FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Finally the President Barack Obama takes action in guns





zaxacongrejo
It seems this time the President Barack Obama was serious about some changes to the guns law , some say this is just a start more is yet to come and I honestly hope so .In my personal opinion guns are meant to kill only ,so civilians should not have them , and if for some justifiable reason they have them, they should at least have banned access to war guns
By war guns I meant automatic guns and guns with caliber superior to 7.56
So now let’s discuss what Obama promised:
Bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
Reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004,
Restrict ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds
Expand background checks to anyone buying a gun
In my opinion this cloud be a start, but this is only directed to the future guns, and those at the street already?
What about the USA government starts a campaign buying illegal and legal guns back from people at fair prices?
This is the only way to start clean the street this technique has been used in lots of countries after wars in order to disarm populations
In your opinion are these latest announcements enough? What do you think should be done?
deanhills
zaxacongrejo wrote:
What about the USA government starts a campaign buying illegal and legal guns back from people at fair prices?
This is the only way to start clean the street this technique has been used in lots of countries after wars in order to disarm populations
In your opinion are these latest announcements enough? What do you think should be done?
I doubt it will work. You're looking at those who own guns illegally with a different mind frame that is realistic for the US.

Good point however about what to do with the existing status quo. Going to be very interesting to see how people will respond.
spinout
obama, the first in history of the US... well let see the consequences.

At least a great step for mankind... hehe well for americans.. we have strict gun laws
RosenCruz
What? Can not I have a gun at my home to defend myself? I thought this was America, a free country. What is this, Soviet Russia?
truespeed
RosenCruz wrote:
What? Can not I have a gun at my home to defend myself? I thought this was America, a free country. What is this, Soviet Russia?


Damn right,and if anyone tells me I can't have a nuclear bomb factory in my shed I will tell them to go read the constitution.
rx9876
RosenCruz wrote:
What? Can not I have a gun at my home to defend myself? I thought this was America, a free country. What is this, Soviet Russia?


Did you read the news?

ban on military assault style weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

That implied normal pistols with less than 10 bullets are not affected.
ocalhoun

Dumb knee-jerk reactions to media-hyped rare events.
This isn't a big problem compared to some of the other things that need attention right now.
It's a little depressing, really, how much control the daily news reports have over the country.

rx9876 wrote:

Did you read the news?

ban on military assault style weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

That implied normal pistols with less than 10 bullets are not affected.

Define 'military assault style'
zaxacongrejo wrote:
they should at least have banned access to war guns
By war guns I meant automatic guns and guns with caliber superior to 7.56

Wonderful definition there.
But guess what gun does not count as a 'war gun' under your definition:

Semi-automatic with 5.56 caliber.

And guess what guns DO count as war guns under your definition:

11.63mm (.45 cal) Revolver

9mm pistol

18.5mm (12ga) double-barreled shotgun

The moral of the story is, if you're going to ban things, at least try to be a bit more well thought-out about what you ban.
Afaceinthematrix
zaxacongrejo wrote:
What about the USA government starts a campaign buying illegal and legal guns back from people at fair prices?


This is already done in many places in the U.S. At least once a year (often times more), Los Angeles hosts a "no questions asked" gun buy back. You can bring in any gun - legal or illegal - no matter how you received the gun - and trade it in for gift certificates to grocery store. I think it's something like $100 for normal guns and $200 for automatic guns. This also helps struggling families out because the money is given to you in the form of gift certificates for the grocery store and so it helps people buy groceries. If I owned guns at this moment, getting them out of my house would be useless because I'd never use them violently. But given that I have no desire to own a gun, if I had a few lying around I would take advantage of that opportunity to get some free groceries!

It will be interesting to see how this new gun prohibition works. Historically, prohibition has never worked for the U.S. (alcohol, drug war, etc.) and so I doubt that it will work here. However, it would be nice if we could get assault weapons off of the street. While, unfortunately, we have a fundamental right to own guns in this country, there is no reason why anyone not in the military should need assault weapons that have no person except to kill. Owning a .22 rifle is one thing; owning a weapon that is capable of taking out an entire movie theater or classroom in a few seconds is another thing.

On a side note, shootings aren't that rare in the States. They happen every single day.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I think it's something like $100 for normal guns and $200 for automatic guns.



And people sell them at these prices?


I should make a 'gun buyback' program of my own!

And then sell them at their actual values. I'd make a fortune!


...Really though. Most guns are worth much more than $100 or $200. (Especially the kind used in mass shootings) Your buyback programs would be far more effective if they paid market value.
Why sell a $600, $1100, or $2300 gun for $200?


