Is it time we worked together yet on our "gun problem"?

I find great fault with the idea that taking guns away from people who would do grievous harm to others is a solution. Many people have died at the hands of others and no guns were used. You can never remove all the tools that can be used to take a life. You must remove the desire instead.

The argument, "If it saves one life it is worth it" does not work. Think how many lives are lost each day to car accidents. The number makes violence seem trivial. So if saving lives is really the agenda, why not take away all forms of personal transportation? You would save far more lives that way, and that IS the idea, right?

Of course, no one who advocates anti-gun laws would say that because it would impact them. They are all for laws that impact the other guy, but not themselves, even when it would clearly save far more lives. For those who would say guns are used in anger, I would say cars have been used the same way. For those who would say someone could steal my gun and kill innocent people I would say someone could steal your car and do the same.

The truth of the matter is its not the number of lives that can be saved - its the politics. Banning cars would save tens of thousands of lives and no one can argue that. But it would be financially inconvenient to do so.

And there it is. Money wins.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Navy Doc:

-the men who fought fascism during the battle of Britain must be very sad as to what the British male has become.

Lol! I should think both mine and yours ancestral compatriots would be ashamed of the modern male. I can hardly be counted as modern, but thanks for the compliment.

You were a contemporary of those who fought in the Battle of Britain? Regardless is the point that your countrymen formerly fought against fascism--you seem to embrace fascism. Therein lies the shame.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Herein lies the problem anybody that begs to differ with you gun advocates is debased and has their manhood insulted as I said its pointless arguing gun reform because it always ends up in the gutter.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

Herein lies the problem anybody that begs to differ with you gun advocates is debased and has their manhood insulted as I said its pointless arguing gun reform because it always ends up in the gutter.

Nonsense. He has, in this very thread, advocated fascism to stop his perceived problem of gun violence. He has advocated not only with doing away with gun rights, but of religious freedom, due process, freedom from illegal search and seizure, and the democratic process. If that isn't fascism, what is?

a reply to: KawRider9

People who commit crimes with firearms or found in illegal possession of said firearms should be dealt with in the harshest means available.

The problem isn't sane, law abiding armed citizens, it's insane people and criminals illegally having guns. Slap a 15 year mandatory sentence for being in illegal possession of a gun and things start to change. Course we will have to build some more prisons and mental institutions, but society will be better off having those people off the streets.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Answer:

11,000 gun-related homicides per year.

How many years? You see, that's the difference between you and I, you are happy to accept that statistic, I couldn't. I would seriously look at my mindset if I were you, but I'm not, and I don't need to. Anyway, it's bedtime.

Do a little research on actual murder rates in the UK. If you want to focus your energy somewhere it's needed... you should look inward. I'm assuming you're in the UK...

The actual murder rate in the U.K. is estimated to be 2.5 times higher than the U.S. when the numbers are accounted for correctly. Your government wants to keep you focused on "gun crime" to keep you distracted from the rest of the story. UK murders are only counted if a conviction is reached...

Stop focusing on "gun crime" and look at the overall problem. Congratulations, fewer people are shot! Now they're just beaten, stabbed, and strangled with no way to defend from an attack.

Statistically, folks in the UK are more worried about crime than Americans... I wonder why that is.

Before pointing the finger at the US, you may want to address a few things in your own country first:

Source

Quite a bit of good info in this article...

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to “pistol whip” victims, or brandished as a threat.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm – which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence – are omitted from the Home Office’s headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “These alarming new figures not only highlight the appalling state of gun crime in this country, but also remind us just how poor the Government’s statistics actually are.

As soon as you solve your own crime problems, then you can start focusing on ours.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes his views are extreme so where is the logical,rational argument backed by facts to refute it

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: KawRider9

People who commit crimes with firearms or found in illegal possession of said firearms should be dealt with in the harshest means available.

The problem isn't sane, law abiding armed citizens, it's insane people and criminals illegally having guns. Slap a 15 year mandatory sentence for being in illegal possession of a gun and things start to change. Course we will have to build some more prisons and mental institutions, but society will be better off having those people off the streets.

There's an easy solution that doesn't require more prisons and mental institutions.

