Banning Guns = Banning Islam?

El_Kabong

PaperPlates wrote:

Last I checked the guy down the corner in Brooklyn selling hot guns, doesnt run background checks.

that didnt answer my question

so you are saying background checks have accomplished nothing?

69charger

OutOfBreath wrote:

I guess you do. But does any of the laws entail licensing of selling and owning guns? Are there anything in place to revoke the license of an unfit individual? Background checks?

Sales by a business require a Federal Firearms License and a Federal Background Check. There is no license required by the purchaser only the seller. Sales to indiviuals by individuals vary state to state. Convicted Felons cannot own or even hold a firearm and yes, crazy people can be deemed unfit to own firearms.

chopitdown

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ah. then I have no quarrel on that issue. didn't notice dunky's post above you first time.

However, guns dont have to be available anywhere at all times, with noone knowing who has how many either. People should be allowed to own them, certainly. But there are many measures that can be tried and used inbetween "I love my 5 million guns" and "Noone should have guns". and most people here, maybe even dunky, are promoting stricter regulation for the most part. As I understand it, you pretty much dont have any regulation over there.

Peace
Dan

There is some regulation on guns, but it is fairly lose and there are ways around it; though it is getting better. Also, there is such a black market on guns that the gun laws can be ignored if you really want to purchase a gun. It's not like there is only a few cities in the country that have a black market on guns; they all have them and that's why I think it's sometimes fruitless to try and say it will solve problems. I agree that we need to do what we can to prevent the accidental gun deaths, storage, prevention of getting a gun etc... I just can't think of a practical way it can work...who knows maybe i'm too cynical about all of this. Again, I guess the reason for me to be so adamant about keeping guns legal is b/c i know people who have them (I don't) and have a lot of them and keep them locked up in a gun safe. I saw good gun safety modeled and they never had any accidents, I'm fully aware the accidents happen.

Kann

69charger wrote:

2.55 Million! I was low-balling for arguments sake.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html

"...that same year there were an estimated 2.55 million defensive gun uses (DGUs), 37.3% of them in the victim/defender's home, or about 950,000 in the home.[9] Although gun control advocates have questioned DGU estimates,[4,11] the claim of large numbers of DGUs has been confirmed in at least 16 surveys, and the criticisms concerning flaws in DGU surveys have been rebutted.[5,9,12] These criticisms were based on one-sided speculation about errors in surveys, rather than empirical evidence. To date, there is no empirical evidence that false-positive reports of DGU outnumber false negatives (ie, failure to report DGUs), and thus no foundation for the claim that surveys overestimate the prevalence of DGUs.[12] In sum, the best available estimates indicate that there are about 6 times as many DGUs in US homes each year as criminal/aggressive uses (950,000:155,000). "

I don't live in America, and I have the smallest clue of how your society works and feels so I won't go talking about moral issues, but :
- your statistics comes from a biaised website (guncite)
- your analogy is not based on logic
guns and religion cannot be compared :
gun = physical object wich can be restricted
religion = idea, and you cannot restrict ideas
the heavy control on guns is based on the simple reflection wich goes :
less guns = less gunshots. (Now I don't live in America, so I'm not saying this is the solution)
but less religion does not = less religious fanatics.
People advocating for gun control think it will have an effect on crime control. But where in the world did you come up with => idea control will have an effect on terror?
So no, your argument doesn't work. If you want to fight stupid ideas (ie terror), fight ignorance. If you want to fight shootings, well I'm not american (but it works fine where I live).

OutOfBreath

69charger wrote:

2.55 Million! I was low-balling for arguments sake.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html

"...that same year there were an estimated 2.55 million defensive gun uses (DGUs), 37.3% of them in the victim/defender's home, or about 950,000 in the home.[9] Although gun control advocates have questioned DGU estimates,[4,11] the claim of large numbers of DGUs has been confirmed in at least 16 surveys, and the criticisms concerning flaws in DGU surveys have been rebutted.[5,9,12] These criticisms were based on one-sided speculation about errors in surveys, rather than empirical evidence. To date, there is no empirical evidence that false-positive reports of DGU outnumber false negatives (ie, failure to report DGUs), and thus no foundation for the claim that surveys overestimate the prevalence of DGUs.[12] In sum, the best available estimates indicate that there are about 6 times as many DGUs in US homes each year as criminal/aggressive uses (950,000:155,000). "

OK, that seems aimed at people using arguments I havent forwarded, but okay.

I will put question marks around "defensive gun uses" though. This study then also shows that a gun handy leads to "DGUs". And if I'm not entirely wrong, most nations have a "defense" although somehow someone starts wars all over. Most often in the name of defense. But sure, guns doesn't bring your own doom in any way in themselves. But this study most of all shows how many gun-related incidents occur in the US, and by golly, that's not few. Even if many will claim "defensive use".

Still, making the indirect aggregate claim that the more guns are dispersed in a country, the better it will be for all, well, dont you see the fallacy in that? But maybe the US is too far down the road for any realistic de-militarization of civil society, I dunno. As I see it, guns may put a stop to things in some situations, but in others, escalate them to increase harm caused all round.