...Though, on the flipside... some automatics are under $200 brand new... Perhaps I should take advantage of these buyback programs, buy a dozen new semi-auto .22 rifles for $110 each, then go sell them all for $200 each. ^.^
Sell the gift cards on ebay for 90% of their value... and have $405 in profit... then repeat!
--Ooh! I bet the buyback program doesn't require the guns to be complete and functional! I could remove any easily sell-able parts and accessories before selling the guns, and sell those for extra profit!

Quote:
On a side note, shootings aren't that rare in the States. They happen every single day.

Mass shootings (of the type spurring this sudden push for legislation) are rare, and the damage they case is relatively slight, overall, compared to other problems that need to be dealt with.
coolclay
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83028786/

Enough said.
truespeed
ocalhoun wrote:

Mass shootings (of the type spurring this sudden push for legislation) are rare, and the damage they case is relatively slight, overall, compared to other problems that need to be dealt with.


A few times a year,isn't rare,and with the highlighted text you are almost implying that it is acceptable life loss,just so that Americans can keep their weaponry of all types.

I think the limiting American citizens to certain gun types and a certain amount of ammunition is a fair compromise,I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it to be honest,if it cuts down the mass shootings by even a 3rd over the next ten years then it will have been worth it.
bukaida
If the administration is good enough( Specially police), you need not have individual guns to protect yourself. We have a strict gun law over here and mass killing weapons are impossible to get legally by individuals. It is good to see that US is now thinking that a gun against a gun is not always the best way to tackle violence.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
I think the limiting American citizens to certain gun types and a certain amount of ammunition is a fair compromise,I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it to be honest,if it cuts down the mass shootings by even a 3rd over the next ten years then it will have been worth it.
I'd say this is relative to what you are comfortable with. For Europeans and England who are used to different, this may look reasonable, but for Americans who are quite proud of their right to own guns the response will no doubt be different. Also completely unrealistic given the number of guns that are in circulation right now as well as the fact that the US has more than 315 million people. Given the large population and compared with the incidences in violence in the rest of the world would probably put Ocalhoun's statement in a different perspective.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
I'd say this is relative to what you are comfortable with.


I am not comfortable with someone going into a school with multiple firearms and an unlimited amount of ammunition killing everyone in his path,if reducing the amount and type of guns and the amount ammunition owned can reduce that then I see that as the way forward.

But it seems you are saying that Americans are "comfortable" with the odd school massacre as long as it means they can carry on owning as much weaponry as they want.

deanhills wrote:

, but for Americans who are quite proud of their right to own guns the response will no doubt be different.


The response may be different,but it doesn't make it nor them right. The constitution and the gun laws in the US from an outsiders perspective seem to be viewed in biblical proportions.

deanhills wrote:

Also completely unrealistic given the number of guns that are in circulation right now as well as the fact that the US has more than 315 million people. Given the large population and compared with the incidences in violence in the rest of the world would probably put Ocalhoun's statement in a different perspective.


It isn't unrealistic,you have to start somewhere,something needs to change,this happens too often.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
But it seems you are saying that Americans are "comfortable" with the odd school massacre as long as it means they can carry on owning as much weaponry as they want.
Not really, but then I don't think that the gun regulations are going to stop that either. The last massacre happened because the mother of the guy who did the shooting had not looked after her gun properly. I'm all for regulations to make people more responsible for owning their guns, not to remove the guns however. I'd like her to be held criminally responsible for not locking her gun up as she should have.

truespeed wrote:
The response may be different,but it doesn't make it nor them right. The constitution and the gun laws in the US from an outsiders perspective seem to be viewed in biblical proportions.
Again, I see it as relative. I personally see Obama trying to fiddle with the rights of citizens, not only with owning guns, but the right to invade homes to check on guns. There is a matter of great principle here that would need to be sorted out first, particularly with reference to their Constitution and the right of owning a gun. If Obama gets away with his regulations then it would be very easy to start the next thing. Electronic surveillance perhaps?

truespeed wrote:


It isn't unrealistic,you have to start somewhere,something needs to change,this happens too often.
I've said in another thread that something needs to change too, but these regulations aren't the answer. I'd say making people more responsible for their right to own a gun by educating them, getting them to do regular training, making it a requirement to always lock up guns in a safe place, and if their gun goes missing, make them criminally responsible if they haven't got a good reason why it went missing, etc. etc. Education, training, and screening candidates for owning guns very carefully.
RosenCruz
truespeed wrote:
RosenCruz wrote:
What? Can not I have a gun at my home to defend myself? I thought this was America, a free country. What is this, Soviet Russia?


Damn right,and if anyone tells me I can't have a nuclear bomb factory in my shed I will tell them to go read the constitution.




