|
With the exception of the "mass shooting" type. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to the issue of gun control, but this is becoming pretty ridiculous.Just as an FYI and an aside, recorded crime of pretty much every type peaked in the 1970's and 1980's.
Yes and no.
It is way up, thanks I think to the glorification, but here are the numbers for mass shootings in US I could find. Frankly, anything before 1970 is completely suspect and I have my doubts about pre 1980's data collection, but let's just assume these numbers are correct.
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s: 14 so far, so on pace for about 40, putting us at about 1990's levels.
But when you adjust for population...2000's were actually lower than any time since the 1970's, when crime on the whole was much, much worse.
You have to remember that we live in a 24 hour news cycle. This stuff has happened before.
Not to say we shouldn't address it. But let's not jump to "unprecedented"
|
|
Ciretose, while we are at a low point in overall crime, there have been some recent upticks, both in overall crime but more importantly in violet crime. I think violent crime had dropped to an historic low a few years ago before ticking back up a bit. But even so we still have a lot less crime than we used to.
Having said that, there are still some very, very dangerous places to be in the USA. And I don't begrudge the desire of people to protect themselves when they can't count on the police to come, in time or in some cases at all, even if they call 911.
As I've said multiple times on this thread I have very mixed feelings about gun ownership vs gun control. I think it's a difficult issue to address in any way that truly does balance the rights and responsibilities of all sides.
I find it very difficult to argue for blanket gun ownership with no licensing or controls because I know too many totally irresponsible idiots who already have guns. On the other hand, I think owning a gun for self-protection by a responsible and mature individual is, and should be, a constitutionally protected right.
The trick with that is that we seem to have no way to distinguish between "responsible and mature individuals" and "irresponsible idiots. All we currently have is age limits and "hasn't been convicted of a serious crime or involuntarily committed". And we don't even check on that as carefully as we could.
Well...we've chosen not to put restrictions in beyond keeping them away from convicted felons.
The fear of licensing means we can't restrict who gets access. It is so absurd that there is a building in West Virginia that keeps paper copies of all gun purchases because, by law, they can't be put in a data base.
So when police need to find out who purchased the gun they found at a crime scene, it has to me looked up manually.
Lest there be a database of gun owners. The same ones who post pictures of their guns on facebook...
So when police need to find out who purchased the gun they found at a crime scene, it has to me looked up manually.Lest there be a database of gun owners. The same ones who post pictures of their guns on facebook...
I don't really disagree with your point here ciretose, but a few points worth considering:
1. It's really not all that difficult to look things up manually if you have any sort of decent filing system. People did it for, oh, thousands of years before the dawn of the computer age. They got pretty good at it, and we haven't forgotten how they did it. Yet.
2. I know several people who are very similar to me and have the same sorts of guns and treat them very similarly. None of them have ever posted a photo of their gun or guns on facebook.
Is it your intent to suggest that the gun owners who object to a national database are the same ones who post photos of their guns on facebook? Because if so I think you have made an erroneous assumption here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't say this if you'd ever been eye to eye with one of these beasts. Have you seen the tusks?
Yup.
I've d'awwwed at a lot of things that wanted to eat me. We worked it out.
You ate them, didn't you?
|
|
So when police need to find out who purchased the gun they found at a crime scene, it has to me looked up manually.Lest there be a database of gun owners. The same ones who post pictures of their guns on facebook...
I don't really disagree with your point here ciretose, but a few points worth considering:
1. It's really not all that difficult to look things up manually if you have any sort of decent filing system. People did it for, oh, thousands of years before the dawn of the computer age. They got pretty good at it, and we haven't forgotten how they did it. Yet.
2. I know several people who are very similar to me and have the same sorts of guns and treat them very similarly. None of them have ever posted a photo of their gun or guns on facebook.
Is it your intent to suggest that the gun owners who object to a national database are the same ones who post photos of their guns on facebook? Because if so I think you have made an erroneous assumption here.
My intent is to point out gun ownership data is already out there, and all of these asinine and archaic restrictions prevent common sense stuff like creating a way to keep people who shoot out tires and report to police hearing voices from buying guns until cleared by a mental health professional.
