Probably because guns are explicitly designed and produced to kill... you think?
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Probably because guns are explicitly designed and produced to kill... you think?
Your sarcasm is very misplaced considering that is essentially what I said.
I think this is one form of open carry we could all get behind
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/smallbusiness/guns-jewelry/index.html?source=cnn_bin
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/smallbusiness/guns-jewelry/index.html?source=cnn_bin
Apparently the provision that would ban fully 3D Printed weapons has failed to be passed along with the rest of the Undetectable Firearms Act.
Perhaps the makers of 3D printers have long tentacles reaching through lobbyists to various politicians.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
Clipped this up for brevity from the NY Times, but you can find it discussed in the Times, Bloomberg, MSNBC, etc.
It beggars belief with one ridiculous provision after another. Looks like it's to be a done deal. Honestly there are so many ways this country is an amazing place to live in, so what on earth are these pussies so afraid of? And before you say it, no, I don't reckon it's all about racism. Next week I'll be down that way (Mississippi and Louisiana) so I'll be sure to ask.
It beggars belief with one ridiculous provision after another. Looks like it's to be a done deal. Honestly there are so many ways this country is an amazing place to live in, so what on earth are these pussies so afraid of? And before you say it, no, I don't reckon it's all about racism. Next week I'll be down that way (Mississippi and Louisiana) so I'll be sure to ask.
I think it comes down to the importance of the individual in American thought. These are mostly just people who want to be able to defend themselves should the need arise and not rely on law enforcement or anyone else to come and pick up the pieces when they get injured or killed by someone who doesn't care about laws restricting firearms and takes them wherever they want, using them as they see fit. You will probably get more of this in the southern states as they tend to be a bit more rowdy, probably from the heat.
Most people who do own firearms and want to carry them do not expect to ever have to use them but they want to have it should a threatening situation present itself. It will be interesting to see the data once Georgia brings this in.
I live in the metro Atlanta area. Personally I think this law could potentially reduce the crime rate. The town of Kennesaw, GA, just 30-40 minutes north of Atlanta enacted a gun law in 1982 that requires every household to have at least one firearm. The result is that since then Kennesaw has had a steep drop in gun related crime. The town went murder free for the first 27 years after this law was passed. The law is not enforced, but its a huge deterrent.
fecked up anti-civilisation. whether it "works" or not.
Last edited:
Yeap
The Wild Wild Southern Altlantic - It has a ring to it. Or may be not.
WTF!
WTF!
Not
But before the law was passed when was the murder rate like? Also, what have the accidental death or injury by gun accidents rates done since the law?
I don't have the exact figures relating to murder, but since the law passed Kennesaw has only had 4 murders. Thats 4 murders in 32 years. The crime rate in general before 1982 was above the national average. It took a plunge after the law was passed. Here's an article from 2007, 25 years after the law was enacted.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
This was not what some predicted.
In a column titled “Gun Town USA,” Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as “the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world.” Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.
Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.
"Own and maintain" might be a key factor in that ordnance. I've got a feeling that a large percentage of American gun owners simply own and do not care to maintain them or be aware of basic firearms safety.
A single, small town is completely worthless as an example. It had a population of just over five thousand when they enacted it, for crying out loud.
That is incredibly creepy.
I don't get where the line is drawn or how it gets drawn. If everyone should be entitled to be armed to protect themselves against, then where does it stop?
If you take the view that guns protect rather than kill and that people should be entitled to them, what logic is used to prevent a child taking a gun to school? Morally here, not necessarily legally. Why does this idea of protection and self-defence only apply to the home and not the doctors, the school-yard, or an aeroplane? Surely a principle is a principle and the mantra that someone as the right to protect himself and his family, would apply equally irrespective of circumstantial geographical location?
So I don't really understand on what basis is the distinction made in the different scenarios. The only reason I can assume is that people would say that it's 'safer' if not everyone on an aircraft was armed. But then how in one situation is everyone being armed unsafe and in another situation everyone being armed is merely taking a sensible precaution?
