Another tragic school shooting

Ahh, but some interesting points are made and IMO conclusions can be drawn from them:

On the whole there is a higher rate of violent crime in Australia(and Britain as well IIRC) than the US.
If the violent crime rate in the US is reduced by the 60% that occurs in the urban black neighborhoods mostly due to gangs,drugs etc we are left with the majority of law abiding Americans being not a particularly violent or bloodthirsty bunch at all.

Now you might say; he is just doing what I didn't want to do. My country is better than yours and so on. However I do have a point to make by pointing out these facts.

Given that the majority of Americans aren't prone to violence there is no significant justification for removing guns from the hands of law abiding, non-violent citizens and given that in the US we believe that the state is our servant and not our master it is not the role of the state to dictate to it's citizens, indeed quite the reverse.
BTW- It is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns in nearly every jurisdiction in the US.
ps..what is the significance of the chart you posted showing a decrease in gun deaths up to 1994 since the ban only took effect in 95?

 

The most significant amendments to our gun laws were made in 1991-1992... The bans in 1996-98 were really just the icing on the cake

What about the convicted felon's son? or daughter? How easy would it be for them to obtain a gun and give it to dad... While not having a gun license myself I believe that the process involved requires little more than giving identification, a good reason for owning a gun and a 6-week wait... nothing too restrictive at all... I believe you need to show it to buy ammunition as well; licenses may not be the be-all-and-end-all of gun control but I am sure they go at least some way to protecting society... Like you said, the state is our servant, and sometimes they owe a duty to protect us from each other...

 

Isn't that broadly similar to US practice? The only difference that I know of is the length of wait.

However, I could be wrong. I have a horrible feeling that my knowledge of US gun licensing comes from 'The Simpsons'

The argument that only a minority of the poopulation is committing violent crimmes applies (so far as I am aware) to all nations.

 

Yes but since the state is merely carrying out the orders of its master (the citizens) it can never restrict the law abiding under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. If that were the case faceless bureaucrats would be the real masters. No, we already have that protection by making it a crime for convicted felons to possess guns. If family members or others enable the felon to obtain a gun that is also already a crime.
Criminals who obtain guns are already violating the law. We won't make ourselves safer by also restricting law abiding citizens from possessing guns.

 

smeg,could it be that australian criminals are very fastidious about obeying laws regarding documentation? here in the us ,criminal types dont try to buy guns thru proxys and pay retail.nor do they try to obtain a prescription to buy oxycontan or valium,they dont stand in line at the dmv to show proof of insurance or worrie about the pink slip on their car...they dont even worrie about loseing their car keys as the start the car they drive with a screwdriver..license regulations are merely extra time and hassles for law abideing folk,,waiting periods and background checks make the anti gun lobbey and their politicians appear to be doing something to controll gun violence ,the soccer moms like it ...alas.most felon types dont buy guns from gun dealers ,or tv.s from maceys or bling from a jewlery store,tougher regulations only affect people who obey regulations...

 

I am aware that criminals don't follow the rules, but I just don't see the logic in saying "well, we might as well just GIVE them the guns then..." At least restrictions would make it harder for most criminals to obtain guns as right now it seems dirt-easy

you guys don't seem to put much faith in the police force last i heard dodging the law was a pretty hard thing to do

 

And so just give up trying to combat mounting crime rates related to guns?

 

How will placing restrictions on law abiding citizens take guns out of the hands of criminals? Most criminals are already forbidden to own guns.
Gun availability doesn't cause crime. Guns are available and prolifierate in rural areas yet people there don't commit gun crimes by and large.
Until the people in the urban, mostly black community tackle the sociocultural problems that result in violent crime nothing much will change.

 

here in california ,we a 10 day waiting period and background checks ect ,we must carrie ammo and guns separated while in transport ,many semi autos are now banned based soley on there appearance....now in adjoining nevada ,arizona ,utah ,idaho...


,and new mexico ,none of these regulations applie...can anyone guess which state has the highest rate of gun related violence?...if you guessed cali. you win the cupie doll...in a recent trip to arizona i saw guys wearing pistoles while drinking in the pub ...one would have to think az. must be the gunshot capitol of the world ,if cun controls indeed affected gun crimes ,but of course this is not the case...

 

Before coming to South Africa I would agree very much with the "anti gun" side... now, however, I see the gun owners point completely.

My friend and neighbours family had an armed (firearms, that is) break in last week Monday. The only reason that their cars are still in their garage and that they were not forcibly dragged out of their beds is that my friends father reacted to the situation in a calm, collected, and proper manner - WITH a gun. Without that essential last bit, who knows what would have happened?

My host family here has been broken into once: some township scum smashed the window of our car and grabbed a bag, which contained all my host brothers documents (university certificates, high school certificates, identification). I now fully understand that when YOUR house is broken in to, only YOU can protect yourself. Not the "police", which after all, we pay taxes to protect us. Even if you believed that, they cannot be everywhere at once. The time where MY family is on the line, I am not going to stand there unarmed!

