April 22, 2013 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm #947953
It really does not make a difference how you define it. It makes a difference in how you report it. The bombers had illegal guns and most inner city crimes involve illegal guns and your not going to change that with more background checks. As a matter of fact, the bomber last week wouldnt have made the list and, i suspect, as most things involving government, most likely the wrong people would not be stopped.
You trust goverment too much.April 22, 2013 1:01 pm at 1:01 pm #947954
You’re right it probably won’t prevent gang violence. Though it proabably would prevent the next mass shooting, many cases of domestic violence, and many suicides. I don’t think if it won’t prevent all homicides its not worth trying. It’s time the us stops ranking along with third world countries in this regard.April 22, 2013 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm #947955
In calif. We have too many laws thats why such high murder rates . The rest of us have too few. We need just the right balance. What a joke. There is no such thing. Not in real life, not in a whole country and certainly not with thegovernment.
I can just picture the scenario: background checks dont permit me to own a gun because i once had a run in with my neighbor. You wont be permitted because you suffered slight post partem depression and a third guy because he was involved in a bitter divorce and wife filed all kinds of crazy charges. The blacks and the radical muslims will have no problem getting cleared because otherwise theyll yell racial profiling – “why do we have the least amount of registered ownership.”
Also most mass shooters showed that there was alot of planning beforehand. If theywouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun then theyd figure out how to use a bomb or some other mass casualty device.- no big deal
I would agree that the suicide rate would probably drop although i did not check into that. It takes a lot more courage to willfully torture oneself in a slow painful death than to die a quick death from a single shot.April 22, 2013 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #947956danielaParticipant
I can’t understand. Does anybody think that requiring mandatory background checks and other common-sense regulations will increase the number of victims? I don’t think anyone can argue that. No one is stating this is the perfect solution to all problems, this is obvious. But, will it prevent some murders? Possibly only a few events, or some victims in the same mass event? I think it’s very hard to deny it will prevent some murders, especially given the worldwide statistics, and we all have seen how much of a dissuasion is the simple fact of making it complicated (e.g. smoking laws) even when something is totally legal.
Since we can’t do everything, should we give up and do nothing? What about medicine? Since we can’t help the fact that everyone eventually dies, should we shut down hospitals, doctor’s offices, and medical schools? Or should we do what we can and after that, try harder at it and try to improve even a little bit?April 22, 2013 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #947957
As stated above, worldwide statistics are not statistics just some list the holy un compiled asking each country to report themselves, no oversight.
The enivironment in europe is totally different than here in the us as well. We really cant just take one study and apply itto ourselves without lookingat the whole picture. There is almost no right to bear arms in practically all of europe. Even the police there are not armed with a gun.
The us does have the second ammendment for a reason. we refuse to close our borders and we have illegals streaming into the country along with smugglers. We have dangerous cartels just south of the country that would do anything to make a couple of bucks.
This is a very dangerous situation as i see it. The good guys being sitting ducks and the bad guys having every type of weapon at their disposal.
The goverment that wants to oversee us sent guns to mexico illegally and those guns made their way back into the us to haunt us. We dont even know where they are today. And you think goverment oversight will stop or prevent murders?April 22, 2013 3:36 pm at 3:36 pm #947958
california which shares our environment has relatively very strict gun laws and has the most murders in the country.
Yes i think that we need to do something about the murder rate but a swat in the dark based on inacurate information is a stupid way to go. It just makes you feel like you did something but in reality nothing was accomplished and you chipped away a little more of our rights.April 22, 2013 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #947959
So where is the line drawn?
Are you ok with anybody getting a gun no questions asked?
Again if course the govt isn’t perfect. Far from it. That is not a reason to not try what has worked in other countries. We have an epidemic. Something MUST be done. And no it has nothing to do with culture.April 22, 2013 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #947960rationalfrummieMember
California actually has a fairly average state murder rate of 4.8, and the murder rate has decreased every year this decade. Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee all have much higher murder rates, ranging from 8 to 11. These are all southern states with many gun owners and a strong “gun culture.”April 22, 2013 4:15 pm at 4:15 pm #947961
ubiuitin: Im obviously not an expert. But once we are having this discussion lets bring up a couple of points.
1) I think, although Im not sure that most mass murderers that we know of was involved somehow in a violent culture thing be it vidoes and games, religious fanatics, or disallusioned military nincompoops. Once accepted a normal and natural people dont recoil so quickly.
