US Gun Laws Not To Blame

[Blackmarch]

sorry i missed this

There are many many studies that directly correlate violent crime to the situation that a child is born and raised into. ...

and theres the cause or prime causal situation... everything ties into that, and everything affects that; Laws, education, enforcement, culture, etc... Everything i've said ties into this.

.... 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.

the problem here its being used as a direct cause or prime cause, which it isn't until theres overcrowding for available resources. Is there a direct correlation? yes there probably is.

is this the correct correlation? probably not.

I've also seen a study that shows that a mjority of criminals eat bread... one could conclude from it that if you eat bread you are likely to become a criminal. Is there a direct correlation? You bet, but was it intrepreted correctly or correlated in the right direction?

Read or watch Freakanomics Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics

I just got a trailer from that.. not much info there. And the vid is not on hulu.

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...

I do too. just a couple differences here, people aren't born with guns. All the things that we've had as laws or that we've tried getting as laws that would help regulate birth control are either done away with or hotly contested because- it's claimed to be religious, invasion of privacy, or that it takes away from ones freedom to pursue happiness, or it binds the freedom of speech.

Which pretty much leaves abortion and sex ed as the only legal governmental enforcable birth control... if you want to be somewhat ethical about governmental imposed birth control.

(I'd like to note there is no required gun education like there is sex education)

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.

what youre trying to point to solely is responsibility.. and to that end I agree responsibility is a big part.

however lets use this logic; "that people kill people not guns,..." for a moment-

Guns are weapons and merely an instrument, so its only the person at fault correct?

We could say the same about knives correct?

swords?

spears?

Bows and arrows?

Compound Bows?

Crossbows?

FLintlock Rifles?

Pistols?

Rifles?

Automatic Rifles?

grenade launchers?

Rocket Launchers?

Artillery?

Missiles?

Bombs?

Nukes?

Unless i'm missing some inherent vitally different attribute, you can replace gun in that logic with any of these...

Sooooo, lets reduce Nuke control, after all its the person that kills and not the nuke. - no problem there right?

In the military, tech and technique properly trained with and used is sometimes termed as a force multiplier. which basically means doing more with less - the better your tech and training you have available the more you can do with less. ANd thats all guns really are, is a form of force multiplier. Gun control mainly focuses on reducing the force multiplier, and a majority of my comments have been focused on that side of the equation.

You've focused more on the responsibility, and a little on the social sides which are equally important.

(perhaps later on this thread, or some other, I'll debate on why there should be more control on violent media or some other part of the equation)

my apologies again for missing your reply.

also i'd like to clarify for everyone; when I say Gun control, i mean regulation and etc.. I don't mean gun abolition.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Blackmarch

[spartanhero]

I have mixed opinion about gun restrictions because when there is a shooting or some type of gun violence on the news you hardly hear that the perp had his gun licensed. i think the laws make it harder for people to own guns but doesnt change the fact that anyone can get a gun off the street. I remember when i lived in Detroit as a kid in middle school and a older boy attempted to sell me a gun. guns are everywere and more laws making it harder for someone to buy a gun LEGALLY is not going to the change that fact.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Exactly. It's not like a gun law regulating the purchasing/licensing of firearms will suddenly make the criminal gun environment fall apart. The regulations and laws ought to focus on the consequences of using a gun illegally, or said another way, for criminal intent.

The effort should not be on making the legal process tougher, but it should be on making the consequences of gun related crimes more foreboding. If your goal is to curb illegal gun use, attack those using guns illegally.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

your right felons dont deserve equal rights....EXfelons however...notice the key word EX as in no longer a felon. as in out of jail. ya....just saying

You're beating a dead horse. This argument is already settled by virtue of the fact that no politician will ever run on the platform of given guns to ex-cons. There is no support for this idea in any political circle.

you know what? you should shed a tear? you should feel bad they hurt someone. you should feel bad they chose to ruin their lives. you should weep that those souls are lost. if you dont i'd suggest reevaluating a few things about yourself. me im saddened to know people ruined their lives like this. wheres it say in the bible the Lord took no pleasure in casting out Satan and weeps for him? ya if our maker can weep for the Devil being damned for all eternity i think we can all feel a little compassion for a sex offender that just screw themselves and others over.

Here's a lesson in inter-faith conversational etiquette. Never try to make your point using a foundation not shared by the person you're talking to. I'm Catholic, not Mormon. I don't believe Christ wept at the casting out of Satan, nor do I believe they were siblings, nor do I believe Christ was created, etc etc. This is a straw argument to those who don't share those beliefs.

i am against murders being set free personally but sometimes they get a life sentence sometimes they dont only stating if they are let free they paid their dues.

They didn't pay their debt to society, they incurred one. For murdering someone they were rewarded free housing, food, clothing, and health care for a number of years. Even so, they don't get to have a gun just because our system is soft.

perhaps you should study americas constitution and its founding. its a shock to the uninformed but its very much christian in nature. the document itsself holds a religious undertone and fully reconizes God is real. the only thing it never outright does is say they are reconizing Christ but its clear if one takes the time to understand it its christian in nature. besides this you never say the government would be worse off if it was run like Christ which was my point.

I have studied America's founding in depth. The founders endeavored vigorously to keep religious law out of government. Perhaps if you knew Mormon history a little better, you might understand how Congress used religious law against the followers of Joseph Smith. This is precisely what the founders were attempting to prevent.

and you still didnt even address the whole they cant defend themselves or their family comment? convient oversight or perhaps you realize you put innocents at risk but cant back off your position now can you?

I have news for you. People were able to defend their homes and families long before the advent of firearms. A good baseball bat or pipe is often an even better home defense tool than a gun.

youve still failed to address why a man out of jail should be an outcast from society. why a man out of jail shouldnt be able to defend himself or his/her family.

