- This topic has 93 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Did anyone else hear Obama cry after his gun law didn’t get passed in the Democratic senate?! He called it a shame. It made me so happy to finally see his own people go against his crazy ways. There’s already enough gun laws in the country that we shouldn’t be focusing on it. Obama should be focusing on the lousy economy and horrible unemployement rate. This was a victory for all law abiding citizens.
“There’s already enough gun laws in the country”
Wrong. It is legal in most states to sell a gun to a convicted violent felon, someone who is so mentally ill that he/she is a danger to society, and someone who belongs to a terrorist organization. They are able to amass a huge arsenal with nobody knowing about it until they strike. The “crazy ways” are to continue to allow this!
Personally, I thought it was done at an inopportune time when the entire nation was focused on the Boston bombings.
I also think its crazy. Are they going to do background checks on anybody wanting to purchase a pressure cooker?
People could cause extensive carnage with basic supplies. There is tons of info available on how to create the most efficient bomb and your going after guns?
Michael Bloomberg had the 1 & only right comment:- Come mid term elections:- All electors shall be reminded which senators cruelly voted against gun laws.
Leave it to Mike Bloomberg, to make massive negative publicity against each senator who voted for more murders in America.
While I feel that it was idiotic not to pass this gun law, Obama’s comments afterwards were a clear attempt at subverting the checks and balances that our constitution is based off of.
to bad on him!
No Ariellah, too bad on us
Ariellah:- “to” should have been spelled “too” in the context you were utilizng this word.
Both of you Ariellah & ubiquitin are correct on this one.
-The laws, as they exist, allowed Adam Lanza to use an assault weapon with large-capacity magazines to slaughter twenty-six innocents – twenty children and six adults – including heroic school staffers who died trying to protect the children they were responsible for.
-The laws, as they exist, allowed Jared Lee Loughner to shoot eighteen people, murdering six, with a pistol that had a high capacity magazine.
-The laws, as they exist, allowed Seung-Hui Cho to shoot forty nine people at Virginia Tech, murdering thirty two, including a Jewish professor who heroically died while saving many of his students’ lives.
The vetting done by any hiring company, credit card issuer, insurer, or the like is far more extensive than what’s proposed for prospective gun owners.
charliehall –
It is not legal to sell guns to violent felons (or any felons) or mentally ill people. What is missing is the ability to detect that the buyer is a felon and/or insane due to the lack of compulsory background checks in all sales.
Confession: The Second Amendment is a little out of date and should be taken out of the Constitution altogether.
Why the gratuitous insulting of President Obama in the title?
Adam lanza used his mothers gun. A background check wouldnt have helped. Not sure about the others.
I agree that there is too much violence but adding more inconveniences (that dont do much) to law abiding citizens just doesnt make sense.
I’m pretty conservative (politically) so I was always anti gun control. After all the terrible shootings we’ve had, I do understand why people want it.
But I did see this and thought it was an interesting point: When a bombng happens, we blame the bomber. When a stabbing happens we blame the stabber. But when a shooting happens we blame the gun.
Simplistic, but still a lot of truth in that.
“It is not legal to sell guns to violent felons (or any felons) or mentally ill people.”
In most of the us, if you don’t KNOW if the person is a felon, it is legal. And as you point out, there is no way to easily find out unless you are a licensed firearms dealer. Universal background checks are needed.
“this does, in effect, remove someone’s rights without a trial or conviction of any sort”
Which is why there needs to be a way to get off this list. Just as there needs to be a way to appeal your denial of a gun permit. This is not complicated!
SWe33t, I saw that too and was can’t believe anybody thinks its logical. If bombs where readilly sold as guns are you bet there would be an outcry. And consider why shouldn’t bombs be readily available after all they are “arms” and according to gun nuts should be protected under the 2bd ammendment which is bit limited to guns.
If the bombs used in the attack were purchased from “bombs r us”, do you really think there wouldn’t be calls to limit derranged people from easily purchasing a comb with out even a background check?
Frankly, I’d be a lot more comfortable in my house right now if I had a gun, if you know what I mean.
Confession: The Second Amendment is a little out of date and should be taken out of the Constitution altogether.
In what way is that a confession? Did you cause the Second Amendment to go out of date?
The Wolf
Confession: The Second Amendment is a little out of date and should be taken out of the Constitution altogether.
