New Gun Laws [Archive] - Movie Forums

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:10 PM

Forgive my ignorance Piddy, sunfrog, but I thought that the "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment, I believe), is a part of our Constitution because of the fear of government control. We have the right to protect ourselves, our property and our peace of mind--according to our forefathers. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it makes sense. Take away the citizens rights to bear arms, leaving the government to do as they wish, and we're really screwed. Of course, I am concerned about the misuse of guns, but I'm more concerned about the misuse of power. I'm also not for any sort of militia, or "Soldier of Fortune" type philosophy, but I believe a weapon can be used properly.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's from 1791. I just wonder for how long amendments written in the 1700's taking 1700's conditions in consideration will remain a holy cow.

Yoda

09-18-03, 05:13 PM

It's from 1791. I just wonder for how long amendments written in the 1700's taking 1700's conditions in consideration will remain a holy cow.
As long as they still make sense.

sunfrog

09-18-03, 05:16 PM

I agree with Pidzilla on everything he/she said.
To R66, the things I suggested above don't take away your right to bear arms anymore than no prayer in school takes away your right to worship as you please. You can still own rifles. I'd like to point out that the Brits have a ban on guns and their govenment doesn't attack them. I doubt our government would attack us.

To Yoda, I'm always flippant! :) I'm not talking about the Patriot Act, I just watched Bowling for Columbine. The Patriot Act and the suggestions I made above should not co-exist because the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should not exist in the first place.

To Caitlyn, tougher sentencing does not prevent crime, even the death penalty does not deter crime. This is because no one knows what the penalties are. For instance, assault is 3 to 5, I think, murder 20 to life. What is rape, robbery, fraud, smuggling illegals, child molesting? Another reason tough sentencing does not lessen crime is because when people are committing a crime they think they'll get away with it. The way to stop crime is to get rid of the causes of crime. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing.

Yoda

09-18-03, 05:21 PM

I'd like to point out that the Brits have a ban on guns and their govenment doesn't attack them. I doubt our government would attack us.
I'd like to point out that my stepfather has a gun and he's never shot anyone by accident. I doubt any other gun owner would.

To Yoda, I'm always flippant! :) I'm not talking about the Patriot Act, I just watched Bowling for Columbine. The Patriot Act and the suggestions I made above should not co-exist because the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should not exist in the first place.
I was talking to Pidzilla, actually. The point is that many people are worried about the power our government has, yet simultaneously scoff at the idea that it could become violently oppressive. The two are kin, people.

To Caitlyn, tougher sentencing does not prevent crime, even the death penalty does not deter crime. This is because no one knows what the penalties are. For instance, assault is 3 to 5, I think, murder 20 to life. What is rape, robbery, fraud, smuggling illegals, child molesting? Another reason tough sentencing does not lessen crime is because when people are committing a crime they think they'll get away with it. The way to stop crime is to get rid of the causes of crime. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing.
Get rid of what causes crime? Let's see...money, property, sex, love, and the potential for people to fail at anything they do. Yeah, that'll be a breeze. :p

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:21 PM

As long as they still make sense.

Rewrite it then.

Yoda

09-18-03, 05:23 PM

Rewrite it then.
Why? It still makes sense. Human nature hasn't changed.

Henry The Kid

09-18-03, 05:26 PM

Do you feel you have to protect yourself from the government, R66?

I won't touch that one.

Caitlyn's post was right, as usual.

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:28 PM

Oh, the Patriot Act... If I have understood sfuff correctly the Patriot Act II gives the government the right to search someone's home without a warrant.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the Patriot Act II the result of the fourth amendment not making sense? :dizzy: [edit]Honestly... I don't get that one at all. Are warrants a good thing or not??

What's the situation today with those Patriot Acts, guys? Someone told me they weren't so hip anymore. Great news, if it's true.

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:29 PM

Why? It still makes sense. Human nature hasn't changed.

No but culture has.

[edit]In all honesty. You don't think the fact that the amendment hasn't been updated since 1791 has something to do with the problems with gun deaths in USA?

Yoda

09-18-03, 05:32 PM

No but culture has.
Elaborate, please. What change in culture necessitates an amendment in the Amendment? How would you rewrite it?

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:56 PM

Elaborate, please. What change in culture necessitates an amendment in the Amendment? How would you rewrite it?

Well, I am not a legal expert so let's leave the rewriting part to them.

But I just checked out the swedish constitution (actually there are four of them) which is from 1810. There was almost not a single paragraph or section that looked the same as they did in the original from 1810 (I didn't find a single one but I didn't look through it all of course. I suppose there must be one or two paragraphs at least). They had all been rewritten over the years, a whole lot in the 70's. I don't feel like I have lost any important rights from the 1810 constitution on the way. And we don't have your gun deaths statistics either. ;)

What change in culture and society? Well, to start with in the 1700's there wasn't a police force like today there to protect your property and family so you had to take care of that yourself. And there were also a lot more threats, seen from a settlers viewpoint, to protect yourself from. You have to remember that the settlers were still fighting the native americans. The civil war several decades later must be some kind of proof of that the americans weren't really getting along among each other either. In short, things were pretty much the same back then as now. Only that the guns then were motivated because of obvious threats from the "wild" continent back then. Today the guns are needed to protect you from other people with guns.

I am not saying that a change in the gun laws would solve all your problems but I get so tired when I get the argument "IT'S OUR RIGHT! IT'S IN OUR CONSTITUTION!" and that should be the end of the discussion. Cultures and societies change and evolve all the time and I think it is very important that the laws evolve with them. I don't think it makes sense to me that everybody should have the right to bear arms. It is like asking for trouble. And I almost get the same impression as I get when I discuss religion with a bible fanatic. It is true and it is right, and it is right because it's in the constitution. The bible can't be rewritten in such a matter of course, but the constitution can.

