April 15, 2008 -
While critics of violent video games regularly seek to blame school shootings on games, an anti-gun violence activist notes that games are popular around the world while school shootings are largely a U.S. phenomenon.As reported by the Guardian, Paul Helmke (left), president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said:
We are seeing more and more of these gun incidents, from a kid waving a gun around right up to the level of mass shootings. Amazingly, no one keeps official statistics at government level about shootings in schools and colleges, but we can see from news reports and research that it's increasing. One of the main reasons is that it is so easy for the wrong people to get hold of guns in this country...
It tears me apart. It's become such a common occurrence and I keep asking why we allow this to happen. I'm not sure that psychological factors or violent movies and video games are any different here than in other countries - the difference is how easy it is to get a gun.
Comments
"I put guns at a different level then video games. Guns are used to cause harm, not matter what. If you are using it for protection, you are still using it for harm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics
Also a gun can be a great deterrence factor, if a criminal knows you have a gun they may be less likely to mug you. Oh and a lot of people think shooting guns at inanimate targets or at shooting galleries can be fun.
"What if the person have a nuke? Does that mean you have to have a nuke too?"
I'm pretty sure the only way you can use a nuke is to drop it out of a plane, although really the nuke argument is really really dumb. Getting nuclear missiles is by no means easy (or cheap) and it's also very hard to use a nuke and not effect a lot of people, unless you're in the desert (the same can not be said for a gun).
Look at the cold war. Both sides having nukes just made everyone’s lives more worse.
HOW? It's mutually assured destruction, if one side fired a nuke the other side would respond with a lot of nukes. If you notice though we never went to war and that's probably one of the reasons.
"Guns are a weapon used to kill more efficiently. If you have anything more powerful then a hand gun, then you are out to kill. "
Again firing ranges, although let's not stop you the psychic from making a blanket statement predicting what everyone's intent will be.
Thank you for the well reasoned statement which is filled with lies...
I have also enjoyed other Brady statements in the past:
"We must get rid of all the guns."
-- Sarah Brady
"It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime."
-- Sarah Brady
"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
-- Sarah Brady
Now please go away and don't bother us here...
Often when you hear gun advocates speak you hear such lines like the above poster "Gun control laws only makes the law-abiding citizens not have guns. It does nothing for criminals". Well what is a criminal exactly? Are they not law-abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger? If a child has murderous intentions and their only weapon is a close range one like a knife, do you think they could go from classroom to classroom killing students? If a couple are having a fight and there isn't a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal 'domestics'?
The other argument is about the constitution, but this is usually from ignorance of the circumstances in their own history. The right to bear arms was at a time when it was thought necessery for the citizens to retain the ability to overthrow the government should it be needed. Thats a far cry from how guns are used today.
In all seriousness, can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle? The sport angle is removed at that point and it is really only there for violence and war. I'd argue that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns largely have no place in the hands of your average joe, though might agree that hunters or farmers could benefit.
Could there not be some half way house here? This isn't about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions. If you remove the worst and most unworthy of weapons from the hands of people and criminalize anyone who retains them, you can quickly improve matters. I don't think it will be realistic to get rid of hand guns at this stage in the US as there would be too much backlash, but I would make people responsible for owning them - full background checks on mental health for all licensees, proper lock boxes that are checked once a year by an independant governing body for shotguns and semi-automatic rifles and removal of all automatic weapons.
Thoughts?
"I own a handgun for several reasons (Zombies!), "
HAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it.
Mostly, no. They're already criminals. Most shootings occur during another crime: rape, robbery, breaking and entering, or between members of rival street gangs (read: organized criminals.)
"If a couple are having a fight and there isn’t a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal ‘domestics’?"
While my evidence is anecdotal, I could find very few instances via google where a domestic dispute fatality was caused by a gun. There's some big news about cops gunning down a husband in Meeker/Joliet, but it seems to me that most domestic dispute manslaughters are of the blunt object/stabbing variety.
"Thats a far cry from how guns are used today."
Today guns are used for hunting, other sport, and property defense, even from one's own country, should it turn against it's populous. Exactly as they were in the colonial years.
