US Gun Laws Not To Blame

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Also posted on forum.bible-discussion.com

for many guns that end up in the hands of cartel members:

WikiLeaks exposes true origins of Mexican cartels' weaponry (Hint: It's not due to the "mythical" - Democratic Underground

Guns are being sold by the US to the Mexican governement through official channels for the military and police. Those guns are filtering down to the cartels through corrupt liasons between the Mexican federales and the cartels. The question here is, with President Felipe complaining about US guns ending up in cartel hands, how many of those guns were given to them by their own government?

[daplautz]

Lets just get one thing straight. Guns don't kill people. I do.

I always wanted to say that... Don't be angry with me.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Not surprised one iota.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Gun laws never have anything to do with violent crime using guns. It's those who break the gun laws that commit the crime.

Think for a minute, if a gang-banger finds out that a certain gun is illegal to own, do you seriously think that the gang-banger will instead opt for a different weapon??

If they're willing to commit horrible crimes by killing people with a gun, what do they care about gun laws in general?

[Blackmarch]

Gun laws never have anything to do with violent crime using guns. It's those who break the gun laws that commit the crime.

Think for a minute, if a gang-banger finds out that a certain gun is illegal to own, do you seriously think that the gang-banger will instead opt for a different weapon??

If they're willing to commit horrible crimes by killing people with a gun, what do they care about gun laws in general?

How available the gun is to get does change things, which then hinges on to what effort is that criminal willing to go to obtain a certain weapon.

Which is why most armed robberies tend to use hand guns or rifles that are easier to obtain rather than fully autos or even less often, grenades and weapons in the 75 MM + category.

Gun laws do need to be in place and do need to be enforced and do need to be sensible... but that won't take care of the whole problem, but it does help.

Guns (and cars) need to be harder to obtain, and more punishment for misuse and abuse, as well as more education in regards to them.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

How available the gun is to get does change things, which then hinges on to what effort is that criminal willing to go to obtain a certain weapon.

Which is why most armed robberies tend to use hand guns or rifles that are easier to obtain rather than fully autos or even less often, grenades and weapons in the 75 MM + category.

Gun laws do need to be in place and do need to be enforced and do need to be sensible... but that won't take care of the whole problem, but it does help.

Guns (and cars) need to be harder to obtain, and more punishment for misuse and abuse, as well as more education in regards to them.

Anyone buying a gun goes through a federal background check and, contrary to popular opinion, there is no "gun show loophole." Most guns that end up on the black market are stolen. Tell me, how many more restrictions need to be put on law abiding citizens? Where is the line?

[Blackmarch]

Anyone buying a gun goes through a federal background check and, contrary to popular opinion, there is no "gun show loophole." Most guns that end up on the black market are stolen. Tell me, how many more restrictions need to be put on law abiding citizens? Where is the line?

so less guns to steal = less guns on the black market? works for me. Edited April 26, 2011 by Blackmarch

[RipplecutBuddha]

My point is that gun laws don't stop those willing to break the law, either in buying or selling illegal firearms. If there's a demand for a gun, and the only way to get it is illegally, it will happen no matter what restrictions are placed in the form of laws.

Both Britan and Australia have banned private gun ownership. I ask you, have gun crimes ceased in those nations? No, they have not. All the ban has done is disarm the law-abiding citizens, making them a softer target for gun-toting criminals who know they won't be getting shot at anymore.

[Soulsearcher]

My point is that gun laws don't stop those willing to break the law, either in buying or selling illegal firearms. If there's a demand for a gun, and the only way to get it is illegally, it will happen no matter what restrictions are placed in the form of laws.

Both Britan and Australia have banned private gun ownership. I ask you, have gun crimes ceased in those nations? No, they have not. All the ban has done is disarm the law-abiding citizens, making them a softer target for gun-toting criminals who know they won't be getting shot at anymore.

I do wonder what the stats are on the gun crimes though, they exist but how do they compare based on population. Are the instances comparable or are they much lower or higher?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I do wonder what the stats are on the gun crimes though, they exist but how do they compare based on population. Are the instances comparable or are they much lower or higher?

