Gun laws

[clockwork]

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by clockwork

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

Hi 'Clockwork'

I think we can all agree that laws 'should' be enforced. But the UK government finds it hard enough to find the and punish the few (comparatively) gun carrying kids in our cities. Where do you suggest the US government starts to tackle the problem in a country awash with guns?

It cant just be about punishment. Even if you could catch and punish everyone illegally carrying or owning a gun in the US where would you put them all to serve out their full term sentences?

You'd need an 'escape from New York' sized prison!

And as for the Government staying out of raising kids?

I'd say the government needs to get MORE involved.
O.K, I'd agree that there are rare occasions where a kids needs a slap on the butt, and I am sure I deserved most of the ones I got off my parents as a kid! lol
But kids need protecting too.
So we need some legislation in that area.

Kids need to grow up respecting each other and feeling connected to each other, their community, and the State.


Gun ownership in the US is a traditional right, but so many more important rights have been sacrificed in recent years without a fight, and compared to some of the social problems in the US (and in Europe) does owning a gun really matter?
How much freedom and safety does having one really give you?


Just a quick google brings up these stats: (From the Harvard University Gazette)

In the US;

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

firearms kill about 85 people every day.

To put that into context, thats the equivilent of the 911 attacks every 5 weeks, year in, year out.
Or the US' entire casualties in Iraq to date, every 7 weeks.


So how do you start to tackle it?

regards
Gene

[David]

Just for a point of reference, here is the second amendment in it's entirety:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please note that this "right" is tied to the opening requirement of "a well regulated militia" and that it is the right of "the people", not an individual. This amendment also could not possibly forsee the technological developments in weaponry that would allow for guns with the devastating killing capacity of many assault weapons or even semi-automatic ones.
People are welcome to interpret this amendment as they see fit, and debate and discuss accordingly, but please don't try to tell me that there is not room for a vast amount of interpretation of this single sentence that was written over 200 years ago.

[BBJW]

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

[Lew]

Originally Posted by BBJW

Gene- The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

BBJW

The local militias were needed 200 yrs ago before there was a large organized standing army. So I think the U.S. armed forces along with the national guard and the 50 different state guards and the local and state police have our backs. You live in Idaho so I guess that if Canada ever decides to invade our country you will be ready to defend the homeland. What is needed is common sense laws when it comes down to it. Btw your comment questioning Davids loyality to defend the constitution was a very low blow and should be struck from the thread.


Lew

[clockwork]

David I am a U.S. Citizens and not German. So I am not assuming anything when it comes down to interpretation of law. As for a sentence that was written 200 yrs ago has help up very well and is still relevant. I belonged to a militia in California growing up that is composed regular every day people, so they still exists and it was State sponsored. If you look into the reasons for the 2nd amendment which was almost the 1st , I think you would have a better understanding of it. If you go back and read the writing of Thomas Jefferson the creator of the Bill of Right and the U.S. Constitution with a little help from Virginia Bill of Rights I believe.

Gene if you want the Gov telling you what to do with your children that’s fine as long as it is not in the U.S. Gov messes up to much as it is they don’t need to messing up the children. We can blame guns all you want but they don’t kill people kill and I rather that they use gun than making bombs or chemical weapons since less people will be hurt. People will always kill people and that is a fact, but there are many more destructive ways that will be utilized if you could every take away all the guns which will never happen. In this country alone 1000s of people defend the property every day you will not hear about it since the media is anti gun you will only here about the negatives. We would not need more jails in the country if they ran them like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Lou yes with all the new laws I am in some since becoming a criminal. I have purchased items legally that have become illegal. The only reason they are still legal for me is because of my work. But in all fifty states you need a valid State issued ID and must go a background check before you can pick up your gun at the store. There are some loop holes in it but not many, the problem is that the state police are not checking the mental back grounds in some of the applicant referring to the Virginia incident this yr or last.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by clockwork

David I am a U.S. Citizens and not German. So I am not assuming anything when it comes down to interpretation of law. As for a sentence that was written 200 yrs ago has help up very well and is still relevant. I belonged to a militia in California growing up that is composed regular every day people, so they still exists and it was State sponsored. If you look into the reasons for the 2nd amendment which was almost the 1st , I think you would have a better understanding of it. If you go back and read the writing of Thomas Jefferson the creator of the Bill of Right and the U.S. Constitution with a little help from Virginia Bill of Rights I believe.