2) goverment is not perfect they are part of the problem. As long as they are not held responsible on real issues they just create bigger messes. ( i would bring up obamacare but not here it would be fun to do it in another thread)
3) Reallypart of 2 we have so many laws that are not enforced. Why dont we listen to ourselves for a change and do the logical thing and prevent the illegal and detrimental. We yell about the cost of caring for illegal immigrants. We yell about the crime that comes along with them. We are upset about the poor standard of living they bring along. And yet we refuse to seal the borders. If we dont want to protect ouselves then dontbut dont yell about in political campaigns, on the house and senate floor, in the media then write another bill tht we have no way of enforcing. (Now call me racist). Dont force me to give up my rights because the government refuses to do its job of protecting me but keep on pandering to non citizens and looking away because it might gain votes. Its insensical.
4) we already tried it in california and it was proven that it doesnt work in this part of the world.
5) Im not okay with anyone just getting hold of a gun, but as long as there are so many illegal ones out there i dont want any more restrictions on the legal ones. I view it as a real self defense issue.
Finally, i do believe that if we were to work on this together outside of politics or government for that matter and truly want to do whats good for the country, not either side if the aisle or specific political gains, we would be able to come up with something much more logical and timeworthy.April 22, 2013 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #947962
One more thing. We will have a very hard time recognizing it as a cultural thing because then you run into first ammendment issues. So there will definitely be alot if backlash on this.April 22, 2013 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #947963
that and the fact that European countries and Canada have the same TV/movies we do yet multiple times lower homicide rates.
Even if they are underreported. Several times? The countries you brought up (APain and Norway) have 6-8 times lower homicide rates. Even if the are grossly underrepresented and are in actually twice as high. They are still3-4 times lowerApril 22, 2013 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #947964
There is one post before the one you just read that did not go up yet so u didnt read everything.
I never said under reporting i said different reporting. For instance were the victims in the norway shooting reported as homicide or just terrorism or hate crime?
I dont think there is a country in europe that allows guns and i dont think they have as many illegal weapons being smuggled in like we do. So they have an entirely different environment and what/if something works for them it does not mean it will work for us.
Another thing about european countries is that they have a lot of extremist groups there so if someone wants to hate they have plenty of company there. They dont have to act out on their own. They just train together and wait for their party to be elected into power or given a voice. They think their day will come yet. They themselves are pressure cookers waiting to explode. If they dont get arrested first.April 22, 2013 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #947965
in the post that has yet to go up do you answer my question
“Are you ok with anybody getting a gun no questions asked?” I think it is an important question.
In other words do you agree with Lapierre in 99′ or 2013?April 22, 2013 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #947966
1) So would you support a ban on selling guns to people involved with “involved somehow in a violent culture thing be it vidoes and games, religious fanatics, or disallusioned military nincompoops” (more theoretical than practical, supposing he mentioned it to the seller)?
2) agreed. Though I cant think of a private citizens way to help solve the madness
3) None of these mass shootings were commited by illegal immigrants. So while this may be an important point, it is entirely irelevant to the subject at hand.
4) California proves it DOES work but is not perfect. I’m not looking for a perfect solution (yet).
5) A background check on all gun purchases would not be a restriction on any leagl guns. It would prevent crazies in the future from purchasing a gun no questions asked.
6) Probably, the problem is some people are unwilling to listen to reason. The NRA had supported universal background checks. There was nothing controversial in this bill. Yet the NRA purchased senators blocking oppostion in spite of the fact that a majority of the senate voted in favor of the bill.April 22, 2013 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #947967
In Canada, where gun control is very strict, of all homicides only 30 percent are caused by firearms. How did the other 70 percent kill? If guns cause murder rates to go up the percentage of firearm related deaths should be much higher.April 22, 2013 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #947968
So in canada (which oviously has a similar culture to ours) strict gun control helps. Their homicde rate as youve correctly pointed out is lower than ours (1.6 vs 4.8).
The other 70% kill with any weapon to get their hand on, but it is more difficult to kill, reflected in their lower homicide rate.
(again keep in mind guns arent just a problem in the number of people they kill, they also cause worse injuries than say knives and to more people)
A longer reply to your 6 outlined points is awaiting moderationApril 23, 2013 1:24 am at 1:24 am #947969
Actually i would argue differently. The percentage of gun related deaths would have to be much probably over 90% to prove what you are saying. If you would say most, or close to all murders are gun related and the rest were not then it would mean that the release of more guns would add to the total homicide. The fact that only 30% is gun related proves that one with an intent to kill will kill even without a gun.
Canadas culture/ environment is totally different then ours. I dont believe they have the same immigrant problem like we do.April 23, 2013 1:43 am at 1:43 am #947970
Many with intent to kill will kill without a a gun. But many more will not. and of those who do, more victims will survive a stabbinf and there will be less innocent bystanders.
