Gun Crime In America

[musculArgirl2]

yeah i think it would be densitizing to these young kids playing these things.

[fitoverforty]

Wow, I'm just getting caught up on this forum. I have so many thoughts about it all, not that opinions matter, but there are a few fundamental reasonings most people I know have for being against having guns removed from homes.

The only guns whose fault it is that they killed a person is an unloaded gun (because they failed to protect their owner and theirfore killed him.)

A gun is an inanimate object incapable of being "at fault" for anything other than a mechanical failure of some sort.

I also believe that everything bad that happens to us we bring on ourselves.

There are alot of things that happen to us from things we do, choices we make, etc., - but in no way is EVERYTHING that happens to a person because they "brought it on themselves".

Similarly, if I got raped out there because I made poor choices, planned poorly, and had low moral standards, that would be all fault too

No. You could arm yourself to the hilt, wear a knife, carry a boozooka whatever - and still be raped if your attacker catches you off guard, disarms you, knocks you in the head, shoots you first, whatever. And it wouldn't be your fault. Again, I understand the point you are trying to make - that we should take every precaution to protect ourselves from the threat of attack - but you can't generalize everything so broadly, cut and dried - life does not work that way.

if you take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep guns for protection, how are they going to protect themselves from the gangsters, drug lords, human traffickers, etc?

this I agree with - taking away the rights of law-abiding families to protect themselves is not going to help reduce gun crime in America, it's not going to lesson mass murderers from opening fire on innocent people (who by the way, did not bring it on themselves if they happen to be in a public place and are shot by a crazy person).
If we make gun laws stricter - who will it really protect? Criminals don't need laws, don't abide by them, don't care about them. They will find ways around them, they always have - that why they are CRIMINALS.
Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, but it did help bootleggers get rich. Raising cigarette prices doesn't stop people from smoking - just makes them smoke cheaper cigarettes, or make their own.
One thing about the United States of America is that we have many different cultures, and lifestyles. I live in the south. And while I don't agree with all aspects of gun ownership, I can tell you honestly - that it strikes fear in the very heart of the people in this area by the very thought of not being able to protect their families from intruders. Because unlike other countries - the vast majority of home invaders in the U.S. are armed with a weapon, be it a gun, or a knife etc. And I for one, could not in good conscience live with myself if I did not have some sort of weapon on hand in own home to have a fighting chance to protect myself or son if someone tried break in and kill us. The intruder is going to buy a gun off the street - he won't worry about passing a background check. It's just the way it is.
So, I don't have all the answers. I am just trying to make sure that the rights of law abiding citizens to protect their families, don't get taken away trying to stop non law abiding citizens from having guns. You can't stop them because they don't abide by laws. You see point?

[musculArgirl2]

I disagree with some things you mentioned lynne but i do see your point on protecting yourself. Where i live, crime is minimal. I don't worry much about it but if there were a lot more of it i can see how outlawing law abiding gun owner's weapons could make them nervous and uncomfortable. So i see your point there.

I think the majority of americans agree with you anyways and i don't think the 2nd amendment is going anywhere anytime soon.

[fitoverforty]

I disagree with some things you mentioned lynne but i do see your point on protecting yourself.

It's okay, we can agree to disagree. That's what America is all about. And like I said, opinions differ depending on where you live, and what kind of culture you have been exposed to in your lifetime. I live in a part of the U.S. that is rich in a gun culture for hunting, collecting, sport target shooting, home protection, etc. I was taught how to respect the power of a gun, proper handling, and safety and never thought it was "wrong" to have one in the home. It was normal. I don't think it's right to take that away from me or from anyone who wishes to safely keep a firearm in their home for protection.
For example the shooting in New Orleans over the weekend where 19 people where shot, thankfully none fatally. The alleged shooter is only 19 and has previously been arrested for illegal carrying of a weapon, & illegal possession of a stolen firearm. Gun laws did not stop him from getting a gun and more laws won't help - like I said, bad people who want to do bad things don't adhere to laws and for the most part do not acquire their weapons legally. So making it legally harder to purchase a weapon doesn't seem like it will change much at all.
It's a complex issue. Recently in own neighborhood there was a rash of burglaries, several homes in neighborhood and mother's neighborhood were broken into. We had a serial burglar on the loose. When he was finally captured (in mother's neighborhood - less than a mile from her house) it was discovered that he was a convicted felon, out on parole, with several weapons in his possession. Thankfully he was caught before anyone was hurt or killed. He broke into a house 100 yards from house - it could have been mine, it could have been family in danger and yes I believe I should have the right to protect myself from people like him. So what is the answer? I don't know.

[musculArgirl2]

It's okay, we can agree to disagree.

Definitely.

are you against banning some types of guns?? I"m okay with hunting rifles really being around but the assualt rifles i would like banned i think. Your right it depends on what culture you grew up in definitely. There is a gun culture here too but there is also a lot of liberals.

[fitoverforty]

are you against banning some types of guns?? I"m okay with hunting rifles really being around but the assualt rifles i would like banned i think.