I'm afraid that many of the anti-gun people speak of real life situations in overtly utopian terms... you have not experienced danger in that way. You can trust the police to protect you all you want... I only trust myself, my family, and (since I don't have a gun) my Bowie.

As for school shootings, they are not so much related to the gun laws as a "gun culture" if you ask me... and one that won't go away even if you ban all guns.

My 2 cents

 

How will placing restrictions on law abiding citizens take guns out of the hands of criminals? Most criminals are already forbidden to own guns.
Gun availability doesn't cause crime. Guns are available and prolifierate in rural areas yet people there don't commit gun crimes by and large.
Until the people in the urban, mostly black community tackle the sociocultural problems that result in violent crime nothing much will change.[/quote]

As someone that spent 3 and a half months in one of those communities, all I can say is 100% correct!

 

I feel weird, something weird is happening, i cant quite put my finger onit, WAIT ! I agreed with Panzerman I thought maybe I was high or in a coma, but no i agreed with him. Weird. I feel weird, im gonna log out now.Lets never speak of this agin.





lol

 

Guys, i forgot to tell you that in Singapore,under the law, possession of guns means the death sentence. Using a toy gun or BB gun that bears close resemblance to a real gun to threaten or take hostage of someone is also the death sentence.

So far,gun crimes in singapore is unheard of by locals except for the odd opne or two committed by our neighbour countries in singapore...and they are usually caught and hanged anyway

 

singapore is a large city ,do you have any armed (knife ) robberies ,rapes ,car jacking ...what is the penalty for these crimes?

 

Simple. If you tighten control of issuing and monitoring of gun licenses, you increase the likelihood of preventing criminals obtaining access to guns... Law abiding citizens will be scrutinized by the system... found "innocent" and thus should be able to obtain weapons with acceptable ease...

True. However, in America, the process by which they are monitored is not sufficient to enforce such a rule... You've all said it yourself, Criminals do not obey the law ... They will get guns whether they are forbidden or not... More lenient licensing laws only makes obtaining guns illegally easier for them to do so...

Any evidence? Where do you feel safer, in rural or city communities? Populations are actually concentrated in city areas, and rural communities actually have a higher "violence-per-captia"... Not just in Australia but all over the world (except maybe Finland... so peaceful )

Beleive it or not I agree: Its just that tackling such problems is going to take ALOT of time and effort, which probably won't be invested... If you think that these people are going to sit down and resolve their problems you're pretty naive... Tightening gun control is a realistic solution which actually works...

I fail to see how you could disagree with this? Gun control is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing... That is, if the Government monitors and scrutinizes those who purchase guns very closely,... Ideally those who would use guns for criminal purposes will be prevented from doing so... And law abiding citizens who require guns shall recieve them... Nowhere does the government actually deprive law abiding citizens of guns...

The facts I provided about Australia speak for themselves...
Tightening Gun Control directly reduces Gun Related Crimes.People do not lose the ability to protect themselves... Violent Crimes do not rise... Simply because those who obey the law are not precluded from obtaining guns, and those who do are... Do you honestly think criminals should have the ability to purchase guns easily??

 

Of course we have...but the penalties for those crimes are so heavy and effective as a deterrent that any such incident will instantly become sensational local news.

And i think the crimes u mentioned all includes a penalty of caning up to fifteen lashes.Rape even more.

And yes,there's always the at least 5 years jail term.

And yea,i don't know if it's sarcasm or what,but Singapore is a large city but small country.

 

actually ,smeg ,what seems to deter crime pretty well in the usa is the liberalizeing of concealed carrie permits ,when urban muggers and thugs cant be sure which ordinary citizens might be armed it greatly reduces their willingness to play muggers lotto... on the other hand....my brother who is a police sgt here in cali cannot for instance , carrie his off duty weapon were he to travel to new york city because of that citys very restrictive gun laws ( btw ,he is expected to carrie it even while off duty ,here ),however , in spite of severe criminal penaltys , nyc remains a place with a very high rate of gun violence ...so ,though it is quite illegal for both cops and robbers to carrie firearms in nyc , alas only one of these groups obeys the law ,can you guess which one it is,,,? and btw kaiser ,no i was not being sarcastic about singapores criminal activitys and penaltys...

 

What angers people is that law abiding responsible gun owners always get punished for the antics of inner city thugs.

Here in canada we had a national gun registry and the decrease in gun violence barely registered as blib on the radar. Its common knowledge that criminals get guns illegal and passing any new laws as law will at most mildly decrease violence or prevent some criminals from getting firearms sooner. As said above the only ones really being significantly affected are responsible gun owners.

 

The problem is thatonce gun crime is pevalent, simply establishing tougher gun laws is not going to help much, because the criminals already have the guns.

 

God Guns and Guts make America.