Gun Control

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Digging up statistics is quite a bit of work.

In the meantime, I came across this 2007 article from the UK:

So not much progress after 10 years of ban. It's been 5 years since the article came out, so maybe it's gotten better.

Thank you for the link. I have reread the article several times to try and understand what it is saying. I ask that you reread it again too. Here is the crux of the problem, "The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen." This supports my position. More firearms equals more gun violence! This article was specific to two cities in England, Liverpool and Manchester. It was also specific to the 19 to 24 y.o. age group. As the article points out, the issue is youth gangs where gangs are taking each other out. Nowhere in the article does it say that this violence is being visited on the population as a whole, just one gang against another. We have a similar problem in Mexico who it is one drug cartel against another. The average Mexican citizen lives a relatively (compared to the US) peaceful life. The cartels run the numbers way up and it appears that Mexico, as a whole, is violent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Matapule (as a non-drug cartel member) is less likely to experience gun violence in Mexico than he does in SoCal, despite what the statistics might say!

It is injudicious to extrapolate the data from two cities in England and to a specific age group to England as a whole. The fact is that, as a whole, gun violence is down in England since the introduction of the gun ban. Let me give an example here in the US of how your conclusions based on limited data is incorrect. I will concur that Florida has relaxed its private gun ownership laws and the number of deaths in Florida has gone down. But you cannot conclude that for the rest of the US. In fact, for all the other States where private gun ownership has been relaxed, gun violence has increased! If you factor in all the US, gun violence has increased as gun ownership has increased.

In conclusion, the link provided supports my research to enact strict gun control now.

Of course I'm interested all forms of violence and not just gun violence. Digging stuff up and trying to verify them is a slow slog.

Me too, but this thread is about gun control. I'm retired so I have plenty of time to research the issues, slog through the data, and come to conclusions.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

The reality is that the US has the highest rate of private gun ownership and the highest rate of gun violence in industrialized nations. That's reality!

That's pure B.S. Matapule!

Now you are not only cherry picking, but lying to us to forward your personal viewpoint.

This website counters your falsifications!

International gun death statistics.

El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Swaziland, Columbia, Brazil, Panama and MEXICO! All have firearm death rates exceeding the United States.

You have a valid point, why do you have to lie to promote it? Or are you just ignorant, and spouting the falsifications of the gun-ban lobby?

The gun-ban lobby is worse than the NRA; at least the NRA uses honest statistics.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Right on, Joe. Shows the stupidity of the gun-ban crowd.

States which have decided to allow citizens to carry firearms in public have a choice between what's called open carry (having the gun visible, much like a police officer) or concealed carry.

The benefits of conceal carry is the criminal doesn't know if you're armed or not. You're more likely to have your gun taken from you, if the criminal knows where it is. Also, criminals tend to attack people they consider to be easy targets. Suddenly finding a gun pointed at them may cause them to stop their actions.

The second benefit is the criminal may be wary of even attacking a person without a firearm, because they can't tell who has one and who hasn't. More people can benefit from the deterrent effect without having to carry.



The main problem with what the newspaper did is now criminals, who are seeking a source untraceable firearms, knows which homes to rob. They can watch the home, learn when the inhabitants are least likely be home, and break in. Just in case someone is home, they will be coming in armed and ready to kill.

Another problem is a woman hiding from a stalker or ex-husband may now have her name and address searchable, if she acquired a firearm permit to protect herself and her children.

Finally, any deterrent effect for the neighborhood is now canceled, because criminals know which homes are gun-free zones.



Law enforcement already know who the gun owners are and where they live. If those gun owners do anything which make them a potential danger to society (being convicted of a felony, found mentally ill, etc.) then they'll send a SWAT team down to collect the firearms.

Ironically, the good gun owners (who legally registered their firearms, obtained permits) are punished by what this newspaper has done, while the bad gun owners (criminals who don't register their firearms) have benefited.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

It's tough to debate the gun issue when each person has a different fear. Here are some types:

You can add one to your list:

person who enjoys killing for killing's sake

(this is the scariest person) Hunters who go out and kill animals just to kill them are mentally ill. I have no problem with killing an animal for food, but you better eat it. I have a problem with "hunters" who kill water buffalo, wild boar, squirrels, etc. just for "sport." That is one sick individual!

