|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:40:53 PM | I don't know of any law, or requirement, that a new gun owner be properly trained with a firearm, before, or immediately following the purchase of one.
This particular issue, quite frankly, has never come up for discussion within my circle of friends and acquaintances. Everyone I've ever known, who has had even the slightest interest in firearms, has gotten instruction from a firearms instructor, either through the NRA, a youth program in school, during military service, or from a firearms enthusiast that was recommended by a friend or relative.
Given that firearms are actually quite common in the US, it is almost inconceivable that anyone would not have at least one, and likely many, firearms enthusiasts, and/or firearms instructors, in their family, or circle of friends.
I first learned from my Father, who learned from his Step Father, older brothers, and the Marine Corps. Later, I received further instruction in the military, later in the Police Academy, and some additional training in SWAT school. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 9:40:09 PM | LC,
You and I are in pretty close agreement about most of these issues. One quibble:
An empty gun, other than being substantially heavier, and harder, than a teddy bear, poses no more danger to anyone than a teddy bear. Once the steam stops rolling out of your ears, read that sentence a second time; I said "empty" gun.
I believe that any gun safety instructor would agree that any gun that I haven't just emptied myself is to be presumed loaded.
I'm glad to know that modern semi pistols won't fire unless there's a round in the chamber, they're c*cked, and there's a magazine in the stock. Still, I wouldn't rely on that when kids or burglars might be afoot.
Here's the thing, if you'll be so kind as to encourage all of your fellow gun enthusiasts to stress the need for _safety_ and _preparedness_ when talking with people who are afraid of gun violence, we'll get well-reasoned laws and better enforcement.
Dismissing legitimate concerns makes frightened people run to their legislators and demand restrictions that are just crazy. They wouldn't do that if there weren't so many apparently clueless pro-gun people making so many specious arguments and spouting such ridiculous slogans. They make all gun enthusiasts appear to be thoughtless and irresponsible. Tell the NRA to stop sloganeering and stress safety and we'll all have a better shot at getting what we need--freedom to own guns balanced with individual responsibility for their safe-keeping.
The thing is, LC, that just because _your_ circle is reasonable doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of other adrenalized wackos out there who jump in spouting nonsense about their rights without showing any consideration for the rights of their neighbors.
No, I don't have to put up with it if a neighbor of mine is careless with guns, just as I don't have to put up with it if that same neighbor carelessly slanders my name! Free speech doesn't extend that far. The 2nd Amendment doesn't either.
So if you're reading this, and you think that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to leave a gun lying around for your supposed protection--loaded or not--think again. It doesn't. There have to be reasonable restrictions to preserve public safety, and by that I mean _reasonable,_ not just knee-jerk reactions to the cries of those who are most frightened.
OK, this horse is well and thoroughly dead by now. LC, you're great! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/8/2008 4:07:30 AM | The NRA and Civilian Marksmanship Program (formerly the Director of Civilian Marksmanship), both have programs that teach proper firearms handling, with a particular focus upon youth.
Here, there is a "take one, make one" program, for the outdoor sports, hunting and fishing. The focus is on youth, and safe practices while on the water fishing and in the woods hunting, whether it be with a gun or a bow. Thankfully, we don't have many problems with firearms abuse here, despite there being a good many private citizens who own machine guns.
Not only do firearms instructors, but, any firearms enthusiast, will stress that all guns are loaded, until you have ensured that it is empty yourself. Every time a gun passes from one hand to another, it should be checked by the person receiving it, to ensure that it is, in fact, empty.
I used to keep a couple of shotguns out, and handy; we have a problem with wild dogs, and poisonous snakes around here. Those guns are now locked away, in a metal cabinet, that I have the only key to. One only comes out now, when I feel as if I may have need of it. Before I leave, I lock it back up.
I have taught a lot of people to shoot. The one thing that I've stressed to everyone I have ever taught to shoot, is safety.
Even the most ardent firearms enthusiast is fearful of gun violence, and those who handle firearms irresponsibly. While we may enjoy the shooting sports, safety is always paramount.
I don't know of any firearms enthusiast that would even consider dismissing the genuine concerns of anyone where firearms are concerned. We all share the same concerns when it comes to those who handle firearms irresponsibly. It is the means by which to ensure public safety, where we differ.
