Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by bigdaddy, Dec 14, 2012.
Or a song...
Immediately thereafter, yes. No one is saying that if you restrict guns that crime will magically go away overnight.
But for the last decade the number of homicides has been dropping. There were 650 murders in the UK in 1997, this year 550.
So hypothetically if guns were totally banned in the US, that would be a useless way to minimise a tragedy like newton happing again?
Logic alone says that's not true.
And if you are going to quote an article please link to it. Instead of picking up the facts that support your viewpoint
And I'm assuming this is the article in question.
Picking up a few points from it :-
49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
42% strongly believe it is more important to control gun ownership, while 37% strongly feel it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 17-19 among 1,219 adults, finds a higher percentage saying that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from crime (48%) than to put their safety at risk (37%).
However, about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.
There is widespread public opposition to a ban on handguns: Two-thirds (67%) oppose banning the possession of handguns, except by law enforcement officers. Far more favor banning bullets designed to explode or penetrate bullet-proof vests (56%) and high capacity ammunition clips (53%). Opinion is divided over whether to ban semi-automatic guns – 44% favor such a ban, while 49% are opposed.
Women prioritize controlling ownership over gun rights by a 24-point margin, while men prioritize gun rights by a 10-point margin. Racial differences also are striking, as African-Americans overwhelmingly say gun control is more important than gun rights (68% to 24%), while opinion among whites tilts in favor of gun rights (51% to 42%).
Young people (18-29 year olds) continue to support gun control over gun rights (55% vs. 36%), while those 30-64 are more divided on the question. Notably, older Americans (ages 65+) have shifted over the last several months; today they prioritize gun control over gun rights (54% vs. 34%), but were more divided earlier in the year.
* * *
I could continue to paste segments from the article, but if you want to know more.
SO it appears that :-
a.>The majority of Americans favour Gun Control of some sort
b.>The Majority of Americans Favour a ban on Assult Rifles
c.>Women and Ethnic Groups support Gun Control, white men favour gun rights.
d.>In The Article Democrats favour Gun Control, whilst Republicans favour Gun Rights, Independants are more or less split (Read the article)
e.>Younger and older people favour Gun Control, whilst other age group is split.
f.>A majority of Americans thinks gun ownership helps protect people from crime.
Next time some rock star or actor OD's, tell your friends and coworkers that the tragedy wouldn't have happened if only the US had the courage to ban coke, meth, and heroin, and capture their reactions on your smartphone.
If we banned guns, we might drop from about 300 million in circulation to 250 million, or we might not. Chicago banned guns for 28 years, until the Supreme Court recently struck it down, and had daily shootings the whole time. More Americans were getting shot in Chicago than in Afghanistan.
And of course, as always, gun bans are mainly an excuse to throw black men in jail when the cops can't find anything else on them.
^Please you aren't comparing someone over dosing (self inflicted) to someone going on a shooting spree are you?
And most gun laws are state controlled aren't they? So one in theory could buy a gun in a less restrictive state. So one solution might be to make a Federal issue rather than a state issue.
So you are saying that there are 250million unregistered guns in the US? After all if guns were banned, law enforcement would just have to pull up details of registered weapons and collect them as per the law.
Of course not. El Chapo often has the Sinaloa henchmen use mass decapitations instead of shootings (his wife is a babe, btw). In the US we have about a thousand drug homicides a year, and about 17,000 or so people die from using those drugs, which are banned, of course. If a problem that large can continue in spite of a total ban and intense police focus, throwing a million people in jail, do you really think a ban would work?
These spree shootings, btw, kill about fifty or so a year, far less than the round off errors in the drug homicide estimates.
The problem there is that Heller vs DC says that people have a constitutional right to have a commonly used gun for self-defense, and that it must be usable, with no freaky requirements. Another problem is that many state constitutions go further in protecting such rights. In my state, it's uconstitutional to even question the right of the people to bear arms for defense of themselves, and we just added a new provision guaranteeing their right to hunt with traditional weapons like rifles and shotguns.
Probably. I used to own ten or twenty unregistered guns.