It's estimated that guns are used 2 million times a year in America to fend off violent crime. In 98% of those instances, the mere presence of a firearm was enough to deter a criminal act. Guns are the great equalizer enabling even 80 year olds to successfully defend themselves and their property. Moreover, in states where 2nd Ammendment rights to keep and carry arms is respected, instances of the most violent category of crimes, murder, robbery, rape, etc are dramatically reduced by comparison to their highly restrictive counterparts. It would do you well to read the book More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott which gives an unassailable body of statistics that demonstrate compellingly the benefit of lawful gun ownership.

[Soulsearcher]

It's estimated that guns are used 2 million times a year in America to fend off violent crime. In 98% of those instances, the mere presence of a firearm was enough to deter a criminal act. Guns are the great equalizer enabling even 80 year olds to successfully defend themselves and their property. Moreover, in states where 2nd Ammendment rights to keep and carry arms is respected, instances of the most violent category of crimes, murder, robbery, rape, etc are dramatically reduced by comparison to their highly restrictive counterparts. It would do you well to read the book More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott which gives an unassailable body of statistics that demonstrate compellingly the benefit of lawful gun ownership.

So in other words you don't know the answer to my question.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

So in other words you don't know the answer to my question.

Do you remember when Dan Rather reported that the UK had overtaken the US in every violent crime except murder? He caused quite an uproar, but the statistics didn't lie and Dan Rather was vindicated even by UK media outlets. What was true then is even worse now. In the 2 years following the 1997 handgun ban, gun related crimes rose 40% and from April to November 2001, gun robberies rose a whopping 53%. Violent crime, which had already risen 91% from 1991-1995 had more than doubled between 1997 and 2001. In 53% of home burglaries, the occupant was home, compared to 13% in the us because burglars fear armed homeowners.

Banning guns has also not spared the UK from mass shootings such as the one in 1997 where nine people, as young as 11, lost their lives. In this respect, the UK is no different than the US in that armed criminals, bent on massecre, target gun-free zones. Aside from gun related violence which was not remedied by strict bans, violent crimes continue unabated using knives, quadrupled by comparison to gun related deaths proving again that gun bans did not make the UK safer, far from it.

It was oddly hilarious in watching the movie "Millions" that the police assured new residents that they would eventually be burglared. Upon further research, this is a common reality in the UK. By latest statistics, 26% of UK citizens have been victimized by violent crime including robbery, rape, and murder. In Australia, things are even worse with 30% falling prey to violence. The fact that the US didn't even make the top 10 list of crime victimization rates among industrialized nations is telling. Statistics prove time and time again that the industrialized with the strictest gun control laws are overall more violent than the United States. And even within US borders, the demographics show precipitious drops in violent crimes in areas where gun control is relaxed.

sources

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

BBC News - Analysis: UK gun crime figures

Britain, Australia Top U.S. In Violent Crime

[Soulsearcher]

Do you remember when Dan Rather reported that the UK had overtaken the US in every violent crime except murder? He caused quite an uproar, but the statistics didn't lie and Dan Rather was vindicated even by UK media outlets. What was true then is even worse now. In the 2 years following the 1997 handgun ban, gun related crimes rose 40% and from April to November 2001, gun robberies rose a whopping 53%. Violent crime, which had already risen 91% from 1991-1995 had more than doubled between 1997 and 2001. In 53% of home burglaries, the occupant was home, compared to 13% in the us because burglars fear armed homeowners.

Banning guns has also not spared the UK from mass shootings such as the one in 1997 where nine people, as young as 11, lost their lives. In this respect, the UK is no different than the US in that armed criminals, bent on massecre, target gun-free zones. Aside from gun related violence which was not remedied by strict bans, violent crimes continue unabated using knives, quadrupled by comparison to gun related deaths proving again that gun bans did not make the UK safer, far from it.