Piddzilla

09-18-03, 05:58 PM

Caitlyn's post was right, as usual.

I actually thought you'd written it first. ;)

Golgot

09-18-03, 07:15 PM

3 - Tax on bullets. We tax cigarettes because they hurt people, so do bullets

Heheheh, i loved that comedian's slant on this idea in Bowling. It's one of the few things i could happily see over-priced for normal citizens. :yup: . It seems like it wouldn't affect the benefits of guns in society (i.e. protection of property, and potential self-protecton on the street etc in emergencies. i.e. guns would ONLY be for use in emergencies) . I don't see the loss of sporting privaliges/access as a big deal.

Any imbalance between state and citizens caused by gun laws that don't inhibit the state don't necessarily lead to violent domination by the state. Not in britland anyway. (they prefer the sneaky, threatening and power-dealing techniques as per usual ;))

Take away the citizens rights to bear arms, leaving the government to do as they wish, and we're really screwed. Of course, I am concerned about the misuse of guns, but I'm more concerned about the misuse of power.

Erm, sorry r3, but i'm a bit confused about HOW guns prevent governmental oppression. How often do the cops barge into your house and do you over? [are you saying Caity pays you house calls? ;) :dizzy:] How often would a gun help you if they did?? You'd just get done for shooting a cop, if that were the scenario.

Surely the incroachments of the patriot act(s) ARE a genuine inappropriate application of power that reduces civil liberties. How does a gun protect against that??? Surely awareness, propogation of "efficient" yet humane practices that appeal even to the power-hungry,and good people getting their hands on power where possible and holding onto it to the best of their ability (and using all due processes available, and all other social structures, where attaining said power is impossible/impracticle)....surely these things are better ways to prevent power infringements?!

The point is that many people are worried about the power our government has, yet simultaneously scoff at the idea that it could become violently oppressive. The two are kin, people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by sunfrog
I'd like to point out that the Brits have a ban on guns and their govenment doesn't attack them. I doubt our government would attack us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to point out that my stepfather has a gun and he's never shot anyone by accident. I doubt any other gun owner would.

This last response, good to know as it is (;)), baffles me. Why is it relevant to Sunnys post??

British governments have never taken advantage of our lack of guns i.e. they haven't armed the police unnecessarily for example. And if anything the cops can act in a slightly calmer way knowing that they are unlikely to face a firearm (this is of course changing, but we can hope measures regularly getting put into place to address the specific causes of the rise in gun availabilty can slow the rise, and eventually rectify some core aspects of the situation)

Would someone care to point out in what way we've been governmentally oppressed specifically due to our overwhelming lack of civic arms? Or even oppressed by industries for that matter? By crims, yes, occasionally - but their ruthlessness pretty much means a standard person wouldn't fair well in a gun fight with them anyway. (as it is, armed crims spend most of their time shooting each other)

What i'm more worried about is the potential for non-lethal weapons (i.e. ones that can be used on crowds for the most part) being used to suppress freedom of expression and community-enhancing marches/protests [NB that's about all i think marching achieves - but when coinciding with other complementary actions they can increase affectiveness of the push for recognition, change and even power-shifts potentially]

Current sprays and tazers etc don't worry me too much. It's more water cannons, tear gas etc inappropriately used (and new stuff which is technologically possible - including the use of microwave technology to manipulate emotinal states!! Get your tin-foil on ;)). If applied in the case of mainly peaceful protests (or overwhelmingly/totally non-violent ones where possible :) - but if a theme is broad it can attract all sorts. A tiny minority that started chucking bricks at a peaceful/harmless sit-in in a london square [trafalgar i think (one of the bigguns ;))] brought the riot police in on everyone (and they might have been there to disturb/fight with the rallyers anyway)

Get rid of what causes crime? Let's see...money, property, sex, love, and the potential for people to fail at anything they do. Yeah, that'll be a breeze. Just out of interest - do you include crime perpetrated by those who'll do anything to succeed in those categories?

Golgot

09-18-03, 07:47 PM

I actually thought you'd written it first. ;)

:laugh: ;)

r3port3r66

09-18-03, 08:18 PM

Erm, sorry r3, but i'm a bit confused about HOW guns prevent governmental oppression. How often do the cops barge into your house and do you over? [are you saying Caity pays you house calls? ] How often would a gun help you if they did?? You'd just get done for shooting a cop, if that were the scenario.

Hey look, I'm all for a world that is weapon free-- I'm so there. But, that isn't how the world is. You cannot deny that weapons don't exist. You will never, ever in our lifetime, be able to live in a world without the threat of an upheaval. Also, you will never live in a world where wits and fists are the primary weapons of defense. Even this site has a defense mechanism (wait til Django gets hold of this thread!) when words are just not enough. Defending yourself is probably the most important thing you can do in life. You want to keep your family safe don't you? In the modern world( by modern I mean we don't use the prehistoric tools that were so popular millions of years ago, like bones and sticks) we have cars[they kill people too] we have planes[also recently a weapon] and we have guns. It's just the natural evolution of mankind: You start a tribe, you make a home, find food, make clothes and defend your position. Anyway, weapons aren't going anywhere, and if "they" got 'em, I want them too. Beacuse anything can happen, and it usually does.

Let me ask you this my friend(s): When confronted by an antogonist, should you use the same weapons he chooses to fight with, i.e mind, fists, sticks, swords--I mean how exactly do you defend yourself? And after the confrontation, how do you then prepare you life for perhaps another such encounter?