I'm sorry you have to live with that, Kaonohi

We each had the decision to serve in an unjust war in Viet Nam. Those that chose to serve in Viet Nam have to live with themselves.

I would say there's a relationship between "gun ownership and homicide" rather than "gun ownership and violence", because violence is a broader term.

And I am speaking in the much broader term.

Of course levels of gun ownership will affect levels of gun violence.

Agreed, and the goal is to minimize gun violence by strict gun control.

The question is, does the level of gun ownership affect the level of physical violence?

The research and statistics clearly show a cause and affect relationship.

I see guns as a tool of violence, but not the cause of violence. IMO, the cause of violence are things such as over crowding, economic inequality and instability, mobility and the breakdown of community, etc.

So if you eliminate the tool - which is an easy and effective form of violence - you reduce the incidence of violence.

I would note that many owners own more than one firearm (just like women own more than one pair of shoes).

We are not minimizing the problem here by comparing to shoes. Guns are related to violence, shoes aren't.

I also believe an armed society is a polite society (mostly law abiding folks who may be preyed upon by criminals). And by armed I mean carrying a firearm on their person.

You could also say that a paranoid society is a polite society, but you would be wrong about that too.

A "peaceful environment" may be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how it's achieved. An exaggerated example, but a government could achieve a "peaceful environment" by forcing its population to take psychiatric drugs and killing people who refuse.

You are over-reaching

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

You have taken his quote out of context. He was not talking about gun ownership.

Actually, gun ownership puts more responsibilities and limitations on the owner. (Smart) gun owners will avoid situations with the potential for conflict, because they don't' want to lose their right to own a gun.

And therein lies the problem. The spokesman for gun owners, the NRA (a terrorist organization and representative for the gun manufacturers organization) is being completely irresponsible.

Good people use it to protect innocent bystanders (mainly themselves).

No one has been able to produce any data that supports that contention. It is an NRA talking point.

All sides are guilty of paranoia, though. It's paranoia to think a gun owner is eager to shoot someone.

If you think it is paranoid to want to stop the murder of 20 kindergarten children, then PLEASE count me as paranoid!

Do you consider Utah a dangerous place to live? They allow licensed conceal carry gun owners to carry in schools (K-public college). Utah should be a blood bath, right? Mormons must be ultra violent, right?

Do you have any proof that Utah has conceal carry is related in any way that they have been fortunate Not to have been a Sandy Hook so far?

Poor people are less able to buy their safety, by moving to a better (and more expensive) neighborhood.

Agreed, and that's why we need to have strict gun control so that people will feel safer in the neighborhoods they can afford to live in.

A firearm is there as insurance, in case nothing else works.

Research and statistics say that you are wrong.

Loss of community is a major cause of society's problems. A lot people who fear a Mad Max scenario sadly believe they can hold out on their own without the help of neighbors.

Yes, they are called gun nuts.

Maybe Americans need to give up their love affair with cars.

I agree. I support mass transit, do you?

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Unless we're talking about nuclear tipped shotgun shells, I don't think 6 shells will hold off a small army that wants to kill you.

A gun nut thinks a "small army" wants to kill them. It is called abnormal paranoia.

Why do people own more than one pair of footwear? Why do we have running shoes, hiking boots, dress shoes, high heels, pumps, slippers, etc?

I dunno. What does this have to do with somebody owning five firearms?

People own multiple firearms for many reasons. Each model has it's pros and cons. Firearms are also recreational. You can't shoot skeet with a handgun (I guess you could, if you're really good).

Oh tu'u mama'o! I'll be impressed with someone's skill when they can shoot skeet with a slingshot.

It's a gun country (for the time being). It's within a gun country that gun free zones can exist (which those pesky bad guys seem to ignore).

And my goal is to make something other than a "gun country."

