Anyone hear about the Westboro Church's attempt to protest at this funeral? (They're the crazies who think people die because God hates gay people). They said they'd be out in full force. Radio host (not sure if he's liberal/conservatvive but it doesn't really matter) Mike Gallagher told the church that if they did not protest at the funeral, he would give up an hour of his airtime to them today. The leaders of the "church" agreed. I've never listened to a minute of Mike Gallagher's show but this guy deserves a big "thank you" for what he did. Protesting at the funerals of these young girls is disgusting.
^ Yea that baffles me. If I were the parent, I'd have an easier time forgiving the criminal than forgiving them. But there are no * next to forgiveness. I do admire the Amish and if I had it to do over, I'd check out what it takes to join - though I'd have 1 nasty gray beard....
My girlfriend is a 1st grade teacher. She told me that today they are having a 'lockdown drill'. That means they rehearse what to do if an armed gunman should come into their school. Anyone else find this really depressing?
I don't disagree with you in principal, but as a matter of practice the Supreme Court has not been very kind to people seeking to regulate firearms. As far as I can determine in the purest technical sense, the second ammendment protects 'militia weapons' like machine guns and rocket launchers but not necessarily weapons which only have a secondary military use, such as hand guns and shotguns. Of course it would be silly to actually interpret it that way. Finally, I have yet to see anybody who can account for the fact that handgun crimes in Great Brittian have risen significantly since their total ban in that country in the late 90's. Until anybody can expalain that one to me I will continue to believe that total gun control is an idea that seems to make practical sense but with no real world value, like baning the distribution of free condoms to prevent kids from having sex.
We're not talking about lollypop's here. We're talking about abusing a minor sexually or in an extreme way. Harming children should not be acceptable in our society. A person who molests a child has violated the covenent of being a good citizen. They no longer can be trusted in society - as studies have shown that they will only go on to repeat their crime. How much heart ache would be spared if sexual predators were not allowed to interact with children ever again? Why is that having pot will land you in jail longer then molesting a child? Can you answer that? You tell me the Rockfeller laws are not draconian, but protecting children is? As for gun control - having guns is the most absurd thing about this country. It's one thing to have a hunting rifle to shoot deer - but the only people who should have guns is the police and the army. No one else. If no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend your home. As far as I am concerned, they only kind of guns should be things like stun guns, or tranquilier guns. Things that can be used in self-defense without killing. This is a reaction to one even - all of this is a long time coming. The comparison to the patriot act is alarming. How will gun control change this country in any way that's not for the better? How will being tougher of pediophiles be damaging to our country? Please explain. Don't try to defend these kinds of people by comparing it to taking candy from a baby. That's almost mocking any attempt to make tougher laws.
Guns were banned first in 1988, that's when you have to start looking at the data....here's some facts for you. Murder Rate per 100,000 UK: 1.3 USA: 5.5 Percentage of murders involving firearms UK: 6% USA: 70% This does not support your case.
It is irrelevant to a degree that it is nonsensical to compare different countries. There are too many other variables. I believe we’ve had conversations in the past about statistics and their relevance. If you don't understand this I will be glad to go into more detail, but I think it should be self evident. I might as well point out the murder rate in Switzerland relative to the United States as proof that everybody needs to keep assault rifles in their homes.
But you brought in the UK as a comparison...and now you say it's nonsensical to do so? Then why did you make the comparison in the first place? Hmmmmm....please do explain.
I am talking about the rate of gun crime in the United Kingdom before the guns ban and after the guns ban. I thought that should be clear if you have been involved in any of the previous gun discussions here. In response to the number of crimes committed with guns in the United Kingdom, the country outlawed private ownership of handguns in 1997. Once private ownership of handguns was outlawed, gun crime rose significantly (you can do a search on bbc.co.uk and find plenty of stories detailing this), and has stayed at that high level. The example of the UK is the closest thing to date of a full scale study with controlled before and after conditions. Most US examples have occurred on a state level and have problems because of the porous nature of state borders. In what sounds like a farcical parody to me but is in fact reality, they are now instituting a 'sword ban' in Scotland. What will be next when this doesn't work either?