And it can be, and maybe one day it will be. Also maybe one day the 13th, 14th, and 15th will be taken out. Careful what you wish for.
I think a better ex would be when someone is killed by a drunk driver, the survivors usually blame the driver, not alcohol.
Popa
I think many residents of Boston would feel a lot safer if they owned guns….
Yserbius123–
“Confession: The Second Amendment is a little out of date and should be taken out of the Constitution altogether. “
?
big deal–
The high-capacity magazines that Lanza used allowed him to shoot a huge number of bullets before the police arrived at the scene. Each of his victims had at least three gunshot wounds. This type of magazine would be prohibited under the new law. While there still would have been victims even if seven-bullet magazines were used, there probably would have been many less.
What are you unsure of? The other two shootings were committed by known mentally ill individuals who bought their own guns. Background checks, which the new law would mandate together with reporting, should have stopped those sales.
As far as inconvenience, a one-time background check when buying weapons is far less inconvenient than the screening we must undergo when flying, when going to a stadium (e.g. for the siyum hashas), when going into a mall in Israel and many more examples. BTW, you are aware that this inconvenience already exists whenever buying from a gun store?
sw33t–
After the WTC and Oklahoma City bombings, there were many proposed measures to make it less likely to recur.
Among them:
-Creating nitrogen-based fertilizer that would be unsuitable for bomb-building.
-Adding identifying characteristics to fertilizer to help identify where it was from in case of a bomb.
-Protecting vulnerable buildings by placing barriers around them.
charliehall–
Are you saying that putting someone on a watch list should a) require that the subjects be informed they are on the list, and b) require that they should have the opportunity to remove themselves from that list and c) require being restricted on gun purchases and perhaps other things?
If I misunderstood your point, please correct me.
sw33t- by the same measure there should be no guns on the street, as there’s no DWI allowed. The survivors usually say there was a drunk driver, not there was someone driving- by the way he was drunk. People killed by gun holders aren’t killed by a person who happens to have a gun.
sw33t, that is an even worse example! Drunk driving has VERY strict rules. For just getting in a car with an open beverage you can get arrested. The bartender who allowed an obvious drunk guy to drive home is ALWAYS blamed
Icot: The point is that if its available it would be fairly easy to get your hands on it. How many illeagal guns are there? How many are in other persons possession? Writing new laws is only a show. It wont do anything to stop the crime.
I think that the problem is the culture. How you can get it to change is anyones guess.
About the drunk driving thing: Yes, its terrible and yes you get the entire book thrown at you. But look at how many drunk drivers are still out there.
big deal, Yet you dont say “look at how many drunk drivers are still out there” so lets get rid of laws regarding drunk driving (i assume).
So why use the argument “How many illeagal guns are there” as a reason not to have strict gun laws?
When they wanted to stop the smoking. They got rid of all the billboards glorifying smoking, they put out ads about how dangerous smoking is and most of all they put on a hefty tax onto a cigarette. By doing all tge above they basically made people very sensitive to smoking.
I know its not exactly the same but try to compare it to our culture for a second. Get rid of violent movies and video games. Teach good will to others no self servingv society and put a hefty tax on weapons – wont be available so easily.
I know this sounds very extreme but the truth is that if we dont solve the core of the problem the problem will manifest itself ifvnot in this way then in others.
big deal, the problem with that argument is that other countries have the same violent movies and video games as we do. Yet the firearm related death rate in the US is far ahead of any other in the western world.
While the problem you identify may be part of the problem, it can hardly be called “the core of the problem.”
big deal, the problem with that argument is that other countries have the same violent movies and video games as we do. Yet the firearm related death rate in the US is far ahead of any other in the western world.
The relevant number is not the “firearm related death”; it is the “violent death”. Counting firearm related death is like saying chinese people are healthier because they don’t eat as much pizza.
PBA, Fine
big deal, the problem with that argument is that other countries have the same violent movies and video games as we do. Yet the violent death rate in the US is far ahead of any other in the western world.
(As an aside PBA, I disagree with that since the subject at hand is “gun control” thus firearm related death is waht we are discussing. We would be better off if criminals were forced to resort to other waepons since a. guns are deadlier and b. guns can kill/injure more people in a faster amount of time. Consider: on the same day as Sandy Hook a mass stabbing took place in a school in China a similar number of people were affected (24) however none of them were killed
PBA, Fine
big deal, the problem with that argument is that other countries have the same violent movies and video games as we do. Yet the violent death rate in the US is far ahead of any other in the western world.
