How will gun control stop gang violence?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


The real issue, I think, is why are legislators and their constituents so goddamned stupid.

Quoted for truth. It is all about the lowest common denominator. The laws are based on the dumbest/worst of our society and then applied to the normal people, not the idiots/thugs.

It does nothing. Chicago, NY, Cally... all states with strict gun control and the criminals/thugs are out of control. Government wants your guns because there is no logic behind their argument. It's really that simple.

Originally posted by neoholographic


Think about how silly it sounds. In order to stop criminals from killing, they want to take guns from law abiding citizens.

Yes that does sound silly...if only any of these proposed laws involved "take guns from law abiding citizens." you might have a point.

As it stands what they are asking for is background checks.

And even the most draconian proposals, which stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing, only limit new sales of Assault Weapons...not confiscating those already owned.

Curious what you are seeing proposed by the vast majority...not fringe...of "gun control" advocates that demands taking guns from "law abiding citizens"

I personally think that the NRA sucking IQ from the general public...just so much BS.

reply to post by Indigo5


All they're asking for is background checks on people that buy guns legally... how does this stop dude on the corner buying an illegal gun?

This is about placing law abiding citizens into a database because they choose to own a gun. Look at Chicago, NY and California. The model is Detroit.

The laws are overally too soft on such matters. If anybody would get 10-20+ years for drug dealing (even small time), prostution , owning an illegal firearm or carrying a concealed fire-arm when it is not allowed, then I am 100% sure that the gun-violence would not rise and gang-violence will fall.

Anything depends on punishments. In some countries criminals, especially small-time criminals (burglars, robbers etc) do not carry a gun usually, as it would simply mean extra 5-10 years in prison if caught. For example, burglar might get a 1-2 year imprisonment, if he was caught during burglary and he had a gun, it would mean automatically at least triple the punishment. Not worth it, considering the risk. 1 year is nothing compared to 10.

Originally posted by Cabin
The laws are overally too soft on such matters. If anybody would get 10-20+ years for drug dealing (even small time), prostution , owning an illegal firearm or carrying a concealed fire-arm when it is not allowed, then I am 100% sure that the gun-violence would not rise and gang-violence will fall.

Anything depends on punishments. In some countries criminals, especially small-time criminals (burglars, robbers etc) do not carry a gun usually, as it would simply mean extra 5-10 years in prison if caught. For example, burglar might get a 1-2 year imprisonment, if he was caught during burglary and he had a gun, it would mean automatically at least triple the punishment. Not worth it, considering the risk. 1 year is nothing compared to 10.

edit on 11-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

Good points.

The problem is it isn't about reducing gun violence. It's about a political agenda and the 2nd amendment.

With prostitution and drugs i think it should be legal. If you had legal massage parlors and brothels that would help reduce the criminal element in prostitution. You don't see people on the corner slinging a 6 pack of Hard Mike's.

I also think drugs should be legal starting with weed. A person should be able to go into Rite Aid and get a pack of the bubble kush like they buy Newports.

Originally posted by neoholographic

The problem is it isn't about reducing gun violence. It's about a political agenda and the 2nd amendment.

With prostitution and drugs i think it should be legal. If you had legal massage parlors and brothels that would help reduce the criminal element in prostitution. You don't see people on the corner slinging a 6 pack of Hard Mike's.

I also think drugs should be legal starting with weed. A person should be able to go into Rite Aid and get a pack of the bubble kush like they buy Newports.

Prostitution and drugs are so-so.

Prostitution would need extremely strong control by the country, so that women could not be exploited.. In Germany for example, many brothels do not offer even jobs, even prostitutes have to pay to get in there to work and different STD-checks are needed very often to keep good reputation. (It is like a mall. Everybody know you can buy stuff there. Any shop that wants to sell there has to pay) Women can just come and go, nobody is kept there or has to work, free will.

Without control, it would simply become into a slave-labour where pimps get most of the money.