For example if Adam Lanza did not have access to a gun. would he have gone through the school stabbing? Maybe maybe not. If he had though what would the outcome be? On the same day as Sandy Hook, in china a mass stabbing took place.
Here are the results:
Sandy Hook: dead 28, injured 2
chenpeng: dead 0, injured 24April 23, 2013 2:02 am at 2:02 am #947971
1) Background checks dont come into play here. I would dump the violent culture first. Yes. If the government wouldnt be so good at messing everything up i would support a ban on all things violent in nature. We as a people need to decide that we’ve reached our tolerance limit for violent crime and collectively decide not to support a violent culture. It could start with education … but then people will be yelling first ammendment.
2) The US laws are sacred in a secular way. You dont just write them to show that your trying to do something. Every law written, no matter how innocuous, slowly chips away at our freedom and could eventually come back to bite us. We are supposed to deliberate and debate them rationally, not politically or emotionally to see if it is really necessary or practical.
3) I never insinuated that they were. I said the guns were illegal. I dont think they were registered in their name.
4) Explain to me how calif , with the tightest control, proves that the laws work when they are number 18 – with one being the most murders. They are in the 25% that have the most homicides. They also had the most murders last year. I dont want to get more “perfect” than that.
5) Most of this topic was covered under 2&3. But whats to stop anyone from using the gun? Should you be banned from purchasing a gun if you have a relative who is/ needs/ should be/ will be in need of mental health care? There are enough guns circulating legally and illegally that background checks would do nothing but create a database of people that own firearms or want to own firearms. That is a violation of my privacy.
6) Me thinks the nra is highly politicized.April 23, 2013 2:04 am at 2:04 am #947972
Thank you moderator for having the patience to moderate these long posts.April 23, 2013 2:14 am at 2:14 am #947973
1) Even if that would work (it wouldnt as ive pointed out several times europe and Canada have the same violent movies and TV).
Do you view the “right to bear arms” as more important than free speech?
2) I suppose i agree. I think this law would have saved lives.
4) Ca in of itself doesnt prove. it but comparing it to the states with looser restrictions and more homicdes does.
BTw read up on australia, they have a resounding success story with gun control
5) The law the NRA turned down explicitly banned such a database.
I second the thanks to the modsApril 23, 2013 2:18 am at 2:18 am #947974
I dont know seventy percent of the other murders were successful so what are you getting at. Is it easier to kill with a gun? Of course. But what if lanza would have planted a couple of bombs? Stabbing is not the only way to kill people. I dont know what goes through the guys heads and where they get their thrill from. If someone plans a mass killing it usually goes with a lot of preplanning (hence the gun free zones chosen). It doesnt take a lot to know that knives dont take you very far. Theyd figure something else out.
As terrible as it is, I dont think the mass killings are whats bringing up o the ur numbers so high. For mass shooters one or two armed security guards at public places would do trick. I think that its inner city gang violence mainly. All other violence is what Im afraid of and thats why I want my gun.April 23, 2013 2:46 am at 2:46 am #947975
1) It wouldnt work. There ared no morals in todays society. You should be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. (Thrill of violent media to thrill in real life)
I would definitely not want a crime like atmosphere like most in europe have. It is a lot safer walking the streets of nyc in the middle of the night than walking the streets of france or england in broad daylight. Lets leave them out. They just dont come into our picture at all.
My view here is irrelevant because I would hate to see the goverment doing away with all rights they deem wasteful.
2) Thats why theres deliberation 🙂
4) i checked there is no direct relation.
5) Whose talking nra? I thought were talking good for country.April 23, 2013 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm #947976
The homicide rate in both England and France are lower. I know that you don’t believe it but that doesn’t make it less true.
I’m not saying there is a direct link beteen gun control and murder, there is a general trend though.
Ths law would have been good for the country. Most citizens supported it and even most senators. It was the nra who turned it down.
Gang violence is lower on my concern list, since “innocents” aren’t as affected. I want to limit mass shootings, domestic disputes and suicides all of which background cgecks and waiting periods would help.
Would he have used bombs? Who knows probably not. Countries with limited gun ownership don’t have an epidimic of bombings.April 23, 2013 1:28 pm at 1:28 pm #947977
France and england have an epidemic of violent crime.
I would believe that if you factor out gang violence you would see that our country is pretty peaceful. (No backup data)
Citizens and senators were supporting it because they had to do something, so they tapped in the dark.
Mass shootings and domestic disputes can be helped if with armed guards at public places and training of people on correct use of firearms to use in self defense.
