New Gun Laws

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%.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

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…

__________________

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?

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.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

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?

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

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

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)

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

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…

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…

"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.

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.

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…

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…

*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

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? )

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.

__________________
За родину, за победу, за веру.
Za rodeenu, za pobedu, za veru.

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…

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 ). 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.

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...... I don't know what the answer is.

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

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.

"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.