It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Connecticut's strict gun law linked to large homicide drop

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Somehow I don't think they'd like it very much. Not at all.




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't think it's the guns. I put one in a wheel chair so it could get around and made sure it was locked and loaded and ready to go. Nobody died. So, my conclusion is that 1) the gun is lazy as hell, 2) it's a pacifist, or 3) it's the actual humans that use them that are the problem. In all seriousness, I pick option 3. If guns were illegal there would still be murders. Knives, axes, rocks, rope, and other things can kill people just as well.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: jackjoedoe
a reply to: CB328

Since you a so adverse to people owning guns, move to mexico, their gun laws are very strict...I have heard it is working out great for the common law abiding citizens...


So where do the majority of illegal automatic assault rifles in Mexico originate from............. I wonder?

I just don't understand how all those anti gun regulation people can be so blatantly blind to basic logic. I mean fair enough, be pro guns and passionate about your rights and all that. But don't try to claim that nonsense about how it makes society safer, the ignorance of that logic is just sad.

It's just basic mathematics, the more guns in society, the more harm done to said society...... like wise, the more rounds a gun can fire in a short period of time, with a single trigger squeeze, the more people a mass shooter can kill in said short period of time. This isn't rocket science people!




You want to talk about safe society, look at all the violent crimes using knives in the UK. Reported Rapes are at a all time high in the UK too. Here in the US lots of women conceal carry for that very reason. You can't blame them for not wanting to be a victim. If we outlawed guns it would just make people easier targets for criminals.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: crazyewok

If guns were illegal there would still be murders. Knives, axes, rocks, rope, and other things can kill people just as well.


This is without a doubt the most flawed argument the anti gun regulation people can possibly make.

Knives, axes, rope, baseball bats, copper wire, plastic hoses or whatever else you can think of have hundreds of other uses, apart form killing. Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. A piece of rope isn't capable of causing the type of damage a semi-auto high capacity gun can, like what happened in Columbine, Aurora or Sandy Hook.

You may say it's people that do the damage, not the gun. So why would you be against regulations that stop the type of people that would commit mass shootings from getting them?

A rifle for hunting or protecting live stock is fine, but a Semi-auto high capacity gun has no other purpose but to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. What possible logical reason could there be to legally allow such a dangerous tool in a civilized society?

lol, you really think your guns will protect you if the government ever decided's to crack down and create a police state, how naive! If any thing your guns would just be used to justify taking you out. Highly trained organized soldiers, with far better weaponry than the public would scatter you all like sheep and mow you down with ease.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I just found this video. In it, a man says why exactly the right to bear arms is needed.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
A rifle for hunting or protecting live stock is fine, but a Semi-auto high capacity gun has no other purpose but to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. What possible logical reason could there be to legally allow such a dangerous tool in a civilized society?


Why should I be limited in the type of rifle I own because it makes you nervous? Why do your insecurities make it that a bolt or lever action rifle are the only acceptable ones? Your fear of tools, which the vast majority are NEVER used to injure another human being, is irrational.


lol, you really think your guns will protect you if the government ever decided's to crack down and create a police state, how naive! If any thing your guns would just be used to justify taking you out. Highly trained organized soldiers, with far better weaponry than the public would scatter you all like sheep and mow you down with ease.


This is without a doubt the most flawed argument the anti-gun people can possibly make.

How did that work out for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis and in Afghanistan? What was the result of years upon years of asymmetrical warfare?

Your fear of tools is only matched by your appalling lack of military history.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
You may say it's people that do the damage, not the gun. So why would you be against regulations that stop the type of people that would commit mass shootings from getting them?


What "type" of people is it that commits mass shootings? There are millions of "mentally ill" people in the US, but how many of them have committed a mass shooting? Fact is, you dont know who would do such a thing in advance, and no amount of regulation can predict the future.


A rifle for hunting or protecting live stock is fine, but a Semi-auto high capacity gun has no other purpose but to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. What possible logical reason could there be to legally allow such a dangerous tool in a civilized society?


I am glad you asked this question. Allow me to counter with, what will you do when a situation arises that causes civility to break down? In answer to your question I would point to situations in the 1992 L.A. Riots (as Korean store owners held off hundreds, if not thousands, of would be looters from invading their neighborhoods and destroying everything) to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (when predominately upper middle class neighborhoods held off and protected their own streets from looters coming from low class (very poor) sections of the city.

How many riot situations have we seen this year?


lol, you really think your guns will protect you if the government ever decided's to crack down and create a police state, how naive! If any thing your guns would just be used to justify taking you out. Highly trained organized soldiers, with far better weaponry than the public would scatter you all like sheep and mow you down with ease.


With the same ease as "insurgents" in Iraq or Afghanistan? "Scattered" is not actually a bad thing. Who is really being naive here?