Firearms enthusiasts want the existing laws to be enforced. Those charged with gun violence should not have their charges plea bargained down to non-moving traffic violations, and turned loose on society to harm someone else. Those charged with gun violence should be removed from society, so that they are unable to harm anyone else. It's not the gun that behaved irresponsibly, it was the person using it that did.
No one should have to tolerate another person handling a firearm irresponsibly, in particular, your neighbor. The close proximity of cities amplifies the need for firearms safety on the part of those who own them.
There are already, a litany of, so called, reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership by the law abiding. What is left to be done, is for the existing laws to be enforced, where those who violate those reasonable restrictions are concerned. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/12/2008 5:56:05 PM | Writing in the National Post (Octrober 27, 2005), Bruce Garvey
decried Jamaica’s “born fi dead’ culture being imported to the streets of
Toronto – another vile result of poorly screened immigration and
multiculturalism polices that encourage immigrants to hang on to their
culture, no matter how dysfunctional of destructive. Writing of Toronto’s
wave of gang shootings, Garvey noted: “Almost all of the victims and
perpetrators are young black men, … It is widely – if quietly – acknowledged
that a disproportionate number of the criminals and victims hail from
Jamaica. To understand why that it, it helps to understand the place that
they come from. By early September, the Caribbean island – with roughly the
same population as Toronto, had recorded 1,157 murders, almost all of them
involving guns. It was the country’s highest ever by that date, and well on
track to top 1,500 by the end of the year, eclipsing last year’s total of
1,469.. … But it’s still a fact that since independence in 1962, when the
murder rate was 3.8 per 100,000, Jamaica’s crime rate has been getting
steadily worse. By 1976, it had risen to 17.6, and by 2001 jumped
dramatically to 43.”
__________________________________________________________
Some goofball posted that the Murder Rate in Toronto was LOW...at roughly 1200 people per year that equates to 3 murders a DAY in Toronto. That's HIGH, and I don't care HOW you slice it.
Even Mobile, Alabama, 24th on the Murder Rate list, only has 1 or 2 per day... | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/12/2008 6:25:36 PM |
Some goofball posted that the Murder Rate in Toronto was LOW...at roughly 1200 people per year that equates to 3 murders a DAY in Toronto. That's HIGH, and I don't care HOW you slice it.
I'm a little confused here.... 
Canada's police services reported 605 homicides in 2006
In a country of thirty three million people...... 605 homicides ?
For instance, the homicide rate for Toronto is 1.9 per 100,000 people (1999; Statistics Canada), compared to Atlanta (34.5), Boston (5.5) New York City (9.1), Vancouver (2.8) and Washington, DC (45.5). For robbery rates, Toronto also ranks low, with 115.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared to Dallas (583.7), Los Angeles (397.9), Montreal (193.9), New York City (490.6) and Washington (670.6). The overall crime rate in general is an average of 48 incidents per 100,000 people, compared to Cincinnati (326), Los Angeles (283), New York City (225) and even Vancouver (239).
However, many in the city, especially the local media, have concerns reguarding gun violence, gangs and racial profiling by police against minorities.[
In 2005, Toronto media coined the term "Year of the Gun" because the number of gun-related homicides reached 52 out of 80 murders in total; almost double the 27 gun deaths recorded the previous year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_of_Toronto
That's an average of 1.5 (rough) murders a week - in a city with 2.5 million people.
Take out all the domestic violence, and criminals killing other criminals, and that's about as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect.
Only in a place like Canada could journalists come up with the phrase "Year of the Gun" when one person dies a week from a gunshot in a city of that size and diversity. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/12/2008 8:15:15 PM | Sure, outlaw guns so we can't defend ourselves during a national emergency (attack by another coutry).
Pot is also illegal, but plenty of "outlaws" possess it. If we outlaw guns, murderers will still have them. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 4:44:06 AM | Oral arguments are scheduled in Heller v District of Columbia, in the US Supreme Court, for Tuesday, March 18th.
For those not familiar with the case, the main issue in this case concerns the very restrictive gun regulations in Washington DC. Many view this case as one that will make serious precedent, as the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, or a state right, has not been decided by the US Supreme Court.
There is a lower Court case, United States v Emerson, where the Judge in that case did an exceptional job of how the ruling of the right to keep and bear arms being a private right was determined.
