Reason for gun control

[Hawk in SEC Country]

As far as I can tell, the NRA isn't concerned about criminals getting guns. All they want is for everyone else to have them to counteract this. That seems like a pretty poor cure, IMO.

Not according to the Bureau of Justice and their study done in 2010. Handgun owner ship has skyrocketed in this county, and property crime is dropping as fast as ownership is growing.

Also....Washington DC in 1978 banned handguns which was thrown out in 2008 by the Supreme Court. During that time they experienced a violent gun crime rate of 56.9 per 100,000. During that same period, Arlington, Va who had more relaxed ownership laws, experienced a gun violence rate of 1.6 per 100,000.

In the UK home invasion robberies where the victims are at home at the time of the crime runs at 56% of all home robberies. In the US where laws are more relaxed, it's only 13%.

Kennesaw, Ga passed a law in 1982 that required citizens to have at least one gun in their residence at all times. Home burglaries in that city have dropped by 89%.


So yes.....even though I usually loathe the NRA, they have a very valid point backed up by verifiable crime statistics.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm interested in what your ideas are to prevent straw purchases. I see this mentioned a lot.

I don't have the answer, but maybe we could start by not calling them "straw purchases."

How about "gun running." Or "weapons laundering." Or something that doesn't sound as undangerous as straw.

I know, it probably derives from straw man argument, or something like that. But it simply sounds too innocent and peaceful for something that is not only patently duplicitous, but has to do with disseminating the machinery of violence.

Or, we could go the other way a call them "bunny rabbit transactions." I mean who would want to crack down on bunny rabbits? That would upset the children.

 

[Huey Grey]

?? Who's flooding the market?

I haven't a clue. All I know is over a million additional guns are pumped into the market each and every month. Not sure who is doing the flooding, but it's happening.

 

[FranklinHawk]

Gun Control is a very important thing to have, it's key to making sure you hit what you're shooting at!

 

[Huey Grey]

gun violence only accounts for approximately 10% of all violent crime.

1 out of every 10 instances of violence involves a gun? That's a fairly high number, IMO. That's like saying that 1 out every 10 deaths is due to smoking, but not worrying about cigarettes.

 

[Huey Grey]

Not according to the Bureau of Justice and their study done in 2010. Handgun owner ship has skyrocketed in this county, and property crime is dropping as fast as ownership is growing.

Also....Washington DC in 1978 banned handguns which was thrown out in 2008 by the Supreme Court. During that time they experienced a violent gun crime rate of 56.9 per 100,000. During that same period, Arlington, Va who had more relaxed ownership laws, experienced a gun violence rate of 1.6 per 100,000.

In the UK home invasion robberies where the victims are at home at the time of the crime runs at 56% of all home robberies. In the US where laws are more relaxed, it's only 13%.

Kennesaw, Ga passed a law in 1982 that required citizens to have at least one gun in their residence at all times. Home burglaries in that city have dropped by 89%.


So yes.....even though I usually loathe the NRA, they have a very valid point backed up by verifiable crime statistics.

You realize that there is very little evidence that guns prevent crime, right? Most experts attribute the drop in crime to abortion.

And I'm not sure a see the decrease in burglaries or any other crime in Kennesaw.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm interested in what your ideas are to prevent straw purchases. I see this mentioned a lot.

Registration which gives law enforcement an access to the people who have bought and sold the weapon.

Problem is police find a gun that was used to commit a crime, they know the person who did it isn't suppose to have it because he has a record, but there is really no way of determining who bought the gun for him. Keeping a record of who's bought the gun legally means you have some people you can go back to and investigate.

But from the gun lobby all we will hear is how registration is secretly a way that the guberment can track down and take all their guns later.

 

[markfromj]

Why are guns targeted instead of other preventable deaths that account for a greater number of deaths and greater economic impact compared to guns?

Examples of death causes that have not been targeted?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You realize that there is very little evidence that guns prevent crime, right? Most experts attribute the drop in crime to abortion.

And I'm not sure a see the decrease in burglaries or any other crime in Kennesaw.

If HROT Liberals count as experts then that would be true.

Unfortunately the real experts have discounted that hypothesis.

"The two wildest ideas are the introduction of legal abortion and the phaseout of leaded petrol. Unwanted babies were more likely to grow as criminals, it was argued: that theory is now largely discredited: it doesn’t cross borders and crime has continued to fall long after the effect should have tapered off."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-16

 

[markfromj]

It is not a coincidence that shooters in mass killings were nearly all on these drugs.

