would be going to jail. Not haul everyone to jail just because they showed up.
We didn't break into the house down the road or shoplift from the store, bad things happened if we did. We were not shoved out of the house at 7AM to fend for ourselves, we spent time as a family or with friends families. We were held responsible for our actions and respected others property.
Gangs fighting or drive by shootings, well we didn't have much of that in my area. All lives mattered, as long as they weren't a threat to others, when they were a threat they were dealt with
If you think about it, it isn't my generation that is the problem. I don't think it is the video games, maybe the drugs, lack of caring, or not being held responsible for actions taken. I will keep my guns thank you very much and if needed I will use them.
-
I agree with a lot of what has been written here. My wife has a good comment for liberals on this issue that they are putting E (emotion) over I (intellect) instead of I over E which is what adults typically (and should) do. We expect adolescents to make bad choices because their brains are not done growing but with gun control activists its almost like they are still behaving this way. My wife also calls them perpetual adolescents for assuming that more gun laws will have any positive effect on gun violence.
Ultimately I think there are so many causes that most people come to the "gun control" position because they can't decide how to best truly solve the problem and won't allow themselves to "go there" because they have been brainwashed by the press and others on the issue. Add in a general fear over the object (that didn't exist 200 years ago where guns were in literally every home) and that just exacerbates the position. But the idea that mental health is a key contributor is one that gun control activists can't see solving (we can't take Johnny out of his parents home and lock him in an asylum) so they go to something else they "think" would work and that is the gun. Sadly the fact that this is all about emotion for them and not intellect is why they don't listen to the arguments and statistics that so favor reducing gun control as the solution to random violence. But it won't stop necessarily the mass shooting from starting, although certainly it might stop it sooner and with less carnage as we have seen (Clackamass Mall, Appalachian State) when MORE people in the area are armed. But again, they are relying purely on emotion so they ignore the realities.
I just think the more folks like John Lott and others do putting out more and more data on the issue I do think makes a difference. Look at the reaction from the local populace in OR after the recent shooting there. There was no handwringing about more gun control being needed in that community. I think the places where gun control are continuing to be pushed are in the liberal bastions in the country (CA, NY, MA, Chicago etc.). But ultimately the more those environs see the carnage continuing IN SPITE of strict gun control I think the message gets through. I am guessing a fair number of people in DC who were initially worried about the Heller decision have come to appreciate the fact that the murders have dropped by 54% in the 6 years since the decision was passed from the rate for the 14 years prior. Maybe as more things like this are discussion and more real information is presented people will start to see that it is mental illness not "guns" that are the problem. But until that occurs we all have to be wary of politicians using this issue to get elected. The cry of "someone should do something" is loud on issues like this and politicians craft messages to take advantage of the ignorance of their constituency.
-
Yup
-
Keep it coming:
Its a myth that if everybody were armed, we would all be safer
This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality.
Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence.
According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy.
To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks.
In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight.
In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.
-
Keep it coming:
Its a myth that if everybody were armed, we would all be safer
This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality.
Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence.
According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy.
To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks.
In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight.
In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.
Might be true, but...If all gun owners also had common sense and be responsible enough to properly store and use a gun, I would disagree with your statement. My home is safer with a gun being either on or close to me or in the safe. Don't break into my place and think you can do harm to me or my family without a fight and I am just too darn old to fight so I reserve the right to use deadly force against you.
-
The truth is, there just isn't enough data on the correlation between states with more gun laws and having a lower gun death rate, compared to a state that has a high gun death rate and also has lax laws. There is no way to prove that the laws have a positive, or negative, impact.
Then there's the incomplete data on firearm crimes. A city may have near zero homicides, but have a high number of assaults or robberies with a firearm, but they aren't reported the same (by PD) as homicides, and if it's not reported accurately, it will not show up in the statistics (FBI generated) which will falsely lower gun crime numbers for that city/state.
I haven't done a ton of research, but have picked up bits and pieces along the way. I don't think anyone, especially a person in politics and can influence millions (obummer, and others), should open their mouths about this subject without accurate and complete data, of which we don't have.
Everyone seems to care and focus on the deaths, but deaths is only a small part of the larger picture.
-
RN...do you stay awake night and day thinking about what to post on this thread or are you maybe leaning a bit to the left. Nope I think you stand straight up but sure are able to make a guy think about things. Everything posted fact or maybe a bit of fiction thrown in just for a good post?
