Gun Laws

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

You are also so extreme. That's just as scary to me as being extreme in the opposite direction. Do you propose we do nothing? Not even attempt to change anything? Do you think relaxing gun laws would make things better?

How is that extreme? That is the history of gun control. I know it's not convienent when arguing that gun control is the morally superior thing to do, but facts are facts. Tyrants disarming their people so they can have more control. Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

Now i've already stated i am for making it harder to get ar-15's. But i don't believe in an all out ban. History has shown us that it doesn't acomplish any goals of reducing gun violence.

By the way this fienstein bill would basically outlaw all hand guns besides revolvers and shit like that. The large majority of handguns are semi-auto.

OU, i feel for the victims of mass shooting. But im not gonna be guilt tripped into believing in gun control. Law-abiding citizens who are responsible with their fire-arms should not be punished for the acts of a few psycopaths.

it was also reported that adam lanza spent hours playing violent video games such as call of duty.

So does that mean that we should ban all video games? Should we have video game free zones? This may sound absurd, especially if you have played violent video games before, which im sure we all have. Yet this is essentially the same logic you are using with gun control.

Plenty of people can play violent video games and not translate it to real violence on people. Plenty of people own guns, go to shooting ranges, even go hunting. Yet still would never use their gun to harm another person (unless in self defense) and understand the responsibility. Why should those people be punished or have their rights taken away?

This may seem like an extreme comparison but they really aren't that different. You remeber that mission in COD when you shoot up an airport? Are you really gonna tell me that it's not morally irresponsible to let young impressionable kids play these games which focus on murdering people?

Now i would never be for banning violent video games. Yet people are essentially using the same logic to say that we should ban guns.

The federal gun control law will be passed on the 22nd so all of you will get your wish. But when gun crime and violence doesnt drop, and even escaltes which history shows it will, i wont say i told you so. But i will tell you that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

oggy i feel sorry for you the next 4 years are gonna be pretty tough for you if the last 2 are any indication. Make sure to stock up on tin foil

what are you talking about? Last 2 years have been fine for me. I've realized that a lot more people are awake to whats going on. People are starting to wake up to the problems of big unsustainable government. Now in 2014 we just have to clear house and put people in congress who will actually represent the people, not corporations, lobbyists, and super pacs. The people of our country are fed up with the leadership of both the left and right, and are starting to realize that voting records are what matter, not political rhetoric.

Honestly i feel bad for you and all the other Obama nuts. How does it feel to blindly support a hypocrite who criticized everything George W Bush did, and then not only continued those things but expanded on them?

And maybe you feel good about innocent people dying in drone srikes, american citizens being assassinated, warratless spying under FISA, indefinite detention of american citizens and being denied due process. And maybe you feel great about unsustainable big government crushing future generations for our children with debt and deficit spending. Somebody should tell the government that George Orwell's 1984 wasn't supposed to be an instructional manual...

What i feel good about is the people waking up who want to change these things, who want to change the current course we are on. I may have been very pesimistic in the past but there are definitely things to feel good about for me when looking to the future.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.



In addition, despite the media drumbeat that murders involving guns represent the number one safety threat to American citizens, the reality is completely the opposite.

Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI. Almost 20 times more people die in the United States from medical errors than they do from firearm homicides, but there is no outcry to slap draconian regulations on the medical industry.



In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Should US lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers and baseball bats?

The figures clearly illustrate that rising gun ownership does not cause a rise in violent crime.

Look at Chicago, which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted.



Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

Now let’s take a look at a country which is geographically-speaking a stone’s throw away from the United Kingdom – Switzerland.

With a population of just six million, Switzerland has 2 million publicly-owned firearms. Despite the fact that guns are everywhere in Switzerland and are a deeply-ingrained part of Swiss culture, the gun crime rate “is so low that statistics are not even kept,” reports the BBC.

Indeed, with its population of law-abiding armed citizens, Switzerland is one of the safest countries to live in the entire world, with homicide rates at just 2.2 people per 100,000.

So the UK is one of the most dangerous places to live in the developed world, while Switzerland is one of the safest, and yet Switzerland is a nation of gun owners. How then can we possibly conclude that gun control reduces violent crime when in virtually every instance it has proven to have the opposite effect?

The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally – safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation.

Recent cases involving law abiding citizens in America, largely ignored by the mass media, who have exercised their second amendment right to prevent a crime and save lives, emphasize this reality, including an incident just two days after the Connecticut massacre during which a gunman entered a theater in San Antonio after killing his ex-girlfriend but was shot dead by an off duty policewoman.

In addition, last month’s mall shooting in Oregon was brought to an end when 22-year-old Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, pulled a gun on the killer, prompting masked shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts to use his final bullet on himself.