I was just curious, Ottomaton, if there is any correlation between the absence of privately owned handguns, and the increase. My understanding is that there has traditionally been little ability for Britons to carry handguns prior to the ban, and that they were kept at home, perhaps inherited, used for target practice, and the like. (much as they are here, but not nearly as widespread, of course, and far more difficult to obtain legally) My opinion would be that the ban had little impact on a rise in gun use by criminals, and is more of a social problem of general increased violence in Britain, rather than an absence of handgun ownership by large numbers of private citizens due to the ban. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that that you are correct. In any case it still proves point. There is no correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime. The concept of a firearms ban was brought up in this thread as a way to deter crime or senseless acts of violence. That was also how it was sold to the people of Great Brittan. It won't do that, any more than preventing teenagers from getting condoms will prevent them from having sex. In the case of the condoms the post ban conditions would be worse than the before conditions as more kids will become pregnant or get AIDS. It would sure make a lot of people who just don't like the idea of teenagers having sex feel better, though. I'm fairly sure that there aren't any health benefits to not banning (here thought there are still a few subsistence hunters and farmers out there who would need to find new sources of food), but I see no way that it can be beneficial. I appreciate that you probably wouldn't care if people removed the ability to own guns. Lots of people probably feel the same way about guns as some do about teenagers and condoms, and a ban might soothe their sensibilities. There is, however, a significant percentage who would feel it would impinge on their lives. It makes no sense to ban guns here, unless you just don't like guns and are looking for a logic that will allow you to ban them. To do so under the banner of making the public safer is either completely illogical or totally disingenuous.
We control drugs, gambling, and sex. But we can't control guns - more dangerous then any of those things. Can some please explain this to me? Why does someone need to be able to carry 600 rounds of ammunition, or semi-automatic rifles - or have armor piercing bullets? Has any of this saved lives? 70% of murders in this country involve firearms. Think about that. Imagine if you couldn't get a gun. It'd make it a lot tougher to kill a bunch of people - how many of those girls would have survived? How many less people would have been shot? With home security systems and other non-lethal weapon systems, why do people need hand guns? Why?
But there is a correlation. Look at the data I posted: England - less guns....lower murder rate USA - more guns - higher murder rate That's called a correlation. Ban guns and they become more difficult to obtain. Without guns, murders become harder to commit. Thus less murders. Hmmmm - interesting. I don't want to take away people's fun to shoot other people. Just to shoot me or people I care about. People can use guns in gun clubs or whereever. People can go hunting. But people should be allowed to have a gun that is either concealed or automatic. They should be highly regulated and controled. The idea that any idiot can get a gun and kill people is pretty harrowing.
If you don't understand why examining data from two dissimilar populations doesn't produce a relevant corelation, there is not much that I can do to help you understand.
Right, two different populations - one without guns, one with guns. The one with guns has more murders and violent crime involving guns. Weird huh? So you are saying Britain, with less then a 1/4 of the murder rate here - would have its murder rate decrease even further if every citizen was given a gun? Man, I'd love to know what you are smoking.
here's more.... The Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment, which prescribed a 1-year sentence for unlicensed public carrying of firearms, decreased gun assaults, gun robberies, and gun homicides during the 2-year period in which it was evaluated. (1) Several State mandatory add-ons to felony sentences for use of a gun have reduced gun homicides, but whether they have discouraged gun use in robberies and assaults is not clear. (2) The decrease of gun homicides in Washington D.C. following passage of the 1976 D.C. Firearms Control Act appears to have been maintained until the mid-1980's when, according to a recent study, the rise of crack markets was accompanied by a substantial increase in gun homicides. (For more details, see Appendix B below.) (3) The 1968 Federal Gun Control Act, which prohibited Federally licensed gun dealers from selling guns to certain designated "dangerous" categories of people, failed to reduce firearm injuries or deaths, apparently because of lax enforcement. (4) The Brady Law, which requires a background check on gun-buyers to screen out criminals, went into effect nationwide in 1994. It prevented 40,000 felons from buying guns in that year alone, and saw a 3.56 percent drop in handgun homocides, a 3.16 percent drop in aggravated assaults and robberies, and a 6.84 percent drop in the number of those crimes committed with a firearm. (5) Both the general homicide and gun-homicide rate declined in Canada after 1978, which may have been due to the passage of C-51, a law which considerably tightened restrictions on guns. (See Appendix C below.) And of course there is Europe, which has far stricter gun control laws than the U.S., and a far lower murder rate as well.
Sometimes 'common sense' and what is real don't mesh. The facts are: British people had guns. Guns were outlawed to reduce gun crime. Gun crime jumped at a rate which exceded any rates of increase that had come before. In the one instance where there is clear before and after data, the facts don't support your suppositions about crime and guns. I'm interested whether you really don't understand how comparing the United States and Great Britain is comparing dissimilar populations. Do you really not see it or are you just glossing over it for rhetorical reasons?
First, the information about Europe is incorrect. There are areas like Switzerland with lower crime rates where citizens as part of the reserves are required to keep automatic rifles in their homes. There are also several other examples. Secondly, you provide lots of information about background checks and regulation. I am all for that. It makes sense. We do them already. You don't provide any information about complete bans, and you won't find any with useful data except for the example of the UK.