It was oddly hilarious in watching the movie "Millions" that the police assured new residents that they would eventually be burglared. Upon further research, this is a common reality in the UK. By latest statistics, 26% of UK citizens have been victimized by violent crime including robbery, rape, and murder. In Australia, things are even worse with 30% falling prey to violence. The fact that the US didn't even make the top 10 list of crime victimization rates among industrialized nations is telling. Statistics prove time and time again that the industrialized with the strictest gun control laws are overall more violent than the United States. And even within US borders, the demographics show precipitious drops in violent crimes in areas where gun control is relaxed.

sources

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

BBC News - Analysis: UK gun crime figures

Britain, Australia Top U.S. In Violent Crime

Very interesting..... Still don't really see an answer as to the comparison in exact figures on gun deaths per capita between the US and other countries that do practice gun control. I'll clarify my request. What is the rate of gun deaths per capita in comparison to countries that do practice a little bit stricter gun control. Is it higher, lower, or no difference. You seem to claim there should be no difference or it will be lower, can you please produce the clear stats on this?

[Blackmarch]

a large difficulty with either side of the argument is that as you go broader in scope in population size or scope of a general problem, it gets a lot more difficult to narrow causes/effects down to just a few things as well as getting effective singular solutions.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Very interesting..... Still don't really see an answer as to the comparison in exact figures on gun deaths per capita between the US and other countries that do practice gun control. I'll clarify my request. What is the rate of gun deaths per capita in comparison to countries that do practice a little bit stricter gun control. Is it higher, lower, or no difference. You seem to claim there should be no difference or it will be lower, can you please produce the clear stats on this?

I thought your wording was a bit murky before but this clears it up.

[swampgeek]

Guns (and cars) need to be harder to obtain, and more punishment for misuse and abuse, as well as more education in regards to them.

It's amazing how many gun laws are on the books and yet people can have all the children they want.

Are there reasons to have gun laws, absolutely. Are there people that would prefer no one could own a gun? For sure. Do you think that will reduce violent crime? Society doesn't change because of the weapons at it's disposal, unless you call beating someone to death instead of shooting them change. Now, if that same person, that intends on doing you harm, realizes that there is a higher probability that they may be shot they are much more likely to choose another victim or alternate means of getting what they were going after.

Edited April 27, 2011 by swampgeek

[Blackmarch]

It's amazing how many gun laws are on the books and yet people can have all the children they want.

Maybe Move to china? How is having kids associated to violent crime esp in regards to gun control/lack of gun control?

(PS if you want to discuss population growth i suggest starting another thread)

Are there reasons to have gun laws, absolutely. Are there people that would prefer no one could own a gun? For sure. Do you think that will reduce violent crime? Society doesn't change because of the weapons at it's disposal, unless you call beating someone to death instead of shooting them change. Now, if that same person, that intends on doing you harm, realizes that there is a higher probability that they may be shot they are much more likely to choose another victim or alternate means of getting what they were going after.

I can't tell if you're just quoting me to share your thoughts or if you're trying to respond to my comment directly. or questioning me... as this seems vaguely associated to what i have said.

If its directed to me..

I'm not advocating no guns, altho if by some miraculous undertaking all guns could be removed from society and then kept that way I'd vote for it.. however that is far too extreme and to achieve that would be far too impractical in costs on many fronts.

society can change because of the weapons at its disposal (now how much is debatable). I point to the cold war as an example, You can also see a difference in countries where there is no gun control.

your hypothetical situation while it may seem sound, a couple problems with it: if the person intends to do harm (premeditated) and realizes that there will (or possibly will) be a gun or other weapon they will go through the effort of counter arming, or choose the next target in which they believe they have the advantage. Most of the time they have no idea until they confront the person. Nor generally do they think things through (else more would be better armed and more willing to use the weapons). As long as the perpetrator feels or thinks they are in control they commit the crime, as soon as they start thinking otherwise they'll start backing down (that or get scarily desperate). Guns just up the ante for both sides.

If such an action would make people in general from going from guns to, say, using crossbows, I"d vote yes.

Nor do I see killing people by gun any more humane than beating people, or any other weapon used to inflict and kill another.

Generally different situations call for different solutions.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Blackmarch

[swampgeek]

Maybe Move to china? How is having kids associated to violent crime esp in regards to gun control/lack of gun control?