"can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle?"
Moot point. Automatic rifles aren't used in crimes. Most guns used in crimes were perfectly legal under the assault weapons ban which was later allowed to lapse because it HAD NO IMPACT ON CRIME. Why? Because men who pay the high prices to own automatic weapons are collectors. Some are also gun nuts, but they're not shooting anyone who isn't on their property without permission.
"This isn’t about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions."
The problem isn't guns, it's gun CRIME, and it's a statistically proven fact in many cases all over the country that enacting concealed carry laws cuts gun CRIME drastically with minimal impact on accidental shootings. Even so, to call gun crime an epidemic in the US is denying the last two decades where, as I mentioned before, youth crime and gun crime have fallen precipitously. Keep in mind, these are some of the same statistics used to defend games, as the drop has a casual (not causal) corrolary relationship with the popularization of modern gaming. Maybe video games kept some kids from falling in with violent gangs, who knows, but if you're really gung-ho about curtailing gun crime, allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Then I'm declaring myself a one-man militia. Where do you think a "well-regulated militia" comes from? Do they just pop out of thin air, fully formed and fully armed?
Then live in the UK. I'm choosing to stay "living in fear".
You are blessedly removed from reality
Yes yes, this'll play out real well
Guy walks up with gun, points at head. "Gimme your money."
Victim says "one moment please" and dials 9-1-1, and 8 minutes later the police come and arrest the robber.
OR
Guy walks up, demands money.
Victim or bystander shoot robber.
Yes, there's a possibility of being killed, but I would rather go down a fighter, because you have no idea what the robber might do after you give him the money, he might kill you anyways.
I'm sure there might be some scenarios, but I don't have the luxury of choosing my battles.
Plus Tasering an armed person wouldn't be that great of an idea, IMO. They might fire out of desperation, or because of the involuntary muscle spasms.
Side-note: Even if Tasers have a less-than-lethal or non-lethal designation, it doesn't make them (in effect) non-lethal. I'd rather the police pull a gun on me than a Taser, the pistol is far less likely to be abused.
I think the law in Texas is like that to. I suspect that Michigan's law is the same. If you take someone down, you have to show that there was good reason for it to the cops.
@Rhade
A couple cops fired some 20 shots at a kid that had a plastic cafeteria knife, cops abuse their gun power wayy too much
Let me start off by asking -- do you think I own a gun?
The answer, in this case, would be no. I don't actually own a gun but I do support the right to keep one. Do I know how to use a gun? Yes. If I know, with absolute certainty, that I am not in any danger and that I will live to see another day, then there is no need for me to fire a weapon upon someone. However, if someone has a weapon pointed at me, and I've got my weapon on me, you can bet that I will defend myself in any way necessary. This, of course, isn't saying anything about what I would do if someone had intent to cause harm a friend or family member. But that's another subject entirely.
chuma I'd just like to thank you for being respectful in your discussion. I feel like I may have gotten a little heated toward you and I apologize if I have. This is actually quite enjoyable debating a relevant issue to my country today.
Let it be said though that I am a STRONG advocate of personal accountability.
Semis are $200-$400, fully automatic push $800-$1000.
"nor do they have contacts in the black market... Your garden variety “thug” on the other hand just gets them from the shady guy selling from his car."
shady guy = black market, dipshit. And the shady guy probably buys guns from thugs as well, if not actual importers of firearms. No one is saying guns shouldn't be regulated in the same way cars are. Cars are titled, require a license to operate, and are useful and deadly much in the same way guns are. However, banning certain types of weapons, especially handguns, is over the line. I absolutely want background checks on firearm purchases and required licenses for concealed carry. But I don't want "No handguns in Chicago." I mean, look how well that's turned out.
Seriously? You quote me and then follow up with an example of what I was condemning you for to begin with...
"Better still, give me a scenario where having the gun in self defense is a good idea and DOESN’T put your life in danger."
My life was always in danger, it always will be. This is universal. It applies to everyone. The variable is the amount of danger, which we can only estimate very roughly. Assuming this danger can be met with defense via the use of a firearm, one must then decide if it SHOULD.
