USA Gun Control

[MoreCoffee]

Really? Five killed the other day by a guy with a knife.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Where and when?

 

[Hammster]

Where and when?

http://madworldnews.com/another-mass-homicide-heard/


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

http://madworldnews.com/another-mass-homicide-heard/


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Oh, I see, it comes from some crazy 'news' source.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, I see, it comes from some crazy 'news' source.

http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/local/...7dd-0a63-5494-b04c-0a76fc310005.html?mode=jqm

http://m.newsok.com/article/5437815

http://m.koco.com/news/judge-enters...rrow-teens-accused-of-killing-family/34504960


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

There's more if you need them.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's more if you need them.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

They all look crazy too

 

[tango]

Gun control laws may help to do it but they will not do it alone.

Sent from my keyboard!

Gun control laws will never take away the desire to be violent. The best they can do is to restrict access to one specific tool that can be used for violence.

 

[tango]

No, but there are serial killers occasionally. Mass killing is harder to perpetrate without a gun.

You can kill someone with a single punch. It's happened a number of times in England. Often the killer didn't intend to actually end the victim's life but a single punch that causes someone to fall backwards and hit their head on the ground can be fatal.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You can kill someone with a single punch. It's happened a number of times in England. Often the killer didn't intend to actually end the victim's life but a single punch that causes someone to fall backwards and hit their head on the ground can be fatal.

I doubt that a single puncher could perpetrate a mass killing with a series of single punches

 

[tango]

I doubt that a single puncher could perpetrate a mass killing with a series of single punches

If you're so inclined it's pretty easy to kill a lot of people at once with a motor vehicle. Why focus on one tool that's used in high profile killings and ignore other tools used in other killings?

It's not that difficult to make petrol bombs, and it doesn't take a genius to figure what happens if someone starts throwing them in a crowded urban area, but nobody is clamoring for tighter controls on purchases at the gas station. It's not difficult to use a propane tank to make a flame thrower but few people are saying we shouldn't be allowed to freely buy a propane tank to power a barbecue.

The question for me keeps coming back to, why the endless focus on guns? Anyone would think there was a hidden agenda somewhere.

 

[king of the unknown]

Gun control is something that is really interesting. I find the best solution is instead of doing a nation wide gun law, instead each state or even county should make the laws. Each area is different and why should we turn it into a universal light switch. Not only that but there is so many level of gun control. Taking one side or the other really doesn't make much since. The truth is we all want the same thing peace, freedom, and security. If it was a simply solution then we would have solved it all ready. Instead divide and conquer. Plus most gun problem aren't just gun problems. Treaty the symptoms isn't going to stop the actual problem. I think there are much bigger fish to fry but then again I am just some guy on a website and not a politician wanting votes.

P. S. Politics are like ninjas.

 

[psalms 91]

You speak truth

 

[tango]

Gun control is something that is really interesting. I find the best solution is instead of doing a nation wide gun law, instead each state or even county should make the laws. Each area is different and why should we turn it into a universal light switch. Not only that but there is so many level of gun control. Taking one side or the other really doesn't make much since. The truth is we all want the same thing peace, freedom, and security. If it was a simply solution then we would have solved it all ready. Instead divide and conquer. Plus most gun problem aren't just gun problems. Treaty the symptoms isn't going to stop the actual problem. I think there are much bigger fish to fry but then again I am just some guy on a website and not a politician wanting votes.

P. S. Politics are like ninjas.

State-by-state makes some sense but county by county would just create a huge nightmare.

I know a guy who lives in NC and has a friend in PA. He has a concealed carry permit issued by the state of North Carolina, which is recognised by every state on the route between NC and PA except for MD. So to drive from NC to PA he would have to either avoid MD completely (adding a significant detour), or carry his weapon unloaded. That's not the kind of journey you make without planning it in advance, so it's arguably not a big deal for him to carry his pistol and his ammo separately to satisfy the laws of MD.

Introducing county-by-county legislation could so easily create a huge nightmare. It could potentially mean that someone who simply took a diversion home from work because of a road closure could suddenly find themselves unlawfully carrying a firearm. It's not as if it's even obvious when crossing a county line. It's hard to miss the "Welcome to Virginia" type signs at the roadside but I've driven through dozens of US counties and not all of them have markers to indicate you've crossed from one into another.

I agree that it's not as simple as "a gun problem". I remember reading an interesting article a couple of years back (I thought I bookmarked it, but can't find the link) about a law requiring people to register their firearms and how it had an interesting consequence. Because convicted felons are barred from owning firearms, and the 5th Amendment means the state cannot force anyone to incriminate themselves, the 5th Amendment exempts convicted felons from being required to register their firearms at all on the basis it would be tantamount to self-incrimination. So the law-abiding would have to register their guns while felons would not. I'm not a lawyer but can see how it might be argued that if failure to register a gun was itself a felony then such failure to register a gun would instantly exempt someone from the requirement to register it in the first place.