Whether we're talking airports or schools, hospitals or sporting events, why does the principle change?
If you take the view that guns protect rather than kill and that people should be entitled to them, what logic is used to prevent a child taking a gun to school? Morally here, not necessarily legally. Why does this idea of protection and self-defence only apply to the home and not the doctors, the school-yard, or an aeroplane? Surely a principle is a principle and the mantra that someone as the right to protect himself and his family, would apply equally irrespective of circumstantial geographical location?
So I don't really understand on what basis is the distinction made in the different scenarios. The only reason I can assume is that people would say that it's 'safer' if not everyone on an aircraft was armed. But then how in one situation is everyone being armed unsafe and in another situation everyone being armed is merely taking a sensible precaution?
Whether we're talking airports or schools, hospitals or sporting events, why does the principle change?
What's your basis for that?
Every new gun that you buy from an American Manufacturer comes with a lot of highly visible safety information. It's typically printed in a large red font and comprises both the intial and last pages of the manual as well as leaflets that come with the gun. So many of the firearms related deaths in the US are due to simple carelessness that I can only assume that people don't bother to read it. IF they did they might think twice about doing stupid things like leaving a loaded firearm unattended.
I see. You're right about how much and how prominent the safety info is. That's more to limit liability than anything else, so I wouldn't read too much into that. Besides, it's almost entirely common sense and entry-level info. Almost everything in that safety information is expected to be common knowledge for gun owners.
I take issue with the supposition of a culture of recklessness or ignorance. Given my experience, I can't help but think that the volume of accidental firearms deaths is more a function of scale and idiots per capita. I have eight guns of various types, which is about average for a gun owner in Texas. I know more folks that own guns than don't. Everyone of them know how to break them down and clean them. One or two can do basic gunsmith work, but it has to be a serious hobby or a profession to hit that point. Everyone of them have good sense and weapons handling skills. Not one has had an accident or committed a crime with them ranging from a decade to five decades of gun ownership and use.
It's a fact that not everyone meets that standard, but those who don't are really looked down on by just about everyone. Tragically, our species continues to produce those that will be careless when they've been told to do better. Just look at driving!
I take issue with the supposition of a culture of recklessness or ignorance. Given my experience, I can't help but think that the volume of accidental firearms deaths is more a function of scale and idiots per capita. I have eight guns of various types, which is about average for a gun owner in Texas. I know more folks that own guns than don't. Everyone of them know how to break them down and clean them. One or two can do basic gunsmith work, but it has to be a serious hobby or a profession to hit that point. Everyone of them have good sense and weapons handling skills. Not one has had an accident or committed a crime with them ranging from a decade to five decades of gun ownership and use.
It's a fact that not everyone meets that standard, but those who don't are really looked down on by just about everyone. Tragically, our species continues to produce those that will be careless when they've been told to do better. Just look at driving!
Cheers, no worries. I, too, own a number of firearms (9 to be precise) and everyone I know who is involved with firearms is pretty safety conscious as well but it's the only way I can explain away the number of accidental shootings that take place south of us. I'm probably being negatively influenced by media reports but still, a little bit of extra safety as far as storing guns when they're not in use would go a long way to helping reduce the number of deaths from firearms in the US, at least that's my opinion.
Simple carelessness with a gun, though. It's really fecking difficult to kill someone if you're careless with, for example, a sponge. If you're careless with a rifle, however, it's pretty easy. It's even easier if you're an angsty teen who wants to kill all their teachers. The issue isn't that sensible people have guns. Surely the problem is that it allows idiots and mentalists to access guns?
It should go without saying that owning/handling any firearm requires the utmost care and responsibility. They're fecking dangerous if misued, afterall.
Teens shouldn't have unsupervised access to guns. Discerning whether a person is mentally unfit is a more difficult proposition, though.