Hell, the NRA has them in a database. I'm cynical, but I still trust the government more than Wayne LaPierre.
My intent is to point out gun ownership data is already out there, and all of these asinine and archaic restrictions prevent common sense stuff like creating a way to keep people who shoot out tires and report to police hearing voices from buying guns until cleared by a mental health professional.Hell, the NRA has them in a database. I'm cynical, but I still trust the government more than Wayne LaPierre.
I will grant this ciretose. In a country where my phone calls, credit card purchases, web surfing and car licenses are tracked and monitored by the government to the tiniest detail, it is a little silly to worry about my name being in a gun DB.
Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
WITH a gun registration and a database there's no mechanism to discern a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible one until its too late.
|
Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
No
NoWithout mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
Then you should just admit that you want people to have guns regardless of their previous convictions for crimes involving guns, that you have no regard whatsoever for the most rudimentary precautions in the name of public safety, and that guns are more important to you than people.
WITH a gun registration and a database there's no mechanism to discern a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible one until its too late.Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
You might be right, but I'm trying to suggest a compromise, a minimum agreeable standard. Having gun ownership tracked like cars, with mandatory registration, would at least let us trace a chain of custody for them from the manufacturer to private owners.
Then, when the question is raised "where did this convicted criminal get his gun" we would have an answer. It would at least be at parity in that regard to that oft-maligned lethal weapon the automobile.
WITH a gun registration and a database there's no mechanism to discern a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible one until its too late.Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
You might be right, but I'm trying to suggest a compromise, a minimum agreeable standard. Having gun ownership tracked like cars, with mandatory registration, would at least let us trace a chain of custody for them from the manufacturer to private owners.
Then, when the question is raised "where did this convicted criminal get his gun" we would have an answer. It would at least be at parity in that regard to that oft-maligned lethal weapon the automobile.
It would also prevent firearms from being legally transferred to people who should not have access to that firearm (mentally ill, unlicensed, felon on probation, etc.)
|
The utter moronic stupidity of not registering gun owners is truly striking. I mean, "Yes, let's sell all these lethal weapons with which anyone can kill with a minimum of training all around the country, untill the gun/citizen ratio is favoring the gun, and let's not implement any kind of safety procedure to know who owns the weapon used to kill X, because freedom". In this case, screw freedom. I wanna know that a nutjob in 23B owns a sig sauer.
|
|
WITH a gun registration and a database there's no mechanism to discern a responsible gun owner from an irresponsible one until its too late.Without mandatory gun registration and some sort of gun database, there is no mechanism to discern between responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones, let alone hold gun owners responsible for crimes done with their guns.
I think if we're going to be the gun nation, and want to preach freedom and personal responsibility, that should be the least we could agree on.
Yes and no.
If you went to most gun owners in a situation where you were just having a chat and said to them "We will take away the 5 day waiting period for you if you take this background check and get licensed" they would sign up for it, in the same way they get on the NRA mailing list.
On the other hand, if you say "We want to keep track of your guns on this database." not so much.
There should be a way to flag people who are clearly mentally ill or shooting out the tired of cars as needing additional clearance before purchase.
This is not to much to ask, anymore than asking someone to take a drivers test before getting on the highway is too much to ask.
I still love you, especially in the street where I am told that goblin affection is best expressed. :)When you hear from enough people who expect to use their personal arsenals to overthrow the government, you eventually realize that they're living in a fantasy world, are dangerously paranoid, or both. I take them at their word: they really believe this stuff.
Ok, keep on believing it. But people who really do believe this stuff clearly aren't in possession of the kind of judgment I'd want to see in anybody with a firearms permit.
:(
[Cries at Comrade Samnell's lack of faith in me]
[Blows Comrade Samnell a kiss and then peppers the rest of the thread with gunfire]
|
|
So a person with mental issues should be allowed to own a firearm after a while? Same goes to a person who shoots out tires of cars? Really?A person with mental issues can be treated.