Sadly the "divide and conquer" approach seems to work very well, with this as well as most other things. If you live in downtown Brooklyn you probably don't take a firearm when out walking. If you live in rural Montana and hike a lot you may carry a firearm to provide protection against encounters with grumpy bears, coyotes or whatever else might be out there. When I hike the mountains (usually on my own) in remote parts of PA where cellphone signal varies from weak to non-existent my wife would like me to carry something to protect myself in case I come across a problem bear. I sincerely hope I never have to kill a wild animal in self-defence but it seems extremely short-sighted not to at least be aware that such an encounter may occur and take precautions in case it does.

 

[king of the unknown]

State-by-state makes some sense but county by county would just create a huge nightmare.

I know a guy who lives in NC and has a friend in PA. He has a concealed carry permit issued by the state of North Carolina, which is recognised by every state on the route between NC and PA except for MD. So to drive from NC to PA he would have to either avoid MD completely (adding a significant detour), or carry his weapon unloaded. That's not the kind of journey you make without planning it in advance, so it's arguably not a big deal for him to carry his pistol and his ammo separately to satisfy the laws of MD.

Introducing county-by-county legislation could so easily create a huge nightmare. It could potentially mean that someone who simply took a diversion home from work because of a road closure could suddenly find themselves unlawfully carrying a firearm. It's not as if it's even obvious when crossing a county line. It's hard to miss the "Welcome to Virginia" type signs at the roadside but I've driven through dozens of US counties and not all of them have markers to indicate you've crossed from one into another.

I agree that it's not as simple as "a gun problem". I remember reading an interesting article a couple of years back (I thought I bookmarked it, but can't find the link) about a law requiring people to register their firearms and how it had an interesting consequence. Because convicted felons are barred from owning firearms, and the 5th Amendment means the state cannot force anyone to incriminate themselves, the 5th Amendment exempts convicted felons from being required to register their firearms at all on the basis it would be tantamount to self-incrimination. So the law-abiding would have to register their guns while felons would not. I'm not a lawyer but can see how it might be argued that if failure to register a gun was itself a felony then such failure to register a gun would instantly exempt someone from the requirement to register it in the first place.

Sadly the "divide and conquer" approach seems to work very well, with this as well as most other things. If you live in downtown Brooklyn you probably don't take a firearm when out walking. If you live in rural Montana and hike a lot you may carry a firearm to provide protection against encounters with grumpy bears, coyotes or whatever else might be out there. When I hike the mountains (usually on my own) in remote parts of PA where cellphone signal varies from weak to non-existent my wife would like me to carry something to protect myself in case I come across a problem bear. I sincerely hope I never have to kill a wild animal in self-defence but it seems extremely short-sighted not to at least be aware that such an encounter may occur and take precautions in case it does.

I agree that county to county is probably not a good idea but at the same time I realize that necessity is what drives law makers to make laws. It wouldn't be so farfetched to see a county create gun laws due to the disagreement with state or federal laws or simply to create a safer environment. With giant states like Alaska or Texas even state by state laws may not solve all the problems.

Again I would like to state that with most of politics often times it is what will get them reelected. I don't state this to bash politicians but to remind you politics is a job just like any other occupation and though the rules may be different the basic idea is the same. That is why something like gun laws is such a big deal. A country as big of the United States with so much variety, it maybe easier to make a "majority" happy rather then actually having a good solution to the problem. At the end small states and small counties will always have less power then the highly populated states.

 

[tango]

I agree that county to county is probably not a good idea but at the same time I realize that necessity is what drives law makers to make laws. It wouldn't be so farfetched to see a county create gun laws due to the disagreement with state or federal laws or simply to create a safer environment. With giant states like Alaska or Texas even state by state laws may not solve all the problems.

It doesn't even need to be a particularly big state for there to be huge variations in lifestyles within the state. If you're talking about New York State do you mean Manhatten or the more remote parts of northern New York State? Does "Arizona" mean Phoenix or the vast expanse of desert? Does "Pennsylvania" mean the backwoods of Potter County or the urban center of Philadelphia? Ultimately if the laws are going to change when you cross a boundary that is largely arbitrary it's crucial to not only have the boundary clearly marked but also make it very clear what changes when you cross the boundary. You can't create laws that turn people into felons because they crossed an arbitrary line on the ground that wasn't even marked.

Again I would like to state that with most of politics often times it is what will get them reelected. I don't state this to bash politicians but to remind you politics is a job just like any other occupation and though the rules may be different the basic idea is the same. That is why something like gun laws is such a big deal. A country as big of the United States with so much variety, it maybe easier to make a "majority" happy rather then actually having a good solution to the problem. At the end small states and small counties will always have less power then the highly populated states.

