Demand A Plan To End Gun Violence

[Saigon]

Marty -

To my mind, electoral campaign funding laws should apply to ALL organisations, without exception. The NRA is the only one I know of that considers it is above the law, though you may be right that others are also involved.

Again, if the NRA were committed to lowering the numbers of deaths in the US, they would want to ensure that the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons, and also that at-risk groups such as teenagers could not acquire weapons most often used in school shootings.

They don't support those laws - and we know why not.

 

[martybegan]

Marty -

To my mind, electoral campaign funding laws should apply to ALL organisations, without exception. The NRA is the only one I know of that considers it is above the law, though you may be right that others are also involved.

Again, if the NRA were committed to lowering the numbers of deaths in the US, they would want to ensure that the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons, and also that at-risk groups such as teenagers could not acquire weapons most often used in school shootings.

They don't support those laws - and we know why not.

Propose a law that would "ensure the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons" or "at risk groups such as teenagers could not aquire weapons"


And enlighten me on "we know why not"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Marty -

To my mind, electoral campaign funding laws should apply to ALL organisations, without exception. The NRA is the only one I know of that considers it is above the law, though you may be right that others are also involved.

Again, if the NRA were committed to lowering the numbers of deaths in the US, they would want to ensure that the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons, and also that at-risk groups such as teenagers could not acquire weapons most often used in school shootings.

They don't support those laws - and we know why not.

they would want to ensure that the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons,

But who should make that determination? According to the government, those who believe in the constitution are nuts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why should political donations made by the NRA be secret?

They aren't.

 

[Saigon]

Propose a law that would "ensure the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons" or "at risk groups such as teenagers could not aquire weapons"

I'd be delighted to.

This suggestion is part of a proposed EU law.

Basically, anyone who wants to apply for a gun license attends a 30-minute interview with a police psychiatrist, who also has access to their medical history. If the police are concerned about the person's motives or mental balance - they can not get a gun license.

Also, everyone has to attend a gun safety course over something like 10 x 90 minute sessions with a registered gun club. The gun club can fail the person if they consider the person constitutes a threat to public safety - i.e. if they joke about killing people. No safety certificate = no gun sales.

This is all quick, easy and will make a massive difference in ensuring that unbalanced teenagers can not acquire guns.

The NRA should be pushing for the same thing for the US.

 

[Saigon]

Why should political donations made by the NRA be secret?

They aren't.

Um....are you sure?

 

[martybegan]

Propose a law that would "ensure the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons" or "at risk groups such as teenagers could not aquire weapons"

I'd be delighted to.

This suggestion is part of a proposed EU law.

Basically, anyone who wants to apply for a gun license attends a 30-minute interview with a police psychiatrist, who also has access to their medical history. If the police are concerned about the person's motives or mental balance - they can not get a gun license.

Also, everyone has to attend a gun safety course over something like 10 x 90 minute sessions with a registered gun club. The gun club can fail the person if they consider the person constitutes a threat to public safety - i.e. if they joke about killing people. No safety certificate = no gun sales.

This is all quick, easy and will make a massive difference in ensuring that unbalanced teenagers can not acquire guns.

The NRA should be pushing for the same thing for the US.

So if a Police department decides only THEY should posses firearms, they can make up whatever excuse they want and deny firearm permits to anyone.

In your second case, a single utterance in jest can remove your 2nd amendment rights negating all forms of due process.

If you want this, go out and repeal the 2nd amendment, and probably a bunch of the others while you are at it.

And again, what you want to do is restrict law abiding gun owners from owning guns. People who want to commit crimes will still be able to get them illegally, they will just have more disarmed vicitms availible.

 

[Saigon]

So if a Police department decides only THEY should posses firearms, they can make up whatever excuse they want and deny firearm permits to anyone.

No, they can't.

The reasoning has to be clear, specific, and also communicated to the person applying. They can't just fail some guy because he is wearing an ugly sweater. It's a legal process, after all - just like getting a driver's license.

Personally, I'd rather trust the police to decide if my 17-year old neighbour is fit to carry a gun than let him decide himself.