P.S. I don't break the law, therefore the only reason Caitlyn would come into my house is for coffee, and even then I would have invited her. (Anytime Cait'....anytime).

Golgot

09-18-03, 08:52 PM

Cool man. I'm not actually preaching a weapon-free world (i don't think that's possible). And i understand your different perspective about the need for a gun for self defense (we have the luck over here of being able to do things more primatively ;))

But you were mainly talking about guns being needed to defend yourself against governmental control weren't you? (that was my take on the repurcussions of the amendment. I'll go back and re-read) I'm just asking how guns help in that area.

In answer to your conundrum, i believe we are totally justified in defending ourselves using the same means as our assailants. These can even include pre-emptive action i reckon, if you are very very very sure it's going to happen/it's necessary (*cough* *war* ;) - sorry to bring up my pet topic ;) - but altho all the facts aren't in yet, it looks dodgy currently. Very tricky area) In confrontations/attacks, i prefer using "front" first where possible, and defence next of course. I've never been in a situation where i've had to be physically pre-emptive.

r3port3r66

09-18-03, 09:10 PM

No, 'tis I who owe you an apology my friend. I guess my point is simply, our government will never lay down their weapons for any reason. And sometimes small sects of militia rise up, fighting for what they believe in. I'm afraid that one day, one of those sects could be masked by political power and disguise the truth to those that are willing to believe it. I'll use the abortion doctor snipers as an example. I mean there are people(in the millions Gg!) out there that actually believe people who kill in the name of God are heroes. What if one day a President (or perhaps another world leader!) were to come into power with those same convictions? I'm no conspiracy theorist or paranoid lunatic, but I think it could happen. Bluntly, if you were to ask ten people on the street in America where Iraq was--give them a map even--2 would probably answer correctly. I mean, if these are the minds of some Americans I'd hate to see what sway a "cool" politician might have over them someday. A politician that declared war on abortions, gays, womens rights, and finally our freedom, could not be reckoned with without an army. Not saying it will happen, but it has once already and look how that turned out.

Not sure if that answers your query..sorry....

Golgot

09-18-03, 09:29 PM

It helps me understand some of the pressures of your society that are different from mine. On the religious belief thing (and i'm sure some would like to pick you up on how you could know that - yet equally i trust your impression of the situation - especially as i know you to be an investigative man who'll look beyond his own experiences too)
...in Britland we find that kind of stuff absolutely incredibly bizarre (and worrying too)

I agree that in an extreme example of a totalitarian state emerging, or near on, armed uprising becomes nigh on a necessity. My hope would be, as things stand, that such an eventuality would involve many of those who are armed and involved in government switching sides. You'd have to be bombed up a bit, if not to ****, to reach a stage where internal control is so extreme, and mass public action impossible (afghanistanandiraqforexample *cough* [*whisper* - notice how the majority in those countries are armed too]

Keep on fighting your good fights in the knowledge/action spheres r3. (and don't wear anti-abortion t-shirts me-thinks :( )

Caitlyn

09-18-03, 09:43 PM

1 Ban all public sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are not for hunting deer

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

2 Ban all handguns. These weapons are not for hunting deer either

All this would do is create a larger black market for illegal weapons sales… and what about all those already out there? Do you do a house to house search and seizure?

3 Tax on bullets. We tax cigarettes because they hurt people, so do bullets

Ok… and do what with the money? This might make a few people rich but I don’t see how it would deter crime at all… especially when you have people sitting in back rooms making their own bullets…

4 Instead of a tax refund have a national "Turn in a gun get $300" drive

Oh yeah… I can see criminals who make over $300.00 an hour with their gun coming out of the woodwork to give up their guns for $300.00 …You might get a few old broken down guns or one that wasn’t worth over $100.00 but that would be about it…

5 Insert homing devices similar to those bracelets criminals wear into all rifles. Make it a cime to tamper with such a device or to create an after market product that fools the device. Using cell phone technology the rifle records where and when each bullet was fired and sends a record of the event to the cops.

What about all the guns already out there? Most of the guns used by criminals were illegally obtained anyway so I fail to see how this will help… cops would just know how many times someone shot at a deer or turkey… and missed…

6 Mandatory fingerprinting, DNA sampling and bullet rifling samples for all gun owners

Once again… how will this help? You’re not naïve enough to think the criminals are going to voluntarily come in to have this done are you? All you will accomplish is to have thousands of law abiding citizens finger prints and DNA samples on file… I guess it might help in identification if they themselves were ever a victim of crime…

Caitlyn, what is wrong with preventing crime? Why wait until someone has allready been killed? What does it matter to the victim or the victim's family if the killer gets 40 years or 50 years in prison? Or death penalty for that matter?

Preventing crime is exactly what I was talking about… the majority of criminals who commit violent acts are not first time offenders… even the teens at Columbine were on probation for previous criminal acts…

To Caitlyn, tougher sentencing does not prevent crime, even the death penalty does not deter crime. This is because no one knows what the penalties are. For instance, assault is 3 to 5, I think, murder 20 to life. What is rape, robbery, fraud, smuggling illegals, child molesting? Another reason tough sentencing does not lessen crime is because when people are committing a crime they think they'll get away with it.

The penalties for various crimes differ from state to state… and no, no criminal thinks they will get caught but it would be nice when they are caught for them to suffer more then a slap on the hand before they are turned out to commit other crimes… btw, you are aware gun related crimes have dropped 40 percent since 1993 aren’t you?

The way to stop crime is to get rid of the causes of crime. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing.

The causes of crime are the people who commit them so what do you purpose… get rid of people?

O.J. Simpson did not use a gun and he walked… think about it.

