To be fair, in this regard America is VERY different from Europe. The fact that our gun history is very different from theirs is not exceptionalism.This is beginning to sound like American exceptionalism. Things might work in other countries but this is America damnit!We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms.You have a degree of these things, but not as much as America does.We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well.People in Britain, France, and Germany hunt, protect livestock, and shoot for sport, too. That doesn't necessary make them gun cultures, beccause they aren't as glorified as they are here.We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta.Many over in Europe have.We have had shootings in schools.That happens in Europe, too.The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.That works for Canada to a degree. We are not Canada.
Honestly, America isn't that different from anyone else, you take away the easy access to firearms and gun crimes will slowly drop.
You CAN'T take away the easy access, even if you totally ban all guns. A ton of people won't turn them in because of our common belief in the idea that we should be allowed to have them, and a ton of those guns won't be found because we don't keep careful track. We also have a ton of illegal guns as it is that a ban will do nothing about.
I'm not saying that gun control will stop gun violence, what I'm saying is that it might stop these extreme shooting sprees.
I severely doubt it, because no matter how tightly you control guns in this country there will be very easy access do to the fact that we have a massive supply of them, and a huge portion of the legal supply and almost all of the illegal supply will remain available even if made illegal. As I said before, a ton of Americans would feel justified in not turning in their guns when ordered and would get away with it, resulting in a black market that is saturated and accessable.
So, instead of doling out more guns, wouldn't it be better to try and become more like Canada? It seems like they have fewer problems, how is that not something to strive for?I'm fine becoming more economically and culturally similar to Canada. I quite like Canada. I just doubt that in our specific case severe restrictions on firearms will work, because we have circumstances Canada doesn't, which requires a different approach.
Yes, you have a lot of people who cling to old legislation, which gets misrepresented and is clearly outdated. And in spite of it being very clear that some people can't handle that responsibility, they are still not willing to concede any points. That IS a problem.
It's not, however, an unsolvable one. And still, no one is talking about a total weapons ban.What approach would you suggest then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, instead of doling out more guns, wouldn't it be better to try and become more like Canada? It seems like they have fewer problems, how is that not something to strive for?I'm fine becoming more economically and culturally similar to Canada. I quite like Canada. I just doubt that in our specific case severe restrictions on firearms will work, because we have circumstances Canada doesn't, which requires a different approach.Yes, you have a lot of people who cling to old legislation, which gets misrepresented and clearly is outdated. And in spite of it being very clear that some people can't handle that responsibility, they are still not willing to concede any points. That IS a problem.
It's not, however, an unsolvable one. And still, no one is talking about a total weapons ban.
What approach would you suggest then?
First off, if you get caught not practicing proper firearm safety, police should be allowed to confiscate the weapon even if legally owned if they feel that a ticket would not be effective punishment. Secondly, if you do not practice proper firearm safety and somebody gets hurt, there should be felony criminal liability. Third off, if you do not properly lock up your firearm and your child or somebody else not allowed to legally own a firearms gets ahold of it and shoots something up, there should be felony criminal liability on your part. Essentially, people who did not act in a safe and responsible manner would be held accountable for their failure to do so. In many areas of the nation this is already the case, but not as often or as universally as it should be. A gun is a tremendous responsibility, and people who do not act safely with them should be dealt with strictly and consistently.
Secondly, when you have a background check to get a gun, your mental health history should be able to be checked.
Third, get the mental health field a ton of federal funding (maybe by taking the money away from that bloody drug war) and work to treat mental illness more seriously. Also, recognize that mental healthcare does NOT just mean dealing with mental illness. It also means dealing with issues like anger management, depression, and impulse control that do not mean one is mentally ill but that can lead to violent crime or suicide. Ideally, most people recieving this federally funded mental healthcare wouldn't have mental illnesses.
Fourth, do the same to Child Protective Services and related organizations so that there can be more supervision of at risk families and educational resources for substandard parents who are actually trying to get better.
Fifth, tell schools that if they do not crack down on bullying offenses, they will lose funding. This sort of behavior needs to be jumped on early before it develops.
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons
Are you sure? All I can find online is a restriction on magazine size (5 rounds) but I don't see anything placing all semi-automatic rifles on the prohibited or restricted list.
