"Guns are the cause"

[rexracer]

Statistics are an odd thing Mike. Depending on how they are used they tell a different story. America has more guns than any country in the world too. Instead of using populace figures let's use gun figures. I had a tough time finding a figure but the figure I found was there are approx 97,000(BBC World Service) guns in the UK. Using that figure and the 50 deaths figure that comes out to 1 death for every 1940 guns. Now in the US there are 250 million guns so if we had a death for every 1940 guns we should have 128,866 deaths. It would seem the UK has a much bigger problem with deaths per gun than the US does.

To add to the discussion of statistics, since the UK has a lack of firearms, you could take their suicides and figure that at least half of them would have been gun deaths if there was availability, or conversely you can subtract out the gun suicides for the US to make the stats more "honest"

 

[Hypancistrus]

I just feel like there's way too much access for mentally disturbed people to own guns, and a little better regulation would probably help to lower crime-rates..

And it's A-OK to feel that way, but instead of doing blanket bans where nobody can own this or that or the other, how about coming up with a better method of treating people who are mentally disturbed, or at the very least identifying them so that they CAN'T buy a gun. I'm not mentally disturbed-- so why should I have to suffer and infringement on my rights simply to prevent other mentally disturbed people from doing damage? Go after them-- not me!

Part of hte issue is that in this country we are so concerned with not offending or "pigeon-holing" people, we make it that no one can talk about their illnesses and shortcomings. People need to talk about it, and they need to know. I need to know if there is a kid in my class who is mentally disturbed enough to do shoot the place up, so that I can respond appropriately when he says it in my class. We need to stop pussy-footing around with this crap. If your disease has brought you to a point that you think it's okay to kill people, you need to be locked up for a very, very long time, so that others are safe from your violent impulses.

But actually you have 30 000 gun related deaths....

As was mentioned by Chip, that also includes gun related deaths caused by gangs, drugs, suicide. In Baltimore, for instance, we usually average about 1 homicide per day. Many of those involve guns, BUT... almost all of them are related to gangs and almost all of those are gang on gang violence.

I may sound cold, but if two gang members shoot each other and one dies, I really couldn't possibly care less, other than to wish the other had died as well. Gangs are a plague and the best thing that could happen would be to fence all those clowns into one city and let them slaughter each other. If you ask me, the gang problem has been exacerbated by the war on drugs... why do gangs exist, if not to further the drug trade here?? Yet another example of how making something illegal doesn't make it not exist. Not with borders like ours.

Really? My 18 year old daughter bought a car with no questions asked at all. Nothing is required to own a car. No back ground check. Don't mistake a license for driving on a public road with owning and possessing.

Yeah, I don't know where that idea came from but certainly they don't do a background check on you for a car and you drive right out that day. And honestly, having seen the way some idiots in this city drive, that's at least as dangerous as handing them a gun.

 

[kathylove]

"...But as for the protecting us from our Govt... They've got some stuff (for lack of a better word) that probably trumps any civilians arsenal, and I think it's a little overly-imaginative to think that we're going to someday overthrow our Govt..."

I don't think anyone here wants to overthrow the gov't. What we are concerned about is that the gov't might "overthrow" US - the "people"! And from what I have read, our founding fathers had the same fear way back when they wrote the Constitution.

As far as buying a car, the only reason it might seem more difficult is because a car usually (but not always) costs more than a gun. When we bought a used van for $14K several years ago at a local dealership, I was actually quite shocked by the procedure myself. We had both forgotten our driver's licenses, and didn't have any form of gov't ID on us. But after checking our credit scores just on our word and whatever credit cards or other commercial stuff we had with our names on it, they let us drive it off the lot! We came back a couple of days later to fill out the paperwork. I just couldn't believe they did that. That would never happen with even the smallest gun. And of course, if you buy a car from a private person, nothing is required of the seller - much as with a private sale of a gun.

I would consider both "tools" equally dangerous in the wrong hands. But a car is probably easier to use to accidentally kill more people than a gun would be. Most guns only kill one person at a time when accidentally discharged. Cars can mow down a whole row of people at once if the driver is drunk or otherwise impaired.