The second one, well, most criminal punishments are for a period of time. Why should that one be any different?
Because he shot out the tires of some cars that were passing by. Or his car's tires. Obviously, he cannot be trusted to be responsible with a gun. Yeah. No gun for you, bad nutcase.
As for mental issues, i agree, but to a point. Not all mental issues can be treated successfully. Plus relapse.
Well is discharging a firearm in public considered a misdemeanor or a felony?
It depends on your jurisdiction. In some places it's neither. Several years ago, while I was still living in rural Louisiana, someone was shooting a gun in front of my yard to celebrate New Years. I called the sheriff and was told "There's no law against it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with ownership databases is what happened in California. They required registration of what they considered an assault weapon, then later banned them. And they happened to have a very convenient list of who they had to visit in order to confiscate them from. Now, this hangs over every attempt to create a registry of any kind.
On the contrary, California just recently (this year) passed legislation authorizing the seizure/confiscation of tens of thousands of illegally possessed firearms - guns that were purchased legally, but which the owner is no longer allowed to possess based on mental illness, criminal conviction, etc. This is what registration is supposed to do.
|
|
On the contrary, California just recently (this year) passed legislation authorizing the seizure/confiscation of tens of thousands of illegally possessed firearms - guns that were purchased legally, but which the owner is no longer allowed to possess based on mental illness, criminal conviction, etc. This is what registration is supposed to do.Actually, I was referring to something older, but, being unable to find it in a search, I am going to have to dismiss it as one of those false stories that often get out there.
Which is fine. And if California is taking guns away from the mentally ill and those with criminal convictions, the problem is?
|
California just recently (this year) passed legislation authorizing the seizure/confiscation of tens of thousands of illegally possessed firearms
If you are referring to SB - 755, the bill has been enrolled and passed on to the Governor, but he has yet to sign or veto ANY of the 14 gun-related bills that have hit his desk.
|
|
Part of the problem with ownership databases is what happened in California. They required registration of what they considered an assault weapon, then later banned them.
In 2000, "Assault Weapons" were banned in California, registering them with the California DOJ allowed individuals to keep those prohibited firearms after the ban...
California just recently (this year) passed legislation authorizing the seizure/confiscation of tens of thousands of illegally possessed firearmsIf you are referring to SB - 755, the bill has been enrolled and passed on to the Governor, but he has yet to sign or veto ANY of the 14 gun-related bills that have hit his desk.
Good catch. I should know this, what with living here and all. What seems to be Governor Brown's rationale for all the pocket vetoing (assuming that's what he's going for)?
|
|
Good catch. I should know this, what with living here and all. What seems to be Governor Brown's rationale for all the pocket vetoing (assuming that's what he's going for)?
I'm not sure, but going by his past record, Governor Brown tended not to sign many anti-gun legislation bills into law. And while I may be opposed to most of these gun-related bills sitting on the governor's desk right now, I personally think he does not want to sign or veto them for fear of looking like the "bad-guy" in this and will just let them sit and become law on their own by default...
Seems kind of silly to me (provided that's what he's doing), and I could be wrong, but that's my 2 coppers anyway.
|
I do not think violent offenders should have guns. of course I think most of them should be hung so that almost solves itself. mental health is a slippery slope from hell. best we really can do is remove repeat offenders and let the law abiding protect themselves. I do not believe our right to be armed makes us americans dangerous. I believe that so many of us BEING violent makes it necessary to have guns for our own defense
I do not think violent offenders should have guns. of course I think most of them should be hung so that almost solves itself. mental health is a slippery slope from hell.
No, it's not.
best we really can do is remove repeat offenders and let the law abiding protect themselves. I do not believe our right to be armed makes us americans dangerous.
The facts don't really care what you believe.
best we really can do is remove repeat offenders and let the law abiding protect themselves
This, objectively, is not working.
best we really can do is remove repeat offenders and let the law abiding protect themselvesThis, objectively, is not working.
Depends how you define "working". It's working to sell guns, which as the lobbying group representing gun manufacturers, is the NRA's primary concern.