-
The truth is that I am so far right I make Rush look like Bernie Sanders....
My purpose here is to expose us to the arguments of the bed wetting limp wristed liberals who fear what they don't understand. Role play if you will. I'm pulling arguments from their materials. These are the arguments you will have to face in the coming year of the most important election in our lifetime. We need to be prepared to discuss and hopefully convert a few moderates to our perspective.
I havent found a liberal yet that didn't light up like a kid with a new bike when you teach them to shoot.
-
Well friend, you are doing an excellent job.
-
I havent found a liberal yet that didn't light up like a kid with a new bike when you teach them to shoot.
Once they have passed the fear of 'Oh my...it really is a real gun' they all love it.
It's breaking them of the mindset that's the hard part.
We were picking up adult beverages when I was out in Ottawa this year, five of us standing outside with our team shooting shirts on. This libtard lady walks by and said "I hope those are paintball shirts." To five army guys at a shooting competition. It was complete stereo as we all said 'NO!" And laughed. Can't say I've ever seen such a look of fear come over someone so quickly.
And RN, you're sure playing devils advocate very well!
-
RN, You are doing a great job of being the devil’s advocate! :o
Response Underlined
Keep it coming:
Its a myth that if everybody were armed, we would all be safer : No 2A advocate is stating that “everybody” should be armed. Law abiding citizens should be armed if they wish. No one is forcing anyone to be armed. Once law abiding citizens are armed they can protect themselves, the ones they love, and their property.
This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality. Common sense and logic conclude that if I am a mental degenerate intent on committing violence I am going to target the weak and disadvantaged. See Chicago currently. They are disarmed and vulnerable. They will bypass someone that LOOKS able to protect themselves. No different than if a burglar is casing a neighborhood looking for opportunity. They are not going to pick the houses that have someone at home, a large dog, security system, good lighting, etc… no they are going to pick the best opportunity for success. If they are of the most violent type and don’t care about murder, their opportunity pool gets larger. If they know that house is protected by Smith & Wesson they will move on to another option if available.
Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence. Statistics like unemployment numbers can be manipulated by either terrible research, small data pools, agenda driven, reporting failures, etc.. Some statistics are better than other. Common sense typically trumps biased stats. If you are using stats from the Violence Policy Center you have no point at all. They have been proven to falsify data to make their point. They have an agenda and then make up or slant stats so it fits their narrative.
According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy. This whole statement is false because you are relying on bogus data. The VPC uses source data that was sponsored by Michael Bloomberg and many other agenda driven studies. Please use more creditable stats for your arguments. Bob Owens and John Lott do a great job of exposing VPC bias and agenda. It can be found here. http://bearingarms.com/fail-violence-policy-center-is-caught-fabricating-anti-gun-data-again-still/ and here https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-lives-deter-criminals-help-john-lott-start-the-cprc#/. I would also encourage you to read John Lott’s book found here. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493660/ref=nosim/?tag=johnrlotttrip-20. Unlike VPC and other Bloomberg’esk Gun Confiscation advocates. He uses FBI, State and Local Reports, rather than gun control lobby millions.
To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks. Once again, if you are using “research” data from gun control financed studies you do not have a valid point. I would be curious as to your source of household safety and gun ownership statements. Is it Bloomberg, VOX, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, Everytown (redundant), Giffords? There is no denying that there are negligent discharges or improper securement of firearms cases. That could be remedied with training and education. The last time I checked Bloomberg, Watts, or Brady spent zero dollars on that type of initiative. There are hundreds of un or under reported defensive firearm use actions each year as well. You are also stating that gun control activist should be the governing body that decides whether a US Citizen can defends themselves with a firearm. That is not constitutional. And at some point people just have to take responsibilities for their actions.
In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight. Your lynch pin argument that you base everything on top of is your reference to “more guns don’t make us safer”. If your basis argument is false all assumptions placed on top of that foundation would be false also. I would challenge you to locate an incident where a LEGAL concealed carry holder made the situation WORSE in a gun fire exchange. There are millions of CCL individuals. If you can find examples of CCL making the situation WORSE I would like to see them. There are 100 examples of CCL individuals making a positive impact on a very bad situation. You can find some of them here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/ actual articles taken from local news. Not censored by MSM. Please find where the CCL made the situation WORSE.