 

[Tavia]

In Idaho, you can get a drivers licsense at 14, though it does have several restrictions, like not being allowed to drive at night and I think they have to have someone 21 or older with a valid licsense in the passenger seat up until they are 16. To me, and I might be biased, since as a school crossing guard it's my job to play chicken with idiot drivers, I do think vehicles are the worse weapon, with too easy access to them. You don't have to own a vehicle to drive one. Over 3 quarters of my town's population is armed but almost all the really scary people are behind the wheel of a car.

 

[snakewispera snr]

I didn't realize that deaths by guns would be broken down into groups..
I notice that it has been said, if Suicideand Gangs are taken out of the equation..
Well if we remove gang killings from our statistic, our death rate by guns nears zero..
I was just counting illegal killings by guns... I didn't try to justify the reason for the deaths.

 

[Chip]

While suicide might be technically illegal, I don't see how you can punish offenders! I simply think it's not a fair variable to add in a stat of gun crime.

 

[rexracer]

I didn't realize that deaths by guns would be broken down into groups..
I notice that it has been said, if Suicideand Gangs are taken out of the equation..
Well if we remove gang killings from our statistic, our death rate by guns nears zero..
I was just counting illegal killings by guns... I didn't try to justify the reason for the deaths.

The numbers you're quoting are not fair or honest accounting for anything IMHO. You're comparing gun deaths with the US from a country that has all but outlawed handguns for over 100 years. What is your murder rate, using any means? Now take the murder rate in, say London, and compare that to the murder rate in a similar sized city in the US. How do they compare? Look at socio-economic factors in the two cities. Are they comparable? If so, then if the US city had more murders, there might be the makings of an argument. The comparison you're making would be like me arguing that swimming should be banned in Hawaii because it's banned in the Sahara and Hawaii has all those drownings, and we have almost none in the Sahara.

 

[Dreamsnake]

The majority of gang members are children with no fathers, over taxed mothers, poor schools, lack of social support other then the self perpetuating crisis that supports gangs in this country. Gangs are a health epidemic. Suicides are also most commonly done by high school kids and as one child dies another so follows the example. I always wonder why so many people are pro life before a child is born, then switch to pro death if the child becomes hazardous to themselves or society.

Gangs are also a part of the respective culture of the Americas (North, South, Central). The drug wars have made this epidemic worse, but not all of the cultural problems can be blamed on narcotics since racial tensions still exist.

Last night I was talking with my husband that America isn't controlled by the people, but by corporations. Corporations use the politicians to tease the people into ire over key issues so that at the end of the day no progress is made in solving the important problems. Guns and healthcare are the teaser issues. Everyone either wants or needs both. Someone wants objective one, but not the other; yet they are willing to take what they want and deny another right to the other object. I say give everyone a gun and healthcare so we can get on with our lives. The world is unraveling at the moment and our society has become far to fat, lazy, and content in our consumer habits.

 

[rexracer]

...Last night I was talking with my husband that America isn't controlled by the people, but by corporations...

That is a profound statement. Corporations own the government. I hear complaints about the debt, and also about the high corporate income tax rate. The rate is high, but who actually pays it? The last year I found stats on, Exxon-Mobile not only didn't pay any corporate income tax, but Uncle Sam ended up paying them hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Dreamsnake]

We still live in a feudal society. Produce comes from big box stores, religion comes from mega churches, education barely covers basic anything, regular people are forced to work hard for little pay and no benefits or not enough to cover preventative treatments, families also have babies to fix problems. It seems that more people are kept ignorant and angry these days. This country would rather give away rights for comfort and more junk we don't need. There is no longer progress but scraping by pay check to pay check.

Corporations have the money to buy off politicians, who frankly are nothing more then sleazy actors. They control the depleting resources of the planet, force the developing nations into continual poverty, dump waste and garbage where they please, and not pay taxes while the CEOs and managers hide money in banks around the world.