Incidentally, the us has less suicide rates than a lot of countries with strict gun control. So no relationship there either.
What is clear, is that religious countries, ie. Cleaner cultures, have the lowest suicide rates.April 23, 2013 1:58 pm at 1:58 pm #947978
I’m sorry I’m supposed to accept your data-less assertations while you deny factual data.?Both France and England have lower homicide rates than we do (about 4 times lower).
(again in spite if same violent movies/tv).
You are right about suicide though, for example Japan has very strict gun regulation (and thus a very low homicide rate) but a very high suicide rate due to a bizzare cultural thing.April 23, 2013 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm #947979
I cant tell if youre being sarcastic or not with your second statement.
I checked it up. Its hard to know for sure but according to fbi and us census data gang related homicides make up between 30 – 50% of all homicides. Thats a significant number you cant just not care about.
It really does not make sense to discuss european countries because of different nature of environment. We dont even want to have their criminal atmosphere, its very bad. So why bring proofs of countries that we dont want/ cant emulate?
By the way japan has pretty healthy ethical culture. They are hard working people, very family minded and extremely respectful as a whole. That must say something.April 23, 2013 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #947980
I wasnt being sarcastic suicide has a lot offactors involved. Though several studies have shown that making barriers to suicide prevents them from occuring (this is usuallyin the context of barriers on bridges/ buidlings).
I dont mean dont care about, just that they are not my number one concern. Those are deeper problems often involving cultures with no way out. As you have mentined in the past the guns involved in these incidents are generally illegal and all the background checks in the world wouldnt help.
However your research proves my case a resounding 70-50% of homicides in the US are NOT gang related! In other words with the right regulation these are the ones we can prevent (again, granted not all of them). That is a lot of homicide even the lower edge of that range is still a higher rate of homicide than any of the countries you have brought up in the course of this conversation (France, England, Norway, and Spain) I would love to emulate their homicide rates.
Japan btw has a much much much more violent TV/movie culture. and a much lower homicide rate.April 23, 2013 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #947981
Ok. Basically your telling me that many more than 50% of homicides are comitted using illegal guns. We have all these weapons in the hands of god knows what type of creeps but we should pass more laws and background checks to further restrict legal weapons. How does that make sense. Uh uh! I’m more convinced now then I was before that we need them for self defense.
Its like saying that the middle east needs to disarm. Ok Israel give up all you advanced bombs and weaponry cuz your the only one thats gonna listen anyway. Dont worry well take care of you…April 23, 2013 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #947982
Nobody is taking away weapons. Nobody. Nobody.
First of all you provided the numbers and no I did not say 50% of murders are illegal weapons. But it doesnt matter.
You can buy all the weapons you want as long as you pass a background check. Using your analogy, it would probably be a great step towards disarming the middle east (Not that I believe that is a good or plausible idea, im just following your anaolgy through)if the world began a policy that for now on if a middle eastern country wants to buy a weapon, they can’t have had a history of mental illness etc. Who would oppose such a policy?April 23, 2013 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #947983
So on hand you say its a culture thing with nothing to do about it and on the other hand you say its got nothing to do with culture. Youve got to make up your mind.
Besides as stated before we dont have the same environment as europe. They basically have sealed borders, by nature of continent, and a very low tolerance for diff types of people with no regard toward human life. They are just not accepted there. They also have a terribly high violent crime rate in virtually every part of their countries. Then again I dont see what we stand to gain.
Lets do some math. US homicide rate is 4.7. Take out 30-50% gang related deaths and youre over 2. According to all the vast majority of gun homicides are comitted with illegal weapons i would say its fair to put us between 1 &2. Even playing field. Now take into account the different reporting by countries and you see that we dont know what we are comparing. We dont have a particularly high rate of violent crime.
Considering the fact that our borders are still open wide, we are extremely welcoming to all even ones trying to hurt us (last weeks events), our government refuses to do its job and enforce laws already on the books. Why do you think another law like this would help save lives? I believe that if wed be enforcing laws we have today, wed be a pretty peaceful country.April 23, 2013 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #947984
I’m sorry I see how that was confusing. There are two distinct classes of homicides in my mind and i’m sure you’d agree since it was you who first identified 1 of those subsets.
There is one group of gang related these are mostly (all?) with illegal guns. You indicated that this accounts for less than half to half of all homicides. These would probably not be limited by background checks. These are a result of deep cultural norms and societies with values completly different than our own. These (the pereptrators and victims)are generally people who are part of that culture/society with little to no hope of breaking free solving this problem will take a lot more than gun control laws. I dont quite get why they should be excluded from US stats but not foreign stats. again though even if we did you still have to fudge the numbers to make them close.