First off, if you get caught not practicing proper firearm safety, police should be allowed to confiscate the weapon even if legally owned if they feel that a ticket would not be effective punishment. Secondly, if you do not practice proper firearm safety and somebody gets hurt, there should be felony criminal liability. Third off, if you do not properly lock up your firearm and your child or somebody else not allowed to legally own a firearms gets ahold of it and shoots something up, there should be felony criminal liability on your part. Essentially, people who did not act in a safe and responsible manner would be held accountable for their failure to do so. In many areas of the nation this is already the case, but not as often or as universally as it should be. A gun is a tremendous responsibility, and people who do not act safely with them should be dealt with strictly and consistently.
What then happens if the shooter is the rightful owner of the gun(s) and either commits suicide during the act or is shot to death by the police?
Or, as is the case here, if the owner is shot by the shooter?What about stolen weapons?
Secondly, when you have a background check to get a gun, your mental health history should be able to be checked.
How would you enforce this? What about gun shows? Sales between private persons?
Third, get the mental health field a ton of federal funding (maybe by taking the money away from that bloody drug war) and work to treat mental illness more seriously. Also, recognize that mental healthcare does NOT just mean dealing with mental illness. It also means dealing with issues like anger management, depression, and impulse control that do not mean one is mentally ill but that can lead to violent crime or suicide. Ideally, most people recieving this federally funded mental healthcare wouldn't have mental illnesses.
This is needed, no matter what else is done.
Fourth, do the same to Child Protective Services and related organizations so that there can be more supervision of at risk families and educational resources for substandard parents who are actually trying to get better.
The question is whether this is enough? Many of the problems are due to poverty and income disparity, something like this wouldn't really address those issues.
Fifth, tell schools that if they do not crack down on bullying offenses, they will lose funding. This sort of behavior needs to be jumped on early before it develops.
It's sad that schools need economic incentives to do that. Some schools might also be struggling already and might not have the resources to crack properly down on it, so they'll just lose more funding.
I had a friend who had crooks break into his house and these crooks were known killers. My friend was in his basement when they broke in his house. My friend had a gun in the basement and shot bullets into his ceiling to scare them off and they ran away. They later on ended up getting shot and killed by trying to break into another man's house but they failed. The owners of the house of the other break in were not charged as his shots were justified in self defense. These guys had records of murder and justice was served by the firearm.
|
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weaponsAre you sure? All I can find online is a restriction on magazine size (5 rounds) but I don't see anything placing all semi-automatic rifles on the prohibited or restricted list.
Semi-automatics that look like m-16s are on the restricted list (legal to own, legal to fire at the range, not legal to hunt with). Some others based on barrel length are restricted / prohibited (no sawed offs). Other semi automatics are legal to hunt with.
Gun ownership outside of hand guns and fully automatic weapons is fairly liberal. To get your possession licence you have to pass a criminal record check, a 28 day waiting period and a safety course (unload, reload, safety precaution, how to climb over a fence, get into a boat) and that's it. Renew your licence every 5 years like a driver's licence.
You can join the cadets at 12 or so and the government will pay to take you to a range and teach you how to shoot and about gun safety. I learned on a bolt action Lee Enfield (bored down to .22) that was almost taller than I was (heh, well not really, but it seemed huge at the time).
One big big caveat - a common bail / probation condition is no firearms - so if you start getting arrested or get nabbed under one of the mental health acts, you won't get to play with firearms any more for a while.
First off, if you get caught not practicing proper firearm safety, police should be allowed to confiscate the weapon even if legally owned if they feel that a ticket would not be effective punishment. Secondly, if you do not practice proper firearm safety and somebody gets hurt, there should be felony criminal liability. Third off, if you do not properly lock up your firearm and your child or somebody else not allowed to legally own a firearms gets ahold of it and shoots something up, there should be felony criminal liability on your part. Essentially, people who did not act in a safe and responsible manner would be held accountable for their failure to do so. In many areas of the nation this is already the case, but not as often or as universally as it should be. A gun is a tremendous responsibility, and people who do not act safely with them should be dealt with strictly and consistently.What then happens if the shooter is the rightful owner of the gun(s) and either commits suicide during the act or is shot to death by the police?
The liability would be on the owner, who is now dead, having paid for their actions with their life.
Or, as is the case here, if the owner is shot by the shooter?
If the owner did not commit any safety violations, all the liability would be on the shooter. If the owner did commit violations, they would be liable for those violations if they lived.
What about stolen weapons?
If it wasn't stolen through negligence, there should be no liability. If it was, there should be liability.
Secondly, when you have a background check to get a gun, your mental health history should be able to be checked.
How would you enforce this?
By requiring a police interview during the initial background check process (By this, I mean the first background check you ever do to buy a gun.), and checking for registered guns when a mental diagnosis is made. If the interview leads to the cops suspecting something, they would be able to ask a judge for a court order to see medical records.
