Jump to content
philpot123

Gun rights/control/ownership

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I know.  I personally would rather see it every 6 months--hell if I had my way it'd be every 3 months.  But we don't have the resources to do that, and people don't want to do that.  But I think anything longer than every year is too long, considering how quickly things can go south.
In many cases we can speak about having a history of depression (or something else which might affect one's decision-making) - and I agree that those people should be more frequently checked than others, even if the condition has never been severe enough to not give them a permit at all. Everyone else should be able to get by with less, especially in case you want the kind of mental testing which does not assume that the person is cooperative and wants to reveal one's possible issues.

Share this post


Link to post

LOL People say everything is racism nowadays. I'm just pointing out a fact. Even though they make up only 13% of the population here, they are responsible for over 50% of the firearm homicides. Well, actually, it's black males.

 

I believe they also make up a HUGE proportion of the poor. Which is often what leads to the desperation that makes people turn to crime.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
I believe they also make up a HUGE proportion of the poor. Which is often what leads to the desperation that makes people turn to crime.

Yes. Poverty and drugs, separately and in combination. The US welfare system feels very broken, too. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Yes. Poverty and drugs, separately and in combination. The US welfare system feels very broken, too. sad.gif

I think what stats MOSTLY prove is that crime of all kinds is far higher in countries where the differences between disgustingly rich and grindingly poor are greatest - and the US is one of the worst countries for this. There is comparatively very little difference in Belgium - as in many other EU countries - and their crime rate is lower.

 

Interestingly, there is only one country in Africa which is deemed to be really safe by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs when assessing travel safety. Botswana - the one country with a really good welfare system, free health care and education, and no great disparity between rich and poor. And little crime smile.gif Oh - and a GREAT MANY persons of colour xd.png.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you saying you felt like harming someone or is this about feeling suicidal/depressed?

 

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

I think I'm aware that mental illness/difference from the norm =/= violent crazy of media fame, thanks. I've only been dealing with depression for almost half my life and being on the autism spectrum for all of it. ;D

 

Last fall, it definitely was closer to the depressed and homicidal end of the spectrum than the depressed and suicidal end.

 

Last week (ah, technically about 2 weeks ago now...) it was definitely closer to the suicidal end of the spectrum--but I was often at my worst during situations where, if I had snapped, I would have had a very high probability of causing property damage to innocent bystanders at the very least--if not causing injury and/or death. One does not generally swerve a car going 80pmh into another car while in the middle of 4 lanes full of cars and trucks and absolutely nothing happens, after all.

 

 

In many cases we can speak about having a history of depression (or something else which might affect one's decision-making) - and I agree that those people should be more frequently checked than others, even if the condition has never been severe enough to not give them a permit at all. Everyone else should be able to get by with less, especially in case you want the kind of mental testing which does not assume that the person is cooperative and wants to reveal one's possible issues.

I agree that people with a history (but not enough to automatically make them unfit for ownership of a gun) should get checked more often, but just sayin' that you don't HAVE to have a history for it to go to hell in a very short period of time.

 

But it definitely should be more frequently for people who have a history or who are considered at higher risk for conditions that would make them mentally unsuitable for gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe they also make up a HUGE proportion of the poor. Which is often what leads to the desperation that makes people turn to crime.

So?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...e-and-race.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups..._United_Kingdom

 

I think I'm aware that mental illness/difference from the norm =/= violent crazy of media fame, thanks. I've only been dealing with depression for almost half my life and being on the autism spectrum for all of it. ;D

 

Then what does your experience really tell us? The vast majority of people with depression won't lash out with a gun at others. Being biologically male, I'm ten times more likely to do something than you anyways. ;D

 

Share this post


Link to post

And a hugely disproportionate number of the poor happen to be people of colour.

 

Who have often also been the subject of appalling discrimination. Perfectly innocent black young men (that is how they are described in police stats, Socky, just to fend you off here !) are more than likely to be subject to stop and search JUST because of their colour.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/12/p...ch-black-people

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/24/b...ager-met-police

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/14/...rofiling-police

 

That kind of routine racist treatment is enough to turn some people to crime, you know.

