|
Gun Control in America (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
If anything should be changed, it's the penalties for using guns in violence crimes to start with.
Responsible people and their guns should not be put in the same catagories as the criminals; they're innocent. |
This is one of the most intelligent statements I've seen in these gun threads. Imagine that liberals, actually punishing the criminals rather than the law abiding citizens who are arming themselves for protection. What a novel idea.
How about you become the victim of a home invasion robbery, where you are unarmed and powerless while someone holds a gun to your mom/wife/girlfriend/daughter's head, and they can do whatever they want to them because you and your butter knife are not much help for them now. You keep your gun control laws and your butter knife and be at the mercy of some violent criminals. I think I'll stick with my CAR-15, at least I know that my family won't be harmed while I sit by helplessly.
As I said before, criminals don't follow laws so passing gun laws does not stop crime.
And the whole debate on assault weapons is ridiculous. What exactly is an assault weapon? It is the exact same gun as a hunting rifle but it has a 30 round magazine instead of a 10 round magazine. And the liberals always forget to tell you that assault weapons are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
If anything should be changed, it's the penalties for using guns in violence crimes to start with.
Responsible people and their guns should not be put in the same catagories as the criminals; they're innocent. |
Why are criminals constantly being brought into debate? It's the supposidly responsible people who flip out and go on the rampage.
| quote: | | I once thought that too, circumstances are funny things. Admittedly it was a different environment at the time and a very different country, but people are people regardless of where you go. Same said country went from being very prosperous, mostly democratic and with a high standard of living to 8 years later, an utter wreck of a country. |
Thats down to your experience in Africa, in a country which was having some serious problems even though I cannot fathom what it must be like losing your possesions and having to fight for them etc.
Still I don't agree in Joe Average having a gun. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Take Canada as an example people.
With our Billion dollar gun registry program it did absolutely NOTHING.
In fact, gun violence (at least here in Toronto) went UP.
The more something is retricted, the more 'in vogue' it's going to be with those that want them and it certainly didn't curtail the flow coming across the border.
If anything should be changed, it's the penalties for using guns in violence crimes to start with.
Responsible people and their guns should not be put in the same catagories as the criminals; they're innocent. |
With regard to the long gun registry... yes it was a failure and waste of money. That said the registry itself is/was only one small portion of Canada's gun control regulations.
We have very strict controls here but no so strict as to be repressive. In order to have a shot gun or rifle in Canada you must first take a course on the safe handling, storeage, transportation, and discharge of fire arms and pass a standardized test regarding the same. Once you have done this you may apply for a PAL (possession and aquisition license)... once your application is received the federal government does a full security and background check (including health records). In order to get a hand gun or a long gun capable of holding more then 5 cartridges you must get a "prohibited arms license." This next license involves another class and further test followed by psych evaluations, more security checks and periodic surveillance. In order to get an automatic weapon or explosives you need a "prohibited arms licesne".... which is nearly impossible to get so we won't go into it.
In addition there are strict regulations on the types of weapons one can own, how they must be stored, how they must be transported, how that transportation must be approved by law enforcement (prohibited and restricted weapons), types of ammunition, locations where weapons can be dischared... and on and on.
What all this does is limit the amount of legal weapons in circulation and ensure (or at least improve the probablility) that the owners of these weapons are responsible. By controling the legal weapons the amount of illegal fire arms is impacted as there are fewer legal weapons that can be stolen or otherwise misappropriated. All told this results in fewer people having access to weapons, which in turn decreases the probability that fire arms will be used in crime. This should be obvious by our incredibly small gun crime rates.
BTW, there was one year with an increase in gun crime in Toronto, it's now well down again... below where it was even 10 years ago. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
Why are criminals constantly being brought into debate? It's the supposidly responsible people who flip out and go on the rampage.
. |
It's that criminal?
A criminal isn't always the guy that just came out of the slammer; laws apply to everyone ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
It's that criminal?
A criminal isn't always the guy that just came out of the slammer; laws apply to everyone ;) |
I think perhaps he thought you were refering to career criminals.