I can give you a senario whereby my gun ownership solves world hunger and cures cancer. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not even in the slightest.
I think you're trolling, if only by accident.
My opinion basically boils down to this:
Less guns in circulation = less chance of people getting shot
The UK has very heavy gun control and i like it this way.
I have only seen guns 'in real life' in very few locations: Museums and on police officers (rarely) and soldiers.
I'd feel significantly less safe if the general public had easy access to them, as a lot of the general public are morons.
There seems to be a fair few people theorising over the situation: "imagine if a criminal comes at you with a gun" style arguments
In response to that i'd say firstly, how often does that really happen?
and if it does happen, how more likely is it for the criminal to shoot you if he thinks you may have a gun on you?
And while heavy gun control does not stop all criminals having a gun, it does make it a lot more difficult to get a gun, which is a definite improvement.
Whilst i know guns are not the actual cause of gun crime, i do feel quite strongly that heavy gun control can help reduce the problem somewhat with no real drawbacks.
I have to leave my desk in a sec here. I wish you would have asked this earlier. =/
IMO..
But.. I feel like it's generally the destabilization that occurs with the introduction to psychotropics, or the withdrawal of them, and generally less than the actual mental affliction itself.
I could write a whole essay on it. Basically, it's a very complex and slippery slope. I wish it were just as easy as 'No crazy people get guns!' but it isn't.
Theres making up hypotheticals as an example and there is making up statistics which is a falsehood. If what you are saying is true, and it "depends on who you ask" then please provide figures from anyone who estimates in that range. I can provide you with figures of gun crime from home office and police reports. Can you provide such proof?
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,19857,00.html
I can go on, but I think two is enough to prove that JimK didn't make anything up.
What changed in 1990? The Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act made them into attractive, soft targets.
Thank you Brady Campaign!
I was asking about why I was mentioned as an American that made you sad to be one too, er something to that effect. =/
@ Canary Wundaboy
"citizens with shitguns and hunting rifles wont stand a chance against government troops with machine guns, no matter which way you cut it"
I disagree. An occupying force is at a severe disadvantage. Plus.. If only 5% of gun owners stood up to fight, it would be something like 4,000,000 'soldiers'. WTT M4a1 for 3,999,999 team mates any day.
Try googling 'causality' while you're at it, and good night.
"Did you know that in England where gun laws are stricter, that every single crime aside from homicide by gun has drastically higher rates than the US?"
The Overall UK crime rate is bad, we seem to have a serious problem in that regard. However, "drastically higher" is hardly a justifiable characterisation of the situation (85.5517 per 1,000 people vs the USA's 80.0645 per 1,000 people*). Moreover, it's simply incorrect for crimes like "plain old homicide" (the last figures I saw where 0.042802 per 1,000 people vs 0.0140633 per 1,000 in the UK*).
Anyway, got it off my chest now. Make what you will of the figures, but given the statistical misuse of data in arguments like this I'll include a caveat: Different countries use different methodologies when collecting data on different types of crime so the figures may not actually be comparable (with the probable exception murders which tend to be rather more "definite" stats). Furthermore, recorded crime says nothing about undetected crime rates.
*Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
Hey np, just wanted to say my peace without batting anyone over the head using stats. I was going to muse further on the cultural impact of recording crime, but that'd be going off at a tangent (albeit an interesting one IMHO). :)
Gift.
the idiots holding them do!
guns are just tools, much like a kitchen knife.
although.. the main difference between a kitchen knife and a gun is that the kitchen knife wasn't designed to kill while a gun is. but at the emd, it's still down to the user.
So besides gun availability (that debate has been covered already), what do you think is the reason that the U.S. seems to have a lot more school shootings than other countries? What is happening in the U.S. that does not seem to be happening elsewhere?
In the US, guns are not going away any time soon, any further debate in this area is just a mental exercise and the US will NOT give up its firearms. With that said though, the rest of this discussion seems to boil down to look a like the video games discussions on here previously.