Gene if you want the Gov telling you what to do with your children that’s fine as long as it is not in the U.S. Gov messes up to much as it is they don’t need to messing up the children. We can blame guns all you want but they don’t kill people kill and I rather that they use gun than making bombs or chemical weapons since less people will be hurt. People will always kill people and that is a fact, but there are many more destructive ways that will be utilized if you could every take away all the guns which will never happen. In this country alone 1000s of people defend the property every day you will not hear about it since the media is anti gun you will only here about the negatives. We would not need more jails in the country if they ran them like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Lou yes with all the new laws I am in some since becoming a criminal. I have purchased items legally that have become illegal. The only reason they are still legal for me is because of my work. But in all fifty states you need a valid State issued ID and must go a background check before you can pick up your gun at the store. There are some loop holes in it but not many, the problem is that the state police are not checking the mental back grounds in some of the applicant referring to the Virginia incident this yr or last.

Hi Clockwork.

So, as a policeman, who I presume has seen plenty of gun crime, how would you start to stop it?

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

We need to start it in the home by teaching kids respect and morals which are a thing of the past it seems. People do not have respect for there fellow man and that makes it easy to kill them. Plus the general society now days does not seemed to be fazed by such tragedy’s.

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

Making comments about my character based on my interpretation of a constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and uncalled for. You see any individual as part of a "well regulated militia", i do not. Please don't lower yourself to making judgement calls on what i am willing to fight for just because i am unwilling to fight for your right to own a semi-automatic weapon.
Sorry it pisses you off that people disagree with you, but hey, that's my right. Aren't you interested in fighting for it?
He's a nice little story lifted right out of today's newspaper. Right here in my fair city a 17 yr. old is on trial for killing his mother and shooting his father. Seems when he was 16 he went out and bought a video game against his parents orders. When they found out the father, a minister, took the game away and put it in a lock box with his 9mm hand gun. Well, the kid found the box, pried it open, went into the living room and told his mom and his right reverend dad to close their eyes because he had a surprise for them. Bang, bang, now mommy's dead and Rev. Dad is shot in the head. The kid could get life without parole. I guess it was his right, but why a minister feels the need to own a hand gun i do not exactly know. I guess he did the right thing keeping it locked up, but that still didn't help. Yep, guns don't kill people, people do, but i would be willing to bet that if the kid didn't find the gun when he retrieved his video game that mommy might just be alive today. From all reports the kid is really sorry for what he did. If the means were absent at his moment of anger this tragedy might have never occurred. So much for a "well regulated militia".

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by David

He's a nice little story lifted right out of today's newspaper. Right here in my fair city a 17 yr. old is on trial for killing his mother and shooting his father. Seems when he was 16 he went out and bought a video game against his parents orders. When they found out the father, a minister, took the game away and put it in a lock box with his 9mm hand gun. Well, the kid found the box, pried it open, went into the living room and told his mom and his right reverend dad to close their eyes because he had a surprise for them. Bang, bang, now mommy's dead and Rev. Dad is shot in the head. The kid could get life without parole. I guess it was his right, but why a minister feels the need to own a hand gun i do not exactly know. I guess he did the right thing keeping it locked up, but that still didn't help. Yep, guns don't kill people, people do, but i would be willing to bet that if the kid didn't find the gun when he retrieved his video game that mommy might just be alive today. From all reports the kid is really sorry for what he did. If the means were absent at his moment of anger this tragedy might have never occurred. So much for a "well regulated militia".

Sad story and wrong conclusions. Where is the problem here? The type of society and it´s culture-education? Or the guns? I believe something went very wrong with the education of this boy, as many other boys do not make such kind of things, even having access to fireweapons. Who was responsible for this facts? The persons involved, or the guns?