It should be pointed out, however, it is difficult to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the criminal (non-career) until they have already committed a criminal act. Many people may be or at least seem to be responsible owners until the day they snap and cross the line to mass murderer. Stiffer penalties won't prevent someone who has suffered a psychotic episode with ready access to fire arms from useing said fire arms to end multiple lives, as those suffering a psychosis are not disposed to think all too rationally. At best stiffer penalties will lengthen the amount of time between offences, they do little to prevent the initial offence... the problem here is that the more horrific and deadly acts tend to be one offs or initial offeces. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think perhaps he thought you were refering to career criminals.
|
Probably...
| quote: |
It should be pointed out, however, it is difficult to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the criminal (non-career) until they have already committed a criminal act. Many people may be or at least seem to be responsible owners until the day they snap and cross the line to mass murderer. Stiffer penalties won't prevent someone who has suffered a psychotic episode with ready access to fire arms from useing said fire arms to end multiple lives, as those suffering a psychosis are not disposed to think all too rationally. At best stiffer penalties will lengthen the amount of time between offences, they do little to prevent the initial offence... the problem here is that the more horrific and deadly acts tend to be one offs or initial offeces. |
True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too?
The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature.
I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too?
The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature.
I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair. |
The car argument is employing faulty reasoning. You cannot compare the two as the potential damage one can realistically cause with a motor vehicle is far lower then with a gun(s), moreover, there is little precedence for such events.
Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
True, but the same can be said of people driving a weapon of couple thousand pounds of steel and glass everyday either; are we going to ban them because we're not sure when they're going to snap and drive into a farmer's market too?
The penalties should be compounding or exponential in some nature.
I understand this won't cover the one-time little loner freak Johnny's coming out of Mommy's basement with a shotgun but there really isn't a solution for this that's going to be fair. |
The car argument is employing faulty reasoning. You cannot compare the two as the potential damage one can realistically cause with a motor vehicle is far lower then with a gun(s), moreover, there is little precedence for such events.
Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Don't get me wrong, I would never support an out and out ban of fire arms... I shoot for sport, I have a possession and acquisition license. I do, however, think it is only reasonable that there needs to be strict controls over who is and is not allowed to have access to fire arms. |
It's a joke really, $600US, green card, state criminal record check and a cursory federal criminal record check gets you a Glock 19, a heap of ammo and magazines. That isn't any kind of regulation, it's a lot harder to get a valid licence for a bike or car! :crazy:
The main fault in all this is a lack of training, the lunatics, murderers and criminal element is the noisy and press-friendly side of firearms and their owners. You'll never be able to knock that element out of any society, you can try and prevent it but for every hole you plug, there's another they'll circumvent.
It's criminal in of itself that there is NO TRAINING for using a firearm which would at least help to lessen the horrendous amounts of accidental deaths which happen in the US and anywhere else if people where given a course in gun safety. How to shoot, how the safety works, how to keep the breach clear when carrying and how to secure the gun when it's not being used so kids and thieves can't make off with it. That will save a lot of lives. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
I can't help but find it amusing how people would never question the wisdom and knowledge that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and others showed when creating the Constitution of the United States. It's a brilliant document that has held up for over 200 years, and when you consider the differences in the world between then and now its even more amazing. But for some reason they question and analyze and debate if these same people really intended for all people to have the right to bear arms. They could not have been more clear in the way they wrote the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Note the clear use of the word "People" in the document. They didn't say the right of the militia or the right of the government, they specifically stated the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And they did not say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed until the Federal military is so strong that there is no threat of outside invasion and no hope that an armed citizen militia could defeat it"
And for those who still cannot see the clarity of that statement, what they said outside the context of the Second Amendment show that they were clear in what they meant:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
--George Mason, 1788
"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
--Samuel Adams 1789
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788
"Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764
Gun control laws cannot protect us from what happened at VT. The police can't protect you either. The only way you can be protected from a crazy person bent on killing people is to have the ability to protect yourself. |
|
|
| Krypton |
1. VA Tech is a 'Gun-free Zone'.
2. Cho Seung-Hui was not normal. He was described as, 'the kid most likely to shoot up the school'. In 2005, he was declared an imminent 'danger to himself' and was referred to outpatient therapy, which is unclear whether he actually went or not.
So saying 'normal people' suddenly snap is false. A characteristic of these school shootings is that everyone knew the killer was mentally unstable years before. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
1. VA Tech is a 'Gun-free Zone'.
2. Cho Seung-Hui was not normal. He was described as, 'the kid most likely to shoot up the school'. In 2005, he was declared an imminent 'danger to himself' and was referred to outpatient therapy, which is unclear whether he actually went or not.
So saying 'normal people' suddenly snap is false. A characteristic of these school shootings is that everyone knew the killer was mentally unstable years before. |
Exactly. And the Brady Law and other gun control regulations that the liberals just love so much were absolutely worthless at preventing what happened at VT. Yet another shining example of the failure of gun control. |
|
|
|
|