In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes. Once again you are falsifying the claim that gun advocates are stating “everyone” should be armed. Untrue. Your logic falls apart based on simple offense vs defense fact. Iran wants to and has been offensive. Pro 2A have been defensive. Can you please point to the millions (or macro–equivalent)of Concealed Carry, 2A, pro gun advocates that are chanting Death to “ pick any spot on the globe”? I can’t recall any. Or that same group intent of overthrow or civilized nations, or purging of Christians, beheadings, immolation, creating a Caliphate, etc.. Legal, Responsible, pro 2A only want their rights and opportunity for defense protected from confiscation.
This is why I hesitate to post most of the time... ::)
-
Enforcing existing laws is the start. Democrats are crying about the republicans wasting tax payer dollars to hold committee meeting on the IRS and Bengazi but want to do the same thing on guns to have more laws. Joe Biden says we don't have time or resources to enforce the existing laws. Doesn't quite pass common sense test for a simple man..
One of the problems with the instant check system is that information is not uploaded by the states. This was an unfunded mandate by the federal gov't. Another is the privacy issues with reporting mental health stuff to the NCIC system.
Another issue is the meddling by the federal government in states affairs. If California wants to act one way, why should that be any concern for the residents in the great state of (whatever other of the 49 you want to insert here)? Just like fashion, music, recreation and many other things, I don't really care what they are wearing or what they think is cool in LA or NYC. I am comfortable being my own man and doing my own thing and raising my boys to do the same. Like Barbara Mandrell said, I was country when country wasn't cool. It would be nice to have reciprocity for carrying/traveling however. Those are agreements between the states, not a list the federal government holds.
-
Nice job Cruizing....that lefty don't know nothin' !!! :poketex
-
Man, you guys are good.
Regarding the myth that gun laws don’t work because they make it so only criminals have guns...
This argument is probably the best one in the arsenal of the gun enthusiast, but it too, is not really a good reason to obstruct gun control. If laws are irrelevant because criminals will simply ignore them, then there is no purpose for any laws and no potential for a safe society.
Ultimately, simple gun laws will not prevent all gun deaths, but they will gradually reduce gun violence. Gun laws will reduce the amount of guns to be sold and will help prevent them from being sold to criminals and the mentally ill. As guns are harder to obtain legally and illegal guns become harder to come by (when more guns are confiscated by the police or are used in murders and disposed of then are put onto the street), it will become harder for criminals to find access to clean guns.
Restricting guns may not immediately stop hardened criminals from obtaining weapons, but it would help stop insane and violent people from getting them easily. Mentally ill shooters that kill large numbers of random people are often disturbed loners who would have a difficult time obtaining a gun if not for legal channels—this isn’t to say that they wouldn’t eventually find a way, but it would make it more difficult.
We see that gun restrictions do work in the rest of the world, despite the catch 22 surrounding criminals and gun ownership (only law-abiding citizens follow gun laws). In Europe and much of Asia, the per capita murder rates are far lower than the United States and this is, in part, due to the fact that they have fewer guns. Crime still occurs, and murders still happen, but it is harder to do massive harm to large numbers of people when guns are less common.
By restricting guns, forcing gun registration, and punishing illegal guns harshly, the total number of guns on our streets will eventually decrease. As it gets more risky to buy or sell guns, people will have a harder time getting their hands on them and overall gun-homicide deaths will decrease.
It is completely unrealistic to hope that there will one day be no gun crime, but this does not mean that we should sit idle as an average of 25 fellow Americans are gunned down each day. Stronger gun laws may not prevent all shootings, but it is virtually inarguable that such laws would not reduce the number of gun crimes in the long term.
Put plainly, our current gun laws don’t just let law-abiding citizens defend themselves, but also facilitate criminals getting the weapons which are being used to justify weapon ownership—in this, the gun industry is essentially dealing to both sides of the criminal conflict. Until sane gun laws are enacted, this small-scale domestic arms race will simply continue and will fuel and ever expanding body count.
-
RN, I could sit up there with you on being conservative.
To bad there is no way to know how many times a gun stopped a crime.
Sane gun laws? By whose standards??