It should prove interesting to see how the US Supreme Court rules in the Heller case. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 4:47:24 AM | I'm a little confused here....
Nothing confusing about it. Read the quote he posted.
Some goofball posted that the Murder Rate in Toronto was LOW...at roughly 1200 people per year that equates to 3 murders a DAY in Toronto. That's HIGH, and I don't care HOW you slice it,
The "Goofball" knows how to read. Toronto last time I checked isn't a "small caribbean Island" It's Jamaica that has the brutal murder rate.
Toronto, is much safer on a per capita basis then Pensacola for instance.
By the way, love that city. The first place I ever went outside of Canada! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 6:25:44 AM | | Have done a little research from the last time I posted here. Now someone posted earlier that an individual can get an ilegal firearm as cheap as $25. Not sure how or what type. However, what I did find out through goggle and reading newsparper articles is that an illegal firearm sells today between $1000 to $1200. Also since Austraila has put a banned on guns for legal owners there is an estimate of 20 000/year of illegal weapons. Again what I stated earlier about the simple supply and demand curve from economics. So what I can see happening from certain gun laws is forcing upstanding citizens to cross the line to illegal activity. This is indicated to myself from the increase of illegal firearms in Australia. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 6:33:38 PM | I can go out tonight, and buy just about any handgun for $25 in a local city. If I want something specific, or exotic, it will likely cost a little more, as it would have to be located, and likely stolen.
In Los Angeles, up until about 14 years ago, which is when I left there, illegal handguns regularly sold on the streets for about $25, or a small rock of crack; depending upon how hard up the junkie was. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 7:21:41 PM | OK, an open question here....
Is there any way you can see to reduce the numbers of those illegal handguns on the street ?
Does it require something new, or do we have the base to do it with existing laws ? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 7:55:46 PM |
OK, an open question here....
Is there any way you can see to reduce the numbers of those illegal handguns on the street ?
Does it require something new, or do we have the base to do it with existing laws ?
Hmmm..Existing laws? Aint gonna work if it has to do with the "law" when addressing "illegal handguns". (said owners dont give a rats a$$ about the law.)
Only start that I see is removing the need, for those who illegally tote them, to be erased. Talk about your work cut out for ya... | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 8:42:20 PM | ^^^ Best argument yet for legalizing recreational drugs. W/out the necessity of self-protection when dealing in illegal drugs, why would anyone need or want to join a gang?
No risk, no mark-up, and no gang monopolies to enforce. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:34:41 PM |
You will always have illegal handguns on the street. However, in those states that have legal concealed carry laws, the crime rate is much lower that the states that don't have it. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 1:47:25 AM | | The only way I can see reducing the number of illegal handguns is by removing the demand for them. This would require abstract thinking. Instead of thinking of a direct approach, which is to reduce the number of handguns we have to destroy all guns, you have to come up with idea to reduce the want or need for them. This would mean trying to lower the number of drug addicts and gangs in the area. To do this you would have to put resources into studying why gangs exist in the first place. Maybe this means building more community services to give children and teens a guided place to burn off some bored energy. Maybe have escort services for youths in bad areas so the teens have a safe measure of getting to and from their after school activities. Permanent deportation for individuals caught with an illegal firearm and not a citizen of that country. If an individual is arrested with an illegal firearm, maybe the army might be the answer. At least they can learn how to shoot accurately and handle guns properly to reduce number of innocent victims during a drive bye. Education from the public school system on guns, gangs drugs etc. Let the children have their input in open discussions. Reasonable gun laws which allows the responsible gun owner proper means of owning a gun without the hidden agenda of banning all guns. This prevents law-abiding citizens to cross the line into illegal activities. These are just some suggestions on the topic. More could be developed in a brainstorming environment. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 2:57:53 AM | The "open question" presented, implicitly indicates some form of "gun control." Gun Control is not the answer to the problem, as guns are not the actors in the issues presented. Thus, it is not a matter of "gun control," but, "criminal control."
In the issues presented, the actors are those individuals who are using guns. Before these individuals used guns to harm one another, and innocent civilians caught in their turf wars, they used all other forms of weapons. Gang warfare, and the corresponding turf warfare, has existed since before the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed is are some of the tactics, and the weapons used.