In your second case, a single utterance in jest can remove your 2nd amendment rights negating all forms of due process.

No, you can appeal, or apply again.

 

[martybegan]

So if a Police department decides only THEY should posses firearms, they can make up whatever excuse they want and deny firearm permits to anyone.

No, they can't.

The reasoning has to be clear, specific, and also communicated to the person applying. They can't just fail some guy because he is wearing an ugly sweater. It's a legal process, after all - just like getting a driver's license.

Personally, I'd rather trust the police to decide if my 17-year old neighbour is fit to carry a gun than let him decide himself.

That is very very naive. Also clear specifc rules can be broken, and my only recourse would be to sue them, taking years and years, and all this time I am denied my 2nd amendment rights.

Also, look at New York City, where carry permits are "may issue" at the discretion of the police. They only issue to famous people, government officials, and othe police officers. Some are issued if you can show you carry large amounts of cash, or are threatened, but that is it.

You propose the same thing for all gun ownership, and police departments that are against non police ownership of guns will prevent anyone from owning one, and there is no quick way to fix it.

You are proposing police rule, and facism, pure and simple.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So if a Police department decides only THEY should posses firearms, they can make up whatever excuse they want and deny firearm permits to anyone.

No, they can't.

The reasoning has to be clear, specific, and also communicated to the person applying. They can't just fail some guy because he is wearing an ugly sweater. It's a legal process, after all - just like getting a driver's license.

Personally, I'd rather trust the police to decide if my 17-year old neighbour is fit to carry a gun than let him decide himself.

In your second case, a single utterance in jest can remove your 2nd amendment rights negating all forms of due process.

No, you can appeal, or apply again.

just like getting a driver's license.

Indeed, Most people who are not allowed to drive has nothing to do with driving.

 

[Saigon]

That is very very naive.

Then continue with the wise rules that empowered the Virginia Tech and Colombine killers.

Personlly I'll stick with my 'naive' rules that save lives.

You are proposing police rule, and facism, pure and simple.

So you oppose drivers licenses, too?

Because it's the same concept entirely.

 

[martybegan]

That is very very naive.

Then continue with the wise rules that empowered the Virginia Tech and Colombine killers.

Personlly I'll stick with my 'naive' rules that save lives.

You are proposing police rule, and facism, pure and simple.

So you oppose drivers licenses, too?

Because it's the same concept entirely.

Its is not. A driver's licsense is for using the vehicle on public roads. if you keep your car in your house you dont need one. It is actually closer to a concealed carry permit. Also there is no right to drive in the consitution, but there is a right to keep and bear arms.

Those who give up a freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither.

Also there are no political groups out there who want to deny driver's liscenses for anyone who qualifies, but there are plenty of groups (and government officials) who want to deny regular citizens the right to own firearms, regardless of thier qualifications.

So Im supposed to trust these people to not screw me over? I think not.

 

[Saigon]

if you keep your car in your house you dont need one

Dude, you can't even rent a car without a driver's license, let alone buy one.

Ultimately we have a choice - who should decide if a seventeen-year old by can buy an AK-47 - him alone, or him and a police psychiatrist?

By all means say him alone if you can accept the inevitable Colombines and Virginia Tech's, but I prefer the latter system and I feel safer for it.

 

[Bigfoot]

Propose a law that would "ensure the mentally ill could not easily acquire weapons" or "at risk groups such as teenagers could not aquire weapons"

I'd be delighted to.

This suggestion is part of a proposed EU law.

Basically, anyone who wants to apply for a gun license attends a 30-minute interview with a police psychiatrist, who also has access to their medical history. If the police are concerned about the person's motives or mental balance - they can not get a gun license.

Also, everyone has to attend a gun safety course over something like 10 x 90 minute sessions with a registered gun club. The gun club can fail the person if they consider the person constitutes a threat to public safety - i.e. if they joke about killing people. No safety certificate = no gun sales.

This is all quick, easy and will make a massive difference in ensuring that unbalanced teenagers can not acquire guns.

The NRA should be pushing for the same thing for the US.