Another way to look at it is almost all adults drive or own a car. Many should not, just like many should not handle guns at any time (even some cops, scary)
If it is about lives and safety, lets ban cars first. I see no right to own transportation in the Constitution. They kill so many on their own!
-
But while tougher gun laws "may" make it harder for criminals to get guns and cause a reduction in gun related murders (we already know it won't prevent mass shootings as evidenced by Dunblane Scotland etc.) There is also a commensurate rise in violent crime of other types where the criminals attack their victims, be it with knives, hammers or other instruments (look at the violent crime rates in the UK which are now higher than the US). One of the best benefits of high levels of gun ownership and easier carry laws is that criminals change their behavior so they don't come in contact with their victims (because they realize they could get shot). So instead armed robbery cases go down but B&E when no one is home, or stealing parked cars go up. In my mind it is far better for society when criminals (who will exist) commit their crimes against property instead of people. I have always felt- steal my stuff if you must, but just don't do it when my family is home. And for proof that criminals WILL change their behavior we have only to look at FL. When FL relaxed it carry laws in response to crime the crimes started targeting tourists who had flown to FL for vacation. The rental cars all took their stickers off their cars because they became a beacon for thugs wanting to rob someone who likely didn't have a gun.
As for the crime studies used by the left to promote gun control most completely ignore significant factors or don't control for specific items to prove meaningful statistically. Look at the DC murder rate over the past 20 years....liberals will say the reduction in murders is due to more police presence or other factors and completely ignore the Hellen decision. Well that is not being genuine in looking at the data, that is manipulating data to fit a preconceived notion. And while the left and gun control crowd do that all the time, it does not in any way prove the accuracy or veracity of their argument. I can claim that every time I encounter turbulence in an airplane I see the "fasten seat belt light" come on. But when I argue that there is the proof that the seat belt light causes the turbulence that is where I am obviously wrong. To claim DC murder rates fell and ascribe it to some factor that can not be proven, while ignoring a huge factor like Helper does not prove an argument, it makes the one citing that argument an ignoramus or a liar, and often both.
-
I'm enjoying this contrarian presentation!
-
I don't. My doc just gave me prozac because of tex!
-
I don't. My doc just gave me prozac because of tex!
Got any extra you'd be willin' to sell?
Would go well with my Kintucky Bourbon
-
The only thing wrong with the existing lawsnis they are not enforced.
-
Quit using all the BIG words. Reminds me of when the "uppers" come back from the FBI academy and have big ideas with big words in the same little dept.
-
The assertion that "There are already over 20,000 gun regulations on the books and they don’t work.” is flawed
What the proponents of this argument fail to grasp is that 20,000 gun regulations are absolutely useless if those laws are either too weak, easy to circumvent, or just not enforced.
In reality, there aren’t actually 20,000 gun laws on the books in the United States federal and state codes; the true number is debatable (is a gun law a regulatory law, tax law, insurance law, etc.), but it is less than 1,000. The inflation of the gun law numbers in this talking point is due to its proponents estimating the number of local gun laws and adding that number onto the major state and federal codes. Despite the over-inflation in the number of gun laws estimated by gun-enthusiasts, the fact remains that there are numerous gun laws on the books in the United States—for the purposes of arguing this talking point on its ideals, I will stipulate to the fact that hundreds of gun laws are currently in existence.
Unfortunately, the gun laws on the books in the United States are often inadequate and are rife with enough loopholes to make them ineffective. A law with significant loopholes or work-arounds is functionally ineffective and the simple fact that it is on the books is irrelevant. When talking about laws, it is not the sheer number of laws that matter, but their strength comprehensive nature, and lack of loopholes.
For example: There are gun laws on the books in some states that pertain to mandatory background checks and that ban felons from owning firearms. Despite these laws, the “gun show loophole” allows people in these states to circumvent the gun laws by buying from unregistered sellers. It doesn’t matter if there are a million laws banning firearms sales to felons in states with the gun show loophole, as these felons can circumvent all of them by simply buying their weapons from gun shows.
When confronted by people who promote this argument, my basic response is to propose eliminating all of these gun laws in favor of one gun law that actually works. If a single strong and comprehensive gun law could be passed through the federal legislature, we could massively reduce the number of laws on the books while making gun laws stronger. The supremacy of federal laws over state and local laws would extend the extremely powerful federal gun law over all of the others and render them moot. As of yet, no gun enthusiast that I have talked to has accepted this suggestion, as they understand just how ridiculous their argument is.