To earn brownie points with gun owners,

I'm not out to ern brownie points with anyone except 20 dead children.

I know many people who own multiple weapons, and they are level headed people. Because they make choices you don't agree with, you get to slap the "mentally ill" label on them? Is that your idea of health care reform?

You have misquoted me in order to inflame. I didn't say they were "mentally ill," I said they had "mental issues."

Regardless, if he brought their gun to school, then they did not have it sufficiently secured, which is a big problem.

His parents, who you might call "responsible gun owners" gave him the gun to take to school! His parents have "mental issues."

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

If the advocate means teachers should be required to arm themselves, then that's a bad idea on many levels.

That's the position of the NRA and their adherents.

Rather, teachers should be allowed to carry, only if they are licensed to and want to.

That is not the position of most school boards, school superintendents, school psychologists, and parents.

Far better for the teacher to holster their weapon (concealed holster) at home and never touch it throughout the school day.

Typical thinking of American society run amok. Gun nut!

Gun possession is a deterrent against all forms of violence, not just gun violence.

This is an NRA talking point. Show me the research and statistics.

[quote]A deterrent deters, but does not prevent. Layers off security are more effective than putting all your eggs in one basket.[quote]

Research and statistics show that strict gun control is the only effective means of security.

Deterrents work better on people who don't want to die. Criminals looking for money or rape tend to value their lives and go after easy targets.

You are stating a personal opinion that is not supported by research and statistics.

Armed guards are expensive. Allowing adults working at schools to conceal carry, if they are licensed, willing, and trained, is more pragmatic.

You mean those same adults who Republicans have called lazy, overpaid thugs? You mean those same individuals whose salaries are being cut? You want school children educated in an environment proliferate with guns? Gun nut!

Unfortunately, the guard couldn't be in two places at once. The shooters continued to shoot students in the hallways and library.

It was stated on this thread by one of your supporters that guards are no good, we need cops protecting schools! And if one is not enough to protect Columbine, we should have 10, no 100, no 1000 to prevent the violence. And it still wouldn't have stopped the violence.

Is there less currency (physical money) in circulation now than before? Our banking system has gone more and more digital.

What does that have to do with somebody robbing a bank? You lost me.

Are the serious criminals finding it easier and more profitable to steal money "virtually"?

Some places bank robberies are up, some places bank robberies are down, overall they are down. As guards were eliminated from banks and other surveillance was instituted, bank robberies have gone down. Therefore, armed guards in and of themselves were not a deterrent to bank robberies.

I believe the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 adults with just handguns. Gun owners are fighting controls on rifles because they know handguns are next. I wouldn't assume magazine fed, semi-automatic handguns will always be legal.

Yes, that is the goal.

Our country can't stop the flow of illegal drugs, illegal immigrants, etc. We can't stop underage drinking or drunk drivers. I don't think we can stop bad guys from getting guns.

Of course we can if we have the will. I believe in America. I would hope that others do to.

Yes, we could theoretically shut down gun manufacturers and confiscate guns. We won't get them all. In the end, the most powerful and ruthless criminals will still have guns.

And my guess is that a majority of them would be the gun nuts.

But I don't think the general public cares about criminals having guns, because they tend to shoot each other, police, or people too poor to move out of bad neighborhoods.

WHAT?!!!!!! What universe do you live in?

The general public is more afraid of people who randomly shoot people, because anyone can be a victim.

And where do you come by that information?

That's why concealed carry is better than open carry. Surprise and uncertainty works in the good guy's favor. It also means you don't need everyone to carry.

Gun nut.

I'm going to guess they made it a misdemeanor in Hawaii on purpose, because you hear people move to Hawaii and don't realize they only have 3 days to register their firearm. Once they realize they missed the deadline, they are afraid to report it because they don't' want to get in trouble. If you make it a felony, they definitely won't report their firearm because once you get a felony, you will never be allowed to own a firearm again.

So you make it a misdemeanor because you rather have people report their firearms, than to have a lot of unreported firearms.

They should make it a felony!

If they wish to someday confiscate firearms, they want an accurate list of whose doors to knock down.