(PS if you want to discuss population growth i suggest starting another thread)

If such an action would make people in general from going from guns to, say, using crossbows, I"d vote yes.

Nor do I see killing people by gun any more humane than beating people, or any other weapon used to inflict and kill another.

Generally different situations call for different solutions.

There are many many studies that directly correlate violent crime to the situation that a child is born and raised into. The high birth rates in inner cities have also been directly correlated to high violent crime rates in those areas and the surrounding suburbs. It's not a matter of population control, it's a matter of people bringing lives into this world and not being willing to actually raise them or support them.

Read or watch Freakanomics Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics

There is a part in there that is quite illuminating about birth rates and violent crime. Now, I do not advocate abortion, and really neither do they, I just advocate not having kids if you aren't willing to do right by them. If you don't see the direct connection between having kids, that responsibility, and that people kill people not guns, this could be a lot longer discussion.

[kayne]

this while hilarious sums up the sheer stupidity behind every gun law in about 2 minutes.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Very interesting..... Still don't really see an answer as to the comparison in exact figures on gun deaths per capita between the US and other countries that do practice gun control. I'll clarify my request. What is the rate of gun deaths per capita in comparison to countries that do practice a little bit stricter gun control. Is it higher, lower, or no difference. You seem to claim there should be no difference or it will be lower, can you please produce the clear stats on this?

I don't have the exact figures, but I know and will readily concede that gun deaths are fewer in countries that have stricter gun control laws. For this reason, gun control advocates prefer to use gun violence statistics instead of violence in general to make their point. It's a sleight of hand, but using gun violence statistics alone paints a very misleading picture.

[NeuroTypical]

America has a problem with gun violence that many other countries do not have. I don't see the point in comparing the US against other 1st world countries with stronger gun control and much less cultural acceptance of firearms.

Here's a simple analogy that I heard a while ago that stuck with me. It was full of snark and sarcasm, let me see if I can take that out:

The speed limit on most streets in town is 45 MPH. Most people drive somewhere around that speed. Occasionally, some reckless idiot drives 90, gets in a crash, and people die. What is the best response to this situation?

Is it to lower the speed limit to 40? (Yes, say the folks making news by advocating more gun laws)

Is it to change the culture, build trains, reshape society so folks bike and walk to work?

Is it to ban cars (or make them harder to get, as Blackmarch advocates)?

Is it to spend more on enforcement on existing laws, and make sure penalties are harsh enough to discourage speeding, and sound enough to protect society from those not discouraged enough?

There are some pros, and many cons, to all of those ideas. (The problem with the first two is they'll never work, although I've been wrong before.)

My response to the situation is to be law-abiding and moral, smart and capable, and raise law-abiding/moral/smart/capable children. And to help other people raise their kids the same way. Because children form tomorrow's society, and the more good folk you have in society, the less reckless idiots you have.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Soulsearcher]

America has a problem with gun violence that many other countries do not have. I don't see the point in comparing the US against other 1st world countries with stronger gun control and much less cultural acceptance of firearms.

Here's a simple analogy that I heard a while ago that stuck with me. It was full of snark and sarcasm, let me see if I can take that out:

The speed limit on most streets in town is 45 MPH. Most people drive somewhere around that speed. Occasionally, some reckless idiot drives 90, gets in a crash, and people die. What is the best response to this situation?

Is it to lower the speed limit to 40? (Yes, say the folks making news by advocating more gun laws)

Is it to change the culture, build trains, reshape society so folks bike and walk to work?

Is it to ban cars (or make them harder to get, as Blackmarch advocates)?

Is it to spend more on enforcement on existing laws, and make sure penalties are harsh enough to discourage speeding, and sound enough to protect society from those not discouraged enough?

There are some pros, and many cons, to all of those ideas. (The problem with the first two is they'll never work, although I've been wrong before.)

My response to the situation is to be law-abiding and moral, smart and capable, and raise law-abiding/moral/smart/capable children. And to help other people raise their kids the same way. Because children form tomorrow's society, and the more good folk you have in society, the less reckless idiots you have.