Protect me?? Probably not, but what it will do is give me a fighting chance. And just like we see in the Middle East today- When one side is seen as an oppressor, the people left behind of those who are "taken out" find a reason to want to fight.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: vor78

Does it cause more harm to society? Our homicide rate in the US has dropped sharply since its highs in the early 1990s, despite skyrocketing gun sales over the last 15 years and widespread passage of concealed carry laws.


This is mainly due to legalizing abortions in the 70s, 20 years later many that would lead a life of crime were never born, and so abortions continue to keep crime down.... go figure


Could be. I wasn't intending to imply a direct correlation=causation type of thing, merely that the two things (more guns and a safer society) can coexist and that, in fact, the last 20 years seem to prove it.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Because, like many other posters have said, regulations don't work! All they do is restrict law abiding citizens from gaining access. Have you ever heard of the black market? Where do you think criminals get guns? How well protected do you think people will be if the only ones who can get guns are the criminals?

ETA: You have obviously never heard of the Oath Keepers. They are soldiers and cops who take their oaths to uphold the constitution seriously. There is also safety in numbers. How in the absolute hell do you think the revolutionary war was won? Can you tell me that?
edit on 14-6-2015 by Skid Mark because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2015 by Skid Mark because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
That's right. Probably didn't know that the Germans had a gun ban, thanks to Hitler. That turned out wonderfully for them.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
A rifle for hunting or protecting live stock is fine, but a Semi-auto high capacity gun has no other purpose but to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. What possible logical reason could there be to legally allow such a dangerous tool in a civilized society?



The purpose of a firearm is whatever the owner decides it to be. The simple fact is, many people choose semi-automatic firearms for sporting purposes, whether it be for time at the range or for hunting. And no doubt, self-defense is a potential usage as well, one many others will cite, and its one that's perfectly valid as well.

But why allow such a thing? Well, I think many of us approach it from the other end. Why should a legal, law-abiding citizen lose his rights for something he hasn't done? Why should 99.99% of a population have to suffer for the acts of the remaining 0.01% that can't behave in a civilized manner...and even that 0.01% assumes that all firearm-related homicides are committed by legal gun owners, which they most certainly are not. This is where the usual gun control arguments really fall apart for me, because I cannot justify a further restriction of rights against people who have done nothing.

That said, I'm actually NOT against limited gun control. I don't want the local gangbanger or psycho getting their hands on a firearm anymore than anyone else does. But at the same time, blanket bans are irrational, illogical and based in fear and paranoia. If I don't trust a person with an AR-15, then I don't trust him with a pellet gun, either. Banning a weapon class doesn't solve the problem, it just mitigates the damage (and even that's questionable). Refocus the efforts on enforcement of current laws, keeping firearms away from undesirable types, but while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, and then maybe there's some common ground here.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
If guns were illegal there would still be murders. Knives, axes, rocks, rope, and other things can kill people just as well.


As the statistics will attest to. Lost in the gun control debate is the fact that there are generally 5,000-6,000 additional homicides yearly in the United States that don't even involve a firearm at all. The CDC actually maintains a great searchable database for fatal and non-fatal injury data. The link is for fatal injury data.

I personally love pointing out that 'pedal cyclist' has more fatalities yearly than homicides involving a rifle of any kind (a number you can find from the DOJ/FBI). And then there's accidental drowning which is higher still. It seems that sometimes society's perception of the danger level of certain activities doesn't match well with reality. And no doubt, someone will be along shortly to explain how 'that's different', even though the end result certainly seems the same.


edit on 14-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

One of the videos I posted in this thread talks about how people freak out about guns being dangerous. She puts part of the blame on Hollywood and how people in movies almost always handle them incorrectly.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. A piece of rope isn't capable of causing the type of damage a semi-auto high capacity gun can, like what happened in Columbine, Aurora or Sandy Hook.

You may say it's people that do the damage, not the gun. So why would you be against regulations that stop the type of people that would commit mass shootings from getting them?

A rifle for hunting or protecting live stock is fine, but a Semi-auto high capacity gun has no other purpose but to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. What possible logical reason could there be to legally allow such a dangerous tool in a civilized society?


I hear this argument tossed out in every gun control thread.

So let's humor you and embrace this common sense idea. With a phone call and a wave of a pen the only legal firearm becomes granddad's bolt action .22 cal.

But why stop only with guns? Since we're talking about saving children and the overall betterment of society there are soooo many more things we can do.