Maybe the cops read the same bullshit unsourced racist statistics about black people being genetically predisposed to violence that you did. You know, the ones that you said no one dares talk about yet you decided to grace us with anyway?
But, no, I'm sure you're deeply concerned with the plight of innocent black men being thrown in jail. Continue, friend of all black people.
I didn't know that guns were addictive, like coke, meth, and heroin.
Gun junkies. That explains a lot. Thanks.
He's also indirectly admitting that guns kill.
Nice. We're making progress.
He conspiracy theories are starting to come together. http://www.sott.net/article/254873-Sandy-Hook-massacre-Official-story-spins-out-of-control
Nothing about genetics. That's your reflexive implication, but the police read the same statistics, since the FBI and DOJ spend so much time compiling and publishing them, with lots of fancy charts and graphs and everything, so the police and everybody else can read them, like this one:
Homicide Trends in the US.
Some demographics are around 1 per 100,000 or less, and some demographics have at times topped 300 per 100,000. Everyone in law enforcement and academia knows all about it, and a lot of government programs and policy try to address it. One effect is sending tens of thousands of blacks to jail for years for nothing but weapons violations, because they're generally under much closer scrutiny than white folks in the suburbs.
Weapons Offenses and Offenders
For every guy in Vermont who gets busted, 500 people in DC go to jail.
I wouldn't even know how to go about registering them. It would be like trying to register a tricycle or washing machine or something. We just don't do that here.
^It sounds as if you saying the Police are engaging in racial profilling, shouldn't that be Illegal. Wait a minute doesn't the US 4th Ammendment guarantee the right to be safe from search and siezure without a warrant (which needs probable cause).
And the NRA, have responded with the idea of armed guards for schools.
So they can be at every location at once, can monitor every single class room at once, monitor every entry/exit point at once etc.. I can't see this working.
It's an inefficient use of resources. Since 2000 there have been about 61 children killed in school shootings. Using the same number of cops to check that parents are using child seats in their cars would probably save a lot more kids.
There are other clever things we could do to somewhat harden the schools, even like installing a few roll-down metal doors in the halls, like those you see at store entrances in malls or downtown shops for when they close up for the night. Having more tasers in schools shouldn't have a downside, and you could probably rig something similar to all the classroom doorknobs that shooters always grab and rattle, looking to enter a classroom. With webcams and computers now ubiquitous, we could also monitor schools so that administrators, teachers, and police can monitor the shooter's movements in real time, improving the effectiveness of the response, evacuation, and countermeasures.
Basically, we can guess pretty well on what a shooter or bomber is going to do, based on past profiles, and can plot and plan to confuse, impede, isolate, and delay them to some extent.
Why not impede them buy banning assult weapons and high capicity magaines, or better yet banning guns altogther?
Because those don't actually do anything. A high capacity magazine is less sophisticated than a beer can and we already have two centuries of supply in circulation, and reloading takes about two seconds. Assault weapons are used in mass killings only a sixth as often as a cigarette lighter, and are not as effective at killing people. Post Heller, a gun ban is clearly unconstitutional, and given the UK's example, would just mean that only violent criminals and the mentally ill would have guns.
The law they are going to introduce doesn't ban anything but the purchase of new assault weapons and magazines. Right now 10-years worth of assault weapons and magazines are being purchased by people who are afraid they will not be able to get them later. The same thing happened before the last ban. Doubtless these weapons will end up in homes that would not have brought them except for the manufactured scarcity. We just made it more likely they will get into the wrong hands, not less.
But in the short term, it won't matter if they ban the sales because the stores are already about empty and the suppliers couldn't nearly keep up with demand.
Gun suppliers are scouring the world for any kind of assault weapon they can get their hands on. We are flooding the country with new assault weapons. And it even gets worse if they don't pass the ban. That means we will have them everywhere. And the worst part it would not have changed what happened in Newtown, any current or new owner can have a family member with a mental illness that could get access to the guns. I'm not seeing the point to all this.
The mentally ill would not have guns, take this Adam guy in the UK the only way he would have got hold of a machine gun is if he knew the right people and considering he was a complete loner than that would gave been difficult.
Separate names with a comma.