Golgot

09-18-03, 10:15 PM

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

Now that's just plain undemocratic! With those things i could protect my household from a whole decades-quota of burglars in one go! And think of the personal-space-zone you could get in the street! ;)

Do you do a house to house search and seizure?

:eek:

this is a huge problem if gun control ever were to be attempted civil-society-wide/completely. :yup: (as we learnt here when we made the pitiful number of sporting handguns illegal - they all flooded onto the black market of course. Arms emargoes get a fair haul from crims time to time, but those convertible replics just keep on getting made. And as Toose [i believe] has said on other threads, you can make a potentially lethal firearm if you're at a "knowledgable" highschool. I don't think i would have enjoyed metal-shop classes round your way Toosey! :nope: )

Ok… and do what with the money? This might make a few people rich but I don’t see how it would deter crime at all… especially when you have people sitting in back rooms making their own bullets…

Well "ideally" it would come in form of a tax [tho what would be really ideal would be if you could trace the tax-profit's usuage, and ensure it went to general crime-prevention ends - i.e. just how things aren't with the mammoth cig and booze taxes over here. Still, as long as cash is being, apparently, plunged into welfare areas, no matter how ineptly it's being used, i'm happy (sort of ;) But i haven't even mentioned some of the worse reformations of these socialistic structures ;)) ]

Oh yeah… I can see criminals who make over $300.00 an hour with their gun coming out of the woodwork to give up their guns for $300.00 …You might get a few old broken down guns or one that wasn’t worth over $100.00 but that would be about it…

Well, at least, from a brit-gun-free-ish perspective, that would leave just the hard-core gun users for you (come mop up our hooligan crime Caits ;)) to deal with.

… cops would just know how many times someone shot at a deer or turkey… and missed…

Yaaay. And then i could brainwash Sunny (through rhythmically posted bush-bashings ;)) into mounting a successful turkey-murder-gets-ten-years policy. :)

...but it would be nice when they are caught for them to suffer more then a slap on the hand before they are turned out to commit other crimes… btw, you are aware gun related crimes have dropped 40 percent since 1993 aren’t you?

Do you know why this has happened Cait?

The causes of crime are the people who commit them so what do you purpose… get rid of people?

Well hell, they've invented a machine for it. It's called a nuke i believe ;) :Shrugging-heavens-what's-happening-in-Saudi-Arabia-thing:
Some say they're for sale too (well, to the right people of course ;))

O.J. Simpson did not use a gun and he walked… think about it.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that gun-crime is so much clearer in nature it's easier to prove/prosecute?

Caitlyn

09-19-03, 11:06 AM

Do you know why this has happened Cait?

More cops on the force and stricter enforcement of existing gun laws…

Are you saying that gun-crime is so much clearer in nature it's easier to prove/prosecute?

No, I am saying that he committed a horrific crime without the aid of a gun and then weaseled his way out of it because of too many loop holes in a judicial system that needs some major overhauls…

Golgot

09-19-03, 12:14 PM

More cops on the force and stricter enforcement of existing gun laws…

I thought you were more or less agreeing with Karl on the Columbine thread that heavily enforced gun laws don't work in crime reduction? Weren't you?? :confused: - or were you just arguing new ones are unnecessary then. I take it you'd approve of expansion of practical gun laws to all (suitable?) areas then?

No, I am saying that he committed a horrific crime without the aid of a gun and then weaseled his way out of it because of too many loop holes in a judicial system that needs some major overhauls…

Ah, but that's sort of what i was asking insn't it? i.e. if he'd commited his crime with a gun it would have been easier to convict him? Would you say that's the case? Just interested. :yup:

sunfrog

09-19-03, 11:06 PM

To Pidzilla and Golgot:
Woohoo! You go! You're both right!

To Henry:
No, she's not

To Caitlyin:
1. I knew that about semi-automatic weapons. It was a set up for
2. Handguns are not used for hunting either. Automatic weapons were banned because they're only good for killing people, like handguns.
3. & 4. & 6. What Golgot said
5. See 4

Do cops prevent crime other than preventing speeding by parking near the road in plain view?

Caitlyn

09-22-03, 09:27 PM

I thought you were more or less agreeing with Karl on the Columbine thread that heavily enforced gun laws don't work in crime reduction? Weren't you?? :confused: - or were you just arguing new ones are unnecessary then. I take it you'd approve of expansion of practical gun laws to all (suitable?) areas then?

What I said on the Columbine thread was:

The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained and abolishing legally owned guns would not stop criminals from obtaining weapons nor lower crime rates…

And it won’t… however… enforcing existing laws dealing with illegally obtained guns and stiffer sentencing for various crimes have made a difference… illegal gun trafficking is as big of a business as illegal drug trafficking…

Ah, but that's sort of what i was asking insn't it? i.e. if he'd commited his crime with a gun it would have been easier to convict him? Would you say that's the case? Just interested. :yup:

No… not unless the weapon was found, (if you remember, the knife was not) he had a powder trail on his hand, his finger prints on the gun, or it registered in his name, etc…

Btw, I never thought the cuts on O.J.’s hands were made by a knife… they should have brought Nichole’s dog into the court room…

To Caitlyin:
1. I knew that about semi-automatic weapons. It was a set up for

Uh-huh… :rolleyes:

2. Handguns are not used for hunting either. Automatic weapons were banned because they're only good for killing people, like handguns.

Handguns were responsible for less then 5% of gun related deaths last year… and of that 5% -- some were the result of law enforcement officers doing their job… preventing crime… or by a civilian in self defense of themselves or their family from criminals…

But since you want to have hand guns banned… explain to me exactly how you would go about it… and what you think it would accomplish?