In a great many instances, these gangs used molotov****ails; usually glass soda bottles filled with gasoline, to burn down rival gangs' safe houses. There are occasions where this practice is still used today.
There are a litany of laws on the books concerning the illegal acquisition, possession, and use, of firearms, and/or weapons, of any kind.
Just as in any turf war, it is the "gang" with the largest number of resources available that prevails. In the US the "civilians" have the largest resources available, and the law, as well. However, private citizens have almost always opted for diversionary programs, in order to keep these "children" out of the penal system. It is the rare case that errant "children" are permanently diverted from the penal system.
In reality, what happens is that these errant "children" grow up to be errant adults. Then, these errant adults, create more errant "children" who are diverted from the penal system, who grow up to be errant adults, and the cycle continues. This statement is not based upon some "study" or scholarly rendition. This statement is based upon personal experience, having grown up in Los Angeles County, and having lived in Los Angeles, and having been a Police Officer.
What needs to stop, is the molly coddling of these errant "children." Start actually enforcing the laws now existing concerning the illegal acquisition, possession, and use, of firearms. Private ownership of arms is an inherent, and Constitutionally guaranteed, right in the US. Thus, there will always be arms in the hands of private citizens in the US.
What needs to happen, is that those who refuse to obey the existing laws be removed from society. If these persons have been removed from society, and placed into a controlled environment, they cannot engage in their turf wars in the law abiding community.
Thus, it it not gun control that is needed, but, criminal control. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 6:34:20 AM | This was in today's headline:
REPEAT VIOLATOR GETS PRISON
A Hamilton mn with an extensive record for violence, guns and drugs was handed two years in a penitentiary yesterday after police found a .38 - calibre revolver in a former girlfriend's bedroom safe.
Sarann Nop, 24, is a reputed member of The OBBs, a violent street gang varioushly known as the Oriental Blood Brothers or Original Blood Brothers. He pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including possession of firearm, breaching court orders, two counts of possessing small quantities of cocaine and driving while disqualified.
Article is by Barbara Brown of The Hamilton Spectator.
Again guns and drugs are side by side. Not only that but notice gang memeber as well. This .38 was an illegal gun. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 8:14:02 AM | I agree with Lostcauz,
You won't ever be able to take guns off the street. Even if you made it illegal to own a gun. As long as we live in a free society. Lets say you were able to take away all guns. In just a few short weeks someone will end up making a gun in his home garage. The black market will go nuts. Here this guy is making guns in his garage and as long as no one finds out who is doing it he is safe. Suppose someone does find out? By then, a second and third person has already caught on to the idea and are making their own guns as well.
It's the same way with drugs and booze. As long as we live in a society where we are allowed free "Thought" we will always have guns. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 9:53:17 AM | The "open question" presented, implicitly indicates some form of "gun control." Gun Control is not the answer to the problem, as guns are not the actors in the issues presented. Thus, it is not a matter of "gun control," but, "criminal control."
If "gun control" is really a surrogate for "gang control," then your line of reasoning makes sense as far as it goes. However, you only address the "stick" part of the problem and not the "carrot."
Also, by recasting it in those terms only, you're neglecting the other major fear people have with respect to guns--the despondent person who stages a murder-suicide, either by killing family members or innocent bystanders before taking a bullet. Yes, such a person could still do it with a knife, but it takes a lot longer and people have a better chance of fighting back, so at least there won't be as many classroom shootings if guns are harder to come by.
There are a litany of laws on the books concerning the illegal acquisition, possession, and use, of firearms, and/or weapons, of any kind.
You have advocated increased enforcement of existing laws, but to what extent are these laws enforceable? What evidence is can you cite that enforcement after the fact is effective in any way?
... private citizens have almost always opted for diversionary programs, in order to keep these "children" out of the penal system. It is the rare case that errant "children" are permanently diverted from the penal system.
Again, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence to corroborate this claim. It might well be that children who see criminal activity or gang affiliation as their only shot at prosperity will continue in that direction despite even the certainty of jail time.
If the only workable option we law-abiding citizens provide to errent youth, through prejudice and fear, is to deal drugs or jack cars, we can't be too terribly shocked when those children figure that out and persist in doing it.