Quote:
Did you read the news?

ban on military assault style weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

That implied normal pistols with less than 10 bullets are not affected.



guys, relax..... it was "sarcasm" Wink
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Mass shootings (of the type spurring this sudden push for legislation) are rare, and the damage they case is relatively slight, overall, compared to other problems that need to be dealt with.


By what metric? This UCLA study shows that homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in the U.S. is almost twenty (and up to forty-two percent for some groups times higher than in other similar first world countries. I'm sorry, but that is hardly slight compared to any other similar problem.

Also, I tend to think that it isn't rare. Here is a simple list (which implies that it is objective because there is no commentary to go with it to try and argue a political position; just look at the stats):

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc

The U.S. had eight mass shootings just in the year 2012. It's disturbing that it seems to be increasing significantly lately. For instance, about a decade ago we went two and a half years without a mass shooting.

We can also look at this list of school shootings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_shootings

One thing that I find interesting is that gives a break down per country of notable school shootings. How come the United States isn't on that list? I can answer that: school shootings are such an epidemic here that we merit our own Wikipedia page (that breaks it down by decade):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States



----------------------

I also agree with the note that we need to stop giving any media attention to shooters. Quite a few mass killers have felt that they would be a marauder for bullied kids or some other cause. If people never received attention then people wouldn't feel that they could make some sort of statement.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

By what metric? This UCLA study shows that homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in the U.S. is almost twenty (and up to forty-two percent for some groups times higher than in other similar first world countries.

The USA has more homicides and violence no matter what weapons are used or not. We also have more non-gun violence, that is.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but that is hardly slight compared to any other similar problem.

I tallied up the deaths in your link due to mass shootings. Since April 20, 1999, 276 people have died that way. About 19 per year, on average.

Now, compare that to how many people have died in another preventable tragedy, the war on drugs.
In 2012, (as near as I can tell by research), 54 innocent people were killed by law enforcement actions involving drug prohibition.

In 2007, there were 27,658 deaths from overdosing on illegal drugs -- a number that could be substantially reduced by legalizing and regulating them, which would allow the dosages to be more precisely measured and controlled.

The USA's flawed drug policies have lead to quite a lot of crime, both organized and individual.
In 2011 alone, an estimated 12,000 people died in drug-related murders in Mexico alone. -- And changing the USA's drug laws could have dramatically reduced that.
(I'm of the opinion that a drug legalization policy could -- after sufficient time -- completely eliminate these deaths.)

So, should we focus our efforts on passing unpopular laws to help reduce a 19-death-per-year problem, or should we focus our efforts on passing unpopular laws to help reduce a ~30,000-death-per-year problem?

That is what I'm talking about when I say the damage is slight compared to other problems.
Quote:

I also agree with the note that we need to stop giving any media attention to shooters. Quite a few mass killers have felt that they would be a marauder for bullied kids or some other cause. If people never received attention then people wouldn't feel that they could make some sort of statement.

That is a good point. Some people just want attention, after all... and a mass shooting is a guaranteed way to get lots of attention these days.

bukaida wrote:
If the administration is good enough( Specially police), you need not have individual guns to protect yourself.

(Sorry, but it has to be said: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Also, why do I carry a gun? Because a policeman is too heavy to carry.
Courts have ruled again and again (in lawsuits against the police for negligence) that the police have no duty to protect you. They only enforce the law. Protecting yourself is your own responsibility.)

I'm of the opinion that (law abiding and able-minded) citizens should be able to own any weapon that the police use. When the police no longer feel it necessary to carry military weapons, I'll accept removing them from civilian access as well.

A: If the police think they need military weapons to protect themselves against criminals, why wouldn't an ordinary citizen also need such weapons to protect themselves against the very same criminals?
B: If the government sees fit to use a given weapon on its own citizens, then it's only fair to let the citizens also have that given weapon.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
So, should we focus our efforts on passing unpopular laws to help reduce a 19-death-per-year problem, or should we focus our efforts on passing unpopular laws to help reduce a ~30,000-death-per-year problem?
Well said. I haven't thought of the statistics part, so that was very interesting to read. Great logic to it.

ocalhoun wrote:
I'm of the opinion that (law abiding and able-minded) citizens should be able to own any weapon that the police use. When the police no longer feel it necessary to carry military weapons, I'll accept removing them from civilian access as well.

A: If the police think they need military weapons to protect themselves against criminals, why wouldn't an ordinary citizen also need such weapons to protect themselves against the very same criminals?
B: If the government sees fit to use a given weapon on its own citizens, then it's only fair to let the citizens also have that given weapon.

I have thought of this too, i.e. the police being able to own guns that civilians aren't allowed to own. That says something in its own right. I.e. there would be civilians who own guns like that illegally, which would mean that those civilians who don't own guns like that would be vulnerable. Who gets to protect them when the police response time is too short to help them.
truespeed
Drugs and guns are two seperate issues,yes drug laws need to be relaxed,but that has nothing to do with the gun laws and the current demand to reduce citizen ownership.