How many non-shooters were?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Stupid Meme is stupid.

And I agree with mental health checks. The problem with doing mental health checks, is that it potentially violates HIPAA, in terms to allowing non medical entities access to your medical records and not being able to interpret the information correctly.
Figure out a way to make it work without ethics or patients health/privacy violations.....and I'm with you.

My solution would be a system to where heath officials had a way to alert gun shops, without giving out specific information regarding the health of a patient, that would tell the seller if a potential buyer had been prescribed certain classifications of anti-psychotics, anxiety or anti-depressants.

there is a fine line to be crossed, in being informative for public safety purposes without being intrusive. But the mental heath issue we have in regards to gun violence we have is a gigantic part of the overall problem.
This is the hard part of gun control....and no one in our Gov't wants to do anything that is hard. The easy thing is to ban and punish everyone, or the crimes of a few.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Mandatory gun safety courses and having to pass a basic marksmanship test, would weed out quite a few.

However, with the vast majority of guns used in crimes being purchased illegally.........criminals or crazies who want to carry out their crimes, will get guns no matter what laws or regulations are in place.

Find a way to keep guns away from them.......and the problem is basically solved.

Punishing the law abiding owners, and placing restrictions on them is not the answer.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You realize that there is very little evidence that guns prevent crime, right? Most experts attribute the drop in crime to abortion.

If HROT Liberals count as experts then that would be true.

 

[Gimmered]

Registration which gives law enforcement an access to the people who have bought and sold the weapon.

Problem is police find a gun that was used to commit a crime, they know the person who did it isn't suppose to have it because he has a record, but there is really no way of determining who bought the gun for him. Keeping a record of who's bought the gun legally means you have some people you can go back to and investigate.

But from the gun lobby all we will hear is how registration is secretly a way that the guberment can track down and take all their guns later.

Considering we don't prosecute the ones when we know where it came from, don't you think it would be a stretch that we would go to that much trouble?
Canada scrapped their billion dollar plus gun registration because it never helped solve any crimes.

I think it would serve us better just to enforce the law that is already on the books.

 

[icu81222]

Take out DC, Chicago, Detroit and a handful of other liberal ran cities with gun control and the gun violence rate drops to a very very low number.

It's liberalism that is the problem

 

[*33*]

Examples of death causes that have not been targeted?

Reading would help you out

 

[*33*]

Would that also mean Pro-Choice is a Con plot to lower taxes and shrink government then?

 

[*33*]

How many non-shooters were?

great argument

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Stupid Meme is stupid.

And I agree with mental health checks. The problem with doing mental health checks, is that it potentially violates HIPAA, in terms to allowing non medical entities access to your medical records and not being able to interpret the information correctly.
Figure out a way to make it work without ethics or patients health/privacy violations.....and I'm with you.

My solution would be a system to where heath officials had a way to alert gun shops, without giving out specific information regarding the health of a patient, that would tell the seller if a potential buyer had been prescribed certain classifications of anti-psychotics, anxiety or anti-depressants.

there is a fine line to be crossed, in being informative for public safety purposes without being intrusive. But the mental heath issue we have in regards to gun violence we have is a gigantic part of the overall problem.
This is the hard part of gun control....and no one in our Gov't wants to do anything that is hard. The easy thing is to ban and punish everyone, or the crimes of a few.

You can give doctors authority to list someone as not being fit to own a firearm along with the ability to have a court review your placement on the list without violating HIPAA. You don't have to list what mental condition they have, the doctor just has to be able to come into a court with said medical records and defend placing you on the list.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

If you've been paying attention I don't really have a huge problem with that.

If I was ok with killing people because it would save a few dollars on my taxes then I would consider myself little better then the Nazi's who did the same thing.

This translates to "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too."

Then it directs you to read some Nazi magazine.

 

[fredjr82]

YAY!!!! It wouldn't be an HROT gun thread unless we switched gears and brought up abortion and mentioned the Nazis!!! You never disappoint.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

You can give doctors authority to list someone as not being fit to own a firearm along with the ability to have a court review your placement on the list without violating HIPAA. You don't have to list what mental condition they have, the doctor just has to be able to come into a court with said medical records and defend placing you on the list.

That's good to know. Now you have to trust doctors to not have an agenda in either direction.
I don't trust that.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's good to know. Now you have to trust doctors to not have an agenda in either direction.
I don't trust that.

That's why you have court review.

Doctors can already have you committed against your will. . . and you can have a court review it. Why would it be such a big deal to allow them to put you on a list that prevents you from buying firearms??