More paranoia from a gun nut.

I read that the Batman shooter had around 10 theaters to choose from, in his area. He didn't pick the closest, the smallest, nor the largest. He picked the one with the "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...emark-theater/

Faux Gnus has a history of falsifying the facts

Teachers forced to carry guns would perform poorly during an incident. Rather, allow any adult working at school to conceal carry if they are licensed and feel confident to do so.

You are repeating yourself and I am not going to repeat my response.

Guns do not guarantee anything. This is a misconception held by both pro and anti gun people.

That's not what the research and statistics show.

Pro gun people think merely owning a gun makes them safe without any training. They treat gun like a magic talisman. They fail to realize that the gun itself is just one part of what's needed for security.

They think you only need one bullet to defend yourself, because you never miss under stress.

Guns (with proper training) only improve your odds. Nothing in life is guaranteed. You cannot let down your guard because you own a gun.

That's not what the research and statistics show.

That's bad on so many levels. First of all, the people who really need to know where the gun owners are (police), already know.

That is factually incorrect.

By making their names and addresses public, these law abiding citizens now become vulnerable to criminals. Criminals will know which houses to rob, to get guns. They also know to bring guns of their own and more people.

That is not what the research and statistics show.

Even homes which don't own guns are affected. Now the criminals know which homes aren't armed, and may experience more break ins.

That is not what the research and statistics show.

Seeing this breach of privacy, people will be more afraid to register their firearms.

Make it a felony not to register. According to the NRA if they have guns in their homes then the criminals will avoid them. Make everyone register their guns and print it in a national registry.

Should we make a list of all HIV+ individuals public record? Are they considered a public health risks? If we can't trust people to be responsible gun owners, can we trust HIV+ people to be responsible with their bodily fluids?

HIV people who knowingly infect others are subject to criminal charges.

Well, if the media wants to open this can of worms, I hope they find out if any anti-gun politicians own guns or a conceal carry permit; you know, to keep them safe from the rest of us.

I'm all for it

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

I brought it up because concealed carry is a form of privacy. If you wish to ignore it, by all means.

I don't want to ignore it at all. It is just the subject of a different thread.

In the case where the criminals hit a house they know is armed, then they consider the risk worth the reward (gaining firearms illegally).

Then the gun wasn't a deterrent, was it?

So would you say it's futile for a woman to hide from a stalker?

No that's not what I am saying, you are putting words into my mouth.

In the scenario I gave, the reason the criminals came in ready to ready kill was because the home had something they considered valuable enough to take the risk.

Then guns in the home were not a deterrent, were they?

And that is the enforcement issue gun owners are worried about. You create a ban, but it's the good people who comply while the bad ones don't.

And the NRA gun nuts will be the last to give up their guns.

The fact that people who shouldn't have guns have them means law enforcement is ineffective and enforcing those laws.

Join me in advocating an increase in personal taxes for law enforcement.

Now you could ban the further selling of guns. That would slowly dwindle the supply without having to worry about confiscating guns. It would take a while though, because well maintained firearms can last a long time.

You just jumped in here without reading the whole thread. My proposal is to make owning an unregistered firearm a felony and that there is a $10,000 annual permit to own a firearm. That's a start.

Is that a national statistic? A New York one? I believe in Hawaii all legally acquired guns need to be registered, so I assume that's not a Hawaii statistic.

National statistic

I have no problem with all guns needing to be registered. I'm sure gun owners who are afraid of the government abusing their power wouldn't like that. I figure if things get that bad, we're all screwed anyways.

We are screwed as a society when we allow 20 children to be murdered.

Do you know which state that gun store is in? I'd like to review that state's gun laws.

The store was not identified because the owner threatened a lawsuit.

I would be even more impressed if the government were able to report those statistics so fast and efficiently.

Pay attention. You can get those statistics from the local police blotter.

It would. Hopefully, they will also break the statistics down between home listed in the newspaper and those not.

I am going to do exactly that! I'm going to contact the newspaper to do a followup article in 6 months to see what the outcome is.