Both guns and games have the potential to be dangerous (or simply have adverse affects if you prefer) when people lacking sound judgment get their hands on them. I don't think anyone here would equate God of War to a loaded .45, but I think we can all agree that when people are stupid and allow either into the hands of a child, bad things are in the works.
Once again I want to stress that I by no means think this to actions are equally "bad", just that there seems to be parallels.
It just strikes me that once again idiots are making life difficult for the rest of society. By buying games while paying no regard to the content warning, then whining about it later childrens advocacy groups are brought into the discussion. By having an individual like Cho legally purchase a handgun that he should not have been able to own and use it to murder innocent people, those want to restrict firearms are brought in. But neither group wants to own up to the fact that in both instances, existing safeguards failed.
The store clerk, seeing someone buying an M-rated game presumably for a child risks reprimand or firing in many stores for bringing that up to customer. So, he does his job and sells it. Another store clerk takes a mans information, processes it through the system and is told that the man can legally own the weapon. Not knowing this mans mental history, he has no reason to stop the sale.
So do we need parents to start paying attention to what their kids are doing and playing, yes. Do we need a system of checking backgrounds in the US that reasonably encompasses as many determining factors as possible in an accurate way, yes. Do we also need people to start assuming responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof, in these two areas and many others, yes.
Anyways, the other thing thats been rolling about my head today had to do with someones comments regarding a variety of weapons and where guns fell into that. I don't remember where I read this, or if its even accurate, but its an interesting thought nonetheless.
When it comes down to guns, bows, spears, axes and many other implements the do have certain similarities in one regard. They can e used as weapons true, but generally are tools in one regard or another. Axes to chop trees, knives to cut and skin, bows, spears and even guns to hunt. But one weapon has one sole purpose, it was made with one function in mind... to kill people. The sword. The gladius, the claymore, the katana... famous weapons all, whose only purpose is to kill people.
G'night! :)
People who are found insane by the courts are added to the prohibited persons database. At least they're supposed to be. But in the case of VT, for instance, lack of funding and/or bureaucratic screw-ups often let people fall through the cracks.
@jab49
So with no guns, nobody could kill more than four people? Explain the 45 people killed and the 58 injured at a school in Bath, Michigan with a bomb then. Or the 8 dead and 15 injured in a kitchen knife rampage at a school in Osaka, Japan.
As for not being useful, tell that to the Polish Jews who held off the SS for a month in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising with a handful of stolen rifles and pistols. Or to the million plus people every year who use a gun to defend themselves from violent criminals.
@Hackangel
To me, it seems obvious that the "gun-free zones" are a major factor. Placing a sign on a door or a line in a student handbook is not going to stop someone hell bent on murder from bringing a gun into a building. Doubly so when school administrators and politicians loudly advertise said buildings as being completely defenseless. This isn't much of a problem in the UK, being that the whole country is almost gun-free. But here, it's like setting up a chain-link fence in the ocean and declaring a water-free zone or something.
The fact that ~90% of known rampage shootings in the US happened after 1990 seems to be a strong correlation.
'' It ONLY works if you round up virtually every gun in existence first. Not possible in the US. That horse has left the barn.
From a practical standpoint, whinging about what we wish were true doesn’t do anything but make the whinger look silly. We deal with what *is*.
''
oh ok then , then why was slavery abolished? umm because it was wrong. My god, imagine if people had used your logic. 'We deal with what *is*' and it would require a major hard effort that we are too lazy to bother with so.. meh.. no lets keep slaves.
Chuma: “to kill, to threaten, to deter or for sport.”
"You just mentioned 4 things, how is that limited???"
Given those things are violence, defence from violence and sport, it isn't exactly diverse compared to say a knife.
"Guns are successfully used to threaten/deter in 85% of the 2.5 million self defense instances per year(by civilians)…"
Not true. In fact if you had read my response to this statistic further up in the thread you will see the links to scientific studies of Kleck and Gertz's research you will see that their methodology is fundementally flawed. Basic maths allows you to work out that if what they were saying is true, by the time you are 60, half the population would have been in a life threatening situation and could only save themselves if they had a gun on them. This is laughably false. Exact figures are hard to come by, even harder outside of law enforcement, but 2.5 Million is a gross exaggeration.