The argument that citizens should be allowed to own any gun the police do is just silly,why not extand it to,citizens being allowed to own any weapon the army does?

Then you can park a fully armoured tank in your driveway,because you never know,you may need it to defend yourself should the army ever declare martial law and take over,right?
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
The argument that citizens should be allowed to own any gun the police do is just silly,why not extand it to,citizens being allowed to own any weapon the army does?
I don't think the military is quite the same. I'd focus more on the street weapons that police are using as a standard to be compared with.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
Drugs and guns are two seperate issues,yes drug laws need to be relaxed,but that has nothing to do with the gun laws and the current demand to reduce citizen ownership.

Two (mostly) separate issues, yes. But they share a crucial connection:
Both require using up limited 'political capital', time, and effort to fix.

Now since our ability to pass unpopular laws is limited, which ones should we focus our effort towards?
Again, may I ask, help prevent ~20 deaths a year, or help prevent ~30,000 deaths per year...
It's not a difficult choice, I'd say. Yet thanks to the highly selective attention of the media, we're focusing on the wrong one, to the detriment of the other.
Quote:

The argument that citizens should be allowed to own any gun the police do is just silly,why not extand it to,citizens being allowed to own any weapon the army does?

You saw my two reasons there, right?

Recap:
A: If the police think they need military weapons to protect themselves against criminals, why wouldn't an ordinary citizen also need such weapons to protect themselves against the very same criminals?
B: If the government sees fit to use a given weapon on its own citizens, then it's only fair to let the citizens also have that given weapon.


For reason A, the army doesn't have its weapons to protect themselves against the same criminals ordinary citizens might. If the police don't need tanks, aircraft carriers, nukes, et cetera to protect themselves from domestic criminals, neither do civilians.
(On the flipside, if the criminals are so bad that they do need tanks to protect themselves, then civilians should be afforded the same protection.)

For reason B: The army doesn't (or at least shouldn't) use tanks, jets, et cetera against its own civilians. So there's no fairness issue in letting the civilians have the same.


So, have any actual points to bring up about my police weapon equivalency plan, or is calling it 'silly' all you've got?

I contend that the police equivalency plan is sensible, reasonable, and even flexible: it will change automatically as the needs of the country change. If the country becomes more violent and dangerous, rules along that line would automatically allow civilians to escalate their protections at the same rate as cops. If the country becomes safer and less violent, the more extreme weaponry will automatically become illegal as it becomes retired from law enforcement inventories.
(And as an added bonus, it will discourage use of overkill weaponry by police -- a serious problem, in my opinion.)
truespeed
ocalhoun wrote:

Now since our ability to pass unpopular laws is limited, which ones should we focus our effort towards?
Again, may I ask, help prevent ~20 deaths a year, or help prevent ~30,000 deaths per year...
It's not a difficult choice, I'd say. Yet thanks to the highly selective attention of the media, we're focusing on the wrong one, to the detriment of the other.



Why not try to solve/improve the gun problem if it can be solved? If there is a movement for change,change for the better,why not roll with it and make it happen?

There are more than 20 deaths a year from mass shootings alone and without googling I wouldn't be surprised if the total death total from guns each year was in the thousands,so it is hardly a minor problem.

You are right that Americans will never give up their guns,but why would you or any other American have a problem with limiting the amount of guns and type of guns and the amount of ammunition that any one household can legally own?

One handgun,ten bullets,do you really need more?
twotrophy
It is important to note that guns cannot be completely banned in the USA because it is against their constitution. Hundreds of thousands of people would probably protest if guns were ever banned. However, I do not completely agree with their constitution because of the number of deaths caused by guns.

In my opinion, Barrack Obama is right in having stricter gun control laws such as powerful guns being banned. Only allowing limited capacity guns would prevent mass shootings. People should thank him for doing the first step to keep his country safer.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:

Why not try to solve/improve the gun problem if it can be solved? If there is a movement for change,change for the better,why not roll with it and make it happen?

Because you're restricting the vast majority for the sake of controlling an extremely few nutjobs... something I view as wrong.
Also, because you're using up limited political time and effort for a small, meaningless problem, when that time and effort could be much better directed.
Quote:

There are more than 20 deaths a year from mass shootings alone

Now that is interesting.
"More than 20"?
I did the research and the math thank you, and it's an average of 19.7 per year.

(compare that to, say, death by being struck by lightning at an average of about 54 per year in the US, and you see what I mean about it being a relatively small problem.)
Quote:
and without googling I wouldn't be surprised if the total death total from guns each year was in the thousands,so it is hardly a minor problem.