In both cases, the media virtually ignored the fact that potential massacres were stopped by responsible Americans using firearms. Similar cases emerge on a weekly basis, including another incident on Friday where a woman in Atlanta defended herself and her young children against an intruder by using a legally owned firearm.

The National Safety Council notes that guns are used some 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, meaning that firearms are utilized to protect innocent lives in 80 times more cases than they are used to end lives.

These figures, not just from America but from other countries around the world, send a clear and consistent message - gun control actually increases violent crime, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime, and only by allowing responsible, law-abiding people to be armed and not by disarming the victims can we hope to prevent or lessen the scale of future tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre.

Can i say i rest my case yet?

I think at the root of what is on many peoples minds here is that the easiest way to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time is to use guns because they are designed for that one purpose, to kill, nothing else. When an individual decides he wants to murder a lot of people very quickly and easily, the choice is simple and the means are easy, much like the process to legal obtain these tools. Many people question weather that is right.

oggy420 wrote:

Now let’s take a look at a country which is geographically-speaking a stone’s throw away from the United Kingdom – Switzerland.

With a population of just six million, Switzerland has 2 million publicly-owned firearms. Despite the fact that guns are everywhere in Switzerland and are a deeply-ingrained part of Swiss culture, the gun crime rate “is so low that statistics are not even kept,” reports the BBC.

Indeed, with its population of law-abiding armed citizens, Switzerland is one of the safest countries to live in the entire world, with homicide rates at just 2.2 people per 100,000.

So the UK is one of the most dangerous places to live in the developed world, while Switzerland is one of the safest, and yet Switzerland is a nation of gun owners. How then can we possibly conclude that gun control reduces violent crime when in virtually every instance it has proven to have the opposite effect?

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

However, attempts to compare the US to Switzerland gloss over the vast differences between the two countries.
For example, the nature of gun ownership in Switzerland is tied to the military. Switzerland has a very small standing army, and citizens are expected to act as militiamen should the country be invaded. Every 18-30 years old Swiss male between has to do three months' military training, and many more regular refresher courses. The majority of guns are army-issued, though rules on private gun ownership are very lax compared to other European countries.
This is also a country with a population smaller than New York City. According to 2011 data from the IMF, Switzerland has a GDP per capita of $83,073, almost double that of the US, or other European countries like the UK or France. The CIA says 6.9 percent of the country lives below the poverty line, compared to 15.1 in the US or 14 in the UK.
Finally, it would be wrong to ignore that gun control has become a hot topic in Switzerland in recent years. Last year a vote was held on whether the country should end the practice of keeping army-issue firearms at home and tighten over private gun ownership restrictions. While the plans were rejected by 57% of voters, the movement appears to be growing. Switzerland's notion of direct democracy (citizens are able to call constitutional and legislative referendums, but only on laws passed by the legislature) means that more votes are likely in the future.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12#ixzz2HKgGmwIA

GDPofDRC wrote:

I think at the root of what is on many peoples minds here is that the easiest way to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time is to use guns because they are designed for that one purpose, to kill, nothing else. When an individual decides he wants to murder a lot of people very quickly and easily, the choice is simple and the means are easy, much like the process to legal obtain these tools. Many people question weather that is right.

Ok so will banning whatever weapons you want to ban decrease gun violence? Will it stop shootings?

Your missing the point. Im showing evidence that across the board gun control is a failure and actually leads to more crime. Disprove that.

dude I dont want to ban weapons, and if you followed the reports what comprehensive gun reform is going to look like is psychological evaluations for people purchasing weapons

funny how you cling to Switzerland but dont want to mention that every 6 months people go in and have to provide the reason for their weapons and the government determines if they get to keep or not

I think we live in a huge nation with millions of people, a good amount of them are fucking crazy and dont need a weapon and like i have said, anyone that has actually taken classes that study the constitution realize how much of the constitution was a compromise to bring the slave states in.

If you deny this you dont know what the fuck your talking about. Sorry

oggy420 wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

I think at the root of what is on many peoples minds here is that the easiest way to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time is to use guns because they are designed for that one purpose, to kill, nothing else. When an individual decides he wants to murder a lot of people very quickly and easily, the choice is simple and the means are easy, much like the process to legal obtain these tools. Many people question weather that is right.

Ok so will banning whatever weapons you want to ban decrease gun violence? Will it stop shootings?

If you don't possess a gun you are unable to create violence by shooting it. Shootings can decrease but not stop, we here, especially in America, have made sure that people will always be able to murder someone with a gun by arming ourselves at an excessive and obscene rate.