Stop the idiotic "war on drugs", release the current inmates who are serving time for ONLY non-violent drug charges, start locking up anyone who commits a violent crime with HARSH sentences.

The problem is with the number of people who commit violent crimes again and again but they're able to plea down to a slap on the wrist. The vast majority of violent criminals are repeat offenders who do not belong on the street.

If we fixed the justice system, the crime problem would finally start to go away. Instead, the idiots want to focus on guns and marijuana instead of the real problems.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes his views are extreme so where is the logical,rational argument backed by facts to refute it

What sort of logic does one need to use against someone who advocates illegal search and seizure? Logically, in a free country, we want one's homes to not be search by the law without a warrant based on probable cause a crime has been committed. Are you for warrantless search by government agencies? Because that is what he advocated.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes his views are extreme so where is the logical,rational argument backed by facts to refute it

Your idea of "logical, rational argument backed by facts" must be very different from the average person's if my refutations have gone unnoticed.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No I dont want guns confiscated but suggest better laws/screening might be in order so that anti psychotic drug affected ssri taking dysfunctional people dont get access to large magazine rapid fire weaponry.Sort of like drink driving laws, no they wont stop all road deaths but they do save a certain amount of lives.I am not naive with 4.42 per cent of the worlds population the US has 42 per cent of all guns in civilian hands there will always be homicides with that statistic, what can be addressed however HOPEFULLY are all these mass killings of 8 10 15 or however many people .How your nation addresses that is its perogative but pure selfishness and not wishing to make any concession does seem to me as a foreigner going to be a major hurdle.

a reply to: Answer

No they haven't been ignored they have been duly noted and no you have not resorted to personal attack

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Either I'm being lied to and I need to be armed because the world is a much more dangerous place than I think it is, or your being lied to and there's no need to be armed because the world is not as dangerous as you think it is. It goes both ways mate.

Neither of those were my point. My point was that the UK government and media (and I'm assuming it happens in Australia as well) place a huge focus on "gun crime" statistics while ignoring overall crime rates. They show American gun crime on the news because it supports their agenda. I don't see UK crimes being reported in the US media because it has no effect on us. They take the focus away from overall crime rates and are effectively LYING to their citizenry to push the anti-gun agenda.

But it's an irrelevant point anyway. I mean, in Australia your not allowed to own a firearm for the purpose of protection and the majority of Aussies are just fine with that, because they feel they live in a relatively safe society. But, apparently the majority of Americans feel they live in a much more dangerous society and want to uphold there right to posses a firearm for protection, which is also just fine.

The crime statistics for the UK are ridiculous. Australia isn't so bad. Many US cities are very dangerous, obviously.

So fight to keep your right to own firearms for protection, if you feel that's important. But what would be the issue in needing a license in 'all' states to own one?

Until the last 15-20 years, almost all states disallowed concealed carry. Now, almost all states allow licensed concealed carry. The murder rates continue to fall, showing that allowing people to carry firearms on their person has no effect on crime.

In states where licenses are required for simple ownership and all guns are registered, the crime rates were unaffected by those regulations. You say that ALL states must accept those regulations in order for them to be effective but there should be SOME noticeable effect in those areas.

Why would there be an issue in needing to individually register each firearm in 'all' states, so all firearms can be traced back to the original buyer? Why do you need semi-auto long barreled guns with high capacity magazines? I mean, what are you guys protecting yourselves from over there, herds of Elephants? You must have some tough wildlife over there that would need 30 consecutive rounds to be taken out.

Criminals will not register their firearms. Firearms can already be traced back to the original buyer because every original buyer must fill out the proper paperwork at a firearm dealer. Most of the complaints from the anti-gun folks are already addressed by existing laws.

Semi-auto long barreled guns with high capacity magazines account for a teeny tiny, nearly non-existent percentage of crime. They were effectively banned for a decade but that ban did nothing to affect crime rates. There were still mass-shootings while they were banned. The largest body-counts in mass shootings are from firearms that are NOT long-barreled semi-autos with high capacity magazines but the media wants you to ignore that fact so they can go after the "scary looking" guns. Furthermore, firearm ownership is not about protection from wildlife.