 

OH ! PS - from YOUR link:

 

Or at least, the police “proceed against” black men in those proportions for each of those crimes.

 

Crime statistics have to be approached with extreme caution, because it is very easy to leap to conclusions which are not justified by the figures.

 

EXACTLY ! (and the Telegraph is a very good, but very right wing paper, by the way.)

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

You can't just place all homicide blame on black people and then ignore the enforced socioeconomic factors behind that. A quick google brought up numerous articles on how poverty played into this.

 

And I say enforced because through education discrimination, job discrimination, retirement discrimination (African-Americans are expected to take the biggest dive in retirement money due to new regulation), the creation of white-only/black-only neighborhoods that still exist today, etc. we've put POC at a lower economic status and then given them no way to even work themselves out of it, much less offered help ourselves.

 

I'll also note that black people tend to support stronger gun regulation than white people. (Wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be because they're tired of being shot at.)

 

Perfectly innocent black young men (that is how they are described in police stats, Socky, just to fend you off here !)

 

What's wrong with calling someone a black (young) man?

Share this post


Link to post

And a hugely disproportionate number of the poor happen to be people of colour.

[/snip]

 

The point was that the UK has a much smaller black population but similar problems with that group. Many people try to compare the two murder rates, but it's rather simplistic, and there's more variables than just looking at how much minorities there are.

 

EXACTLY ! (and the Telegraph is a very good, but very right wing paper, by the way.)

 

I don't think that's really much of a factor for homicides, but maybe for something like an arrest for possession of pot. He didn't give out evidence for it.

 

You can't just place all homicide blame on black people and then ignore the enforced socioeconomic factors behind that. A quick google brought up numerous articles on how poverty played into this.

 

Look at my response to Fuzz.

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

You can't just place all homicide blame on black people and then ignore the enforced socioeconomic factors behind that. A quick google brought up numerous articles on how poverty played into this.

 

And I say enforced because through education discrimination, job discrimination, retirement discrimination (African-Americans are expected to take the biggest dive in retirement money due to new regulation), the creation of white-only/black-only neighborhoods that still exist today, etc. we've put POC at a lower economic status and then given them no way to even work themselves out of it, much less offered help ourselves.

 

I'll also note that black people tend to support stronger gun regulation than white people. (Wonder why that is? Couldn't possibly be because they're tired of being shot at.)

 

 

 

What's wrong with calling someone a black (young) man?

You called me out the other day for asking if someone referred to by a racist on twitter was coloured - where's the essential difference ? biggrin.gif

 

ETA - Oh OK - just seen a post of yours in another thread. I disagree with you - but I take your point. smile.gif Though black is used in the same way by racist English people, at any rate.

 

But thanks for the socioeconomic backing. Because it IS true. The problem is not with black people, but with poverty and racism.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
Then what does your experience really tell us? The vast majority of people with depression won't lash out with a gun at others. Being biologically male, I'm ten times more likely to do something than you anyways. ;D

My experience tells me that mental health can and does go to hell in very little time, and therefore it should be checked up on fairly closely. That's all.

 

Depression =/= only mental illness. It's simply one of MANY factors that could contribute to a person becoming violent given the right circumstances. Depression alone needn't necessarily 100% ban a person from ever obtaining a gun. But other types of mental health can go to hell quickly, too. IIRC there was somebody bringing up some mental illness that came on really quickly and could be dangerous... Schizophrenia, I think? Can be fairly sudden in the onset of the more dangerous symptoms? I think that was this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Let’s draw a comparison. Take a single shot 12-gauge using 3 ½ inch #4 buckshot. Assuming the shooter can load and fire a shell every 5 seconds, he can shoot 5 times in 20 seconds. That comes to 270 .24" projectiles in 20 seconds. If we throw in a fully auto .22 lr with a cyclic rate of about 800 rpm, we end up with about 260 .222" projectiles in 20 seconds.

user posted image

Quite a few actually. The mass of the projectiles, the range of the projectiles and thus the effective range of the weapon, the accuracy of the projectiles, the actual number of shots fired and thus the chances of being able to adapt to a shift in your target, the survivability of being hit by buckshot compared to a standard rifle round...So actually when you do a more rigorous comparison the rifle still comes out the more deadly weapon. After all, if your trollish (and thus incredibly poor) comparison was true then all front-line troops would be armed with single-shot 12 gauges, not automatic rifles.