"You also forgot the use of “just for fun” at a shooting range…
and Police enforcement…"
Shooting range is sport, police enforcement is kill, threaten and deter.
"No, they are a criminal for hundreds of thousands of possible reasons only one of which is pulling a gun on an innocent person..."
Point is that a law-abiding civilian who owns a gun is just that until the moment they pull the trigger and kill someone. Criminals don't wear a uniform to identify them from others and come in all shapes and sizes.
"...and doing so is far more common for self defense than an attack on another…"
This is another exaggeration. Guns are more often drawn as a threat, even by police. Often they draw their guns first to approach a suspect, even if they don't have a weapon in a "cooperate or get shot" way. I imagine the number of times they draw weapons because the suspect has one is much less than forcing cooperation through intimidation (not critisizing the police you must understand, but there is a distinction here).
"The ‘child’(most school shooters are adults) could obtain a firearm just as easily in a state that banned them as they can in a state with no restrictions…(except that states with almost no restrictions on guns have never had school shootings and have the lowest crime rates…)"
This just isn't so. You only have to look at previous school shootings and see how they got hold of weapons from family members because they didn't lock the weapons away properly. My proposals for restrictions include maintaining a secure location that is checked by an official.
"as for domestics, I believe knives are more common in those… and those 2.5 million defensive uses do include ‘domestics’ and with guns banned there would be a hell of a lot more of them…"
Again with the 2.5M figure... Please scroll up and look for the links that discredit the figure entirely. Anyhow, yes you can argue that knives are more common, but it is easy to run from a knife than a projectile weapon like a gun.
"They are mostly used for self defense… and are seen as one of the main components of freedom…
Why is protecting against government more important then protecting against a home invader or back alley robber? they are equally important."
It's not the importance that you place upon either but the intention of the 2nd amendment that I was getting at.
"2% of crime have something to do with automatic weapons, and since most of those are with semis converted to full auto by the criminals and involves zero mass shootings I don’t see how banning or not would effect anything…(by the way they were banned for almost a decade and during that time were used more often then before the banning…)"
Great, then by banning automatic weapons, and by placing heavy restrictions of semi-auto weapons we decrease crime by organised criminals and can work on getting that 2% to 0%. Everything has to be done in stages and by removing the most damaging weapons that noone can argue in favour of keeping, we can start the ball rolling. And I appreciate you say there was a rise in crimes but I have to wonder how this law was implemented. Not every idea is a bad one just because its implementation is bad.
"also if you own a weapon in your home for self defense, then wouldn’t you be able to defend better if you had a better gun???"
Personally I would be on the phone to the police immediately and the last thing I would want to do is approach someone with a gun, regardless of whether or not I have one as well. My posessions are not as important as my life and are covered by insurance.
"Removing guns isn’t unrealistic do to a backlash(check Washington DC, handguns banned crimes go through the roof but no backlash) it is unrealistic because it wouldn’t help anyone as there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GUNS ON THE BLACK MARKET…"
Where do you think all these come from exactly? Usually from people who can legitimately own guns having them stolen or selling them on. If you make people responsible for their weapons, you'll see a lot less of this sort of thing happening.
"You want a governing body to go into 80,000,000-100,000,000 homes on a yearly basis?!?!?!?!? but not into the homes of know criminals that but the guns illegally??? Now that would have a political backlash…"
You want to own a gun? You have to have a yearly visit. How many times do you get visited by the gas-man to take a meter reading in a year? It's not that inconvenient.
"There are already back ground checks but privacy laws keep insanity status out of the registries and including that info would keep crazies from seeking professional help which would likely increase crime since they can get weapons from illegal dealers very easily…"
You logic here is ludicrous. It would increase crime because they would have to go to an ILLEGAL dealer rather than a readily available gunshop? Don't be silly. Tell me something, how many illegal gun dealers do you know of? Now how many gun retailers do you know? Which would you rather deal with, crazy or not? You can't take a leap of logic on this and claim that something would be worse if you make it more difficult for someone.