Yes, I understand the logic of banning assault rifles and I would tend to be more in agreement with that - I don't think John Doe down the street necessarily really needs to have an oozie or a fully automatic machine gun, but then again banning them will not get rid of them for someone who has no problem going around the law to get one. And the black market will get rich. How can you make it impossible for a person to get one? Stop the production of them? Make the bullets only available to law enforcement or military? I think that might be the first step.
But in the end it all comes down to the mindset of an individual - not who can buy them and who can't. If someone wants to do harm to another person or hundreds of people - and they can't get an assault rifle, they will find another way - as we have seen in recent events. You can't outlaw pressure cookers or nails or pvc pipe.
It's a crazy scary world we live in.

[musculArgirl2]

yeah i don't know. i really don't. i this is a very complex issue that people feel extremely strong about!

It's sad though because we have SO Much violence in our society.

[Boss Man]

Britain discriminaes against keeping weapons.

If you hit a burgler once with a golf club, or a cricket bat, or a kendo stick, or some other implement, to disable them, that's deemed okay if the weapon was used reasonaly, I.E. not hitting the burgler into a comatosed state and the weapon was not within handy reach.

If you went into another room and got somethign ot protect yourself in the spur of the moment, that is fine, but if you had it in your bedroom or under the bed, the courts could consider it premeditated, because why would anyone keep a golf club in the bedroom, as opposed to in a bag of golf clubs under the stairs and if the premeditation was considered real, then the householder could get into trouble.

I admit to not knowing the requisite punishment.

Americans keeping weapons yes Ithink, but guns I think no. Compromise is where an american is allowed to keep a sporting implement, or a stick or something like that and disable the burgler responsibly, again not by stoving their head in until they die or become vegitative.

Gun trafficking and illegal gun running would increase with no second amendment and gun shops would close meaing staff would need subisides to live, not pay tax and no tax from the profits, so the governement loses out.

The governement then imposes a 4 week amnesty where guns are handed in with no charges. Britain does this sometimes, in an act of trying to reduce the amount of gun and knife ownership. In one case a police force were given a low tech missile launcher and the owner was permitted to walk away with no criminal proceedings, as it was a weapons amnesty so no exceptions.

Guns would then be limited to gun clubs, the police and military.

You wouldn't get rid of gun crime or prevent illegal gun use and perhaps increase trafficking, but if one or two people were saved each year then it would be worth it.

That kid in Newtown I think it was who killed people with his Mother's gun couldn't have done it if the Mother had not been allowed to keep guns.

You would also possibly reduce the chance, of honest hardworking store owners being robbed or injured, maybe even fatally. Illegal gun use I would think, would most likely be used for things like robbing banks and money transit vans, or lorries with taxable goods like alcohol in them, not shops you could loot a bit of money and alcohol from. I would think this sort of crime involving illegal guns would reduce.

Keeping weapons is one thing, but guns is another. People in America would not complain if the blessed second amendment had never been created, as people would not be bemoaning their lot and wishing people would let them keep guns, if it had never happened before.

There's still the point about the relatives and friends of victims of gun shootings, being sought for their opinion, as how many would agree with amendment 2, or wish it could be history?

Also how many police people and judiciaries have ever been sought en mass for thier opinion on the second amendment?

The types of people I've mentioned would surely have more of a solid viewpoint than just any old gun owner, so shouldn't their opinion count and if so, has it ever been asked for to a great extent?

[musculArgirl2]

i'm doubtful anything will happen.

[musculArgirl2]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... ntrol-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

maybe i'm wrong on that.

[Boss Man]

An interesting take on public opinion it seems.

[musculArgirl2]

i wanted to add to this. We talked about gun control last weekend. we were talking about it with the violence and unrest that has been occurring with police.

one thing i learned is that although america is BY FAR the largest gun owning population in the world we are more in the middle for gun violence with other countries! kind of an interesting point of view. i think 88 out of 100 americans own guns.

It's definitely apart of our heritage and culture.

[musculArgirl2]

I was just reading an article on how the terrorists are planning mass killings of westerners. Not sure how much truth it is to it but maybe it is a good thing americans are armed.

[Boss Man]

Not really, as someone walking into a workplace with a semi-automatic shooting at people, might be killed by a security guard, but it's highly unlikely people would be in their offices keeping a gun in their desk, so possession of guns would make no difference unless the security guard(s) got the shots off before being killed and if you kept a gun at home and terrorists decided to gun down people somewhere like a coffee house or a bookshop, you would not have much of a chance, just like the poor people at Charlie Hebdo didn't.

That paragraph is not intended to scare or sound disrespectful, it's just almost certainly the truth.

Also the terrorists may say what they like and whilst it would be remiss to think they couldn't do it, it's whether they have the where with all to do it at all.

The answer to them is, don't waste your time trying to kill, maim or hurt the west, because we will never give you ransom demands and never give in to you the stupid, ignorant minority, who will never find paradise, because your afterlife will consist of things far worse happening to you, than you could ever do to a single westerner and you can question that all you like, but you will be have as much chance of proving that to be wrong, as you have of proving paradise and 24 virgins will be there for you when you die.

You LOSE

[musculArgirl2]

I don't understand their thinking at all. or that ideaology.


Love the demonstrations in they've been having for unity.