The problem with the analogy though is it's not one idiot driving 90 killing a few people. It's many many idiots killing thousands of people.

Though i agree with the raising kids part, i don't really understand the whining about gun control laws that make a certain amount of sense. If you have a gun death rate comparable to a third world country( being per capital i'm not sure the US is comparable to any first world country in this number), possibly there's something to look at.

I've heard many americans trash canadian gun control, but I've been a competition shooter for years, never known anyone who has had an issue getting a legal weapon. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, we have many of each and had 0 trouble getting them, even the special orders from the US ( dad had a thing for sharps rifles, then learned better lol). So we have gun control and have no issue getting common sense weapons. We don't have combat weapons, machine guns, grenade launchers ect and we don't really suffer from this. We also don't have many carry permits as there hasn't been a push or need for them, and i live in the canadian version of texas, we just know guns are for sport and really have very little confusion over this, gun control hasn't restricted anything but access to weapons that really aren't needed.

[NeuroTypical]

The problem with the analogy though is it's not one idiot driving 90 killing a few people. It's many many idiots killing thousands of people.

Ok fine - so in this town, once or twice a week you get an idiot driving 90. Urgency to solve the problem goes up, but seems to me that we have the same options, with the same pros and cons.

i don't really understand the whining about gun control laws that make a certain amount of sense.

Oh, that's easy to explain. Just point to a single example of unjustified homicide by firearm in the US, where the shooter did not violate at least one existing law currently on the books. Most of the ones I read about in my local police blotter are in violation of 3 or more.

If you can find a gap in fed/state/local gun laws, then by all means, fill the gap. But I'm thinking you could make it a full-time job to find such a gap. It makes sense to make it illegal to let violent felons own or posess firearms. It makes absolutely zero sense to expect lawbreakers to follow the law - and yet the standard outcry after a shooting makes the news is "we need tougher/more laws!". By definition (lawbreaker = person who breaks laws), it won't work. That's why it's silly to react to a 90MPH vehicular homicide by lowering the speed limit from 45 to 40. It just makes all the law abiding people be late to work, and the speeders keep speeding.

I've heard many americans trash canadian gun control, but I've been a competition shooter for years, never known anyone who has had an issue getting a legal weapon.

Yeah - my basic take is that it makes no sense to compare the US to other countries. And that includes giving flak to other countries about their laws. Apples and Oranges. The US was founded by people who figured the general population should be able to rise up and overthrow whatever government it had if the need arose. The notion has remained deeply, deeply ingrained in a huge chunk of our culture in the centuries since. You don't really have that anywhere else. Edited May 17, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I'm more concerned about other Western human rights values being undermined in other countries. One hallmark right is the right to free expression, not only in the United States, but in every Westernized nation. But in the UK, there is a woman who is facing felony charges because she dared to say that killing Bin Laden was a good thing and she could face up to 3 years incarceration. There are those in America like the late (and good riddance!) Ted Kennedy who try to pass "hate crimes" legislation that accomplishes the same thing.

The gun rights advocates argument that when the freedom to keep and bear arms is infringed, then all our other rights are soon to follow....seems to be playing out on the European stage and also in Canada, where speech is similarly sequestered. Drawing a connection between harsh gun laws and the diminishing of other freedoms may seem specious until the examples of this phenomenon start piling up.

[kayne]

folks this can be solved simply and i dont understand how gun arguements evolve into what they always evolve into.

2nd amendment clearly states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [5]

there it is that right shall not be infringed PERIOD. end of story. shall not be infringed. therefore all gun regulations infringe on this right ALL OF THEM. basic reading skills can allow one to reach this conclusion.

if you dont like the amendment seek for a new one that scratches this one out. the fact we have has many gun regulations in place ins alarming. google what the founders thought on gun laws the lump sum and i agree is only a tyrant wants gun regulation you cant enslave an armed people its simply not possible.

personally i like guns. i want to keep my guns. theres no reason a free man(even a felon that got out of jail is now a free man) cannot own guns.

all other arguements are void until the 2nd amendment is repealed. and anybody supporting that i question their sanity.