Anyhow, thanks for the comments, please feel free to respond to any points in here you want to debate further. But please, read up on the 2.5M figure. It's clearly false.
"um actually no.. its completely in context. where do u stop. Somebody has a gun, so i need a gun to defend myself, so they get a bigger gun, so i get a bigger gun etc etc its completely analogous. "
So everyone has a big gun and no one actually uses them on each other, so where is the harm?
@NovaBlack
“um.. ok show me proof of that please. completely untrue. “
A simple google search shows this:
“Human Trafficking: Available Statistics
Due to the “hidden” nature of trafficking activities, gathering statistics on the magnitude of the problem is a complex and difficult task. The following statistics are the most accurate available, given these complexities, but may represent an underestimation of trafficking on a global and national scale.
Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders (some international and non-governmental organizations place the number far higher), and the trade is growing. (U.S. Department of State. 2004. Trafficking in Persons Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State.)
Of the 600,000-800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year, 70 percent are female and 50 percent are children. The majority of these victims are forced into the commercial sex trade. (Ibid.)”
@NovaBlack
“are you deliberately reaching for the most far fetched events you can think of? how many times a week do you have to defend yourself from becoming enslaved. to the point that justifies a NEED for a gun? seriously.. what next… ‘ i NEED a gun so i may protect myself from alien abduction’.. geez”
If you save your life just once, than you have justified your ownership... the specific reason for use doesn’t matter... I was just saying that this is yet another thing that could happen, which can be prevented by a gun...
@NovaBlack
“um.. you believe guns lower the amount of gun violence. toooootally makes sense. and ghandi didnt ’support guns’. “
I didn’t say ‘gun violence’, I said ‘violence’, why do anti-gun advocates always use that copout?
@NovaBlack
“It was the context of the opression of a people , and attempting to remove their ability to stand up for themselves that he was saying was ‘blackest’ . not saying ‘ hey get a gun today! theyre grrrrreat!’ .”
He was against guns being used for a violent defense against British, but he was for people being allowed to own guns, so you are wrong.
He was saying that not allowing guns to be owned was a greater injustice then inslaving his whole country...
@NovaBlack
“So you SERIOUSLY think there is the same obvious causal link that there is between Guns, Bullets and shootings, as there is between video games, guns, bullets, and shootings? No there isnt… And despite that i have NOTHING AGAINST sensible control of games. and they dont even harm people! Surely therefore if sensible control of games is ok (which i think nobody here would argue with), you cannot reasonably with clear conscience tell me that the sensible control of something infinitely more directly dangerous is wrong… that is totally backwards.”
There is no casual link between guns and violence. Lots of evidence suggests that guns curtail violence...
Shootings include shootings in self defense and in an aggressive way so the casual link there isn’t bad or good on it’s own…
>!>!>!>!>Now I know were you stand, you believe the 'sensible' control of something that harms no one is reasonable...
''@NovaBlack
“um actually no.. its completely in context. where do u stop. Somebody has a gun, so i need a gun to defend myself, so they get a bigger gun, so i get a bigger gun etc etc its completely analogous. ”
So everyone has a big gun and no one actually uses them on each other, so where is the harm?
''
um so nobody uses them on each other.. then WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN.
geez thanks for winning that point for me!
I think what Shady8x meant was that guns are used to commit the violence, but that they aren't the cause of it. Just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they'll use it. Just because a doctor can perform surgery dosn't mean he'll just roam around hacking people up. People know there's a time and a place for things.
"Ofcourse the one time one of them then reaches behind for their own gun and shoots you, it isn’t so fun…"
Except thats when you shoot them.
"Criminals are thugs, but if the shaken cashier had produced a gun it would have provoked a response from him and maybe meant that instead of being hit, she would have been shot dead, or maybe others as well. It is unfortunate he was not caught, but that’s no reason to give upon the police."