Weed should be legal, although stronger stuff should not be. It would not do good for the society if amphetamine, coke, heroin or any strong additives that could easily overdose are legal.

reply to post by Cabin


I think with Prostitution many men will think it's safer to go to a brothel or a massage parlor where it's clean and women get tested rather than pick up females off of the street. Also give street walkers designated areas to solicit sex.Government will not be able to tax everything but it's important to make it legal to begin removing some criminal elements than it is to flood Washington with more dollars to waste.

With drugs, I think all drugs should be legal. Drug Overdose in 2010 was 36,329 and this includes both legal and illegal drugs. There was 22,134 Pharmaceutical Drug Overdose. Compare this to poisoning at 41,592 deaths a year and driving 34,485 a year.

Some people say tobacco related deaths can reach up to 400,000. Now look at the bottom of this chart at Marijuana, it's a big fat ZERO.

www.drugwarfacts.org...

These laws, in my opinion, will not work. If laws did work, then we wouldn't have the prison overcrowding problems that we have now.

Enforcing the laws to a draconian state would work to lessen the amount of crime, but realize that many, many innocent people would die at the hands of a country that has a completely dysfunctional judicial system. I can imagine a situation where someone would be put to death for a defending themselves.

What we need is a shift in consciousness. We have gone off the rails as far as respecting life. War is now a reality tv show, we see death in so many forms that we have been completely desensitized to it. Add on to that a massive population on some form of psychotropic drug and we have a recipe for disaster.

Originally posted by Bioshock
reply to post by Indigo5

 

All they're asking for is background checks on people that buy guns legally... how does this stop dude on the corner buying an illegal gun?

When that dude on the corner buys that gun illegally where do you think that gun came from...the "illegal gun manufacturer"?? Or was it purchased legally (without a background check) at some point? Tell me how that gun travelled from the manufacturing floor to the gang-banger.
Amongst crime guns that have been traced, only around 10-15% are stolen guns.
That leaves at least 85% of all crime guns comming from where?
Straw purchases and private sales (gun shows)....where background checks are not conducted.
Straw purchases...someone who can pass a background check buying from a FFL Dealer who buys and then sells to criminals..is the riskier option.
Private sales at gun shows are a no-brainer...no background check...no documentation...cash and carry.
There are also no laws that demand someone report if a gun is lost or stolen. So joe blow...if by some miracle a gun he sold to a thug is traced back from a crime with him as the purchaser...he can tell the cops he lost that gun or it was stolen and to eff off.
I can go to a gun show and buy a dozen guns, no questions asked, no background check, cash and carry. I could be a madman or criminal or I could sell to criminals...either way...I will never get caught because the gun lobby has stripped away any regulation what-so-ever to impede me from doing just that. Thank you NRA. Step one...attend a nearby gun show...cash and carry...step two repeat as neccessary...step three...sell at a heavy mark-up to inner city gangs. Happens every day in every way.

Every "illegal gun" is at some point bought "legally"...

reply to post by Indigo5


I don't know where the gun came from, last I checked our Government was running guns to Mexico. Could literally be from anywhere.

Another gun control post...

The problem we have is not guns. A gun itself is simply a tool. It has no feeling, emotion, prejudice, or opinion. However, the people that use them do.

People think that taking away certain guns, or making them harder to obtain, is the answer, And it is not.

The fact of the matter is, is if someone is motivated enough to murder someone, their going to do it somehow. Maybe be with a gun, a bat, a knife, maybe even poison.

The REAL problem is mental and pychological health. People who commit these murders are almost always victims of severe abuse, rape, attempted murder, etc.

People try to come up with the easy fix, which is to try and make the weapons they used disappear. Just to give the illusion less murders will arise. People don't want to try and figure out what has them so disturbed, and what motivated them to commit such violent acts. This approach would take to much time and money, and it seems people don't care much for that.



Now, on a logical, evolutionary point of view, we humans have relied on tools since our creation basically. Humans aren't really equiped with defensive capabilities.