What about gun shows? Sales between private persons?
I'm not sure about allowing purchases at a gun show. Too hard to do a proper background check. For private sales, I'd say pay a commission to a gun store to use them as a third party to do the sale.
Third, get the mental health field a ton of federal funding (maybe by taking the money away from that bloody drug war) and work to treat mental illness more seriously. Also, recognize that mental healthcare does NOT just mean dealing with mental illness. It also means dealing with issues like anger management, depression, and impulse control that do not mean one is mentally ill but that can lead to violent crime or suicide. Ideally, most people recieving this federally funded mental healthcare wouldn't have mental illnesses.
This is needed, no matter what else is done.
Fourth, do the same to Child Protective Services and related organizations so that there can be more supervision of at risk families and educational resources for substandard parents who are actually trying to get better.The question is whether this is enough? Many of the problems are due to poverty and income disparity, something like this wouldn't really address those issues.
It may not be enough, but it would be a damn sight better than what we have right now. Broken homes aren't the biggest cause of violent crime, but they contribute somewhat to the bullying issue mentioned below.
Fifth, tell schools that if they do not crack down on bullying offenses, they will lose funding. This sort of behavior needs to be jumped on early before it develops.It's sad that schools need economic incentives to do that. Some schools might also be struggling already and might not have the resources to crack properly down on it, so they'll just lose more funding.
Perhaps we could offer them some extra funds if they need help with this, on the condition that if they don't use them properly they will go away. The funds would come from, you guessed it, the War on Drugs. Without it, we could fund a ton of nice programs like the ones I'm talking about here.
As far as I know you need to fill out more paperwork and update more records for a private sale of an automobile or real estate then for a gun.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
As far as I know you need to fill out more paperwork and update more records for a private sale of an automobile or real estate then for a gun.
That's more to do with the value of the item though, really. I mean, a $300 gun doesn't come with a title that needs to be transferred.
You've sold me on it, I'm anti-car title now.
I'm not contending the existence or non-existance of such gun battles. I'm contending the implication that if where you live is crappy you can just move.
I'm not saying that's easy to do. I'm saying that if you live somewhere where the crime rate is so high and the security of your neighborhood so low that you are at risk of multiple home invasions involving more than one armed attacker unfazed by the idea of being confronted with a firearm, moving is something that you should give serious thought to. I was asked if someone in that situation should move. I think the answer is probably, "Yes."
I know that if I were in that situation, I would do everything in my power to find somewhere else to live.
There still seems to be some resistance here to the idea that we should be having a discussion on gun control right now; the reasoning is that we haven't let an appropriate amount of time pass since the tragedy, and to start talking about potential solutions to the problem before that time has passed is disrespectful to the victims and their families.
I disagree, and so does Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the U.S. Representative shot last year in another mass shooting event. Here's what Commander Kelly had to say earlier today:
I just woke up in my hotel room in Beijing, China to learn that another mass shooting had taken place - this time at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims and the entire community of Newtown, CT. I just spoke to Gabby, and she sends her prayers from Tucson.
As we mourn, we must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right. This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait.
This is the family of a mass shooting victim telling everyone: "This cannot wait."
So...liberals are sleaze because all liberals make judgments based on stereotypes?
How do people that say things like this survive the cognitive dissonance? :P
Yes, that is why the Swiss are drowning in blood. Yes, I know the policy on keeping military weapons at home changed, but it was in effect for a long time, and there wasn't that much violence during that time.
National Service perhaps, you know, the well regulated militia part?
As far as I know you need to fill out more paperwork and update more records for a private sale of an automobile or real estate then for a gun.That's more to do with the value of the item though, really. I mean, a $300 gun doesn't come with a title that needs to be transferred.
As the $200 car case shows, it has nothing to do with relative value and everything to do with car sales being regulated and guns not.
Admittedly it's dependent on jurisdiction.
And that jurisdictional aspect of it is a huge sticking point. You're never more secure than the least secure place within range.
It's probably not you that we are worried about, but rather some clown who takes the instruments of your legit hobby and puts them to some very evil ends.
So why will I be punished?
I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, honorably-discharged-from-military-service father of two with no criminal record (AT ALL) and no history whatsoever of mental illness, by what right do you tell me that I cannot be trusted?
I own some guns, that I and my son enjoy shooting (it's a bonding thing...). We've never turned our weapons on anything more menacing than a paper zombie, and neither of us have ever broken a law (not even a speeding ticket, man...).