As for guns...wont we need those if we want our country, our rights, our integrity back? I hope I'm wrong, I do. I have sons who are still so young. I don't think it will be that long before the rest of the world has had it with us for not turning off the reality shows and getting our country back from those who took it. If the citizens wont do anything another army will. We won Civil Rights why can't we win integrity?

 

[mjdglobal]

Everyone can throw out all the stats they want. However, I've still not heard a reason why a lawful citizen should not be allowed to own a firearm. All I hear about is what a criminal might do with one. Because SOMEONE ELSE might go crazy and shoot somebody, I should'nt be allowed to own one. I guess because SOMEONE ELSE might run somebody over, I should'nt be allowed to own a vehicle. Because SOMEONE ELSE might get drunk and act like an ass, I should'nt be allowed to drink a beer. So please, tell me again why a law-abiding citizen should not be able to own a firearm, because I have not heard ONE valid reason yet.

 

[Outcast]

We still live in a feudal society. Produce comes from big box stores, religion comes from mega churches, education barely covers basic anything, regular people are forced to work hard for little pay and no benefits or not enough to cover preventative treatments, families also have babies to fix problems. It seems that more people are kept ignorant and angry these days. This country would rather give away rights for comfort and more junk we don't need. There is no longer progress but scraping by pay check to pay check.

Corporations have the money to buy off politicians, who frankly are nothing more then sleazy actors. They control the depleting resources of the planet, force the developing nations into continual poverty, dump waste and garbage where they please, and not pay taxes while the CEOs and managers hide money in banks around the world.

As for guns...wont we need those if we want our country, our rights, our integrity back? I hope I'm wrong, I do. I have sons who are still so young. I don't think it will be that long before the rest of the world has had it with us for not turning off the reality shows and getting our country back from those who took it. If the citizens wont do anything another army will. We won Civil Rights why can't we win integrity?

Well said!

 

[Chip]

Damn, I hoped I was wrong...
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

 

[tsst]

Damn, I hoped I was wrong...
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

It was only a matter of time and an event to springboard off of. He has always been about the erosion of the 2nd amendment.
:realhot: :angry01: :headbang:

 

[Rich Z]

And it's A-OK to feel that way, but instead of doing blanket bans where nobody can own this or that or the other, how about coming up with a better method of treating people who are mentally disturbed, or at the very least identifying them so that they CAN'T buy a gun. I'm not mentally disturbed-- so why should I have to suffer and infringement on my rights simply to prevent other mentally disturbed people from doing damage? Go after them-- not me!

You know, this all sounds really spiffy keen on paper, but WHO exactly is going to be the authority that DEFINES what "mentally disturbed" IS? I'm sure there are people in Congress who firmly believe that anyone who would WANT a gun is "mentally disturbed". Suppose one of these persons heads the committee that defines that term? If that then becomes one of the criteria for the definition, then what? Or how about simply complaining about the government? Do you think that might be "mentally disturbing" to people in the government? Is there ANYTHING you do or think that someone else might think is "disturbing"? Keeping snakes, maybe?

This very same thing has been taking place already for years. But this started with what seemed like a very sensible and sound piece of reasoning. Quite simply, that anyone guilty of a felony should not own a firearm. But that was done when felonies were SERIOUS violent crimes. Of course it made sense that you wouldn't want murderers, rapists, or bank robbers able to have firearms! But it was apparently overlooked that the definition of "felony" could be changed at will, and therefore this prohibition in like kind expanded at will. Seriously, check you own local and state laws to find out what is now classed as a felony. Here in Florida I can lose my right to have a firearm if I trespass on a construction site or if I steal (meaning taking without permission if my car is on fire) a fire extinguisher from a motel. There are others, but I'm sure you get the drift...

Once you have a prohibition based on a legal term, if there is no limit to the expansion of the DEFINITION of that term, then you have given the authority able to define that term unlimited power in relation to that prohibition.

 

[Hypancistrus]

You know, this all sounds really spiffy keen on paper, but WHO exactly is going to be the authority that DEFINES what "mentally disturbed" IS?

That is very true, Rich. Same question applies to permits for "dangerous animals." Who decides the conditions??