If I put you in an arena with a lion (barehanded), and told you only you or the lion would survive, I guarantee the lion would be the last one standing a vast majority of the time. It is not impossible for the human to win, but logicaly speaking, the lion is much, much more capable. The reason for this, is the lion is much stronger, it weighs more, and it is equipped with deadly claws and fangs. Which us humans do not possess. The reason we were able to compete with such predators, and stay alive is the use of tools. And of course a gun is a tool, usually used for defensive purposes. And as I previousl said, humans have relied on tools, and without them we are pretty helpless. So me telling someone they do not have the right to own a gun, then I am basically telling them they have no right to defend themsleves.



Now, on the subject of gang violence.

I do not think restricting guns will decrease guns crimes among gangs. If you restrict guns, your not only taking them away from the gang members, your also taking them away from the people who own guns to protect themselves from the same gang members.

Let's take a look at something we restricted in the past; Alcohol. The prohibition of alcohol gave rise to numerous gangs. And it also promoted a disregard for the police. The reason gangs started popping up like wild fire after this, is because a big majority of americans did not agree with prohibition. And these gang members saw an opportunity to sell alcohol illegally. Whenever there is a demand, people WILL capitalize on the opportunity. So they begin to form organised crime groups. Alcohol and guns are much different, however it all boils down to supply and demand.

Now, if ALL guns in the U.S. were to disappear, I guarantee crime rates will go way up. Because the criminals would know that the citizens would not be armed. Think of it like this. Would you rather rob a household with no guns inside, or one with multiple firearms inside? I don't know about you, but I rather rob the people who don't own any firearms, I want to insure my success in the robbery, and my own survival also after all.

If people can smuggle drugs into the country, or any other items, then you bet people will smuggle in guns into the country and sell them illegally. Hell, they already have been doing that for years. And of course only criminals will buy illegal goods. When their armed and the civilians around them aren't they'll have much more incentive to go out and commit crimes. Look at Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun policies in the country, yet crime rate is out of control. And I think it's quite ironic that Obama is from illinois.


But I digress. Yes, I believe to gun control is ridiculous, it's simply people fishing for an easy fix to a deep rooted problem.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neoholographic


Think about how silly it sounds. In order to stop criminals from killing, they want to take guns from law abiding citizens.

Yes that does sound silly...if only any of these proposed laws involved "take guns from law abiding citizens." you might have a point.

As it stands what they are asking for is background checks.

And even the most draconian proposals, which stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing, only limit new sales of Assault Weapons...not confiscating those already owned.

Curious what you are seeing proposed by the vast majority...not fringe...of "gun control" advocates that demands taking guns from "law abiding citizens"

I personally think that the NRA sucking IQ from the general public...just so much BS.

I guess you missed the recent story of the upstate NY man who had his license revoked and all his guns confiscated..........due to a MISTAKE because a proper background check (and possible illegal HIPPA privacy violation to gain access to his medical records) was done by the STATE POLICE.

Yeah, nothing to worry about here, move along............

Originally posted by Krakatoa

I guess you missed the recent story of the upstate NY man who had his license revoked and all his guns confiscated..........due to a MISTAKE because a proper background check (and possible illegal HIPPA privacy violation to gain access to his medical records) was done by the STATE POLICE.

Yeah, nothing to worry about here, move along............

Links always help...but I tracked it down for you..www.wkbw.com...

A) The guys gun colection was confiscated under NY Safe Act...and no one has rleased or discussed the "why" beyond that.

B) What we do know...

Under the new Safe Act in New York, anyone receiving mental health treatment is subject to a medical professional filing a report if they feel their patient is,"likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to themselves or others."

So the guy had over 4K in guns ( how many guns do you think he had?) and one of his therapists/doctors felt strongly enough about his state to file a report that ","likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to themselves or others."

What do you think he told his shrink to warrant such a strong response? How did the doctor know he owned guns?...Did the man talk about his guns and how he planned on killing people? Now we don't know, but I suspect psychologists don't like losing clients, which he certainly has done here...so the psychologist must have felt pretty strongly about what this man said and that the man was serious.