So why am I a dangerous lunatic? If you people get your way, I will lose a right that I have never abused, never once even thought of turning against my fellow man, and have never given anyone at all any justifiable reason to fear. (I've never even hunted an animal with a firearm, and probably never will...in short, I've never spilled blood of any kind with a gun, even in the military.)
I deserve to know why I am unceremoniously lumped in with criminals and lunatics. This is supposed to be America, where I am innocent until proven guilty. I want to know what evidence that you, personally, have obtained against me, personally, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I am a murderer?
I would suggest that you hang the mantle of martyrdom on the shoulders of the giant strawman you just put up and put both of them back in the closet.
|
What if you don't have the resources to move?Then you have a problem on your hands. But let's not act like a high crime rate isn't a valid justification for moving. It's one of the primary factors considered when families are deciding where to move to.
they called that white flight and labeled it racist....
I just wanted a civil explanation of my guilt...
Come up with a serious question and you'll get a serious answer.
|
|
you might get better results by wiping out the first amendment, set up a state church and control all info thus changing the culture. then since we already have the gov interfering in health care we can just make the unstable elements go away after they fail the mandatory tests and because the official morality is not to question we can have a safe, controlled society.
I mean no harm in taking freedoms and all.
What exactly are the sensible gun regulations that people are talking about?
A 14 day waiting period?
A state and federal background check?
A gun safety course before owning a handgun?
An assault weapons ban that specifically lists more than 35 semiautomatic and automatic weapons?
The state of Connecticut has all of these and has in fact some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
The fact is this horrible tragedy happened anyway.
So what do we lack in this country that could make a real difference?
Access to affordable medical and psychiatric care would be a good start
I just wanted a civil explanation of my guilt...
No one accused you of guilt. There are lots of things that you, personally, can be trusted with. That doesn't mean that everyone can. What it means is that, properly enacted and enforced laws can allow people like you to continue doing what you're doing while working on preventing firearms from being used by those who shouldn't have them.
Nothing is going to be perfect. There should be some firearms that are just not appropriate for civilians to have (40mm automatic grenade launchers, rocket launchers, 30mm chain guns, etc) no matter how responsible they are. There isn't any need for them. No hunting/sporting/home defense reason.
I can assure you that not all liberals want to take away your guns. This liberal doesn't. I'm a veteran who served in the infantry during Desert Storm. I am well trained in several different systems, not all are US made weapons. I haven't gone to a range in 20 years and would like to go again but I just don't get around to it. I have no desire to own a weapon. I know what they can do and what I can do with it. I don't want to deal with that. There's nothing in my home worth losing my life over. I don't have any family to protect. My most expensive items can be replaced because of renters insurance. For myself, I have no need for a weapon. I do see that others do enjoy them and want to use them. I do see that some people need them. I want to ensure that there is a higher level of responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
So to make it clear, I don't want to take away guns and I don't want to add guns. I don't want to change any gun control laws yet. I want us to enforce the ones we have first. Figure out which ones work and which ones don't. Then we can make appropriate changes.
I also really think that our mental health system needs a lot of work.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Elbe-el,
Please point to one poster in this thread who is advocating confiscating existing guns from their owner, absent some mitigating circumstacne such as a diagnosis of mental illness or criminal conviction. Just one. No one on this thread is suggesting that except people who oppose such a non-existant provision and are willing to shout about how much they oppose it even though it doesn't exist.
Until you can show that someone is proposing to "send armed, uniformed men into my home to confiscate my personal property" why should we do anything to argue against it? If you bother to argue against the actual arguments of people in this thread, you'll find them far more willing to engage than if you misrepresent their position to strawman it to death.
^^^^
What he said.
|
|
I just wanted a civil explanation of my guilt...No one accused you of guilt. There are lots of things that you, personally, can be trusted with. That doesn't mean that everyone can. What it means is that, properly enacted and enforced laws can allow people like you to continue doing what you're doing while working on preventing firearms from being used by those who shouldn't have them.
Nothing is going to be perfect. There should be some firearms that are just not appropriate for civilians to have (40mm automatic grenade launchers, rocket launchers, 30mm chain guns, etc) no matter how responsible they are. There isn't any need for them. No hunting/sporting/home defense reason.