 

[sijoint]

What's your opinion of the NRA trying to water down existing mental health laws?

Where is your proof that the NRA is doing this?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

That's why you have court review.

Doctors can already have you committed against your will. . . and you can have a court review it. Why would it be such a big deal to allow them to put you on a list that prevents you from buying firearms??

point taken.
I don't want crazies to have guns either. But to make it work, it has to be done the right way.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

point taken.
I don't want crazies to have guns either. But to make it work, it has to be done the right way.

No question, but I think that can work. And it seems to do ok when a doctor can literally take your freedom away, I think we can make it work with firearms.

No system is going to be perfect of course but I should think having some system like that in place is superior to having no system to where people with mental illness are allowed to buy guns and ammo when they crack.

Just have to make the court review process to where it's not too hard or expensive and make it so that doctors found to be using the list for illegitimate reasons are punished and if bad enough lose their license. Pretty much the same thing that would happen if they where committing people for illegitimate reasons.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Oh goodie! Another argument that since criminals are law breakers, therefore there's no point in having laws to prevent crimes.

Current laws need enforced - period. Making more laws won't stop those that don't give a crap about them as they don't follow the current ones?

Also - leading causes of death in the US notice what's not in the top 10.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

• Heart disease: 611,105
• Cancer: 584,881
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
• Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
• Diabetes: 75,578
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If you've been paying attention I don't really have a huge problem with that.

If I was ok with killing people because it would save a few dollars on my taxes then I would consider myself little better then the Nazi's who did the same thing.

This translates to "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too."

Then it directs you to read some Nazi magazine.

The difference is that pro-choicers aren't saying this person isn't worth keeping alive, as the Nazis did, but that there is no person here when a fetus is removed. We've had enough extended discussions about this on HROT to know that this is a troubling distinction.

But I do appreciate that the Nazi's used fundamentally the same capitalist argument to support the Holocaust that our GOP uses all the time to refuse to raise revenues to help those in need.

My favorite one these days is the argument that safety net and social programs promote dependency. Or as some put it, if you feed them they will breed. How is that meaningfully different from the graphic you posted?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Would that also mean Pro-Choice is a Con plot to lower taxes and shrink government then?

That would seem to follow.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The difference is that pro-choicers aren't saying this person isn't worth keeping alive, as the Nazis did, but that there is no person here when a fetus is removed. We've had enough extended discussions about this on HROT to know that this is a troubling distinction.

But I do appreciate that the Nazi's used fundamentally the same capitalist argument to support the Holocaust that our GOP uses all the time to refuse to raise revenues to help those in need.

My favorite one these days is the argument that safety net and social programs promote dependency. Or as some put it, if you feed them they will breed. How is that meaningfully different from the graphic you posted?

Despite the fact that you may believe that the fetus isn't living I think you are totally wrong so in my view it will always be killing. I think you are not viewing this on a scientific basis but on convenience basis as you appear to be fine with the end of brain function as the definition for death but don't believe that the beginning of brain function makes sense as a mark for the beginning of life. But whatever.

In terms of the GOP I tend to think they fundamentally misunderstand the economy and poverty. It is their belief that poverty is caused by people who don't want to work or who don't work hard enough. However I think this is demonstrably false. . . We simply do not right now have the economic ability to give every adult a good paying job even if everyone had the training for such jobs.

So even if everyone had training in a job skill and was willing to work hard someone still has to work at McDonalds.

Secondly, I have never heard of anyone was successful who purposefully decided that they have had enough with all this hard work so quit their job and either didn't work at all and lived on welfare or got a job at McDonalds. So I find the idea that people are choosing poverty because they don't want to work hard to be dubious.

Also I find upsetting about them is that their entire purpose seems to be for the good of business and not for the good of people. While claiming to be the family values party they scoff at the idea of paid parental leave. They reject the idea that there should be required paid vacation. Even though nearly every country in the world besides the US is already doing these things.

To me the GOP seems perfectly comfortable with the idea that we live as "wage slaves" - (Although I hate that term because as frustrating as it is, I don't much like comparing it to actual slavery). That is for them that the point of our middle class lives should be to live constantly in service to our employers.

Forcing people to live for their jobs is not a family values ideal. Being ok with people having less children then they would like simply because they can't afford to take a couple months off of work to have one is not a family values ideal.

And being upset that people used collective bargaining to negotiate a better deal not only isn't family values, it's not even capitalist. It's a naked attempt at stacking the deck of their so called capitalism in favor of businesses and businesses only.