Incarceration is an expense, education is an investment. In California, we have the highest proportion of prisoners in the US. The US has the highest proportion of prisoners of any industrialized nation. We are already spending a sh*tload of money on incarceration and we don't appear to be any safer.
So maybe enforcement after the fact is just too costly and people would prefer to spend the money on prevention. That option looks especially promising when we see very low rates of gun violence in countries where gun access is severely restricted.
For all this money we're spending to warehouse these people, they come out no different than when they went in, unless they come out worse. Now, if all those errant people inside were provided some sort of opportunity and incentive to do something better when they got out, they just might!
For example, if a kid in juvie knew that he could be out at 18 with a GED, a certificate in some sort of marketable skill, a sealed record, and a place in a residential training program/half-way house when he got out if he did well in a training program on the inside, he might not go back. If he turns up his nose at it and is convicted again, well ... some people want in and some want out. But we currently do _nothing_ for those who want out. A parolee in California gets a grand total of 2 hours of orientation after being released.
I'm not sure where the "hard labor" part of incarceration has gone, but if prison is supposed to be about punishment I can see three tracks: 1) isolation for those who simply refuse to cooperate, 2) hard labor for those who just want to do their time, 3) an education program for those who don't want to come back.
Hey, if we can allow our government to go into the gambling business in order to raise funds for schools (don't get me started on that!), what possible moral compunction could we have against legalizing and taxing other vices, and using the revenues to fund education.
Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. Yet we do not see a dime of tax revenue from its sale. That money would fund a lot of inner city schools and programs.
You cannot eradicate a culture by suppressing it. You have to offer people an acceptable alternative.
Start actually enforcing the laws now existing concerning the illegal acquisition, possession, and use, of firearms.
No argument with this as far as it goes. If illegal possession of a firearm doesn't rate at least as long a mandatory sentence as possession of pot for sale, our laws are bass ackwards. It adds credence to the claim that the "War on Drugs" is really a "War on the Leftists who use drugs." There is good evidence to indicate that this is, in fact, the impetus for our current drug policy.
What needs to happen, is that those who refuse to obey the existing laws be removed from society. If these persons have been removed from society, and placed into a controlled environment, they cannot engage in their turf wars in the law abiding community.
That is a very costly solution. If making access to guns a lot harder will reduce the reach of gangs and also prevent murder-suicides at far less cost, people are going to prefer that option.
To the gentleman who says that people will just make them--how many people actually have the tools and skill to make a reliable semi-automatic or automatic weapon? Very few. Could you make one? I doubt it. I know that I couldn't do it right now. Would you want to take a chance on a home-made gun that might blow up in your face?
And to those who want to dismiss me as anti-2nd Amendment, I repeat that I am well aware of the need for citizens to own guns. But I see three classes of criminals involved in our current high rate of gun violence (violent acts involving guns, as opposed to violent acts that don't involve guns): criminals who use guns in their crimes, criminally negligent gun owners who don't store their guns safely, and criminally negligent gun dealers who sell guns to whomever will pay their price.
Yes, if you keep that gun in your unlocked nightstand drawer where your kids or a burglar can get at it, I see you as a criminal. Should we throw you in jail? For how long? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 10:24:06 AM |
Have done a little research from the last time I posted here. Now someone posted earlier that an individual can get an ilegal firearm as cheap as $25. Not sure how or what type. However, what I did find out through goggle and reading newsparper articles is that an illegal firearm sells today between $1000 to $1200. Also since Austraila has put a banned on guns for legal owners there is an estimate of 20 000/year of illegal weapons. Again what I stated earlier about the simple supply and demand curve from economics. So what I can see happening from certain gun laws is forcing upstanding citizens to cross the line to illegal activity. This is indicated to myself from the increase of illegal firearms in Australia.
you don't do the right kind of research. the fact is that saturday night specials sell for $25 in south central all day long | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 10:25:44 AM |
the fact is that saturday night specials sell for $25 in south central all day long
Where do all those SNSs come from? How many of them have been stolen from the unlocked nightstands of citizens? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 10:26:00 AM |
Only start that I see is removing the need, for those who illegally tote them, to be erased. Talk about your work cut out for ya...
what work. the absolute reality is that there is NO need, or justificaction, for those who illegally tote them | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 10:30:14 AM |
To do this you would have to put resources into studying why gangs exist in the first place. Maybe this means building more community services to give children and teens a guided place to burn off some bored energy.