Actually, I addressed this succintly. That you don't agree doesn't mean I didn't define my position.

if your a free man why be denied your rights? your not in jail? so what are you a free man or not? pick one theres no hybrid your either free or not. your not partly free the wording is illogical but yet it seems thats what they are only partly free which makes no sense at all given what the word free means.

Free means not incarcerated. How's that for simple?

it seems like you overlooked a lot of my post on freedom and repentance. please if your going to argue back reply to most of what i say not bits and pieces and then claim to have a counter point. im sure i do this sometimes but im human i screw up but seems like you overlooked ALOT.

I can discuss religion with the best of them, but religion has no place in public policy and so the paradigm of repentence, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion for me. Perhaps that's why we keep missing each other.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1

[kayne]

You're beating a dead horse. This argument is already settled by virtue of the fact that no politician will ever run on the platform of given guns to ex-cons. There is no support for this idea in any political circle.

so because no politician will run on the idea its settled? thats horrible logic. horrible horrible logic. nobody has run on the idea of freedom before the 1770's(ok maybe not nobody but still it was a radical idea)

They didn't pay their debt to society, they incurred one. For murdering someone they were rewarded free housing, food, clothing, and health care for a number of years. Even so, they don't get to have a gun just because our system is soft.

so what do you call prison? fun time? prison is paying debt for a crime. thats what it is. i dont know of another way of putting it. you did something wrong your being punished and paying for it. you do X years your freed why? because you paid your time.

Free means not incarcerated. How's that for simple?

LOL no. slaves werent incarcerated. tyrannts dont incarcerate all their citizens. in both cases neither one is in jail but neither one is free either. free isnt quite as simple as you put it or at the very least you dont offer a great definition of free. other examples. hitler the aryan race werent imprisoned but didnt make them free. stalin didnt imprison everyone yet they werent free. the media wasnt free. the right to gun ownership wasnt free. right to religion was laughable. again not in jail but not free.

I can discuss religion with the best of them, but religion has no place in public policy and so the paradigm of repentence, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion for me. Perhaps that's why we keep missing each other.

im not declaring a national religion here. just stating the hypothetical imagine is it was run like Christ. but i guess you keep missing that what if scenario i pitched. and theres nothing wrong with adopting the ideas of it. heck the 10 commandments are very much in the basis of society. not murdering or stealing. our money has In God we trust on it. the declaration of indepedence mentions our creator...to say the notion of God has no place in government is absurd. its always been there just never declared an official religion and i agree there should not be an official religion.

Here's a lesson in inter-faith conversational etiquette. Never try to make your point using a foundation not shared by the person you're talking to. I'm Catholic, not Mormon. I don't believe Christ wept at the casting out of Satan, nor do I believe they were siblings, nor do I believe Christ was created, etc etc. This is a straw argument to those who don't share those beliefs.

hmm well i cant find it off the top of my head. but i swore in the bible it said God weeped over Satan but i think i may not of been mixing books. i was referring to isiah 14. but i guess i was mixing it with some of the mormon books too. my apologies. that said you should feel remorse that people have ruined their lives. that notion itsself is Christ like. he feels remorse for our sins so surely you can feel some remorse for others that have ruined their lives after all the idea is to emulate him as much as possible. on a side note to this i am curious if you dont believe Satan is his brother or Christ was created By The Father...then what do you believe about those 2? no bearing on this arguement and is off topic yes but i am curious?

I have studied America's founding in depth. The founders endeavored vigorously to keep religious law out of government. Perhaps if you knew Mormon history a little better, you might understand how Congress used religious law against the followers of Joseph Smith. This is precisely what the founders were attempting to prevent.

what happened was wrong and was a clear violation of the 1st amendment. i dont know what law they used or how they came up with the mormon witch hunt but it was wrong. but that said the nation is founded on the principle of God. it always was and always has been. heck as i said the declaration of indepdence which mentions rights endowed by our creator gives a pretty big hint God played some role in their beleif system. you cant tell me it didnt at all influence them anymore than you can tell me your religion doesnt influence your day to day decisions nor does mine influence my day to day decisions.

it shapes you and becomes a part of you. exceptions of course are if you go and dont believe in it. and lets not forget moses and the 10 commandments is in the supreme court house if i recall. so ya know america does in fact have a founding rooted in God. also one other note from the father of the constitution Quotes by Presidents Madison,(EDIT: it seems it linked wrong click on james madison then read the first paragraph) . notice fun ishiah quote? seems to me if the father of the constitution quotes the bible as inspiration well that makes the constitution christian in nature at least to some degree.

you also still failed to address this:

but they arent just denied guns are they? and why is it they fall back into crime? oh yes they can never full reintegrate into society because they as i said cant buy guns,cant vote,cant find a job and constantly marked with FELON on their forhead. and you still didnt even address the whole they cant defend themselves or their family comment? convient oversight or perhaps you realize you put innocents at risk but cant back off your position now can you?

youve still failed to address why a man out of jail should be an outcast from society. why a man out of jail shouldnt be able to defend himself or his/her family. and youve still failed to address if your truely repentant why you shouldnt be allowed full integration back into society after youve paid your dues. yet at the same time you ironically point out people out of jail are more likely to recommit crimes and ive very much given a reason for this and yet youve offered no plausible solution other than keep saddling them down. like you ironically pointed out lets ban hospitals(a joke i know funny i admit lol) which is the same concept as banning someone from owning a gun. it neither helps anyone nor stops the crime. people would still die irregardless. in fact gun free cities get more crime because of this.

Edited May 22, 2011 by kayne