You most likely don't really NEED that SUV, truck, or van. Let's be honest, most of that crap in your Suburban doesn't need to be in there, but it's just a pain to clean it out. The same goes for all those big truck owners that never haul anything in the bed. Common sense dictates that we should limit vehicle size to a Honda Civic, or Toyota Camry. You should have to prove that you have a legitimate need to own something other that that. Once this common sense legislation is implemented the government could look through DMV records, cross reference property tax records to ensure that people like farmers and ranchers would be unaffected, then confiscated and destroy all those unnecessarily oversized vehicles. Besides just imagine how many children would be saved if we were all driving SMART cars.

Oh, but that's not all. Look at the speedometer of literally every vehicle made in the last 70 years. They have the ability to go faster than the posted speed limit. Why? Nobody NEEDS a car that can go 100mph. Common sense dictates that if the fastest that one can travel on a public road is 70-75 mph then there is no reason that a single vehicle should be manufactured that can exceed that limit. Every car that is capable of exceeding the highest limit should immediately be banned from future resale (or better yet, destroyed) and all new vehicles should be geared to prevent them from exceeding set speed threshold, or the motor detonates. (This limit will obviously always be a moving target and never set in stone, much like gun control laws) Think of the children that we could save just be forcing people to slow down!

But let's move on to the garbage that the general public eats. Common sense also tells us that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to eat cake, pie, refined sugar, bleached flour, corn syrup, candy of any sort, soda, chips and a littany of other atrocious food stuffs. We obviously should ban these items. Why not make an ever growing list (that will also be wrote to be as clear as mud and ever growing, like gun laws) to prevent people from having access to these unhealthy food choices. We mustn't forget that childhood obesity and diabetes kill a lot of kids too.

Tobacco, booze and narcotics. Need i say more? After all, its for our own good.

Oh, and what about house sizes? Who actually NEEDS more than 1-2 bedrooms and more than 1 bathroom? Is there any legitimate reason that someone should legally be able to build a home that is more than 1000 sqft? And don't even get me started on manicured lawns, since all a lawn is is a glaring example of Western excess and wastes valuable real estate space that otherwise could serve as a place for another modestly sized home and generate even more property tax revenue. We should conficate and bulldoze all oversized homes and limit future house sizes and do away with lawns of any sort. Think of the children!

We could all sit here and write a book about things that kill vastly more people than guns and come up with an equally number of asinine, Rube Goldberg-esque ideas that the government could implement to protect us. But I'd rather have some semblance of freedom of personal responsibility and choice.


lol, you really think your guns will protect you if the government ever decided's to crack down and create a police state, how naive! If any thing your guns would just be used to justify taking you out. Highly trained organized soldiers, with far better weaponry than the public would scatter you all like sheep and mow you down with ease.


There is only one problem with this idea and we've been fighting against it for 10+ years, counter insurgency.


*I love having ATS on my phone, but typing a long post on my smartphone with my monster man hands is a huge pain in the ass.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: jackjoedoe
a reply to: CB328

Since you a so adverse to people owning guns, move to mexico, their gun laws are very strict...I have heard it is working out great for the common law abiding citizens...


So where do the majority of illegal automatic assault rifles in Mexico originate from............. I wonder?

I just don't understand how all those anti gun regulation people can be so blatantly blind to basic logic. I mean fair enough, be pro guns and passionate about your rights and all that. But don't try to claim that nonsense about how it makes society safer, the ignorance of that logic is just sad.

It's just basic mathematics, the more guns in society, the more harm done to said society...... like wise, the more rounds a gun can fire in a short period of time, with a single trigger squeeze, the more people a mass shooter can kill in said short period of time. This isn't rocket science people!




The majority of illegal weapons in Mexico come from central and south america

A single trigger squeeze?Do you know anything about guns at all or gun laws in the us?




en.wikipedia.org...



Read all the way to the bottom.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: crazyewok

If guns were illegal there would still be murders. Knives, axes, rocks, rope, and other things can kill people just as well.



why would you be against regulations that stop the type of people that would commit mass shootings from getting them?


Regulations and laws DON'T stop people who commit mass murders or anyone else who kills with guns from getting them.
edit on 15-6-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: crazyewok

If guns were illegal there would still be murders. Knives, axes, rocks, rope, and other things can kill people just as well.



why would you be against regulations that stop the type of people that would commit mass shootings from getting them?


Regulations and laws DON'T stop people who commit mass murders or anyone else who kills with guns from getting them.


In nearly all mass shootings the shooter uses 'legally' obtained high capacity semi-automatic guns. Banning semi-automatic guns in Australia after the 1996 martin bryant massacre, definitely put an end to mass shootings.

Yeah, hardcore criminals can still get guns, but they just usually shoot each other, so it's kind of irrelevant.

But it's basically useless arguing this issue with hardcore gun nut's. If I point out how successful Australia's strict gun regulations have been in preventing gun related violence, the gun nut's will just say the US is different and a much more dangerous place. But then if I claim less guns makes for a safer society, the gun nuts will claim an armed society is a polite society. It's just a total contradiction of logic!