Not doubting your statistics, but doubting it's validity, and whether getting more guns solves any problems.

Peace
Dan

chopitdown

El_Kabong wrote:

that didnt answer my question

so you are saying background checks have accomplished nothing?

i agree that background checks have stopped some people from getting guns legally. I also think that if you really want a gun you're not going to stop just b/c the guy at walmart said you failed a background check.

OutOfBreath

69charger and chopitdown, thanks for the info on american gun laws and regulation.

It seems there are some regulation, but it also seems obvious it ain't working too well. I will agree that guns isn't the problem per se, but widespread ownership of them can be problematic on the large scale. But the solution is probably not getting rid of all guns. (Or that would be a solution, but I hardly see it happening, and anyone holding out would ruin it) However, strict regulation and punishment on illegal guns will bring those numbers down.

The problem at the bottomline is perhaps your divided society. You have the largest chasm between poor and rich in the western hemisphere. Hence, the reward from going criminal is huge compared to elsewhere. The threshold is lower for higher risks and increased use of violent force. And you have a whole bunch of other problems with the race-stuff, inner cities and so on.

So the problems isn't guns, really, I agree to that. But given a certain context, like for instance the US, it's liberal dispersion throughout the population can do a lot of harm.

I am speculating. But thanks for the info.

Peace
Dan

chopitdown

OutOfBreath wrote:

The problem at the bottomline is perhaps your divided society. You have the largest chasm between poor and rich in the western hemisphere. Hence, the reward from going criminal is huge compared to elsewhere. The threshold is lower for higher risks and increased use of violent force. And you have a whole bunch of other problems with the race-stuff, inner cities and so on.

So the problems isn't guns, really, I agree to that. But given a certain context, like for instance the US, it's liberal dispersion throughout the population can do a lot of harm.

I am speculating. But thanks for the info.

I have to agree with your above paragraphs. I think you hit it right on the head when you said that there is a big reward (or perceived reward) for going criminal. We do have a huge divide b/t rich and poor and everyone here equates "stuff" with being better and richer. I think the other problems you listed...race, inner city etc... are a direct reflection on that. Everyone wants to get a head and wants to improve (which is good) but they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get there. We are constantly bombarded with what it's like to be rich...turn on mtv or vh1 and all you see is rich people and how they live; it's very easy to get jealous and to want what they have, and it's too bad that some feel the best or easiest way for them to get there is to turn to violence or crime (which can beget violence).

OutOfBreath

chopitdown wrote:

I have to agree with your above paragraphs. I think you hit it right on the head when you said that there is a big reward (or perceived reward) for going criminal. We do have a huge divide b/t rich and poor and everyone here equates "stuff" with being better and richer. I think the other problems you listed...race, inner city etc... are a direct reflection on that. Everyone wants to get a head and wants to improve (which is good) but they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get there. We are constantly bombarded with what it's like to be rich...turn on mtv or vh1 and all you see is rich people and how they live; it's very easy to get jealous and to want what they have, and it's too bad that some feel the best or easiest way for them to get there is to turn to violence or crime (which can beget violence).

Exactly.
Hey, dont I usually disagree with everything you say and vice versa? Scary

Peace
Dan

69charger

OutOfBreath wrote:

69charger and chopitdown, thanks for the info on american gun laws and regulation.

It seems there are some regulation, but it also seems obvious it ain't working too well. I will agree that guns isn't the problem per se, but widespread ownership of them can be problematic on the large scale. But the solution is probably not getting rid of all guns. (Or that would be a solution, but I hardly see it happening, and anyone holding out would ruin it) However, strict regulation and punishment on illegal guns will bring those numbers down.

The problem at the bottomline is perhaps your divided society. You have the largest chasm between poor and rich in the western hemisphere. Hence, the reward from going criminal is huge compared to elsewhere. The threshold is lower for higher risks and increased use of violent force. And you have a whole bunch of other problems with the race-stuff, inner cities and so on.

So the problems isn't guns, really, I agree to that. But given a certain context, like for instance the US, it's liberal dispersion throughout the population can do a lot of harm.

I am speculating. But thanks for the info.

Peace
Dan

The solution is enacting good legislation free from emotion and lack of understanding, enforcment of existing laws, and severe punishment for those who choose to break the law.

I'm all for punishing those who choose to break the law regarding firearms. They just make it that more difficult for me to enjoy my rights and my hobby.

OutOfBreath

69charger wrote:

The solution is enacting good legislation free from emotion and lack of understanding, enforcment of existing laws, and severe punishment for those who choose to break the law.

I'm all for punishing those who choose to break the law regarding firearms. They just make it that more difficult for me to enjoy my rights and my hobby.

Now that is making sense.
You have my full support for that view.

Peace
Dan

meme

chopitdown wrote:

I have to agree with your above paragraphs. I think you hit it right on the head when you said that there is a big reward (or perceived reward) for going criminal. We do have a huge divide b/t rich and poor and everyone here equates "stuff" with being better and richer. I think the other problems you listed...race, inner city etc... are a direct reflection on that. Everyone wants to get a head and wants to improve (which is good) but they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get there. We are constantly bombarded with what it's like to be rich...turn on mtv or vh1 and all you see is rich people and how they live; it's very easy to get jealous and to want what they have, and it's too bad that some feel the best or easiest way for them to get there is to turn to violence or crime (which can beget violence).

Having lived in the US for 11 years now, I disagree. I actually think that there is such a stark line between "being a criminal" and "being an honest person" that once one crosses the line to "being a criminal" they feel that they have nothing left to lose. Reputation is everything here. It's also a pretty unforgiving society. This is how I explain the fact that in my home country petty theft is much more common: you get a lenient punishment and rebound. Here if you steal and rob might as well kill.

On guns... I think there is a big difference between the mindset "owning a gun is my right, hence I can go buy it if I pass a background check" (US mindset as I see it); and the mindset "owning a gun is NOT my right. I may be a hunter and want a gun for those purposes, but I'll have to get a special permit from the government" (Italian mindset as I see it).

On the first post... guns are things, muslims are people :rolleyes:

chopitdown

OutOfBreath wrote:

Exactly.
Hey, dont I usually disagree with everything you say and vice versa? Scary

Peace
Dan

we could just forget this happened

frank_black

totally off topic....but the point of this is to give you guys a break:

http://www.kenbradshaw.com/order2/

i have the dvd of this event...the ocean and all it's beauty calms me down when i'm upset about current events like violence & guns

now that's a wave!

EDIT: to make it pearl jam related now that's a BIG WAVE...Ken Bradshaw would be saying right there: "Got me big wave, ride me a big wave, got me a MOTHERFUCKIN' HUUUUUGE WAVE!"

chopitdown

frank_black wrote:

totally off topic....but the point of this is to give you guys a break:

http://www.kenbradshaw.com/order2/

i have the dvd of this event...the ocean and all it's beauty calms me down when i'm upset about current events like violence & guns

now that's a wave!

would you call it a "big wave"? to keep it pj related.

dunkman

chopitdown wrote:

I realize it's a stretch, just like it's a stretch to suggest that the banning of guns is going to stop violent crimes and accidental deaths.

for the 14th time in about 2 days... once handguns were banned/legislated in Japan, Scotland, Australia, etc... then the number of gun-related accidental deaths or homicides halved!!!

so its not a stretch at all!!!!

chopitdown

dunkman1974 wrote:

for the 14th time in about 2 days... once handguns were banned/legislated in Japan, Scotland, Australia, etc... then the number of gun-related accidental deaths or homicides halved!!!

so its not a stretch at all!!!!

1. it's the 13th time
2. I'm not arguing that it will not decrease accidents etc... I said STOP (eliminate) I never said you thought it would cease all accidents or homicides. On a side note, more accidents / homicides occur with shotguns etc..., than with handguns...
3. it is a stretch to say that banning would stop accidents

PaperPlates

El_Kabong wrote:

that didnt answer my question

so you are saying background checks have accomplished nothing?

Of course I didnt answer your question. The question is stupid (im assuming it was intended to be) , and the answer is obvious. To say they accomplish nothing would be foolish. To say they stop criminals from getting their hands on weapons, would be more foolish.

dunkman

chopitdown wrote:

1. it's the 13th time
2. I'm not arguing that it will not decrease accidents etc... I said STOP (eliminate) I never said you thought it would cease all accidents or homicides. On a side note, more accidents / homicides occur with shotguns etc..., than with handguns...
3. it is a stretch to say that banning would stop accidents

1. that's right
2. no-one is saying it will STOP all accidents
3. it is a stretch... but it would mean a decrease


if people really really want to own guns then they'll go through the proper admin/checks/licences/etc to get one... they'll deal with the hassle of it all so they can have a gun. no matter how strict you make it!!

people keep using the car analogy as well... so in keeping with that, think about how car admin has changed

in 1943 any fucker could just get in a car and drive it.... no licence, no test to pass, no tax, no seatbelts, no MOT, no insurance, nothing!!! no speed limits on certain roads, etc etc etc

in 2006, we now have... licence, seatbelts, tests, insurance, tax, paperwork aplenty, speed limits, speed bumps, just fucking loadsa stuff


if LEGALLY ABIDING peope want to own and go in cars then they do this no problems.. they might grumble about costs, etc... but law abiding people go with the regulations! so if law-abiding citizens really really want guns, then they'll jump through the appropriate hoops to get one!!!

NMyTree

dunkman1974 wrote:

for the 14th time in about 2 days... once handguns were banned/legislated in Japan, Scotland, Australia, etc... then the number of gun-related accidental deaths or homicides halved!!!

so its not a stretch at all!!!!

Yes, Gun-Related Incidents (accidental deaths or homocides) decrease or halved.

As they should when a total ban on firearms is imposed.

But murder in general increased considerably after the ban of firearms. The statistics prove this.

They simply are not being comitted with firearms.

That tells you something right there.

Once firearms are banned, people are more likely to commit murder. The predators/criminals/murderers feel safer and more confident to carry out their crimes, when they know the population has no firearms to defend themselves with.

You are stuck on "Gun-Related " incidents, when you should be looking at what happens to the overall murder rate, in those countries, when firearms are banned.

The overall murder rate is the key point.