I don’t know if that is true; I say you made it up. Source.
(As an aside PBA, I disagree with that since the subject at hand is “gun control” thus firearm related death is waht we are discussing. We would be better off if criminals were forced to resort to other waepons since a. guns are deadlier and b. guns can kill/injure more people in a faster amount of time. Consider: on the same day as Sandy Hook a mass stabbing took place in a school in China a similar number of people were affected (24) however none of them were killed
If you just measure all killings, it includes all your svaros.
PBA
I cant provide links. source is UN office on drug and crime. I found it via wikipedia
As to your other point: granted
though I was pointing out that it is not just the death rate that is a problem a violent act is worse whent he perpetrator has a gun as compared to a knife the children at Sandy Hook would hhave been better off had Lanza come in swinging a knife, and the individual children attacked would have been better off stabbed than shot. These are all consideration that gun control legislation would attempt to correct.
I cant believe we are even having this conversation after the events of the last few days. People that intend to kill will do just that. Its fairly easy if one is determined even without guns. What about the madrid bombings? How about Norway where even the police arent armed – bomb plus guns.
About the culture thing. Natural human reaction to a grisly scene is major disgust and not a whole lot of tolerance. A person can only muster courage to cause so much carnage and blood if he is desensitized to it or if it were glorified in his culture.
big deal, it is easy but still harder. The examples you cite prove my point the homicide rate in Spain is 0.8 per 100,000, Norway is even less as 0.6. THe US is 4.8 (this is the homicide rate which includes all weaapns).
These cultures have the same TV programs and movies that the US does. Yet their homicide rates are multiple times lower. you are correct that they are not 0, and that People that intend to kill will do just that.
Yet it is important to determine why our homicide rate is so much higher than the very countries you mention, and what can we do about it.
The specific bill that got “killed” was not “Obama’s Bill”, but an improvement of the present back round checking. It also would have reaffirmed the ban on a registry of gun owners.
Overall the bill would have enhanced protection against tyranny. Criminal armed thugs have been used by many dictators to enforce their will.
Mitt Romney would have got that bill through. However, there is too much Obama phobia now for any gun measure. Obama’s statement in 2008 about “bitter people clinging to guns and religion” causes any gun related bill to be viewed as an attack on the rural culture.
I dont know about those numbers. They come from each countries own records and what they consider homicides.
For instance if they dont consider late term abortions homicide then they wont record it as such. If we do then we will dutifully record it as a homicide.
Big deal,
nice try the numbers are from UN office on drug and crime. I dont think dont think they consider abortion.
Besdies guns aren’t used for abortions so this point is entirely irrelevant.
here is where it gets better Late term abortion is illegal in Norway! In Spain it is legal for medical reasons only. In the US only 22 states have restrictions on late term abortion. 28 (more than half the country!)do not.
This was a nice try, but once again you will have to come up with a real reson why the gun violence rate (or homicde rate if you accept PBa’s point) is so much higher in the US. It is not (solely) due to TV/Movies. Nor is it as a result of abortion.
(Interestingly if you are into the yeshivish freakanomics, he argues that the legalization of abortion in the US actually DECREASED the violent crime rate.)
Obama’s statement in 2008 about “bitter people clinging to guns and religion” causes any gun related bill to be viewed as an attack on the rural culture.
Yeah, its funny what happens when people start to pick up on the fact that you look down on them and think they are pathetic losers. Which happens pretty quickly when you get caught saying it on a live mike.
I saw those numbers and actually wikipedia, which quotes those numbers, informed me of what i stated above. In addition the point made is that each country independently reports their homicide rates.
Its like asking each country to independently report their nuclear activity. Surely iraq will come up with zero activity.
big deal,
So when numbers prove you wrong you deny them?
Late term abortion is illegal in Norway and more limited in spain than in the US. Thus it cant explain why the homicide rate is 6-8 times higher in the US than in those countries.
Do you ave any other thoughts as to why the homicide rate is so much higher in the Us? Are you saying it isnt?