Most politicians deserve to be bashed. The trouble with democracy is it really is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. When a lot of people live in urban areas and have little understanding of how rural life is so very different to urban life, the urban folks clamor for "Something To Be Done" in the light of some issue, and politicians chase their votes because there are so many of them. Then the media gets involved and distorts things to further their own agenda, and the end result is that people get ignored.

All of this points to why I believe the best government is the one that does the most Getting Out Of The Way.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you're so inclined it's pretty easy to kill a lot of people at once with a motor vehicle. Why focus on one tool that's used in high profile killings and ignore other tools used in other killings?

It's not that difficult to make petrol bombs, and it doesn't take a genius to figure what happens if someone starts throwing them in a crowded urban area, but nobody is clamoring for tighter controls on purchases at the gas station. It's not difficult to use a propane tank to make a flame thrower but few people are saying we shouldn't be allowed to freely buy a propane tank to power a barbecue.

The question for me keeps coming back to, why the endless focus on guns? Anyone would think there was a hidden agenda somewhere.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts I do not think that gun control alone will reduce mass killings but it may help a little. The USA needs a culture change regarding violence.

 

[king of the unknown]

It doesn't even need to be a particularly big state for there to be huge variations in lifestyles within the state. If you're talking about New York State do you mean Manhatten or the more remote parts of northern New York State? Does "Arizona" mean Phoenix or the vast expanse of desert? Does "Pennsylvania" mean the backwoods of Potter County or the urban center of Philadelphia? Ultimately if the laws are going to change when you cross a boundary that is largely arbitrary it's crucial to not only have the boundary clearly marked but also make it very clear what changes when you cross the boundary. You can't create laws that turn people into felons because they crossed an arbitrary line on the ground that wasn't even marked.



Most politicians deserve to be bashed. The trouble with democracy is it really is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. When a lot of people live in urban areas and have little understanding of how rural life is so very different to urban life, the urban folks clamor for "Something To Be Done" in the light of some issue, and politicians chase their votes because there are so many of them. Then the media gets involved and distorts things to further their own agenda, and the end result is that people get ignored.

All of this points to why I believe the best government is the one that does the most Getting Out Of The Way.

I suggest you read up on history about politics if you haven't already. It is a really interesting study of why are government is built the way that it is and how it is changed over time. Gun control is a good example of it due to the development of the minute men before the Revolutionary War and the development gangs during prohibition. Though if you don't find an interesting book or teacher it may just seem like dribble. It is almost sad politics has become the black sheep of our nation. There was a time when are political system revolutionized government systems as a whole and turned politics into the super heroes of their age. It is an odd contrast to today's politics

 

[tango]

Like I said in one of my earlier posts I do not think that gun control alone will reduce mass killings but it may help a little. The USA needs a culture change regarding violence.

It probably will help a little. The question is whether the gains are worth the price involved. The price includes loss of freedom, the cash costs associated with implementation of new laws, and the opportunity cost of the fact it would tie up government time that might be spent on something more useful. There is also a very high likelihood that legislation that is more about tub thumping will have all sorts of unwanted side effects.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I suggest you read up on history about politics if you haven't already. It is a really interesting study of why are government is built the way that it is and how it is changed over time. Gun control is a good example of it due to the development of the minute men before the Revolutionary War and the development gangs during prohibition. Though if you don't find an interesting book or teacher it may just seem like dribble. It is almost sad politics has become the black sheep of our nation. There was a time when are political system revolutionized government systems as a whole and turned politics into the super heroes of their age. It is an odd contrast to today's politics

There was a time when mass shootings were not common in the USA. Something is happening to USA culture that is making these kind of exceptional crimes happen more often.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It probably will help a little. The question is whether the gains are worth the price involved. The price includes loss of freedom, the cash costs associated with implementation of new laws, and the opportunity cost of the fact it would tie up government time that might be spent on something more useful. There is also a very high likelihood that legislation that is more about tub thumping will have all sorts of unwanted side effects.

Loss of gun ownership is not loss of freedom it's just not being able to own a gun unless you have a good reason for owning it. Using the kind of language that you did in your post poses the question in the atmosphere of "the thin end of the wedge" argument that any diminishment of freedom means all freedom is threatened and will disappear. Yet the very people who lobby for guns (NRA) also were fairly docile about the Patriot act and appear to favour making flag burning and flag desecration into crimes. It is obvious that such hypocrisy from the NRA and from other groups that support gun freedom and oppose flag desecration freedom is a self serving one eyed form of argument that will not convince any but the supporters of gun freedom.

Australia has gun laws that the NRA abominates yet we are free to burn our flag and to burn any other flag ... seems that freedom doesn't automatically disappear when gun laws are enacted.