that's bogus on it's face. you do not need resources to study anything. the ONLY reason that gangs exist is because there are totally worthless individuals who choose to be gangmembers. there are already enough community services for children. they have the ymca and police athletic league, big brothers, and so on to join instead of gangs. it's their inherent worthlessness that makes them join the gang rather than be around real people | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 11:11:05 AM | | ^^^^^Years ago I watched a three hour programme done on just gangs. The parts that stick in my mind was that the teenagers state they wanted to be pregnant by the time they are 16 years of age because they believe they will not live pass 18. The second is that by the time a child reaches the age of 9 they are forced to join a gang. Reason is for the fact that if they do not join a gang they get beat up by all gang members. If they join a gang then they have protection. Some of these kids would not assosiate themselves with police (police athletic league) for the fact it would be a death sentence since they look like the street snitch. The problem with ymca in some of these communities is you still have to get there and back. Personaly I have witness some of these streets when I took a cross country motorcycle ride through the US. Just lucky it was daylight and not night time. The only way you can even get a feel for these areas is to drive through them yourself during the day. Even with other community services like cubs, scouts, cadets,etc you still have to get there and back safe. Wish I could remember the programme but I do not think it is so bogus. You also have to realize some of these trouble teens come from homes where either both parents work or a single parent who works. This suggest to me lack of adult supervision could also play a role. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/14/2008 3:59:11 PM |
The "open question" presented, implicitly indicates some form of "gun control." Gun Control is not the answer to the problem, as guns are not the actors in the issues presented. Thus, it is not a matter of "gun control," but, "criminal control."
If "gun control" is really a surrogate for "gang control," then your line of reasoning makes sense as far as it goes. However, you only address the "stick" part of the problem and not the "carrot."
I did not not use the terms "gang control." I used the terms "criminal control." If those criminals using guns, happen to be gang members as well, so be it. They have gangs in prison to; they can all gather together and sing Christmas carols in December.
The carrot part of the equation is that if you don't break the law, by acquiring, possessing, or using, a gun illegally; you don't go to prison. How about that, just obey the law? You know, just like 95% of the rest of the society that we live in?
[B]y recasting it in those terms only, you're neglecting the other major fear people have with respect to guns--the despondent person who stages a murder-suicide, either by killing family members or innocent bystanders before taking a bullet. Yes, such a person could still do it with a knife, but it takes a lot longer and people have a better chance of fighting back, so at least there won't be as many classroom shootings if guns are harder to come by.
Guns are NOT hard to come by, in any country in the world. Guns can be gotten in any country in the world, regardless of the the country's official gun control policies. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, in my humble opinion, is like herding cats; it can't be done.
Just as soon as something better comes along, criminals will use whatever this "better" is. Before despondent people had guns to use on others, they used all manner of weapons to murder others before taking their own lives.
Just a couple of days ago, a lady in Dallas, Texas threw her two children off of an overpass onto Interstate 30, before following them. Just a few years ago, a lady in South Carolina that strapped her two children in the family car, and drove it into a lake; drowning her two children.
People like to have some inordinant fear of guns, because it's been hyped up so much in the media, and it's stylish.
Just like the bumper sticker says. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun ever has. Ironically, at least two of my guns have actually been pointed at more people than I can recall; not one of those people got killed by either of my guns.
It's not a matter of gun control, but criminal control. As far as the despondent person, a little personal responsibility will go a long way to stemming the tide of murder suicides; regardless of the method of perpetration.
You have advocated increased enforcement of existing laws, but to what extent are these laws enforceable? What evidence is can you cite that enforcement after the fact is effective in any way?
The existing laws governing firearms are very enforceable, and arrests are made for these violations. The trouble lies in prosecutors plea bargaining these offenses down to the equivalent of non moving traffic violations. Those who have been incarcerated for having violated existing gun laws, are not able to perpetrate any further criminal acts upon society, during the time of their incarceration.
Again, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence to corroborate this claim. It might well be that children who see criminal activity or gang affiliation as their only shot at prosperity will continue in that direction despite even the certainty of jail time.
My statement was based solely upon my own personal experience, and education, from having grown up in Los Angeles County, and living in Los Angeles, as well as my experience as a Police Officer.