Share this post


Link to post

how can you self defence with guns if the other dude has a gun as well. surely he has initiative.

Share this post


Link to post

how can you self defence with guns if the other dude has a gun as well. surely he has initiative.

Apparently every pro-gun person is a gun-slinger who will be able to out-shoot a drawn, committed criminal.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

Even most criminals aren't particularly fond of being shot (back) at. Attacking someone who is armed is more risky whether or not one has a gun oneself. And, in a scenario where you have locked yourself up in a room because you heard someone breaking in and moving about in your house, you are far more likely to get the first shot simply because you would be watching the door whereas the intruder would have to get through the door, locate you, take aim...

Share this post


Link to post

There's a huge problem with that whole point, and one they very rarely aknowledge. It's very easy to go from one State into the next State. It's entirely possible to drive over the border, pick up a gun that is perfectly legal and requires less background checks there, and drive back again.

 

It would be like the UK deciding that it was going to put a 100% ban, for any reason, on gun ownership in, say, Hampshire... and then having no checks to see if people have been buying guns outside of Hampshire and driving in with them. It's totally illogical, and it's one of the reasons something like this wouldn't work unless enacted on a Federal leval. Not unless individual States start closing the borders up anyway.

 

Gun control laws have to operate within an entire 'closed border' area or they don't work at all. Because you have to be able to prevent people from picking them up somewhere it's legal and simply going home again without anyone every checking on them. That's never going to be possible if individual States legislate on the matter.

 

Edit to add: Incidently there are some real morons on there. Apparently it's welfare that makes people turn to crime, and if you cut the welfar then they'd be so hungry they'd *have* to work, and wouldn't have spare time for crime... Seriously? Does anyone really think that would work that way? Because if they can't get a job now, they still won't be able to get one if you cut their welfare - they'll just be more likely to turn to crime to get the food you've taken away from them.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

The article may be a bit biased, but the sources (particularly the FBI one) are not (plus: I wouldn't necessarily trust pro-gun control sites myself because they can be biased as well).

 

That said, there's another point you folks are missing: criminals are (generally) cowards and will take the path of least resistance. They will go where the chances of themselves getting hurt/killed by an armed citizen is lessened. Response times from the police can often (sadly) be too long to ensure said criminal doesn't hurt/kill someone while doing their crime, either due to distance, lack of personnel, corruption, or incompetence. That is why crime rates tend to be higher in states with stricter gun control: the criminals know there will be fewer citizens able to defend themselves.

 

It doesn't matter where they criminals get their guns either in this regard: if they really want to get one, they will get it, whether from another state, or the blackmarket.

 

So to combat this, you'd either have to loosen or tighten, gun control laws across all the states so they are all consistent. That would have to be a federal bill, which would cause problems for individual state rights. Considering how I feel my country is going, I don't feel 'confident' in our police or government to 'trust' them to protect the common citizen if we tighten things across the board.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I'm certain of is that loopholes have got to go. If background checks are required in order for stores to sell guns, then they should be required as part of private sales by individuals as well. It should be made easy for private sellers to perform the required background checks, but leaving a loophole you can drive a truck through is bad law.

 

Anything important enough to be worth doing should be done right.

Share this post


Link to post

I am all about freedom of gun ownership. If the bad guys out there know that the good guys, the law abiding citizens, are very likely armed, they aren't going to try as much. Yes, there is always a possibility of there being some really committed bad guy trying to shoot up some people or attempt armed robbery. But the more armed "common" people there are, the less damage the bad guy can do.

Also, the more armed citizens we have, the more kids will learn gun safety, so there are less accidents involving guns.

The more armed citizens there are, the lower the crime rates go too. Statistics alone show this!