Do cops prevent crime other than preventing speeding by parking near the road in plain view?

See answer above… but 12, 626 people were killed in speed related crashes last year… speeding is a crime and speeding kills…

Beale the Rippe

09-22-03, 10:48 PM

firegod

09-23-03, 07:26 AM

I have felt for a long time that most gun control people focus on new laws way too much. What I think we need to do is concentrate on getting rid of the illegal guns a lot more than we have. No, we shouldn't go door-to-door; what we should do, in my opinion, is drastically increase the amount of undercover cop presence in the world of illegal guns. There are tons of police officers who have very little to do in terms of fighting REAL crime. Get them off of their asses, train them, and let's work on this problem in an intelligent way. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned with keeping legal guns out of the hands of criminals, but we concentrate on that so much that we are ignoring the bigger problem here. Just my opinion.

Golgot

09-23-03, 10:15 AM

Metinks you gonna get a spanking from Cait for the asses comment ;)

Cait: do you know if there are areas where the effective illegal-gun -legislations/controls you talk about aren't in effect (and should be)? Are there any laws (like limitation of personal use) you believe should be removed? [i'm pretty much sold on the idea that, for the US, trying to get rid of citizen ownership is futile, would cause a massive rise in illegal sales at first (as it did here) even if handled very carefully (hence expensively), and would cause a rise in house-breaking and possibly street muggings etc]

I still think the bullet-pricing idea is actually a practical-sounding solution of sorts. The production of illegal bullets is something you could focus on, (the illegal operations would have to be very "professional". Bullets are still very high-tech and precisely manufactured objects. Seeing as crim organisations would take this on as another money-spinner and self-sufficiency tool, any bust could be interlinked with other illegal operations i.e. you'd find out about their drugs/guns/prostitution operations etc possibly and vice-versa)

firegod

09-23-03, 10:20 AM

Well, she can spank me if she wants, ;) but I don't see why she would. It's not usually THEIR fault that many cops are sitting on their asses.

Sir Toose

09-23-03, 11:07 AM

5 Insert homing devices similar to those bracelets criminals wear into all rifles. Make it a cime to tamper with such a device or to create an after market product that fools the device. Using cell phone technology the rifle records where and when each bullet was fired and sends a record of the event to the cops.

Dude, in one place you strongly oppose the creation of a police state (i.e. Bush's homeland security, which I don't think is a police state) and in another you want the equivalent of an id bracelet.

Caitlyn

09-25-03, 11:06 AM

Metinks you gonna get a spanking from Cait for the asses comment ;)

No… he doesn’t get a spanky for that one… well… not unless he
wants one… ;) ...but I pretty much agree with what he said…

Cait: do you know if there are areas where the effective illegal-gun -legislations/controls you talk about aren't in effect (and should be)? Are there any laws (like limitation of personal use) you believe should be removed?

Right now… no to both questions. The ATF, DEA, and state law enforcement agencies are combining their efforts and have made a difference but it is just going to take time…

I still think the bullet-pricing idea is actually a practical-sounding solution of sorts. The production of illegal bullets is something you could focus on, (the illegal operations would have to be very "professional". Bullets are still very high-tech and precisely manufactured objects. Seeing as crim organisations would take this on as another money-spinner and self-sufficiency tool, any bust could be interlinked with other illegal operations i.e. you'd find out about their drugs/guns/prostitution operations etc possibly and vice-versa)

The vast majority of criminals don’t shop for bullets at K-Mart or Wal-Mart… in the end, all this would accomplish is numerous businesses going bankrupt, higher unemployment lines, and law abiding citizens shouldering the burden for criminals activities… and making bullets is not that high-tech… I know about 30 deer hunters who “roll their own” on their kitchen tables…

sunfrog

09-28-03, 04:31 AM

To Cait,
Are you making this up? Wal-mart is the biggest seller of guns in the US. Think about it, they have stores all over. They are a national chain. I think Jensen has a chain of stores but not near as many I'm sure.

The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained sounds weird too. Maybe, but a lot of people get killed with their dad's guns. I would like to see the actual stats on that.

Handguns were responsible for less then 5% of gun related deaths last year… What? This must be a mistake. A result of not classifying something as a handgun or other. The other 95% can't all be hunting accidents.

But since you want to have hand guns banned… explain to me exactly how you would go about it… and what you think it would accomplish?

Well, stop the production of handguns, start a program for turning in handguns, make it illegal to be in the possesion of a handgun, either on your person, car, house, work etc.. No, I would not send people out searching house to house. If there is an occasion when you, your car, or your house gets searched and you have a gun you'd be busted.

12, 626 people were killed in speed related crashes last year has nothing to do with anything

To Toose,
That's interesting. I put that in there so people would be able to win one. You were supposed to say it sounds like science fiction. Hhmmm.
I still hate the Patriot Act, and the Presidunce.

OH Yeah! I almost forgot, there was another school shooting. So much for more cops and harsher sentencing.

FreeMason

09-30-03, 03:20 AM

While I was browsing the Democratic candidates I notice that only one was for new gun laws. Everyone else wanted gun laws to stay as they are. Here is what I would propose.

1 Ban all public sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are not for hunting deer

2 Ban all handguns. These weapons are not for hunting deer either

3 Tax on bullets. We tax cigarettes because they hurt people, so do bullets

4 Instead of a tax refund have a national "Turn in a gun get $300" drive

5 Insert homing devices similar to those bracelets criminals wear into all rifles. Make it a cime to tamper with such a device or to create an after market product that fools the device. Using cell phone technology the rifle records where and when each bullet was fired and sends a record of the event to the cops.

6 Mandatory fingerprinting, DNA sampling and bullet rifling samples for all gun owners

Well your "proposition" is Unconstitutional on several levels.