You may make a decent argument against completely banning American citizens from owning any firearm. But you haven't made one single rational argument as to why there shouldn't be more effective regulations for owning firearms, to prevent unstable people from getting them, or to prevent criminals from buying them legally and then selling them on the black market.

I've made several rational arguments in other threads as to why there shouldn't be "more effective regulations."

For one, there are already laws on the books. The paperwork required when people buy a gun is supposed to eliminate the mentally ill from being able to buy. The background check performed during every purchase is supposed to prevent criminals from buying them legally.

Secondly, criminals are notorious for finding ways around laws. Passing more will ONLY effect decent people who abide by those laws.

Pointing out a state that has tight regulations and still has a high rate of gun violence, is deliberately ignoring the fact that for regulations to be effective, the must apply to all states.

I disagree completely. If gun laws prove ineffective in every sample case, what rational person would suggest spreading them further?

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I dont want guns confiscated but suggest better laws/screening might be in order so that anti psychotic drug affected ssri taking dysfunctional people dont get access to large magazine rapid fire weaponry.Sort of like drink driving laws, no they wont stop all road deaths but they do save a certain amount of lives.I am not naive with 4.42 per cent of the worlds population the US has 42 per cent of all guns in civilian hands there will always be homicides with that statistic, what can be addressed however HOPEFULLY are all these mass killings of 8 10 15 or however many people .How your nation addresses that is its perogative but pure selfishness and not wishing to make any concession does seem to me as a foreigner going to be a major hurdle.

The trouble is, that our bleeding heart liberals let all of the crazy people out of the asylums then blamed law abiding people for issues they cause.

If one is so concerned about the criminally insane, how about pout one's energy into locking them up rather than restricting those who obey the law?

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I dont want guns confiscated but suggest better laws/screening might be in order so that anti psychotic drug affected ssri taking dysfunctional people dont get access to large magazine rapid fire weaponry.

The idea is great, in theory.

The problem is, how do you effectively do that in the real world?

So you add the individual to a list that says they can't own guns... great. How do you stop them from buying one "on the street"? How do you stop them from stealing one? How do you stop them from taking one from a relative? How do you stop them from, as in the case of Adam Lanza, killing their own mother to take her guns?

How do you separate the millions of people taking SSRI's and anti-psychotic meds who have never, ever had suicidal or homicidal thoughts from the tiny fraction of a percentage that snap and kill people? Do you simply say "well you're taking the same drugs that this psychopath took so you can't have guns"?

That's the rub with the whole idea that legislation will somehow stop insane people from committing monstrous acts. When someone is so screwed up in the head that they're willing to commit mass-murder, no law or restriction will stop that person from reaching their goal. Insane murderous individuals have always been around and have always found a way to kill... long before guns were available and long after you melt down the very last one.

I think the victims should exercise their rights and sue the family in civil court. Drag it on for years, ruin them. Maybe if enough victims do this, something will get done to change the course of this violence.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I think the victims should exercise their rights and sue the family in civil court. Drag it on for years, ruin them. Maybe if enough victims do this, something will get done to change the course of this violence.

Great idea, let's add more frivolous lawsuits to the mix. As though the courts aren't already tied up with enough nonsense.

You do realize that the victims would also have to pay for their lawyer, right? They'll have to pay even after the judge throws out the case for having no legal precedent, right?

What a ridiculous idea. If one of your 3 kids commits a crime, you feel that you should be held responsible?

a reply to: NavyDoc

No one needs be locked up but perhaps better records are in order if you've ever been a registered mental patient here it will show up when you do a search it will also show up if you have a criminal record,there already are restrictions in your country with regards to these 2 categories for example I believe criminals cant vote there ,now people with mental histories you might allow a lever action or bolt action if they have a clean slate but perhaps not an AR15, Im just throwing ideas out there but as a people your nation has to come to the conclusion guns are not an inaliable right for everybody and that some controls are needed.

a reply to: Answer

Yes, if I had bought one of them a weapon knowing they were unstable or angry. That has been the situation in a lot of the cases like this last one.

I think it is a good idea instead of passing more laws.

a reply to: Answer

I get your point but there are countless examples like Virginia Tech where individuals who ought not be let near a gun get them legally