Of course if guns disappear, then gun violence disappear.

And that is the goal.

Gun owners are concerned about ALL forms of violence.

Meaning the rest of us aren't?

Was their gun violence replaced by knife violence? I'll have to go look into that.

And report back.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Friggin' damn, mata, your well intentioned butt must be sorer than hell after all that kicking! But hey, it's your incredibly wrong butt you keep sticking out beggging to be kicked.

You know, I spent most of the day at the homeless shelter cooking and serving those who are less fortunate than I. I served one guy who obviously had a couple of screws loose. (Sorry for being so disrespectful, but the experience is emotionally draining). Well this guy gave me a severe butt kicking because he thought his share that I ladled out was not as much as the guy in front of him. I forced a smile and said to get a second bowl and he could have two shares. Butt kicking comes with the territory. It is not the first time for me nor will it be the last. Yeah, my butt is sorer than hell, but I will sleep well tonight.

I am willing to stick out my well intentioned butt and get kicked all day long if it will save the life of one person from gun violence, particularly if it is a child.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

THEN instead of dealing with them directly, we call the police to solve our social problems.

Better to call the police than taking things into your own hands with a gun.

The genie's out of the bottle. I wonder about the effectiveness of legislation. It definite will change things, but will it fix things?

Time to put the genie back in the bottle. Research and statistics supports that we can fix things.

Also, are we merely trying to suppress the symptoms (gun violence) instead of fixing the root problem (violence, loss of community, lack of individual self-reliance, etc.).

The first thing we have to fix is gun nuts fascination with violence.

"What is it that I'm afraid of? How is that fear clouding my judgement?"

I am afraid of a society that will not make changes to that society when 20 children are murdered. Concealed carry at school is NEVER going to be the solution.

then I will adapt and move on.

As civilized countries have done

The gun industry cares about profits. Anti-gun politicians want votes or political favors. I don't think the safety of the individual is high on either side's list of concerns.

Vote the gun nut politicians out of office!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

If murderers can have access to guns, assault rifles, tanks, nukes, bazookas, and flame throwers, I want legal access to them too.

Gun nut!!!!!!!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nut!!!!!!!

tutusue should have you on ignore by now.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

While serving in the Peace Corps, matapule and uaifi had the pleasure of serving with California Senator Diane Feinstein's first cousin and her husband in our village. They live in Northern California and we have maintained regular contact with them over the years. We talked with them about the Gifford shooting and Aurora shooting at or reunion last September. The Gifford shooting was particularly significant to them because of their familial relation to Sen. Feinstein. They feel exactly the same about gun control as uaifi and matapule.

I see that Sen. Feinstein is going to introduce gun control legislation in Congress next Monday. The proposed bill does not go nearly far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

It is nice to have connections to people in high places. I have made every commitment to prevail in the matter of strict gun control. A majority of Americans are in favor of controls. The time for sensible action is long overdue.

[tutusue]

Re: Gun Control

tutusue should have you on ignore by now.

See post #184.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

We each had the decision to serve in an unjust war in Viet Nam. Those that chose to serve in Viet Nam have to live with themselves.

Decision???
Once again you display your prejudice and ignorance, Matafool.

Didn't you ever hear of 'the Draft?' those who were caught avoiding the draft - by escaping to Canada or feigning illnesses - were arrested and imprisoned, and then drafted on top of it. I had no decision to make except to commit suicide. I served in VietNam involuntarily. If I had a choice I would not have gone. Still, I have to live with it. Count yourself privileged. You don't know what you are talking about, and this shines doubt on whatever else you say. You're talking out of your Pelosi hat.

I agree. I support mass transit, do you?

Yes. I support mass transit of liars like you OUT of America!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Better to call the police than taking things into your own hands with a gun.

Hah, the Police take 20 minutes or more to respond to a request for assistance. By that time you're dead. I hope you discover this personally - the police delay, of course, not the death....

Vote the anti-gun nut politicians out of office!

That's something I can support.
Eliminate Pelosi, who carries a handgun for her own protection, but wishes to deny them to everyone else.