|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. Show nested quote +In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide.
The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you.
I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you.
|
On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you.
The same argument could be used for all other laws.
Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc...
Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them.
|
On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them.
I would implore you to look into one of my (recently) previous posts in this thread where I made the distinction between Prescriptive and Descriptive classifications for crimes.
Prescriptive definitions are legitimate, but to classify a person prescriptively as "criminal" irrespective of their actions is ridiculous and is nothing more than a poorly constructed argument for thought-crime.
|
On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them.
I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up.
|
On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up.
Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking.
Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is.
|
Self defense is the claim.
Youtube is full of beer bellied fat ugly men shooting with their full automatic guns around in the wild. So Phallism is more the true reason of the Weapon nuts.
What people forget:Widespread Armed defense against criminals will make criminals have, and use firearms.
Having a firearm makes u more likely to be shot in an encounter with armed criminals.
The kind of guys that kills just for the fun, with no threat / reason / whatever, is actually VERY small, even amongst professional criminals. This risk
So no firearms at home: Criminals dont actually need a firearm to do their job, and dont need to use it, which makes Risks for both sides smaller.
I strongly recommend that only people with at least 1 year military service , a yearly mental and fitness check are allowed to own private firearms, so only skilled and responsible possessor exist. As a side effect, it would become very hard for Criminals, to get acess to firearms.
Hunting guns with small calibres may be allowed without military service, but should be stored in official buildings (police /army storage facility in town), where the ammunition and rifles are handed out for the hunt and returned afterwards.
User was warned for this post
|
You can get into a Gunvault pretty quick. You should be able to get to an exposed one (not hidden/concealed) just as fast as opening a drawer.
Gunvault SHOT show product demo. + Show Spoiler +
|
On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is.
Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued.
The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning.
And to respond to recent "thought crime" that people have been talking about. Its not actually that far fetched to think that you can identify whos going to commit crimes. by using statistical profiling though using the same algorithms that wall mart use's to predict what people will buy you can with a great amount of certainty predict who and where a crime will take place. The fact that its not about targeting people but targeting crimes is the important part
|
On April 26 2013 01:25 Holo82 wrote:
Self defense is the claim.
Youtube is full of beer bellied fat ugly men shooting with their full automatic guns around in the wild. So Phallism is more the true reason of the Weapon nuts.
Who cares what people do with their property on their own land if they aren't hurting anyone?
What people forget:Widespread Armed defense against criminals will make criminals have, and use firearms.
They already have, and use firearms.
I strongly recommend that only people with at least 1 year military service , a yearly mental and fitness check are allowed to own private firearms, so only skilled and responsible possessor exist. As a side effect, it would become very hard for Criminals, to get acess to firearms.
What makes the military or police responsible? They're just as fallible as anyone else. Remember the shooting in Times Square? The gunman shot one person, the police shot 9. Remember Chris Dorner? Police searching for him shot 4 innocent people. Remember Waco? Remember Kent State?
Either no one can be trusted with guns, or every sane, non-criminal citizen can be trusted.
|
|
|
On April 26 2013 01:28 RCMDVA wrote:You can get into a Gunvault pretty quick. You should be able to get to an exposed one (not hidden/concealed) just as fast as opening a drawer. Gunvault SHOT show product demo. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcis6JZ76zY
Yeah, I need to get one of those. I use a trigger lock currently, but I'll want something better when my daughter gets older.
|
On April 26 2013 01:37 eric3 wrote:
hell no...
Great contribution, really helped the thread
/sarcasm
|
On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning.
Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority.
Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements:
1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation
2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales
3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA
If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense.
Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason...
The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women.
Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected.
P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest.
|
On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning.
It's easy enough to solve gun violence--sort of. Its just that the solutions *have* to be all-in or none at all.
Here are the options.
A.) Get rid of guns. I don't mean pass a law that says "this gun is bad, but this gun is okay" because that just means people will kill each other with the "okay" guns. This will be an expensive, dangerous, and possibly lethal procedure that won't produce results for years to come.
B.) Kennedy's war on poverty. The US was willing to spend Trillions to stabilize Iraq. Fund schools, government programs, minimize the malicious aspects of poverty as much as possible to reduce crime, increase student retention, and improve social welfare. This will be expensive, dangerous, and possibly lethal to economic stability (think Greece) and will not produce results for years to come.
Both options SUCK. We either try to take guns away from gun nuts, or spend trillions on a program that will not produce trillions itself. Both will "fix* gun violence problems in the US. Neither are really an option and it would take a politician with balls almost as big as Texas to have the courage to do it.
Anything less than these will not stop gun violence in a country with such a high saturation of gun ownership. Even if guns stopped being produced and no one built new guns--the US would still have 192,000,000 guns at their disposal enough to arm everyone above the age of 15. Telling people to stop getting guns and making guns harder to get won't counteract the fact that most everyone who wants a gun has it right now.
|
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well.
|
United States24569 Posts
On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well.
I haven't been following closely but was the poll the same as the bill? Do they have the same basic wording?
You may be comparing apples and oranges.
|
On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well.
Aside from sections of it being absolutely unconstitutional by making crime victims potential felons?
SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING.
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end--
‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.’.
(b) Penalty- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
‘(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;’.
|
And where in that verbiage is the recommendation for a felony charge?
|
On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well.
The percentage you are quoting is that 90% of Americans support background checks. Which is true. Most do, and so do I. Despite the fact that it's a very misleading survey (it implies we don't already have background checks, which we do), I have no problem with people quoting it.
But that doesn't mean you can piece together a bill, call it "the background check bill" and expect it to pass. It was a bad bill, it deserved to fail.
|
On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest.
REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges.
On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well.
We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