I can assure you that not all liberals want to take away your guns. This liberal doesn't. I'm a veteran who served in the infantry during Desert Storm. I am well trained in several different systems, not all are US made weapons. I haven't gone to a range in 20 years and would like to go again but I just don't get around to it. I have no desire to own a weapon. I know what they can do and what I can do with it. I don't want to deal with that. There's nothing in my home worth losing my life over. I don't have any family to protect. My most expensive items can be replaced because of renters insurance. For myself, I have no need for a weapon. I do see that others do enjoy them and want to use them. I do see that some people need them. I want to ensure that there is a higher level of responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
So to make it clear, I don't want to take away guns and I don't want to add guns. I don't want to change any gun control laws yet. I want us to enforce the ones we have first. Figure out which ones work and which ones don't. Then we can make appropriate changes.
I also really think that our mental health system needs a lot of work.
But who makes the decision? Who decides who should and should and shouldn't have them. What gives them the right to decide for others who don't trust them with the right to govern others in the first place? You talk of a few making decisions for the many. That's why there is a problem in the first place.
|
|
I'm not saying that gun control will stop gun violence, what I'm saying is that it might stop these extreme shooting sprees.I severely doubt it, because no matter how tightly you control guns in this country there will be very easy access do to the fact that we have a massive supply of them, and a huge portion of the legal supply and almost all of the illegal supply will remain available even if made illegal. As I said before, a ton of Americans would feel justified in not turning in their guns when ordered and would get away with it, resulting in a black market that is saturated and accessable.
Kelsey, you have a vague idea of how many guns were available in Italy at the end of WWII?
We had 3 years of civil war, looting of the army depots when the Meussolini government fell, weapons air drops for the partisans, Fascist soldiers deserting at the end of the war with their weapons, the NATO giving weapons to the Stay behind groups.The last campaign of: "Give the war weapons to the police, there will be no repercussion" was when I was in the primary school, in 1968 or 69.
In my little village someone dropped a Vickers MG and a few BRENs plus other assorted weapons in a cave and make a anonymous call to the police to avoid any trouble.
It not a question of how many weapons are available, but of the willingness to turn them in and limit their accessibility.
If you never start limiting them you never get to remove most of them.
In Italy there are stills criminals that kill people with firearms (too many of them), people that kill friends or family and firearms accidents but killing sprees of this kind are extremely rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY times which said In Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting which resulted in political courage to impose some restrictions on gun ownership, mostly automatic weapons etc. there was a buy back scheme so they could be handed in. It reduced the number of guns by 20% ( so 80% still out there) but it restricted the type of guns. In the 18 years prior we had 13 mass killings but none in the 14 years since. In addition firearm murder rate down 50% and firearm suicide down 40%.
Worth a try?
So why will I be punished?
I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, honorably-discharged-from-military-service father of two with no criminal record (AT ALL) and no history whatsoever of mental illness, by what right do you tell me that I cannot be trusted?
I own some guns, that I and my son enjoy shooting (it's a bonding thing...). We've never turned our weapons on anything more menacing than a paper zombie, and neither of us have ever broken a law (not even a speeding ticket, man...).
So why am I a dangerous lunatic? If you people get your way, I will lose a right that I have never abused, never once even thought of turning against my fellow man, and have never given anyone at all any justifiable reason to fear. (I've never even hunted an animal with a firearm, and probably never will...in short, I've never spilled blood of any kind with a gun, even in the military.)
I deserve to know why I am unceremoniously lumped in with criminals and lunatics. This is supposed to be America, where I am innocent until proven guilty. I want to know what evidence that you, personally, have obtained against me, personally, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I am a murderer?
Suppose your son (or you) develops a mental illness? Would you accept the situation has changed and that guns in your home have just become more threatening to the world around you? Would you accept that the public may have a compelling reason to be wary of your guns then?
Yes, that is why the Swiss are drowning in blood. Yes, I know the policy on keeping military weapons at home changed, but it was in effect for a long time, and there wasn't that much violence during that time.National Service perhaps, you know, the well regulated militia part?
Which proves the point that you can give everyone and their mom a gun and not have it get out of control. After all, pretty much every man not physically disabled got drafted, so some very unsavory people were being given these weapons.
|
|
I just read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY times which said In Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting which resulted in political courage to impose some restrictions on gun ownership, mostly automatic weapons etc. there was a buy back scheme so they could be handed in. It reduced the number of guns by 20% ( so 80% still out there) but it restricted the type of guns. In the 18 years prior we had 13 mass killings but none in the 14 years since. In addition firearm murder rate down 50% and firearm suicide down 40%.
Worth a try?
WOuld you support making it extremely difficult to get a car to cut down one of the biggest causes of injury and death in america? Banning dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods?