forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
I thought it was you who wanted a rational arguement. You gave up on that real fast.
Armed and safe
- Thread starter forestdaledave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- armed guns regulations safe
Help Support VMAX Forum:
I thought it was you who wanted a rational arguement. You gave up on that real fast.
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Actually post one.....and we can discuss it.
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
dannymax
Well-Known Member
Of course they weren't criminals Dave....(the criminals are busy taking care of bidness)....but they clearly were fruitcakes with some major scrambled up wiring! There's obviously something broken in the mental health system that needs fixing but....how can the acts of a few clearly unbalanced people be the fault of all the responsible firearm owning men & women in this country?
But lets go to ridiculous extremes and speculate on how the country could be better if all the guns are gone....except for the bad guys and black marketers and all them folks. You're still gonna have the fruitcakes and the crackpots. How will you react when one of these nut jobs incinerates a classroom full of kids with a pail of hi-test gasoline or something similar...cause they're gonna find a way, you can count on that.
What will you do then Dave....jump back on your high horse and say...."simply unacceptable"? :eusa_snooty:
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Hmm the gun store completed a "straw" purchase.....to 2 criminals ( people with the intent of purchasing a gun illegally) and then a crime is committed. ...and officers were shot.
All that you've pointed out is that criminals won't obey the law.
Still waiting on the rational argument.
Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk
All that you've pointed out is that criminals won't obey the law.
Still waiting on the rational argument.
Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk
Redbone
Well-Known Member
I believe there may be a factor of manipulation or maybe better stated as a level of cooperation between some enthusiastic political figures and media outlets generously reporting issues in support of particular flavor of well funded political players. I'm sure it pays well for the right story.
Read this 2013 CDC study regarding U.S. deaths and their causes which may shed some light on how people die in our country. Table twelve, specifically non-medical deaths: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Another point of reference: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
So more guns are causing more deaths, nay, it seems to be quite the opposite!
Read this 2013 CDC study regarding U.S. deaths and their causes which may shed some light on how people die in our country. Table twelve, specifically non-medical deaths: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Another point of reference: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
So more guns are causing more deaths, nay, it seems to be quite the opposite!
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting.....other reports by the CDC, lumped all deaths by firearm into one group...whether they be suicide, by police, or in the commencement of a crime.
This breaks it down.
This breaks it down.
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
At this point I don't know if you can even read or comprehend what you are reading. The gun was purchased legally and was sold legally under current laws. Neither person was a criminal, had been charged with a crime, nor convicted, all which is necessary for a person to be a criminal. Remember that other part of the U.S. Constitution that says innocent until proven guilty. Criminality is determined after the fact. It was determined after the death of two police that the sale was in fact illegal. The gun store was found to be complicit in the strawman sale. So logically then the store is also a criminal. Would the fact have changed the death of 2 policeman if the strawman sale took place in a mens' room?
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Dave.....let me say this slowly. ...a criminal is someone that intends to do something criminal. The one criminal....let's call him Bob. ...bought the gun.....with the intention of the gun being for the second criminal....let's call him Jim. Jim was also underage.....which is why Bob had to buy the gun for him. ( a criminal act). The owner of the shop.....let's call him Ted. Ted probably knew what Jim and Bob were up too.....that's why he was found negligent. ....and had to pay 6 million dollars.
After that Jim and Bob. ...kill 2 officers.
Again....criminals don't obey the law....hence the straw purchase of the gun
Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk
After that Jim and Bob. ...kill 2 officers.
Again....criminals don't obey the law....hence the straw purchase of the gun
Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
This is what it is all about. Getting guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. No one, just no one is talking about zero gun society, just you frightened second amendment fixtators. There is a lot of things broken and no one has all the answers but talking about high horses yours is up there straddling the moon. It seems you care nothing about being a responsible gun owner outside of you got yours. WTF is up with that.
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
But criminals dont obey the laws.....why is that hard to under stand.....but martin Lawrence says it best.
https://youtu.be/HnV6wR8JRhg?t=22s
https://youtu.be/HnV6wR8JRhg?t=22s
Rollie
Well-Known Member
I like the concept they passed in near by Kennesaw , GA. whereby every household was required to have a gun. Crime was reduced significantly , as most of the criminals simply went to other cities without these regulations.
Switzerland also requires military service and issues every able bodied citizen a weapon. During and after active duty service , the weapon is kept in the household. Low crime rate again. It works. Proven over & over.
Gun Ownership - It's The
Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home Page
3-14-1
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."
"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."
In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."
Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.
"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.
The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.
"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."
Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.
"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."
Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.
Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.
"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.
According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.
The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.
Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.
"It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.
"They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."
Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.
"I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.
But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.
"We believed in the right of people to own guns," he said.
Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, "The Law Heard 'Round the World."
He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.
"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."
Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.
Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.
The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.
Jones said the unusual law has not deterred anyone from moving to Kennesaw.
"Our population has increased just like everyone's in Georgia in the past 20 years," he said. "The law really hasn't done any harm to the city's growth."
The city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census.
Cobb Chamber of Commerce president Bill Cooper said odd laws are typically not counted as strike against a city when a business is looking to relocate.
"These laws don't have laws don't have an impact on a company's decision to move to Cobb County," Cooper said.
"Many communities have strange laws that are out of date. Businesses look at many factors when relocating, such as quality of life, education, infrastructure and available workforce."
Bentley said the law actually may have helped business development.
"Kennesaw is home to more manufacturing businesses than any other Cobb city," he said. "Companies have said they want to be located in conservative areas."
http://www.rense.com
HyperPete
Well-Known Member
I agree emphatically!
If that is the case, then why, with over THREE HUNDRED MILLION GUNS in the US, is there such a problem? As I asked in my first post, just how many MORE do we need for this problem to be magically resolved?
More guns is NOT the answer.
No other developed country on earth has as lax gun laws or more weapons than the United States. The easy access to weapons and the ineffective methods of tracking weapons to make sure that they don’t fall into the wrong hands facilitate violent and unstable people in the United States getting weapons with which to kill people.
Currently, there are 88 guns for every 100 people living in the United States (not even counting the illegal weapons which our government couldn’t account for). With so many weapons and so few controls on who can own the weapons, there is simply no realistic way to keep these guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals and disturbed people.
Ultimately, simple gun laws will not prevent all gun deaths, but they will gradually reduce gun violence. Gun laws will reduce the amount of guns to be sold and will help prevent them from being sold to criminals and the mentally ill. As guns are harder to obtain legally and illegal guns become harder to come by (when more guns are confiscated by the police or are used in murders and disposed of then are put onto the street), it will become harder for criminals to find access to clean guns.
Restricting guns may not immediately stop hardened criminals from obtaining weapons, but it would help stop insane and violent people from getting them easily. Mentally ill shooters that kill large numbers of random people are often disturbed loners who would have a difficult time obtaining a gun if not for legal channels—this isn’t to say that they wouldn’t eventually find a way, but it would make it more difficult.
We see that gun restrictions do work in the rest of the world, despite the catch 22 surrounding criminals and gun ownership (only law-abiding citizens follow gun laws). In Europe and much of Asia, the per capita murder rates are far lower than the United States and this is, in part, due to the fact that they have fewer guns. Crime still occurs, and murders still happen, but it is harder to do massive harm to large numbers of people when guns are less common.
By restricting guns, forcing gun registration, and punishing illegal guns harshly, the total number of guns on our streets will eventually decrease. As it gets more risky to buy or sell guns, people will have a harder time getting their hands on them and overall gun-homicide deaths will decrease.
It is completely unrealistic to hope that there will one day be no gun crime, but this does not mean that we should sit idle as an average of 25 fellow Americans are gunned down each day. Stronger gun laws may not prevent all shootings, but it is virtually inarguable that such laws would not reduce the number of gun crimes in the long term.
Put plainly, our current gun laws don’t just let law-abiding citizens defend themselves, but also facilitate criminals getting the weapons which are being used to justify weapon ownership—in this, the gun industry is essentially dealing to both sides of the criminal conflict. Until sane gun laws are enacted, this small-scale domestic arms race will simply continue and will fuel and ever expanding body count.
And now, Rollie, to specifically address your Switzerland claim:
“Countries like Israel and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, but low levels of gun crime, so guns aren’t the real problem”
A favorite argument of some gun enthusiasts, the idea that outlier countries disprove the general trend of gun ownership leading to violence is an intentional attempt to confuse the issue. By naming the two examples of developed countries that defy the correlation between violence and gun ownership, gun enthusiasts try to disprove this well-established trend.
Israel and Switzerland are the two model examples of developed countries that have high levels of gun ownership, yet low levels of gun crime. Gun enthusiasts promote this break in the correlation between gun violence and gun ownership as proof that the causation is false, but there is a very simple alternative explanation: Both Israel and Switzerland have mandatory military service programs which lead almost every young adult in these countries to serve as part of their armed forces.
The near-universal military service of citizens in Israel and Switzerland leads large portions of the population to have significant weapons training. This training lasts long after the citizens of these countries leave the service and allows for the relatively-safe ownership of firearms into civilian life. Every citizen goes through a battery of testing in preparation for military service and those who are mentally unfit for service are not given the access to guns that those who have been prepared through the military are.
The examples of Israel and Switzerland do not prove that high levels of gun ownership are always safe, but rather that letting only those who have been heavily vetted by the state own weapons is not dangerous. In both of these countries, there are high levels of gun ownership, but there are also heavy controls on guns that prevent un-vetted people from obtaining them. As opposed to the United States, which has high levels of guns and low levels of gun control, these countries have high levels of both gun control and gun ownership.
The true purpose of gun control is not to remove weapons for the sake of removing weapons, but to prevent the violent among us from obtaining weapons with which to harm others. If gun control regimes can be enacted that prevent just the violent and unstable in society from getting weapons, then this has virtually the same effect as removing all weapons from society; in both cases, gun crimes drop because people who are dangerous to society are denied weapons.
In order to refute this anti-gun control argument, I argue that Israel and Switzerland have many weapons, but they also have very strong gun control laws. In both cases, every person to legally own a gun has received psychological testing and safe weapons training—two components of a strong gun control regulatory regime—and is forced to register their weapons. These laws are facilitated by the compulsory military service and function as a sorting mechanism to ensure that dangerous people don’t have easy access to weapons.
dannymax
Well-Known Member
Quite the contrary....I care a great deal about being a responsible gun owner, my having firearms (lots of them actually....some really big ones too) only requires that I, personally, am responsible with my own firearms. My owning firearms does not somehow imply responsibility for the actions of the millions of other firearms owners in our country (be they good, bad or whatever)...I'm referring to the US BTW.
brad bruggeman
Well-Known Member
More guns=more crime??Every year thousands of people attend the annual NRA convention,most are packing a gun.After it is over,no body gets shot.hhmm?imagine that!!
HyperPete
Well-Known Member
Are you intentionally being stupid, or is it natural?
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
HyperPete
Well-Known Member
I mistook it for the pathetic "argument" that "Guns don't kill people, people do." I've already made it abundantly clear that I am not blaming the devices, even though their only function is killing, but rather the irresponsible owners and the ease of obtaining them. And, for the most part, this has been a surprisingly authentic discussion on the matter.
brad bruggeman
Well-Known Member
No,just stating the facts!
Similar threads