First, precedents is several Supreme Court Cases have defined that the right to Bear and Keep arms pertains to such a need that is to allow for a militia to be called up, ready to go.

That is, a militia man brings his own gun.

And since bolt-action weapons, and non-semi-autos are useless in war, you can not prohibit them.

What are prohibited in some places, are handguns, but this doesn't stop criminals from getting them...

And if you ever hunt bear, there are times when you'll want that hand gun.

Typical Democrats want nothing but MORE MORE MORE taxation.

Taxes increase the power of the Central Government, which is bad in the US's case...as we can see by all the crap the Feds are doing everywhere, including Iraq...

I heard some "show" about the president, and a line in it said, "Only the Commander-in-Cheif can put Americans in harms way."

Wait a second...I thought only Congress can do that.

But hey, its' been that way since the 30s right? Still, it should be rectified, lowering taxes helps that.

Anyways...whatever...Unconstitutional proposals, that's about that...

FreeMason

09-30-03, 03:24 AM

Oh and sunfrog, you think banning handguns makes everything hunkie-dorie?

Uhh...Chicago has banned Handguns, last I remembered...and they are jam-packed with crime.

Gun Laws wont' make a difference, just don't take away the right of the people to protect themselves from their own government.

FreeMason

09-30-03, 03:32 AM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

And you here can see, some of the precedents that cover the 2nd Amendment...and why banning semi-autos and such even fully autos is or ought to be Unconstitutional.

But as you'll see, the Supreme Court hasn't taken a case of the 2nd Amendment since 1970s...

Mainly read this:

"''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''"

firegod

09-30-03, 12:09 PM

Caitlyn

09-30-03, 12:54 PM

Caity,

Where do you get the "less than 5%" stat? Because that seems to be way, WAY off. The handguns statistics I've seen -- including some from the FBI -- show that handguns are the weapons used in MOST gun deaths. I'm very interested in knowing who is publishing stats that claim that it's actually less than 5%.

I was reading some Justice Bureau stats and am going to recheck them when I have a minute… those do seem a little low... unless those were the stats for legally obtained handguns…

Golgot

10-01-03, 12:26 PM

Gun Laws wont' make a difference, just don't take away the right of the people to protect themselves from their own government.

Oh how i wish your government was out to get you : praying-smilie : ;)

That last one is such a bizarre rallying cry. The it's-my-right-to-defend-myself-generally argument i understand (isn't that a constitutional right too?). Why not defend yourself against your government by paying attention to their election-rigging, or their internationally-destabilising-profiteering-n-powergames which increase hatred and even terrorism? :) :rolleyes:

To weave back into the thread....it's such a niggly problem - and the probs with complete gun removal/restriction are clear [i.e. they're unworkable]. (altho complete enfranchisement won't solve what is, apparently, a higher than average gun-homicide rate in America [tho Cait's discovered reporting differences between Britland and the US which lower the US stats, i think the difference between yourselves, other gun-owning lands, and britland, is still noteable)

It seems strong penalities for misuse are the only tonic for this headache, for now.

Caitlyn

10-03-03, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by sun frog

To Cait,
Are you making this up? Wal-mart is the biggest seller of guns in the US. Think about it, they have stores all over. They are a national chain. I think Jensen has a chain of stores but not near as many I'm sure.

I’m sure Wal-Mart is one of the biggest seller of guns in the US… just as they are the biggest seller in the US of fishing rods and reels… have you ever checked out their sporting goods section during hunting season?

The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained sounds weird too.

80% of guns used it crimes were illegally obtained from a street buy
14% of guns used in crimes were bought or traded for at; pawn shops, flea markets, or gun shows
6% of guns used in crimes were obtained from family or friends

Maybe, but a lot of people get killed with their dad's guns.

By “people”, I assume you mean children… so who is to blame for this… the gun or the parent?

I would like to see the actual stats on that.

Last year in children 14 years old and under there were:

86 accidental gun deaths (these deaths also include hunting accidents)
110 Suicides (ages 13 and 14 being the most common)

There were also in age 14 and under:

943 deaths from accidental drowning
593 deaths from accidental exposure to smoke and fire
2,591 deaths from motor vehicle accidents (the majority were unrestrained)

Handguns were responsible for less then 5% of gun related deaths last year… What? This must be a mistake. A result of not classifying something as a handgun or other. The other 95% can't all be hunting accidents.

Sorry, my mistake… I should have said legally purchased handguns were responsible for less then 5% of the gun related deaths…

Well, stop the production of handguns

The US is not the only manufacturer… how do you propose to stop other countries? And there are over 35 million legally owned handguns in America… not to mention the illegal ones…

start a program for turning in handguns,

I have my great grandfathers pearl handled revolvers… they may be old, but they still work … Do you honestly think I am going to turn them in… No… and neither will the other 65 million law abiding gun owners in this country who have legally purchased over 200 million guns…

make it illegal to be in the possesion of a handgun, either on your person, car, house, work etc..

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Mafia informant Sammy "the Bull" Gravano. Interview in Vanity Fair magazine, August 1999.

No, I would not send people out searching house to house. If there is an occasion when you, your car, or your house gets searched and you have a gun you'd be busted.

Busted how? I assume you are aware that only 23% of the felons convicted each year actually go to prison… the other 76% are on parole or probation and freely wandering our streets… you need to really rethink just what the problem here might be.

12, 626 people were killed in speed related crashes last year has nothing to do with anything

It had everything to do with your previous post… and why are these deaths less important to you then the gun related deaths --- many of which are criminals killing criminals by the way…

OH Yeah! I almost forgot, there was another school shooting. So much for more cops and harsher sentencing.