10,000 gun homicides a year and regular mass shootings does not constitute a "polite" or safe society in my book..... But whatever, it's not really my problem to worry about. At least I can rest comfortably knowing I'm not going to be shot at after some minor road rage incident, by some fool who keeps a semi-automatic in his vehicle 'for protection'.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

People always mention what happened after the ban. Rarely do they speak of the statistics before. As it turns out, Australia didn't have much of a problem to begin with. I'm not sure the Australian gun laws actually stopped anything. Rather, I think they were a vast overreaction to a few ugly incidents. Looking at what a person can still buy, I'm even less impressed, especially when I see those Remington 7615s for sale...a rifle marketed to police departments here in the US as a politically correct AR-15 alternative during the first AWB. I know that they, and the 760/7600 hunting rifles they're based on, are very popular for the same purpose among Australian firearm enthusiasts. And so the market adapts as does the industry. Go figure.
edit on 15-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

People always mention what happened after the ban. Rarely do they speak of the statistics before. As it turns out, Australia didn't have much of a problem to begin with. I'm not sure the Australian gun laws actually stopped anything. Rather, I think they were a vast overreaction to a few ugly incidents.


Yeah, we've always had a lower rate of gun violence than the US. But there still has been a clear continued drop in gun related homicides since the bans of more than half. Meaning that you are now more than half as likely to be shot in Australia.


CompareRate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2012: 0.18
2011: 0.14
2010: 0.18
2009: 0.17
2008: 0.13
2007: 0.13
2006: 0.20
2005: 0.09
2004: 0.09
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.30
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57


There has also been a decrease in total homicides, to show people don't automatically use other weapons to kill if guns aren't available.


Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
Australia, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2012: 1.24
2011: 1.05
2010: 1.20
2009: 1.28
2008: 1.19
2007: 1.04
2006: 1.25
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.41
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.55
2000: 1.78
1999: 1.81
1998: 1.68
1997: 1.73
1996: 1.97


gunpolicy.org


Looking at what a person can still buy, I'm even less impressed, especially when I see those Remington 7615s for sale...a rifle marketed to police departments here in the US as a politically correct AR-15 alternative during the first AWB. I know that they, and the 760/7600 hunting rifles they're based on, are very popular for the same purpose among Australian firearm enthusiasts. And so the market adapts as does the industry. Go figure.


But you can only buy them here with magazines that have 10 round capacities and I'm almost positive there not semi-auto's (well the models being sold in Australia anyway).

That's where our strict gun laws have been so successful, by totally banning high capacity semi-auto long barreled guns, we have eliminated mass shootings. We had over 13 mass shootings in the 18 years leading up to the bans, yet since the bans we have had none. You can't argue with the results.

It's not even matter of banning 'everyone' from owning guns either. Since as you have pointed out, you can still legally purchase some nice firearms in Australia. It's just a matter of banning the type of firearms that are most commonly used in mass killings, then requiring people to go to a little effort to prove there responsible gun owners.

It's actually a very rational policy if you think about it. Minimize the damage done by irresponsible and dangerous people, well still allowing responsible people to posses firearms in a safe manner.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I think Australia has laws that work well for your country. I'm not as convinced that they're the cause of reduced numbers of mass killings or rather that the society itself is simply inherently less prone to it and has gotten a little lucky. Or taken from the opposite end, what would happen if someone dropped 200,000 AR-15s into Australia. My guess? Probably nothing. But regardless, its certainly not something I can prove and as such, isn't worth arguing over.

In any event, I don't think a total semiauto ban could work here. Too many legal complications, especially with confiscation, which would never pass constitutional muster, and there's far too little public support. Its not just the 'gun nuts'. The general public is very pro-gun, with long-term polling data showing a slow, steady ongoing shift in that direction over the last several decades. Even a watered down 'assault weapons' ban is a very tough sell, made more difficult by the fact that support for such a thing tends to be heavily concentrated in relatively few areas and congressional districts, rendering it politically ineffective. Even then, those pushing it, both in '94 and 2013, quickly realized that they couldn't legally or practically confiscate the tens of millions of them already out there and were forced to include exceptions for those weapons in their bills. In that respect, the possibility of it being effective are not so good even in the best case scenario.

Understand, I'm very pro-2A, and not in favor of more restrictions, especially in light of our own significant drop in homicides over the last 20 years. However...if there had to be a model for it, I think Canada is probably more realistic than Australia, and certainly moreso than the UK. Granted, it wouldn't work here, either, unless greatly watered down and attempted in a much more favorable political climate for gun control, which I think is unlikely for the foreseeable future.
edit on 15-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join