There is another larger group which includes most other homicides. These would be drasticly reduced by preventing the wrong people from getting their hands on guns. If we enforce are current laws we wouldbe sitting ducks for mentally unstable people who want to gun down innocents. They cant just walk into a gun shop and buy a gun (B”H) but they can take advantage of a gun show sized loophole and buy as many guns as they can carry no questions asked.
Neither of these groups are a result of culture as in TV/movies (which is what I assumed you meant when you first brought up culture way back when)April 24, 2013 12:36 am at 12:36 am #947985
Going back to the middle east. You have criminals with evil intent that possess large stockpiles of weapons. And then you have israel who also own weapons for self defense purposes. If israel would agree to such a proposition it not only would be extremely stupid it would be suicidal.
If you only have one side listening to rules because youre afraid to start up with the other side youre just creating more victims.
I dont know why your not getting this. As long as our country is flooded with illegal guns coming from less than stellar sources, it would make no sense, actually it would be dangerous, to keep putting restrictions on normal law abiding citizens who would actually go through the background check.
The politicians arent saying this because it brings up the whole border thing and of course illegal immigration which equals less votes. To go believe their propaganda is being truly naive and taking attention away from where it is needed.
Why dont we try to take back our country, clean up our act, and then if there are still issues then we will have two willing participants to this conversation.April 24, 2013 12:47 am at 12:47 am #947986
There are no gangs in europe.
Incidentally there are lots of them in the russian region where the homicide rates are extremely elevated.April 24, 2013 12:55 am at 12:55 am #947987
Ok lets start by taking back the contry from the corrupt lobbyists such as the NRA.
Let me tell you a story that will really make you mad, many americans where getting shot, much more than any civilized country. Finnaly the american public had enough and most of them said it is time we make sure we stop selling guns to bad guys. The NRA once supported this idea, but have since become more power hungry and have decided to stop it. They bought off politicians and in spite of the country’s best interests, and in spite of a majority of the senate supporting the bill it failed.
You say the law would place “restrictions on normal law abiding citizens who would actually go through the background check.” This is laughable if the person is normal and law-abiding then they pass the background check. If they dont pass it is either because they aren’t normal or law abiding.April 24, 2013 12:58 am at 12:58 am #947988
No gangs in Europe? You have got to be kidding their inner cities look the same as ours. (google gangs in europe)
I’d like to think our legal system is more similar to England and France than Russia. If we get our act together their is no reason we cant achieve homicide rates that are closer to theirsApril 24, 2013 1:08 am at 1:08 am #947989
I did the research and all pointed to no gangs but street violence yes. Big difference. High violent crime.
Legal system is worthless if not upheld.April 24, 2013 1:24 am at 1:24 am #947990
wikipedia has a category “gangs in europe”
You can read about gangs in each country we’ve spoken of.April 24, 2013 2:04 am at 2:04 am #947991
Ok. My bad. There are gangs in europe. A relatively insignificant amount. Enough so that you have articles stating there are none and and articles mentioning a couple.April 24, 2013 2:12 am at 2:12 am #947992
So your complaing about murders and instead of going after the murderers your gonna go after a political organization? Theyre not stopping us from protecting ourselves against the massive onslaught of illegal weapons.
Why do you keep bring up the nra ? For all i care the heck with them. The way you keep attacking the nra proves to me that you have a political agenda.April 24, 2013 2:47 am at 2:47 am #947993
It is solely because of the NRA that this bill didn’t get passed. They have the blood of the next innocent children on their hands. A majority of the US supported the bill, it passed the house a majority of senators did, even they themselves supported it a few years back. Yet here we are EXACTLY where we were Dec 13. After every shooting the slight silver lining is that it pushes people to acknowledge we have a problem, and to start fixing it would be closing a loophole that allows ANYBODY to get a gun.
Also I’m not going after them, they are thoroughly evil people who will one day have to answer for any deaths legislation theyve blocked could have prevented, but I support their right to be evilApril 24, 2013 3:04 am at 3:04 am #947994
I rest my case.April 24, 2013 4:00 am at 4:00 am #947995147Participant
Mike Bloomberg remains so correct in his unrelenting quest for stricter gun laws.
Maybe these 2 Boston chechnians would have been intercepted sooner, considering how many weapons they obtained without being caught prior to their henious outburst.April 24, 2013 10:42 am at 10:42 am #947996
Big deal,That was fun. Its hard to defend something so nutty but I admire your attempt.
All the best
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.