So in other words, the police are supposed to be physic so they can prevent school shootings? And no, in these particular cases, the thought of a long prison term is not a determent because the shooter/s normally intend to kill themselves too… so the aftermath of their actions hold no fear for them. But instead of only concentrating on the fact that some kid managed to acquire a gun, however the means, and shoot his fellow classmates and teachers… why not start searching for the reasons behind why they felt the need to do this in the first place? And considering most of the school shooters have been male, you might want to look at how many females commit suicide instead of resorting to violent acts against others and study the suicide notes they left behind stating the reason they felt the need to take their own life…

Golgot

10-03-03, 11:50 AM

*Gg waves his "i'm with you that gun controls aren't feasible" peace flag* ;)

Just thought i'd posit the odd pondering. I'm with you on everything you said tho Caity :yup:

The car thing i understand Sunny complaining about - mainly coz car's serve an obvious beneficial social purpose that outweighs their death-dealing. Guns, designed to deal-death, have become a social necessity in many cultures, but the benefit they bring is (a) not visible i.e. it's prevention of mugging/break-ins/attack etc, but also (b) ironic coz in some ways it provides defense against dangers increased by its presence (violent attack facilitated by this tool etc)

So i can see how the gun comes to be perceived as something we can remove and therefore remove the problem. That isn't the case of course. The prob is "positive" outcomes of gun-possession (reduced muggings, break-ins etc) aren't as measurable or obvious as the benfits of the car.

---

However, on a more pertinent point: I think you're exactly right that the CAUSES of crime are where we should be looking first and foremost, in all countries.

My suspicions are that some major causes of violent crime are:

-The poverty-gap and lack of opportunity: (facilitated by the competitive-only interpretation of free-trade etc, which is only ever inacted in a flawed and top-level-aiding way as it is). So long as disenfranchised and poverty-stricken people have a negative sense of the wider community, and feel that crime-related profit is the only opportunity open to them, violent crime will be on the rise (and the prisons will never be big enough. They can be privatised, money-making operations, or any form the admins care to choose, but you can't imprison all the disenfranchised, overly-aggressive and deranged people in the world. Just the latter two perhaps ;))

-Hard drugs: A major and debilitating problem. Taking all drugs out of the hands of crims, institutionalising them without endorsing them (and instigating programs to help people regain their freedom of choice by working them off drugs like heroin, crack, and even cocaine) is the only solution i see. It would even refine the drug-crime versus police competition into a clearer format perhaps (no more sitting on their asses ;) - there'd be plenty to do - from dealing with trade routes to policing illegal supply etc. Even forcing crims into other more blatant pursuits perhaps)

-Racial segregation: Well, it's natural, people band together to feel they belong etc etc. But i can't help but feel this adds to gun-crime as a rule, and increased violence and hate generally. The solution? Search me (i've got a magic realise-a-human's-a-human's-a-human machine in my pocket ;). It causes brain-haemorrages to die-hard rascists, but there you go. Good sides and bad sides. Actually, where's the bad side there? :))

FreeMason

10-03-03, 07:06 PM

Caitlyn

10-03-03, 08:17 PM

Golgot seems to be a main proponent against the 2nd Amendment, and yet doesn't seem to understand the case-law, nor the reasoning, behind the 2nd Amendment.

Why people listen to the uneducated I'll never know.

Golgot happens to be a British citizen so therefore is not governed by the second amendment… and had you taken the time to read some of his posts, I think you would discover he is very well educated… well enough to teach others…

Golgot

10-03-03, 10:01 PM

Heheheh, cheers Cait (tho the main qualification for my job is the ability to speak english - And i struggle with that too some mornings ;)). I am indeed ignorant of all amendments and suchlike, as they don't really impinge on my life (i'll get round to reading up on them and their repurcussions one day. Britain's last paper constitution was the Magna Carta, so we're a bit rusty at such things. Tho there is a apparently a city where you're allowed to shoot a welshman with a bow and arrow between midnight and daybreak. Seeing i'm half-welsh, all Freemason needs to do is lure me to the right city and shoot the right half ;))

Honestly Freemason, i'm just trying to fully understand and consider the situation (in the US, and therefore in all comparable countries). And, despite your intriguing notion waywardly posted on the iraq thread, i don't believe i'm particularly extreme about this. In fact i've shifted my position a fair bit since starting to debate this (something you already look unlikely ever to do :p). So what were you saying was extreme? Me agreeing with others that there should be strong punishments for gun-misuse? Me agreeing that strong-gun-prohibition takes away the main advantage that gun-ownership brings? (i.e. they're a deterrent for certain crimes.) I haven't even talked about your precious machine guns yet!

So are these extreme stances then oh Builder of Freedom? Or are they just not in total agreement with yours?

FreeMason

10-04-03, 04:54 AM

I think I confused you more with the author or proponent of his thoughts within this thread...as I am new here.

Whoever the author is, that is where MOST of the "attack" should be directed, as I believe earlier I was in debate with him and he could benefit well from knowing the actual Law of the US, rather than simply having some radical "lose all guns" ideology.

If these pages would load faster (and I don't know why they aren't very graphical, but sometimes take more than a minute) I could spend more time with this forum but I am usually busy elsewhere so you'll have to bear with my "crude" attitude until I get better situated, and know whose thoughts are whose :)

Me agreeing with others that there should be strong punishments for gun-misuse?

Only makes sense to agree with that...

But we aren't in agreement as you asked ;)

I strongly disagree with most your reasons of Crime...especially pertaining to involving the Gun.

Golgot

10-05-03, 03:09 PM

Me agreeing with others that there should be strong punishments for gun-misuse?