Ultimately, those who promote this argument are just illustrating the need for federal action on the gun problem in the United States. A solution based in passing hundreds of state laws is ineffective, as many state political organizations will never pass any sane gun laws. The federal government needs to pass one or two piece of legislation regulating guns, thus consolidating sane gun laws into a federal regulatory regime; these new regulations can be extended across every state uniformly and would be able to close many of the legislative loopholes that currently facilitate the circumvention of gun regulations.
-
Let's start by enforcing the laws currently on the books. It is possible but the political will is not there. It is far easier for the Democrats to tell people that we need new laws (which will be unfunded mandates for the states) than it is to budget for the resources to enforce them.
Here is an article with a list of punishments that are on the books. If it was enforced by the soft on crimes types, these laws would be effective, both as punishment and a deterrent.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse
Joe Biden said that they don't have the time or money to enforce the existing laws. Why make more unenforceable laws.
There is no "Gun Show Loophole". That is a catchy, rally the troops, sound bite. The truth is that any private individual can sell their gun to someone else without a check. Any gun sold by a dealer at a gun show is treated just like it is at the place of business, with a background check. The catchy phrase is used by the anti-gun folks as the number of private citizens that wish to legally sell a gun is often concentrated at a gun show location. That doesn't make it illegal or a loophole.
Again, Budget to enforce the existing laws and lets check the improvement before waste time making speeches about the need for more laws and going to conference and making laws that won't be enforced either.
-
Enforcement is the key, that is for sure.
On the number of laws, I would say there are well north of 20k firearm laws in the US. When searching I could not find an answer. But they say they don't include overlapping or fed vs state vs local. A law or regulation is what it is, repeated or not.
Just in Ca it is daunting to even try to count them, then pile on the fed law, then add exceptions.
-
I've had an absolute riot reading through this exchange. Having met Redneck and enjoyed great conversations like this one over a few beverages, I knew where he stood on this topic. I was however wondering where all this information was coming from. I'm glad you came clean and put my mind at ease.
Great job all of you standing up for our rights and articulating the facts. I have been meaning to do some more research on England and their rash of knife killings since the guns are scarce. I've read a few short articles that the police are now running campaigns begging people to stop resorting to knife violence. People are now asking if this means that their steak knives are next for banishment.
Friends, this is a crazy mixed up world. If people truly want to kill they are going to kill. If someone truly wants to break into my house, they are going to. Thankfully, they won't have to worry about finding their way out because I'm going to be like Bob and end them being a problem to our world.
I wish I were smart enough to answer all these questions. I know this though, the guns in my safe, the guns locked by my bed and the gun I carry each day have never killed on their own. It really is time for the world to stop blaming the guns and focus on whatever personal defects some of us have. Once we identify the true problem, we can begin to help them and reduce all forms of violence.
Joe and Hilary wouldn't like that of course, but I don't like them anyway.
Keep up the great exchange gentlemen!
Jeff
-
Its interesting about what people think about the Nazi's and gun control, one of the big misconceptions is the Nazi's started all the gun control in Germany the truth is the Nazi's LOOSENED gun laws but just for those people that belonged to the party.
The real anti gun madness started after WW1 and the wonderful Treaty of Versailles, and the Germans were using it to try to control the communist party before they started to use it on everyone else. If you want an extremely good read about gun control please read this book, the author backs up all his statements with facts from court documents, newspaper, and so on. A very well researched book
Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State this can be bought on Amazon.
Its very scary and amazing how humans always repeat history, the powers in Germany were making the same arguments then as wacko left are making now, almost page for page.
-
Ok, i have to go back to my pro 2A self. You guys are good.
Occam's Razor says In essense: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The government cannot enforce the current laws, and therefore is unable to secure our safety
Criminals are already operating outside the law, so new laws will not impact them
Other countries laws are also ineffective (e.g. Australia 59% reduction should have been 100%)
History proves that controlling the media and access to weapons are the requirements to a tryannical government
So here is an interesting article: Austrians are clamoring for weapons to protect themselves from the Muslim refugees.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/
-
Welcome back Pro 2A RN... ;D
-
Whew!
Good to have you back
I was concerned
Had my finger poised on the well worn "You're fired" button!