Now the total firearm-related death toll is an entirely different subject.
(And as a side note, I happen to think that drug policy reforms would reduce that number more effectively than gun controls would.)
Quote:

You are right that Americans will never give up their guns,but why would you or any other American have a problem with limiting the amount of guns and type of guns and the amount of ammunition that any one household can legally own?

One handgun,ten bullets,do you really need more?

One handgun, ten bullets. Do cops really need more?
If yes, why?
...And then, why would that same reasoning not apply to civilians?



twotrophy wrote:
However, I do not completely agree with their constitution because of the number of deaths caused by guns.

The number of deaths caused by guns is extremely low. -- Because the only deaths you can count as caused by the gun itself are deaths due to a malfunction of the gun.
(Certain model years of the popular Remington 700 rifle, for example, sometimes would discharge when the safety was engaged... deaths from such an incident are the only kind of deaths you can really blame on the gun itself.)

Now, the number of deaths facilitated by guns is a different matter. (and I'd thank you to count people shot by police within that number.)
However, banning guns is not the only way to reduce those. -- And I'd argue that banning guns isn't the most effective way to reduce those either.
Quote:

Only allowing limited capacity guns would prevent mass shootings. People should thank him for doing the first step to keep his country safer.

As I've pointed out, in the impossible* event that his laws reduce those shootings to 0, it still only saves around 20 lives per year. In a country of 300,000,000 people. (1 out of 15,000,000) The increase in safety is so slight it is meaningless. The only benefit there is psychological.

Legalizing drugs, however, could help prevent 30,000 deaths per year: 1 out of 1000. The benefit to safety there is not nearly so meaningless.

*It's impossible that such laws will completely eliminate mass shootings. They'll still take place with illegally owned guns, grandfathered-in guns, or guns within the legal restrictions. The number and death toll of such shootings may be reduced, but they will not be eliminated.


Long story short, I'd thank him for making the country safer if he actually was making the country safer, rather than just doing things that make people feel safer, while increasing the power gap between civilian and government.
truespeed
ocalhoun wrote:

Because you're restricting the vast majority for the sake of controlling an extremely few nutjobs... something I view as wrong.


It is not just about the mass shootings,it is about all the gun related deaths in the USA,but if it is the mass shootings that gets the wheels of change moving,all well and good.


ocalhoun wrote:

Also, because you're using up limited political time and effort for a small, meaningless problem, when that time and effort could be much better directed.


Death of innocents that can be prevented is not meaningless.

30 years ago in the UK,they changed the law so people had to wear seat belts in cars,there was a big outcry about freedoms and rights at the time,but that law has saved thousands of lives since. Everyone views that law as a good one now,it is about changing the mindset of the populace for the benefit of the populace.

Just like the smoking law,you are now not allowed to smoke in any public place in the UK,again there was a big outcry about rights and freedoms but that law is already starting to save lives.

ocalhoun wrote:

I did the research and the math thank you, and it's an average of 19.7 per year.


Over how many years? How many was it last year? Is the percentage increasing? If so,then you have a problem.

ocalhoun wrote:

(compare that to, say, death by being struck by lightning at an average of about 54 per year in the US, and you see what I mean about it being a relatively small problem.)


They are accidents,an act of god if you like,a government can't legislate against lightening strikes.

ocalhoun wrote:

Now the total firearm-related death toll is an entirely different subject.
(And as a side note, I happen to think that drug policy reforms would reduce that number more effectively than gun controls would.)


It is not a different subject,it is the same subject,it just suits your agenda to separate the two and focus on the 19.7 deaths instead of the thousands of avoidable deaths each year,and yeah lets blame it on the drug problem,although I would guess that a lot are caused by alcohol,but whether it is drugs or alcohol,reducing the amount of guns in circulation would reduce the overall gun death total each year.


ocalhoun wrote:

One handgun, ten bullets. Do cops really need more?
If yes, why?
...And then, why would that same reasoning not apply to civilians?


Cops need more because they put themselves into situations every day where they need their gun to protect themselves and the public.

How many times a day do you go to a house where some drunk guy is threatening to kill his family with his army of weapons? How many times a day do you pull over a car of suspicious looking men not knowing what is awaiting you? That is why they need more guns than you and more ammunition.


If I said to you,that the gun related deaths in the USA could be cut by a 3rd within 10 years just by making a few changes to the gun laws would you be willing to compromise on your gun type and amount ownership?
twotrophy
ocalhoun wrote:
Legalizing drugs, however, could help prevent 30,000 deaths per year: 1 out of 1000. The benefit to safety there is not nearly so meaningless.


From: http://www.livestrong.com/article/17746-many-people-die-daily-smoking/
Quote:
According to the American Cancer Society, each year 443,600 people (1,215 each day) in the United States die from the effects of smoking.