I'm not for banning weapons, I'm for making the criteria to legally own any instrument explicitly designed to end life be more stringent. The power to end a life so easily shouldn't be handed out hastily or irresponsibly.

People are capable of doing terrible things, we are reminded of this frequently. The easiest and deadliest choice for these deeds almost always ends up being carried out with the same tool, and it is no coincidence that tool is specifically designed to end life.

well said gdp

oggy420 wrote:

Your missing the point. Im showing evidence that across the board gun control is a failure and actually leads to more crime. Disprove that.

Japan.

captain organic wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

Your missing the point. Im showing evidence that across the board gun control is a failure and actually leads to more crime. Disprove that.

Japan.

How about in the country we live in? Japan never had the amount of fire-arms we have. Plus they don't have a culture of violence and don't drug kids in school.

Why is the fact that a scary high percentage of mass shootings are committed by people prescribed psychotropic drugs completely ignored? During a cbs interview family friends said that they knew Adam Lanza was on meds and being homeschooled. James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist and while we know every piece of gear he used there has still been no relsease of his medical records to tell if he was on psychotropic drugs as is heavily expected.

Yet no one is screaming about Big Pharma pushing these drugs on our kids in schools. Why are we the only country where big pharma can actually advertise it's products on television?

The link between a number of psychiatric drugs and violence, including homicide, is well established. (Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc.)
Yet the national media isn't demonizing these drugs that almost all of the shooters in mass shooting history have been proven to be on. They are promoting these drugs instead, making money off the process.

Newly obtained court filings in the murder case against James Holmes show that police seized four bottles of prescription drugs from the ‘Batman’ shooter’s home shortly after the Aurora massacre.

The story has been covered by the Denver Post but has received little attention elsewhere as the press instead continues to obsess about gun control in the build up to draconian gun ban legislation set to be introduced later this month by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

“Aurora police seized four prescription bottles and immunization records when they searched theater-shooting suspect James Holmes’ apartment in July, according to newly obtained filings in the murder case against Holmes,” reports the Denver Post.

However, the documents are heavily redacted and the exact identity of the drug has been withheld.

Given the fact that Holmes was under psychiatric care before the shooting, it’s almost certain that the drugs found were some form of anti-depressant or SSRI, which have repeatedly been linked with mass shootings in recent years.

There has also been a complete lack of inquiry on behalf of the mass media as to whether Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook school shooter, was on any form of medication, despite the fact that Louise Tambascio, a family friend of the shooter and his mother, told 60 Minutes, “I know he was on medication and everything….I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”

As World Net Daily’s David Kupelian asks, “It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what “medication” may he have used? So, what is the truth? Where is the journalistic curiosity? Where is the follow-up? Where is the police report, the medical examiner’s report, the interviews with his doctor and others?”


As this article from CCHR demonstrates ( http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/ ) , anti-psychotic drugs are a hallmark of mass shooters, but you won’t see any call in the mainstream media to see them banned, despite the fact that even gun control advocates like Michael Moore have admitted the clear connection.


From Columbine killers Harris and Klebold, to Oregon shooter Kip Kinkel, almost every mass shooter in the world over the last fifteen years has been on some form of psychotropic drug, the inserts of which admit that the medication can cause violence and suicide.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/12/18/19-Unbelievable-Facts-About-Guns-in-America.aspx#page1

australia.

after a 1996 mass shooting 600,000 firearms were handed in voluntarily in an amnesty. in the next 10 years gun murders dropped by 59% and there have been zero mass shootings in australia since.

i agree that for one of these massacres to happen you have to put the guns and the nutters together, but it has to be made a lot more difficult for people to get one.

cheekynffc wrote:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/12/18/19-Unbelievable-Facts-About-Guns-in-America.aspx#page1

australia.

after a 1996 mass shooting 600,000 firearms were handed in voluntarily in an amnesty. in the next 10 years gun murders dropped by 59% and there have been zero mass shootings in australia since.

i agree that for one of these massacres to happen you have to put the guns and the nutters together, but it has to be made a lot more difficult for people to get one.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

Australia.


Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:


Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

On cross-examination, ATF Special Agent Steven Beggs said the weaponry was legally purchased because Holmes had cleared all background checks.
"Is there any process in Colorado to screen out whether a severely mentally ill person is purchasing these items?" asked Tamara Brady, one of Holmes' public defenders.
"No," Beggs replied.
The last witness of the morning was Aurora Detective Tom Welton. Part of his assignment in the investigation was to verify that Holmes had created profiles on relationship-seeking sites Match.com and AdultFriendFinder.com.


THIS IS A PROBLEM

I'm totally with you oggy in terms of prescription drugs. Major issue that is ignored.