Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”
A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker
The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?
Well, just what do you propose we do to stop the gun violence in Chicago?
Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.
The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?
Well, just what do you propose we do to stop the gun violence in Chicago?
There are 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers in Chicago alone. How about we start by rounding up those who have committed violent crimes. Find out which new crimes they have committed, prosecute them, lock them up, and throw away the key.
The murders committed constantly in Chicago alone?
Well, just what do you propose we do to stop the gun violence in Chicago?
There are 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers in Chicago alone. How about we start by rounding up those who have committed violent crimes. Find out which new crimes they have committed, prosecute them, lock them up, and throw away the key.
I don't have a problem with arresting and incarcerating proven or admitted criminals.
But if we did that in Dallas too, it would not have caught the guy who killed those five cops. To use the gun rights lobby's line of argument, why round up those people? Doing so would not have stopped the "Dallas shooter?"
I can see just how silly is the principle that underlies that line of argument, yet that's exactly the principle that some gun rights advocates toss out there in refutation of proposals to help curb gun violence.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar
I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.
Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that
To be honest, I don't have any recollection of much else that you've written on here. I can only remark about what I have seen and recall, and what I've seen and recall is what I remarked about.
Here you go:
What is a small government libertarian?
I say specifically what government should be allowed to do. If you see anything that you have another solution for then let me know
That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.
The point you make has in it the implicit assumption that every would be criminal who wants to use a gun in carrying out their nefarious act(s) will get one/some. The more realistic assumption is that some of them will indeed get hold of a gun somehow and that others of them will not. To the extent that those who wanted a gun to aid in their criminal act do not in fact obtain one, a gun access limiting measure will have worked insofar as it will have prevented that would be illegal gun user from committing an act of gun violence.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
Really.....
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
Strategy
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
Ask the politicians.....obama makes speeches about it....he always states that mass shootings happen because of access to guns....and they passed gun free zones to help reduce mass shootings in schools...how's that working out....
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
Whenever I get stopped by police, I do what they tell me.You need to do some research, police shoot far more white people than black each year.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.
The point you make has in it the implicit assumption that every would be criminal who wants to use a gun in carrying out their nefarious act(s) will get one/some. The more realistic assumption is that some of them will indeed get hold of a gun somehow and that others of them will not. To the extent that those who wanted a gun to aid in their criminal act do not in fact obtain one, a gun access limiting measure will have worked insofar as it will have prevented that would be illegal gun user from committing an act of gun violence.
How is that? 90% of the gun murders committed in the United States are committed by people who are banned from owning guns....
Reality shows you are wrong....Britain actually confiscated guns on your very premise......after they banned guns...what happened....their gun crime rate stayed the same....in fact, last year it went up 4%......
you guys are just wrong....
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
.they were there...armed with guns...and they let the police do their jobs, they did not turn into Rambo...they did not try to help the police..[/QUOTING
Why were they there with their guns? What purpose did their guns serve? Who were they protecting themselves from? Who were they trying to intimidate?
Do you know any of those answers?
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
Again.....nothing you believe is true or factual...
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
There are currently 40 states that allow people to bring guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol......and Virginia last year allowed people to carry guns in bars...and their gun crime rate fell by 5.9% in bars.......
Gun owners who carry guns are amazingly responsible...why is it that you guys think they will drink themselves into a mad rage when they are carrying guns?
There are 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in this Country....so far this year they have been responsible for 54 deaths.
Wait a minute...I thought a cornerstone of the gun rights position is that guns aren't responsible for anything. Per you, 54 guns are responsible for killing people.
As for gun control efforts, I personally don't support limiting access to rifles. I am, however, of the mind that however many folks are involuntarily killed or injured by gun users/abusers are "however many" folks too many.
How many folks were injured by rifles in 2016? How many by handguns?
the true cause of the deaths is the law anti gun activists created to stop mass shootings.....Gun Free zones......that law is responsible for the number of deaths that we have when these shooters, who can pass all the other gun control background checks and laws, decide to murder people......
I cannot find anything from gun control advocates stating that stopping mass shootings is the goal of Gun Free Zone laws. Can you?
What I can find is this from the National Crime Prevention Council:
StrategyEven after reading a legal analysis that doesn't take kindly to the revised Gun Free Zones act, I see nothing intimating that curtailing mass shootings be the aim of that statute.
Establishing policies prohibiting the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of school buildings helps to secure schools from gun-related violence and crime.
Crime Problem Addressed
The strategy recognizes the inherent danger of concealed firearms in the possession of gang members, drug traffickers, and fearful students. A survey by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that about 135,000 guns are brought into schools every day. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20 percent of all offenders arrested in 1991 while carrying guns were juveniles.
the gun free zone had 49 deaths. The Dallas shooting, where armed men were already on the scene....5 deaths.....
Red:
Presumably you are referring to the "Pulse" event? If so, are you really intimating that folks who are drinking alcohol to also should have their guns with them while doing so in a bar or other public facility? That's what it sounds like you are implying....
Blue:
And where was one of those gun carrying Texan civilians when the "Dallas shooter" started firing? I haven't seen any reports that one or some of them did anything to stop him. Clearly the man knew that Texans carry guns while going about their business on Texas' streets, but that didn't seem to deter, much less stop, him from firing away.
prosecutors and judges across the country do not take gun crimes seriously....I have posted links to this in other threads...they do not prosecute straw buyers....because it is a lot of work, and little reward for the prosecutors since many juries will not sentence a gang member baby momma or mother to years in prison when it is likely they faced physical violence if they didn't purchase the weapon...
Fine. Prosecute "straw" buyers. I don't see a problem with doing so. Are you saying that there's an active movement to absolve "straw" buyers from prosecution?
Do you think that a person under pain of harm/death for not aiding a would be criminal should be held criminally culpable for abetting said would be criminal? Would you care to be held criminally blameworthy were you, under involuntary duress, to perform a criminal deed?
In Japan, if you are arrested you face a 99% conviction rate...if you get arrested, you will go to jail. That fact was coupled with the new sentence they created for criminals caught with guns.....30 years in prison.....that sentence stopped the Yakuza from gunning up for the next war...since Japanese police can search anyone they want, at any time, for any reason....and if they found a gun on a gangster, they would be convicted and would spend 30 years in jail....
Are you suggesting that we adopt the Japanese model of jurisprudence so that our judicial and law enforcement personnel can act as do those in Japan? If you aren't, I don't see how the Japanese example is relevant.
Furthermore, how do the Japanese people's individual-level values toward killing others differ from those of Americans? Might those differences play a key role in the national attitudes towards gun violence and involuntary gun deaths/injuries?
How many people in Japan actually own guns? The answer is that comparatively speaking, "nobody."
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Why you brought up Japan is beyond me. That is among the very last nations on the planet that anyone would cite in an effort to advocate against gun control efforts in the U.S. That you did just goes to show that you'll "cherry pick" pretty much any point, take it out of context and then try to use it to make your point. I give you props, you've learned well that trick -- contextual misrepresentation -- of the conservative gun lobby's trade.