-
Ok, i have to go back to my pro 2A self. You guys are good.
Occam's Razor says In essense: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The government cannot enforce the current laws, and therefore is unable to secure our safety
Criminals are already operating outside the law, so new laws will not impact them
Other countries laws are also ineffective (e.g. Australia 59% reduction should have been 100%)
History proves that controlling the media and access to weapons are the requirements to a tryannical government
So here is an interesting article: Austrians are clamoring for weapons to protect themselves from the Muslim refugees.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/
I propose that they start eating more pork, raising pigs at home, and bury fetal pigs on every vacant lot they find, to keep the musloids in check! Make all soup kitchens pork only facilities and require Christian Prayer before each meal. Place all refugee camps along salt marshes and sponsor learn to swim classes off the Great Barrier Reef during shark mating seasons. Every day, during one of the multiple musloid prayers, blast Christian Anthems to drown out the wailing of some mulla with their toes caught in a trap. Crocodile Dundee should be played nightly, with Arabic subtitles along with Quigley Down Under.
-
Ok, i have to go back to my pro 2A self. You guys are good.
Running out of real ammo??
I am glad not to be LEO right now, what a mess.
-
along with Quigley Down Under.
In the 90's I was a member of a range east of Denver. A bunch of the guys shot black powder cartridge rifles, Sharps, Hepburns etc. You could watch those big lead bullets in flight as they arrived at targets out to 500 yds. That was some fun shooting!
-
So, how do you really feel mike? lol
...just watched Quigley last weekend. Classic.
-
"I said, I didnt have a use for a pistol, NOT that I didn't know how to use one...."
-
I love Quigley Down Under, Silverado and Wyatt Earp (1994 with Costner)
-
Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced
http://mic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced
The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.
In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.
When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered, "If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try."
But President Obama has apparently forgotten the words of candidate Obama. President Obama would have to look no further than a mirror to see who is responsible for not doing "better than this." Strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. CNN's John Avlon writes, "before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority" and cites Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have."
Failing to fund NICS
During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011
NICS Funding FY 2009, 2010, 2011
Ensuring, for example, that NICS has the mental health data that includes documentation of whether an individual has been involuntarily committed, has strong bipartisan support. Yet state reporting of such data has a long way to go; 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. This should be a "no-brainer." A poll released in January 2010 showed 90% of gun owners’ support addressing such gaps. This is a prime example of not enforcing the existing laws, which candidate Obama said we need to do. This is where the administration is failing to "do enough."
Prosecute people who falsify background check information
The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.
There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators. This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."
The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law.
Straw Man purchases & Illegal gun trafficking
Another area the Obama administration could enforce existing laws is prosecuting straw man purchases and illegal gun trafficking. The FBI states gangs engage in illegal guns trafficking (as well as narcotics). The ATF defines straw man as using another person to acquire a firearm specifically when the end user is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. "That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms." The straw purchaser violates federal law by making false statements on Form 4473.
Enforcing these existing laws is "common sense" and should be the "common sense" measures pursued, but President Obama has failed to take action. As noted in my previous article, rifles – which include bolt-action, semi-automatic, and so-called "assault rifles" - account for roughly 350 homicides that last few reported years (2.55-2.75% of homicides). Handguns account for nearly half of all homicides, or 6,009 out of 12,996 in 2010 (46%)and 6,501 out of 13,752 in 2009 (47%). Note that when candidate Obama referenced enforcing the current laws, he mentioned both mass shootings like Virginia Tech (in which the shooter was diagnosed with mental illness, but this information was not put into NICS in a timely manner, thereby allowing the shooter to buy guns legally) and less-sensational street crime, citing children "gunned down" in Chicago.
President Obama addressing the people of Newtown said, "are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" President Obama is not in fact powerless to make enforcement a priority. If he is serious about reducing crime, homicides and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons, then enforcement of these laws should be a priority.
-
This covers it.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/look-facts-gun-free-zones-john-lott
Pretty good article. Thought I'd resurrect this since we passed open carry in Texas that went into effect this January and there are liberals wetting themselves at the thought of standing in line at the store next to someone with a weapon who is not a police officer.
-
Look up the Murphy bill in the house. Covers many mental issues across state lines, dems are blocking it.
We had open carry 2 years ago, gone now.