What about the social problems that are caused with legalizing drugs? If drugs were legal people would be lying around streets consuming drugs all the time? It would be as common as smoking which kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. In my opinion, it is not worth it legalizing drugs because it would kill even more people. The death tolls would be as similar as the death tolls for smoking which I quoted it. The war against drugs should continue.

ocalhoun wrote:
As I've pointed out, in the impossible* event that his laws reduce those shootings to 0, it still only saves around 20 lives per year. In a country of 300,000,000 people. (1 out of 15,000,000) The increase in safety is so slight it is meaningless.


Every life is significant because it is irreplaceable. It is the government's duty to do what is reasonable to protect people in the country. Everyone has the right to be protected by the police or army. I think that you should reconsider this idea although I respect your opinion even if I do not agree with it.
deanhills
twotrophy wrote:
It is the government's duty to do what is reasonable to protect people in the country. Everyone has the right to be protected by the police or army. I think that you should reconsider this idea although I respect your opinion even if I do not agree with it.
How many people trust their Government to protect them? If I were in the US, I'd probably not be armed, unless I really needed to be, i.e. if I were to live in a remote area I'd definitely arm myself. I'd however take every precaution I could find to stay out of harm's way. That's not saying that the US police and army are unreliable. But realistically speaking how could 256 police officers per 100,000 people ever be protection enough, of the kind where I could hand all of my guns to the Government trusting that the Government would protect me?
ocalhoun
First of all, don't get me wrong here folks, I am in favor of certain reforms in gun control.
-The idea of getting medical records for mental treatment into the background check database is good.
-Closing the private sale loophole that allows anyone to buy guns without background checks is a good idea.
-Requiring guns in a home where children (under 18) are present to be locked up... that's also a good idea.

But, mass shootings are a problem so small that it doesn't even warrant consideration, and firearm related deaths in general could be better reduced by reducing violence in general. (Say, by ending the failed war on drugs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
truespeed wrote:

It is not just about the mass shootings,it is about all the gun related deaths in the USA,but if it is the mass shootings that gets the wheels of change moving,all well and good.

No.
You want change, then campaign for it on honest premises.
(And the restrictions discussed thus far will do almost nothing to reduce total gun related deaths. -- which is what you get when you campaign for changes based on the wrong reason: ineffective changes tailored to suit a different problem than the one you're actually trying to fix.)
Quote:

Death of innocents that can be prevented is not meaningless.

No, I will say it, if nobody else has the courage to.
20 deaths out of 300,000,000 is meaningless. And it certainly doesn't warrant the attention and effort being focused on it.
Quote:

30 years ago in the UK,they changed the law so people had to wear seat belts in cars,there was a big outcry about freedoms and rights at the time,but that law has saved thousands of lives since. Everyone views that law as a good one now,it is about changing the mindset of the populace for the benefit of the populace.

Everyone views it as good?
I don't.
I wear my seatbelt every time, but it should be a voluntary action.
Laws should be there to protect people from each other, NOT to protect them from themselves.
Quote:

Just like the smoking law,you are now not allowed to smoke in any public place in the UK,again there was a big outcry about rights and freedoms but that law is already starting to save lives.

And where will it stop?
How much control are you willing to give up in the name of saving a few lives?
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

I did the research and the math thank you, and it's an average of 19.7 per year.


Over how many years? How many was it last year? Is the percentage increasing? If so,then you have a problem.

That's an average based on data from 1997 to now.
Is the percentage increasing? Lemme actually do the effort and get the numbers (since nobody else here seems inclined to).

Nope. The percentage is not increasing.

Your impression of an increasing problem is due only to increasing media coverage of it, not actual increase.

So, if an increasing trend indicates a problem, the lack of one indicates there's no problem?
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

(compare that to, say, death by being struck by lightning at an average of about 54 per year in the US, and you see what I mean about it being a relatively small problem.)


They are accidents,an act of god if you like,a government can't legislate against lightening strikes.

I know. I was only including lightning strikes to illustrate how small the problem is.

Once, I was discussing it with my girlfriend, and she asked me, aren't you scared that you'll be a victim of a shooting like that?
No. Do you often fear being struck by lightning? That would be a more reasonable thing to worry about, since it happens to people more than twice as often.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Now the total firearm-related death toll is an entirely different subject.
(And as a side note, I happen to think that drug policy reforms would reduce that number more effectively than gun controls would.)


It is not a different subject,it is the same subject,it just suits your agenda to separate the two and focus on the 19.7 deaths instead of the thousands of avoidable deaths each year,and yeah lets blame it on the drug problem,although I would guess that a lot are caused by alcohol,but whether it is drugs or alcohol,reducing the amount of guns in circulation would reduce the overall gun death total each year.