Generally speaking, children don't join gangs, and criminals don't engage in criminal activities in an attempt to gain prosperity. Children join gangs as a means of being part of a group, and being accepted. Criminals engage in criminal activity as a means of making money for drugs, gambling, or other criminal activities.
Incarceration is an expense, education is an investment. In California, we have the highest proportion of prisoners in the US. The US has the highest proportion of prisoners of any industrialized nation. We are already spending a sh*tload of money on incarceration and we don't appear to be any safer.
There are already boatloads of taxpayer dollars spent on so called "investments in education." To date, there has been no measurable reduction in crime from these so called "investments." Personally, I see any expenditure of taxpayer dollars, for any purpose whatsoever, as an "expense," and not as an "investment."
So maybe enforcement after the fact is just too costly and people would prefer to spend the money on prevention. That option looks especially promising when we see very low rates of gun violence in countries where gun access is severely restricted.
Maybe, just maybe, if people stopped handling criminals with kid gloves, and holding criminals' hands, and treating them like misbehaving toddlers, there wouldn't be any need for spending zillions of dollars for either incarceration, or crime prevention.
For example, if a kid in juvie knew that he could be out at 18 with a GED, a certificate in some sort of marketable skill, a sealed record, and a place in a residential training program/half-way house when he got out if he did well in a training program on the inside, he might not go back. If he turns up his nose at it and is convicted again, well ... some people want in and some want out. But we currently do _nothing_ for those who want out. A parolee in California gets a grand total of 2 hours of orientation after being released.
What hasn't been mentioned here, is that every person that has been incarcerated, is entitled to free formal education while incarcerated. However, very few take advantage of this free education.
I'm not sure where the "hard labor" part of incarceration has gone, but if prison is supposed to be about punishment I can see three tracks: 1) isolation for those who simply refuse to cooperate, 2) hard labor for those who just want to do their time, 3) an education program for those who don't want to come back.
Persons who are incarcerated cannot be compelled to do work of any kind.
You cannot eradicate a culture by suppressing it. You have to offer people an acceptable alternative.
How about a really novel alternative? Just for the fun of it, how about something like: Obey the law, and you don't get sent to prison? It seems to be working for about 95% of society.
No argument with this as far as it goes. If illegal possession of a firearm doesn't rate at least as long a mandatory sentence as possession of pot for sale, our laws are bass ackwards.
Illegal possession of a firearm is a felony in most states, and is also an enhancement, if a firearm is possessed during the commission of a crime. Unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is an enhancing factor in any crime committed.
If making access to guns a lot harder will reduce the reach of gangs and also prevent murder-suicides at far less cost, people are going to prefer that option.
Making access to guns harder for the law abiding will have no measurable impact on the reach of gangs, nor will doing so prevent murder-suicides.
The only thing that limiting access to guns for the law abiding will do, is disarm the law abiding. This statement is quite easily supported by looking at the crime rates of New York City, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other jusrisdictions that have severe restrictions on the possession of firearms.
Compare the crime rates of any of these jurisdictions with any jurisdiction in the State of Vermont; which has no laws of any kind, with respect to a law abiding citizen carrying a handgun, concealed, or otherwise.
To the gentleman who says that people will just make them--how many people actually have the tools and skill to make a reliable semi-automatic or automatic weapon? Very few. Could you make one? I doubt it. I know that I couldn't do it right now. Would you want to take a chance on a home-made gun that might blow up in your face?
Even in places where guns are severely restricted, people have "zip guns," which are made from readily available materials. These zip guns, while not semi automatic, are very reliable, and quite effective.
Yes, if you keep that gun in your unlocked nightstand drawer where your kids or a burglar can get at it, I see you as a criminal. Should we throw you in jail? For how long?
If a burglar steals a gun from an unlocked drawer, it is yet another felony, in addition to the burglary itself. In California, if a child has access to a gun, and someone is injured by that gun; a mandatory 15 year sentence is passed on the owner of that gun.
Where do all those SNSs come from? How many of them have been stolen from the unlocked nightstands of citizens?
Not one. They are imported from foriegn countries by criminals, for sale on the black market, where most illegal guns are sold by other criminals. | |
|
|
| Page 68 of 93
|
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 |
|
Home
login 