If Lanze or Holmes et al. had shared something similair with a doctor...and the doctor knew the patient well enough to distinguish between rant and genuine illness...would you want the doctor to drop a dime?

If Congress wants to stop "gun violence" then it should go clean up the gangs and the conditions (drugs, poverty, culture) that foster gang formation and gangster behavior. It isnt "Mr and Mrs America" in the suburbs, Mrs Feinstein, who are creating the gun violence. By far and away (ie Chicago and DC) it is the gangs with an occasional outlier from a mentally ill person on psychotropic drugs.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Krakatoa

I guess you missed the recent story of the upstate NY man who had his license revoked and all his guns confiscated..........due to a MISTAKE because a proper background check (and possible illegal HIPPA privacy violation to gain access to his medical records) was done by the STATE POLICE.

Yeah, nothing to worry about here, move along............

Links always help...but I tracked it down for you..www.wkbw.com...

A) The guys gun colection was confiscated under NY Safe Act...and no one has released or discussed the "why" beyond that.

B) What we do know...

Under the new Safe Act in New York, anyone receiving mental health treatment is subject to a medical professional filing a report if they feel their patient is,"likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to themselves or others."

So the guy had over 4K in guns ( how many guns do you think he had?) and one of his therapists/doctors felt strongly enough about his state to file a report that ","likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to themselves or others."

What do you think he told his shrink to warrant such a strong response? How did the doctor know he owned guns?...Did the man talk about his guns and how he planned on killing people? Now we don't know, but I suspect psychologists don't like losing clients, which he certainly has done here...so the psychologist must have felt pretty strongly about what this man said and that the man was serious.

If Lanze or Holmes et al. had shared something similair with a doctor...and the doctor knew the patient well enough to distinguish between rant and genuine illness...would you want the doctor to drop a dime?

edit on 12-4-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

WRONGO!! The State Police, themselves, have publicly stated it was a MISTAKE in enforcing the law.

What the FACTs are:

A) They did not perform the background check properly (they now "clam" they had the wrong man*)
B) They confiscated his firearms without due process
C) The judge in the case has re-instated his license and ordered his firearms returned
D) The medical record in the case were accessed illegally in violation of the HIPAA privacy laws
E) His legal representative is now filing a suit against the state for a constitutional rights violation of his client

*This claim has now been questions considering telephone recods show them calling this man repeatedly prior to his arrest. At what point do you think they would have guessed it was the "wrong man". Also, the state poilce (those bastions of integrity) are now pointing the finger at the lowly courthouse workers as the cuase of the false information).

Syracuse NY Source

And, the price tag is totally irrelevant here and a blatant attempt at deflection of the real issue. An illegal arrest based upon numerous constitutional and privacy violations. This, my friend is why legal owners of firearms in America are so vocal. Pardon them for actually standing up for their rights and living legally in this society.

reply to post by dc4lifeskater


Better police tactics will stop gang violence.

It's nice though to see that the Right has pretty much done nothing but blame the Left for these new laws. That's all part of the grand distraction. I live in what is probably the most liberal state in the nation and even we cannot get a gun control bill passed. That's not a bad thing because folk heroes like Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys and our own secession movement demonstrate that Vermonters can also be independent, freedom-loving people.

Me? I support stronger background checks and reasonable limits on high-powered assault weapons. There's no reason why someone cannot own a handgun/rifle/shotgun for protection. There's no reason why a sport shooter cannot own a weapon for sport. There's no reason why hunters cannot own firearms for hunting.

I do not believe that most people are calling for a TOTAL gun ban, at least not those who are reasonable.

I had a debate with my father, who is obviously over 30 years older than myself and he said that no matter how many laws the government passes, they will never fully be able to contain the desire that people have to own a gun. People will get guns, whether it's through a gun shop or an illegal arms dealer.

But, a stronger background check could be useful in preventing the next national tragedy. I can't think of too many law-abiding citizens that would buy from an illegal arms dealer but the next shooter could be a law-abiding citizen with the intent to shoot and kill. We never really know.