Except a good number of criminals make there intentions obvious from the moment they enter the door. This one had most of his face covered, before he actually pulled the gun. The problem with your argument is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A CRIMINAL IS GOING TO DO, even when you do everything he says. You never know how they will respond to any thing adverse to them, you never know what they will perceive as a threat.
"Statistically it is also not rational to assume you will be. If you live your life ruled by fear of the unlikely then you add to the whole problem of being governed by it. There are sensible precautions you can take. I don’t walk down narrow dark alleyways in the middle of the night or cut through rough parts of town on my own when no one else is about. You don’t need to carry a weapon all the time."
Four homes in my mother neighborhood have been burglarized in the last year. There have been several car jacking, 2 of which were violent within 2 miles of my house in the Last month. I live in a firmly suburban area above Atlanta. There are no dark alleys and the rough parts of town are the 2 or 3 bits of section 8 housing.
If you have to be admitted to any psychiatric institution, you are required to have this put on the record that NICS can access. Now, for the longest time, this was not done or barely ever done (in 2006 I believe it was, Arizona reported only 3 people admitted to such institutions, wherein common sense will tell you that it is more than that).
"If you have to be admitted to any psychiatric institution, you are required to have this put on the record that NICS can access. Now, for the longest time, this was not done or barely ever done (in 2006 I believe it was, Arizona reported only 3 people admitted to such institutions, wherein common sense will tell you that it is more than that)"
Does this mean that everyone that is admitted have to be reported including those who voluntarily check in, and those who's parents put them in there to fix them from being not-straight(yes people do that) and those who's parents just think they're kids are unruly and want to 'fix' them...
Do you know in which circumstances they are reported, because there are certainly many types of crazy and a tiny fraction of them is dangerous to the public at large...
Anyways, if there is a law, then those institutions must report it.
@Ebonheart
"I love historical inacuracies. 2 Nazi generals in Hitlers inner circle where exactued by Hitlers orders for an attempted and failed assassination. Was quiet funny a table saved his life. Hitler political career started off in the Nazi party (It use to be a labor union) He reorganized it. He forceabily seized control, not this “vote” you silly people speak of."
Wasn't there like 18 known assassination attempts by his own people?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/assassination_attempts.html
"Tell that to Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who watched both her parents get murdered at a restaurant in broad daylight while her .45 was locked in the car in accordance with Texas law. Tell that to Jeanne Assam, who shot used her personal handgun to stop a man from massacring an entire church full of people in broad daylight.
"
um like i keep saying.. refer to my article on the pointlessness of the self defence argument.
No one is arguing the causal link between massive trauma from a bullet wound and death.
There actually is an inverse correlative between legal guns and crime. The fewer legal guns, the higher the crime. [See: Washington D.C. circa 1980]
I can argue the opposite side of the inverse, but I don't think I really have to.
There is no causal relationship between guns and crime. Guns do not, cannot cause their trigger to be pulled.
" What about the UN or the G8? That’s a bunch of nations all commenting on one another…"
The UN or the G8 hasn't demonstrated a lack of understanding of American culture and politic in the face of an appeal from someone who has first-hand experience being an American.
"So you are happy with the violent society you have? Wouldn’t you like to try and have a something, I dunno… BETTER?"
No, I'm not at all happy with the violent society we have. That's why I'd like to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I'm going to spell it out for you all one more time.
THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS. IN PLACES WHERE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS BANNED, CRIMINALS PROSPER AND VIOLENT CRIME RISES. IN PLACES WHERE SUCH BANS ARE NOT ISSUED, DRAMATIC INCREASES IN VIOLENT CRIME DO NOT OCCUR.
How can it get any clearer than that?
This is true. This is proven inexorably with every single murder that happens in this country. Your failure to recognize that here, in the US, when the populous is allowed to carry firearms, those murdering scumbags are deterred from random violent crime. The statistics are there, which I think you'd see if you were really armed with crime statistics from the US. I don't see how you can cite statistics to defend gun control when its clear that crime is higher in areas with stricter gun control. P E R I O D.
I'm glad you're giving up, because I'm tired of trying to understand how you're making such large leaps of reason. Because I want violent crime to go down, I'm living in fear?