If they just weren't readily and easily available that'd go some way to removing the need to check if people are mentally responsible enough to own a firearm.
To my knowledge they aren't that easy to get, unless you're buying privately. Even the gun show loophole has been restricted somewhat lately. Granted, it's been a while since I've seen a gun purchased in the US, and that was a cross border affair so it took about 8 weeks to complete.
There is some merit to the idea of restricting ammunition purchases. In Canada you can't buy it without having a firearms licence.
I've seen families like that in the North Georgia mountains while out camping. Small girl was lifting a rifle that seemed longer than she was!
I think the point where a random person off the street can realistically go and purchase a gun is the point where they're too easy to get hold of. Fair enough farmers might need a couple and if you live in a country or part of a country where you're likely to encounter at least one bear, you could probably do with one. Why does a banker living in suburbia need a gun though? I've seen plenty of arguments saying all these school shootings and mass murders happen because of mental cases, not because of guns and obviously that is literally correct. The point is though, people shouldn't be allowed access to something that can kill lots of people very quickly and easily with next to no training or effort.
I dunno much about Canada in terms of how difficult it is to acquire a gun but I've also heard much less about people strolling into schools, shops, petrol stations, etc in Canada and shooting everybody so something must be working. You can get a gun in the UK so long as you can prove it's required (i.e. if you have a lot of heavy, horned animals to deal with regularly). I'm convinced it's too easy for the "average Joe" to get a gun in the US, and while said Joe might be completely fine there's nothing to say his girlfriend/wife/son/daughter/brother/anyone else who might very easily get hold of that gun isn't the sort of person who might go mental and kill someone innocent with it. The ability to get hold of one legitimately might not be the root of the problem, rather the fact that there's so many laying around literally anyone could realistically get hold of their parents', brother's or whatever.
Yeah, as I said, Im not up to speed on all of the state's regulations. As far as I know most have waiting periods etc. Up here it's a longer waiting period to be able to acquire firearms as we do a full background check but after that you get a licence and then it's pretty easy. Once you have that little card our waiting period for commercial sales is either non-existent (for standard rifles and shotguns you buy it and it goes home with you the same day) or only a day or two (handguns and AR-15s, etc.). WE can purchase firearms online and have them delivered to our door, unlike the US where they must be shipped to a licenced dealer for pick up. Ammunition sales are restricted to licence holders as I mentioned earlier and supposedly our status as valid licence holders is monitored in real time.
We have had mass shootings, all of the recent ones occured when we were required registered all guns, so registering firearms adds no value to society. Our experience proves that it does nothing to keep people safer or stop crimes, it's a blanket that makes you thinkyou are safer but really you are not. We have a lot of flaws with our system but the licencing component is decent (could be improved in ways I'm not about to get into) and we have storage requirements that in most instances that keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. That's why I advocate for sensible storage in the US, a lot of lives would be saved. It's possibly the only thing that both sides of the debate down there might agree on.
Ah, this I did not know. Although I think it's linked to my point that however careful you are selling a weapon to someone, it's impossible to know who else will have access to that weapon. Safe storage sounds like an obvious idea to be honest so I'm surprised it isn't already a thing. If I'm honest I thought it was, just that most people aren't diligent enough to uphold it. Even so though surely it would be better to just remove the problem entirely? I understand that it obviously isn't that simple in a country as big as the US but I can't help but think almost every solution to the problem they so clearly have is skirting the issue that if people didn't have guns they wouldn't be able to kill people with guns. Restricting ammo is another thing that seems so obvious I can't believe they don't do it.
Its easily 4 times that number now and the crime is still down
Yes, and it's still just one very small town. In a vacuum it has nothing to tell us about the effects of gun control.
I think we should give out nukes to everyone then no one would start any trouble anymore because he knows "better not piss of this dude or he'll nuke my whole town."
Lulz
Lulz
Its a small sample but you simply can't dismiss the results in this way
I absolutely can. One town does not a sample make.