The gun control laws being discussed currently would do little or nothing to reduce guns in circulation, and also little or nothing to reduce overall gun deaths.

As I said earlier, if you want to reduce gun violence in general, make that your stated goal; don't hang everything on media hype.
(And I think those deaths could be prevented better by reducing violence in general rather than just focusing on a particular weapon. One fantastic way to do so would be to legalize and regulate the drug trade.)
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:

One handgun, ten bullets. Do cops really need more?
If yes, why?
...And then, why would that same reasoning not apply to civilians?

Cops need more because they put themselves into situations every day where they need their gun to protect themselves and the public.

False on one count there -- cops have no duty to protect the public. The guns they carry are solely for their own protection as they do their duty of enforcing laws.
Quote:

How many times a day do you go to a house where some drunk guy is threatening to kill his family with his army of weapons? How many times a day do you pull over a car of suspicious looking men not knowing what is awaiting you? That is why they need more guns than you and more ammunition.

And yet, there is a good chance I could come into the same situations. (Albeit it wouldn't be pulling over a car full of 'suspicious looking men' (do I detect a prejudice issue there?)... perhaps getting into an auto accident with a car full of suspicious looking men.)

There is nothing a police officer sees in a day of duty that an ordinary civilian couldn't.
So why should police have superior self-protection?
Quote:

If I said to you,that the gun related deaths in the USA could be cut by a 3rd within 10 years just by making a few changes to the gun laws would you be willing to compromise on your gun type and amount ownership?

Well, you'd have to make me believe it first. That's the tough part.
Most gun related deaths in the US are (or could be) done with guns that would be perfectly legal under the new restrictions.
I do not think that the gun laws being currently discussed will make any significant impact on total firearm related deaths.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


twotrophy wrote:
[
What about the social problems that are caused with legalizing drugs? If drugs were legal people would be lying around streets consuming drugs all the time?

Probably not.
During the prohibition against alcohol, alcohol consumption actually increased.
Likewise, I think drug use might actually decrease after legalization.

At any rate... so what? What's the harm in people lying around consuming drugs?
Quote:
It would be as common as smoking which kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

You base this on what?
The assumption that all legal drugs will be consumed in equal amount?
Quote:
In my opinion, it is not worth it legalizing drugs because it would kill even more people.

Your opinion is uninformed and unhelpful.
Quote:
The death tolls would be as similar as the death tolls for smoking which I quoted it.

People know the risks of doing drugs. They aren't going to do drugs in the same numbers that smoke.
Again, how do you come to the conclusion that drug users will be as common as smokers?
Quote:
The war against drugs should continue.

The war against drugs is already over. We lost.
Drug consumption now is higher than it has ever been, and hundreds of thousands of people around the world die in our continued failing efforts to control drug use by force.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
As I've pointed out, in the impossible* event that his laws reduce those shootings to 0, it still only saves around 20 lives per year. In a country of 300,000,000 people. (1 out of 15,000,000) The increase in safety is so slight it is meaningless.


Every life is significant because it is irreplaceable.

I'm not talking about significant or insignificant lives. I'm talking about significant or insignificant changes in the safety of the people. -- And a change that makes people 0.00000007% safer is NOT significant.
Quote:
It is the government's duty

I'll reiterate what I've pointed out before.
In case after case, the courts have ruled that the government has no duty to protect people, which is why you can't sue the government for failure to protect you.
Quote:
to do what is reasonable to protect people in the country.

Reasonable would be the key word there.
And drastic reductions in the power afforded to civilians in order to save a dozen lives a year is NOT reasonable.
Quote:
Everyone has the right to be protected by the police or army.

Then where are they? I don't have them anywhere around me right now. How can they protect me if they're not here?
Though it is a slogan, it has a valid point: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
The police and army do not protect me adequately, therefore, I have to take my protection into my own hands.

--I consider self-protection to be a personal responsibility of every citizen, as well as a basic human right.
...And as such, I should have the ability to procure the tools I need to exercise that right and fulfill that responsibility.
Quote:
I think that you should reconsider this idea

I have given it quite a lot of consideration already.
Quote:
although I respect your opinion even if I do not agree with it.

Well, that's sporting of you.

On a basic level, I just value personal freedom more than personal safety.
accarimporters
they need to get rid of the guns
c'tair
Nicely written, Ocalhoun. I couldn't agree more, especially with :
Quote:
On a basic level, I just value personal freedom more than personal safety.


I see this whole media storm as just another juicy topic to get ratings and get people interested in things that have no value for society. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. In a free country, people have the freedom to make choices and the freedom to take on the consequences. With laws like this popping up all over the place, it's basically the government saying "you people are just too dumb to take care of yourselves, so we'll FORCE our care on you!".