If you take away or tighten the grip on law abiding citizens ability to own and carry guns, the more power you give to law-breakers. Bad guys do not follow the law, they WILL find a way to get guns, and they know that they can over power people who do not have guns, and they WILL take advantage of that.

Putting guns back in the hands of the common people empowers them to defend themselves and others, and to keep crime at bay simply by their presence.

 

Edit to add: TikindiDragon, concerning your point on welfare - if welfare was cut, it would cut taxes (because that is where welfare money comes from). Taxes cut, businesses relax, makes way for more jobs. More jobs...well, you know what that means.

Yes, there would still be people out there without jobs, but it should be the state or county's priority, not the governments, to provide help to those people. And honestly, those who resort to crime instead of job hunting, would resort to crime anyway even if there was not an unemployment issue. They are those people who believe that 'crime pays' and 'work stinks'.

So you are right, cutting welfare wouldn't fix it.... but it would sure help.

Edited by StormCry

Share this post


Link to post

That said, there's another point you folks are missing:  criminals are (generally) cowards and will take the path of least resistance.  They will go where the chances of themselves getting hurt/killed by an armed citizen is lessened.

Ah, but no.

Now, you can take it or leave it, as I can't find where I got this from. I can absolutely respect if you won't just blindly believe me, but just read it, and decide for yourself whether it sounds plausible:

 

1. As was shown in Bowling for Colombine, the way the criminals get armed is by stealing guns from fine upstanding citizens. Thus, these responsible citizens actually arm the criminals they're so scared of. Fabulous...

2. You know why criminals bring guns to do house-robbings? Well, they do it to feel safe, because they fear gun-toting homeowners. (This is the article I can't find again.)

It's the principle of the Cold War: One side upgrades it's armory, and the other follows suit in fear, and the end could end them both.

 

The gun-having citizens assure that the criminals will most certainly have guns too.

I see the irony.

Edited by Svataben

Share this post


Link to post
The gun-having citizens assure that the criminals will most certainly have guns too.

AHA! But to quote a wise old Native American friend of mine "the good man who has no bow and no arrow will be easily killed by the bad man who does have bow and arrow"

Yes. Owning weapons creates a vicious cycle. It has been that way from the beginning of time. But as soon as the innocent puts down his weapons, the bloodthirsty will leap on him and kill him.

The Native Americans know this first hand....they had to upgrade from bows and arrows to guns...and as soon as they put their guns down, they were bullied and slaughtered.

So, choose your poison.

Bad guys will always go for the most upgraded choice of weapons. The only difference between them and a good guy is that they will use the weapon offensively, where a good guy will use it defensively. Take the good guys guns away, then the bad guys will most certainly win.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is. It's because we live in a messed up world.

Share this post


Link to post

Most of us who want gun control don't want to ban guns--just take more precautions to make sure that idiots who don't know how to use a gun get their hands on them.

 

But you have absolutely no reason to need military-grade weaponry to defend your person or your own.

 

I gotta laugh at the "more people with guns will mean more kids learn to handle them" thing. I suppose it's true--assuming that people who own guns know how to handle them.

 

But as many sad cases prove (people shooting themselves while cleaning them, keeping loaded guns where kids who don't know how to make sure they're not loaded find them then play with them and kill siblings, people who allow kids to play with actual guns like toys)... To be honest, I rather don't trust quite a few people in America to be smart enough to own a gun.

 

Which is why I think that, as part of stricter gun control, you should legally be required to attend classes to learn about proper care of, cleaning, safety stuff, and storing of guns and ammunition and then demonstrate that knowledge to obtain a license before you can own a gun. Then, you should need to re-demonstrate that every X years to prove you still know what you're doing to keep your license.

 

Under the kind of stuff I would like to see, as long as you know how to use and care for your gun and store it and the ammo and you don't have some kind of mental condition that makes you too much a risk to allow to have a gun, then you'd have nothing to fear.

 

 

Lemme just reiterate what I think I said earlier (or maybe it was elsewhere...) The only people who should be opposed to better background checks are the people who have something to hide that proves they're not fit to own a gun in the first place. If you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear from that.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.