That is not quick and easy and is also very costly. Not to mention the lines! I had to stay in the Sporting Goods store for four hours for a background check a couple of months ago only because Obama is such a good firearms salesman. Your proposals would make that a good day.

 

[Bigfoot]

So if a Police department decides only THEY should posses firearms, they can make up whatever excuse they want and deny firearm permits to anyone.

No, they can't.

The reasoning has to be clear, specific, and also communicated to the person applying. They can't just fail some guy because he is wearing an ugly sweater. It's a legal process, after all - just like getting a driver's license.

Personally, I'd rather trust the police to decide if my 17-year old neighbour is fit to carry a gun than let him decide himself.

In your second case, a single utterance in jest can remove your 2nd amendment rights negating all forms of due process.

No, you can appeal, or apply again.

In our society we do not need the police to make our purchase decisions for us. It may be accepted in your country, that's fine if it is. Leave our country alone, we have a Bill of Rights.

 

[Saigon]

That is not quick and easy and is also very costly. Not to mention the lines! I had to stay in the Sporting Goods store for four hours for a background check a couple of months ago only because Obama is such a good firearms salesman. Your proposals would make that a good day.

It would be costly, I agree. And it would slow down the system quite a lot.

But you have to ask youself - what is the cost of one Virginia Tech?

I say it's worth a bit of inconveniance for everyone if we can reduce the chances of another school shooting by quite a bit.

In our society we do not need the police to make our purchase decisions for us. It may be accepted in your country, that's fine if it is. Leave our country alone, we have a Bill of Rights.

And that is why you have Virigina Tech. It really is as simple as that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We will put a stop to gun violence as soon as we stop non-gun violence.
/rational discussion

 

[FA_Q2]

Tinmore -

The US is not Nazi Germany.

The US can certainly be compared to modern Germany, which has a homocide rate perhaps 90% less than that of the US.

So I'd say gun control is working fairly well, wouldn't you?

No, I would not. Your example is useless (not to mention devoid of any actual figures). You cannot compare one areas crime rate to another without taking into account the millions of other factors involved. Simply put, Germany's homicide rate has no connection with America's homicide rate. The gun control aspect has nothing to do with the differences. By your example, I could claim that Surprise, AZ proves that lax guns laws and gun proliferation are better because there were zero (yes zero) homicides there in 2010 which is far smaller than Germany's homicide rate. That is however a false comparison because the two are not comparable. For the same reasons, Germany and America are not scientifically comparable. There are culture, border, historic, community, population, density and a host of other differences that affect the crime rates and homicide rates far more than asinine gun laws. Now, for the real data I am going to bring in another post that I have already put here. It apparently needs to be rehashed again because non of the gun control advocates seem to be capable of actually addressing real facts:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[martybegan]

if you keep your car in your house you dont need one

Dude, you can't even rent a car without a driver's license, let alone buy one.

Ultimately we have a choice - who should decide if a seventeen-year old by can buy an AK-47 - him alone, or him and a police psychiatrist?

By all means say him alone if you can accept the inevitable Colombines and Virginia Tech's, but I prefer the latter system and I feel safer for it.

That is a business transaction where the company requires you to have a liscense. Again, where is your consitutional right to a car?

When it comes to rights the burden is on the state to infringe on it, and the off chance a 17 year old (actually its 18 in most states to legally own a firearm) is not enough of a burden to let the police decide who gets to exercise a right and who doesnt. That is the domian of the courts, and only in the execution of punishment from crimes, or legal ajudication of insanity.

 

[martybegan]

That is not quick and easy and is also very costly. Not to mention the lines! I had to stay in the Sporting Goods store for four hours for a background check a couple of months ago only because Obama is such a good firearms salesman. Your proposals would make that a good day.

It would be costly, I agree. And it would slow down the system quite a lot.

But you have to ask youself - what is the cost of one Virginia Tech?

I say it's worth a bit of inconveniance for everyone if we can reduce the chances of another school shooting by quite a bit.

In our society we do not need the police to make our purchase decisions for us. It may be accepted in your country, that's fine if it is. Leave our country alone, we have a Bill of Rights.

And that is why you have Virigina Tech. It really is as simple as that.

Oh, hai there!