I certainly don't think the VT shooter should have been legally allowed to purchase a gun, but I don't have any answers as to how to define the terms or make it fair to folks who are sane and law abiding.

 

[kathylove]

It is true that it can be a slippery slope to let others decide on a person's competency to do a particular thing. But we do have established guidelines on friends and relatives reporting to a patient's doctor when they think his or her ability to safely drive is in question. I believe the way it works is that the doctor then reports to the driver's license authorities if he agrees that there is a problem. I am not sure what happens from there; whether it is further verified by the licensing authorities, or if they take the doctor's word.

We also have the "Baker Act" (I think I remember it is called that, from WAY back in my nursing years). It allows a person to be confined for a short time for psychiatric evaluation if police or medical professionals feel he or she might be a danger to themselves or to others.

So it seems like some sort of variation of what we already have could be put in place to report somebody who is impaired enough to be a possible driving hazard, or a danger to themselves or others. They should also be placed on a "no buy" list for firearms.

Of course, they could still buy from a private person. I am not sure how far I want to go in suggesting regulations for private sale. FWC (Fl. Fish and Game) already has tried to make license holders their little minions in making sure that everyone we buy from has a license (or we, the buyers, will be in trouble), so that we do part of their job for them. I don't know that I would want to do that to every person who has just one gun to sell. OTOH, guns offer more danger potential than any reptiles I sell. If I sell a car privately, I do have to transfer a title. And potential car danger seems similar to potential gun danger, IMO

If all sales had to go through a licensed gun dealer, then buyers would be checked to see if they were on the "no buy" list. BUT - it would make it easier for the government to know where all of the guns are, in case they want to confiscate them in the future. Not sure where I stand on that - I have to think about that for a while. I want to see the crazies kept away from guns, but I want everyone else to have pretty much unlimited access. Not sure about the best way to accomplish that.

 

[Nanci]

I would think that much like the no-fly list, people could get put on a no-buy list at a whim, and then find it impossible to get off it, when it was proven that there had been no cause.

I plan on going out and enjoying my second amendment right today!! It's a beautiful day for shooting in Florida.

 

[kathylove]

I Googled the process for getting impaired drivers off the road, and came up with this procedure for NY: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/olderdriver/reeval.htm

Seems like anyone can report somebody they think might be dangerous, and then the authorities have several procedures, including a clearance from a medical doctor, interviews with licensing authorities, eye test, driving test, etc. I do remember that a friend of mine here in Florida had to go through a similar effort to restore a driver's license after having a seizure that caused a minor accident. Once her doctor reported that she was well controlled with medicine, her license was restored and she had no further incidents.

These procedures sound much more well thought out than the "no fly" list, in which mistaken identities and similar names seem to result in a lot of stupid mistakes that seem almost impossible to fix.

Maybe anyone who has a driver's license revoked should be placed on a "no buy" firearms list, which requires clearance from a doctor to be removed. And maybe there should be a similar way for anyone to report their concerns to those who officiate the "no buy" list for firearms, comparable to the NY driver's license reporting forms.

 

[Nanci]

I'm surprised you would say that, Kathy. You could get your drivers license revoked for a number of reasons, lots of which are not felonies and wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you'd be a "safe" gun owner. And depending on an anti-gun doctor to remove a person from a no-buy list would be a joke. I heard a guy on the radio the other day. He was at a doctor's appointment with his 8 year old. The PA asks the kid, Do you have any guns in the home? The kid looks at the dad. He says, it's okay to answer the question. The kid says yes. She says, do you know where the guns are kept? He looks at the dad again, and again, the dad says, you can answer her. The kid says yes. She asks, can you get a hold of the guns if you want to? and the dad says, so just where are we going with this conversation? Oh, it's part of the National Child Safety Program. Do my child's answers get recorded? Well, yes, we put them in his chart, but we don't send them off anywhere. So if a government agency asked you for that information, would you be required to give it? Well, uh...The dad says, okay, we're out of here...

Crazies are unfortunate, but I don't believe imposing more restrictions on the general public, or invading the privacy of citizens who haven't committed a crime is appropriate.