Only makes sense to agree with that...

But we aren't in agreement as you asked ;)

I strongly disagree with most your reasons of Crime...especially pertaining to involving the Gun.

Erm, porque? Those were reasons for crime generally. I take it you're disagreeing with the idea that guns facilitate crime in some ways (i believe they do - and there's plenty of anecdotal and logical reasons to believe it)

So are you saying the reasons i stated...don't exist? Don't cause crime? What? Please do enlighten us.

nebbit

10-06-03, 03:18 AM

I have my great grandfathers pearl handled revolvers… they may be old, but they still work … Do you honestly think I am going to turn them in… No… and neither will the other 65 million law abiding gun owners in this country who have legally purchased over 200 million guns…

[I][b]"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.

That really blows me out that 65 million people own guns, I don't know anyone and only met one person that had a gun in my life. :eek:

Do you think if the police force was rid of corruption and about 10 times bigger, that would help get rid of crooks, and gun misuse Cait. :)

FreeMason

10-06-03, 05:32 AM

Erm, porque? Those were reasons for crime generally. I take it you're disagreeing with the idea that guns facilitate crime in some ways (i believe they do - and there's plenty of anecdotal and logical reasons to believe it)

So are you saying the reasons i stated...don't exist? Don't cause crime? What? Please do enlighten us.

You speak of "us" as if you are more than one person...let's get one thing strait, golgot, you are one person, and your extremist leftist views, are your own.

Now that that has been said, on to the subject matter.

First, your reasons for crime being caused, is invalid, that has been researched and researched and nothing shows what causes crime, except that it may even be genetic.

Hell even smoking during pregnancy has been found to increase criminality.

As for guns making crime worse? No.

Look at Japan, they aren't allowed to have weapons there, and their crimes are HORRIFIC.

One such case my friend encountered, was a kid's head chopped off by a classmate and stuck on a fence, because it was around American holloween many thought it was just a prank, until it festered and rotted.

Also, setting people on fire seems to be a big thing in Japan these days...so guns have nothing to do with severity of crime.

nebbit

10-06-03, 05:50 AM

Look at Japan, they aren't allowed to have weapons there, and their crimes are HORRIFIC.

One such case my friend encountered, was a kid's head chopped off by a classmate and stuck on a fence, because it was around American holloween many thought it was just a prank, until it festered and rotted.

Also, setting people on fire seems to be a big thing in Japan these days...so guns have nothing to do with severity of crime.

God that is terrible, any crime either using a gun or not is horrific.

Do you FreeMason have any ideas what causes crime and how to stop it, banning things like drugs and guns, doesn't seem to stop it, also the legalisation of alcohol, also guns in America, hasn't decreased alcoholism or deaths from guns be that crime or accident...... :confused: I don't know what the answer is.

Golgot

10-06-03, 10:51 AM

You speak of "us" as if you are more than one person...let's get one thing strait, golgot, you are one person, and your extremist leftist views, are your own.

My dear lunatic, i might be related to the queen for all you know, and entitled to be plural ;) - as it is, i'm slightly strange, true, (and possibly extreme coz i don't like extremes put into practice, or to be mentally practiced in many areas) but it doesn't mean i don't agree with reasonable people. I was just suggesting with that phraseology that you are not a reasonable person. That's all :p

Now that that has been said, on to the subject matter.

First, your reasons for crime being caused, is invalid, that has been researched and researched and nothing shows what causes crime, except that it may even be genetic.

Heheheh, oh i love that. Yes, yes, there's probably a single simple gene that explains it all, but no contextual reasons at all. No, that would be far too messy and difficult to deal with, and indeed would stop you just blaming biological human nature alone.

So because there are many potential "causes" of criminality - we give up on it? No - we accept it's a highly complex problem - and we learn from contextualised case-studies as much as from universalised statistics. That's the way to go about dealing with complex social issues in a practical way. And case-studies (or, to be less scientific, my and others' experiences...) suggest that those three things i mentioned contribute heavily to criminal mentalities, potentialities and actualities - especially if we're talking about violent crime. There are many aspects we could isolate which could be true of these and other "causes" i.e. - a feeling of moral or "repurcussional" (to invent a word ;)) seperation from the world around you - a feeling of being unfairly dealt with which justifies harsh counter measures - anything in short which encourages social-selfishness. Could this be a core tenet of anti-social/criminal behaviour? Perhaps. But, oh, wait, that would contradict your belief that fiscal and social systems built around pure-competition are the ideal. Guess you won't go for it then, eh, oh lover-of-free-and-open-debate.

As for guns making crime worse? No.

Look at Japan, they aren't allowed to have weapons there, and their crimes are HORRIFIC.

One such case my friend encountered, was a kid's head chopped off by a classmate and stuck on a fence, because it was around American holloween many thought it was just a prank, until it festered and rotted.

Also, setting people on fire seems to be a big thing in Japan these days...so guns have nothing to do with severity of crime.

"worse" is the wrong term to use here, as is "severity". I said guns can facilitate certain crimes i.e...

-guns allow a physical distance from your victim, which helps dispassionate and safer (for the assailant) acts of violence.
-guns allow a split second decision to become a reality (where as setting fire to someone requires a bit of preparation i suspect)

These are two core aspects of guns which mean they may make violent crime that much more likely.

Your points don't address these issues. These issues potentially make certain violent crimes (and suicides) more likely to happen. They could well make crime "worse" in this statistical sense - not in the qualatitive sense that you are using. Yes, setting fire to someone is a horrific way to kill them - but both of your examples seem to be premeditated and therefore bear little resemblance to the crimes of passion or cowardice i'm talking about.