Of course this will entail the creations of more departments, comissions, and bureaus, giving us more of what we all love - waiting in lines to speak with a hateful bureaucrat!

Plus, will this really solve the problem? Sure, we might get less school shootings, but this could turn into more school stabbings? I'm much more afraid of knives than of guns simply due to the fact that they're silent and it's so much easier to use them. Any one who has ever shot a gun will tell you how hard it gets to hit a moving target with a pistol at a distance of more than 15-20 meters and these mass-shootings are usually done by people with no training at all. Where as a knife is simply "point and thrust".

People are refusing to see the bigger picture - the underlying cause for this and instead they tackle the symptoms, which doesn't really help at all.
ocalhoun
c'tair wrote:
I'm much more afraid of knives than of guns simply due to the fact that they're silent and it's so much easier to use them. Any one who has ever shot a gun will tell you how hard it gets to hit a moving target with a pistol at a distance of more than 15-20 meters and these mass-shootings are usually done by people with no training at all. Where as a knife is simply "point and thrust".


I will disagree with you there.
A school shooter IS more dangerous than a school stabber.

They can cause more damage faster (no need to aim accurately when firing into a crowd, stabbing takes longer than shooting), and they're more difficult to stop.
BigGeek
Ocalhoun - You seem to be arguing the pro gun view really well, and thanks for your efforts!

Thanks to everyone that is arguing on behalf of gun owners here.

OK here is my 2 cents, first off the Sandy Hook school shooting is a horrible tragedy, the biggest tragedy of all was the delusional mother that decides the only way yo connect with her mentally disturbed son is to by an AR15 and take him shooting? WHAAATTTT!!! your kidding me right?

Next to compound a bad situation, teaching a mentally disturbed person how to shoot and reload an AR15, she leaves the weapons unsecured and allows the mentally disturbed child to have access to them basically unrestricted? This is a recipe for disaster no matter how you look at it, and from a life long firearm owner an insult to the ownership and safety of people like me.

Next point is, how does making firearms illegal and taking them away from honest citizens do anything to heal this sort of tragedy, and the insane decisions that led up to it? How does making magazine capacity restrictions do anything to make up for this sort of tragedy. They are simply band aiding the tragedy with post event legislation.

The argument that making guns illegal will prevent gun violence is a daft argument at best, I read back when they made guns illegal in the UK that there was a increase in house break ins when the residents were home, thieves would force their way in with firearms and rob the residents. When they were caught there response was "We know they are not armed, you made their firearms illegal. Read about similar things in Australia as well. Typically making firearms illegal does not stop gun violence it increases it. Honest people are no without protection, and gun carrying criminals now know it....another recipe for disaster.

The Aurora theater shooting is really close to home, in my state and area. We are now making shotguns illegal in a hunting state because of it, and how does that prevent another mass shooting?

The theaters in Colorado ask that concealed carry permit holders leave their firearms at home or in their vehicles and please do not bring them into the theater. Had one person carrying been in that theater the tragedy would have been short lived, I know had I been there I would have ended it quite quickly.

All the gun laws in the world do not protect us from people that do not abide by them.

Why do I own firearms, why do I have a concealed carry permit, because when you need a gun, you really need a gun. Living in a rural area the police tell residents that they need to arm themselves and know how to use the firearms......why, because it may take up to an hour for them to get to your home in the case of an emergency. Does that sound like a place you want to live when they make firearms illegal? Leaves me a sitting duck to the illegals that kick in peoples doors hold them hostage at gun point, torture them, living in their house, and murdering them before they leave.....this has happened a lot in rural locations throughout Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, and Arizona. Wanna live with no firearms in that sort of a area?

Making guns illegal is not ever going to prevent these things from happening, but a well armed well trained population will!!!!

And that is the point!!

Ben Franklin said it best, those who value security over freedom deserve neither!!!

From my perspective every honest law abiding citizen should own, and be well trained in firearms use, and carry one at all times, this would ensure that things like Sandy Hook would never happen again.

Self protection is a right, and one that should be taken seriously, pawning it off in law enforcement and the military is an easy out, if that is how someone else wants to handle their freedom and self protection great, I would rather take responsibility for mine.....personally!!!
Related topics
Congratulations President Obama
2009 Predictions
Stimulus Package & the Anti-Stimulus Crowd
Big News: A Republican governor talking sense & cooperat
Obama's speech to Congress Feb 24, 2009
Did Obama Snub the UK?
President Obama Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Why has Obama failed to act on pirate hostage situation?
Obama wins fight to limit fighter jets
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Obama fulfills his promise to fix the causes of recession!
President Barack Obama And Paul McCartney
Missouri Voters Reject Obamacare
More Voting Irregularities
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.