While you are thinking about that consider this, guns arent used for abortions why is the firearm-related death so much highier in the US?
If you want an accurate study you need to go to an area where all crime is classified by the same group on the same standards.
The united states for example. California has the strictest gun control laws and the highest homicide rate and a pretty high gun homicide rate. They also have the dirtiest culture.
Besides all these technical points. If you want to write anither law just make sure it will make a difference not just clog up the airwaves about nothing. Come up with something decent without t
aking away my 2nd ammendment.
Im saying i dont know if homicide is greater in the us. The abortion was just an example with many more crimes being classified any which way. Do the research.
Im not sure about gun homicide i havent looked at that yet but it would make sense if they were far more available in the us and it is.
My point is that if someone wants to kill they will despite the facts they dont have guns. Im talking homicides not gun homicides.
big deal,
YES!!! I think you finnaly nailed it (partially)
“but it would make sense if they were far more available in the us and it is.” Proabbly correct. This is why we have to make getting guns harder. Increase background checks. (something the NRA supported a few years ago).
It is easier to kill with a gun (suicide too which we havent discussed yet, but is important to mention as well). getting rid of guns makes it harder (though not impossible, we have addresssed this) to kill.
Additionally keep in mind as ive mentioned to PBA guns are worse than other weopns becuase when they dont kill they injure MORE people and with MORE SEVERE injuries. compare the knife attack in china to the massacre in Sandy HOok which occured on the same day.
a few other quibbles:
“If you want an accurate study you need to go to an area where all crime is classified by the same group on the same standards.”
The data was compiled by a UN office.
“Come up with something decent without taking away my 2nd ammendment. “
background checks dont take away your second ammendment. The amendment calls for “well regulated”
(as an aside for almost the first 200 years of its existence has been understood as applying to militias and not individuals but this is a beside the point since it doesnt matter what the was meant/understood. the supreme court recently read it as applying to indivduals, so until we can replace the current justices with ORIGINALISTS 🙂 there is no point discussing this established fact.)
“Im saying i dont know if homicide is greater in the us.”
It is
“Do the research.”
I have
Lets try again:
Every country classifies each crime in a different way. They call them other things.
A list compiled by the un is only COMPILED by the un not classified. It means that the nations are self reporting crimes in the way they themselves classified it to the un. There is no oversight.
Again if you were to run a true study you would take a place as close in culture, laws, geography as us as possible to see how things would work out if we did things the way others are suggesting. California has pretty tight gun control laws and they have the highest homicide rate and one of the highest gun homicide rate in the country. These crimes are all reported by the fbi using the same standards and classifications throughout all the states (besides for two). Thats called a fair study.
A small historical point: A duel, where you had two opponents shooting at each other, was a fairly common way of settling major disputes in the early days. Theres no hint of militias there. (I would not want to see a comeback of this practice. This is not what im defending.)
Big deal
Are you saying the homicides are falsely reported. Which way are the US over reporting for some reason? Are forign countries underreporting? Why dont the repressive countries underreport as well?
Fine lets pretend you are correct, lets examine the data that you clim will make you happy
California does not have the highest homicde rate in the country. It is 17th (Probably thanks to its strict gun laws). Louisiana is the state with the highest rate and it has among the waekest gun control laws (Ithas a brady score of 2/100). in fact of the 10 worst homicide states (LA, MD, MO, SC, NV, NM, MI, TN, MS & AZ) 8!! Had a Brady campaign score of 10 or lower making them among the least restrictive states in the country.
I did not say that anyone is over or under reporting. All i said was that each country has their own way of classifying crime. I might call it a hate crime or terrorism and you might call it homicide. I might be fine with abortion and you might call it feticide and include it in your homicide rates. These are just examples.
That said i just researched california again to see where your getting your info from and i realized that different sites report it differently. So lets go with yours for now. Strictest gun laws and their number 17 out of 50. You need to do better than that .
I still stand by my original position that the current law (that was on the floor last week) would do nothing to touch the murder rates but would just make a big show for nothing.
homicide is homicide. There is only one way to define it. A hate crime that kills people is homicide abortion is not. Denying the statistics wont make them go away.
OK so lets pretend California’s gun laws are too strict and they’d be better off backing up a bit to a nice middle number. They are still better off thanalthe states I mentioned plus 6 others who have weaker gun control laws.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.