We cannot make rules over exceptions, even if they have great publicity. How many people have guns in their houses and never get involved in crimes? Let me tell you: the vast majority. How many incidents of this kind do we have? Very few, proportionally, though very publicited. Do we know how many people is saved per year thanks to gun possession? No, we have a very incomplete information, since this is not a matter of interest for the media.

But do not avoid the facts: gun, or any other kind of weapons control, do not stop the crime incidence. The sickness is not in the guns, but in other places. Gun forbidding is a crime in a society where the government cannot garantee the security of the population, and the people need some kind of protection. Somebody here speaks about society taking decisions. But the politicians who take decsisions do not really represent the public will, or the society, they ony attend power groups. Gun manofacturers are not the only who make lobbying. Anti-gun organizations also does, and also the different churches. I wonder if the ones subscribing the idea of the supression of guns, can garantee the security of the rest of the population. Not all people can live in secure cities or areas, protected by their money or their kind of job.

But we talk about many things at the same time. The problem are not the guns, or their type, but who owns them and who uses them. Maybe this is the real control it must be excersised. But the criminal elements always have access to guns, laws or not. Controls never control but the good citizens. Somebody mentioned the efficacy of the police as complement of the gun control. But then again, the problem is in the society, as corruption always will permit the distribution of guns, as it will be a big business in a society where guns are forbidden, as in England. And the result of this new prohibition? The same crime rates, more police and political corruption, a better area of opportunity for the organized crime and it´s subsecuent invigoration and so on. More gun killings for the control of this new market among the gangs, if people demands more guns. Less defense for the rest of the society in front of this wave of new violence. The pave to hell is full of good intentions, as we say.

Let´s make a better and more productive effort, trying to change the social conditions which produces violence. Though, it will take more personal involvement, not as easy as to applaud useless laws from a confortable chair in home. The problem is that erroneous laws are very difficult to erradicate. Much bureaucracy lives of this kind of laws, over the shoulders of the tax payers. More police to control, but less real control. Less liberties for the honest individuals and more powerful mob gangs (and politicians).

By the way, I am not an anarchist. I worked for several years in the training of police officers, forensics and lawyers for the General Attorney´s Office of the State (in Mexico, it has the responsability of the investigation and prosecution of crime, and it is a different institution than in the USA). And I am also a certificated trainer on "Weapons and Police Shooting" by the National System of Public Security, which is a federal and local network of all the institutions dedicated to justice enforcement. I have a pragmatic view of this subjects because I know the conditions of this area. And also, I am alive because I had a fireweapon to defend myself as a private person against an armed attacker. And I wish all the decent people, like Celtan, could have the same opportunity in the same conditions (are you decent, Celtan?)

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by BBJW

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

Of course firearms kill people, as do kinves. But Firearms are designed to be the most efficient killer that we can produce. You know this, you kill things with guns. The fact that 'guns kill people' is a truism does not make it invalid in the argument for gun control.

Nobody can argue that easy access to firearms makes it much easier for people to kill each other than it would be it without that access.

And exactly how many times has your Constitution been ammended, changed, and in fact completely disregarded since the right to bear arms was written into it?

Aren't the pro-gun lobby doing exactly what you accuse others of when they doggedly cling to the parts of the constitution that support their views while voting for a leader who has changed fundamental areas and widely re-interpreted others for that matter.

You are just repeating the constitutional mantra without even trying to answer any of the underlying questions.

If not gun control, then what?

Do your views on the constitutional rights of Americans to own guns extend to those who don't choose to abide by the modern interpretation of that right and own guns 'illegally'.
Where does the constitution say, 'Right to bear arms after a seven day cooling off period and as long as you've never been convicted of.......etc'.
How do you interpret 'well regulated militia'?

Its all up for interpretation BB!
It has to be! Things change, nations grow, times change etc.

The constitution is a truly great document, and Americans are fully justified in the pride they feel for it. But just like any document of its age, it cannot address all modern issues.

And I'm sorry to say the constitutional argument is obscuring the real issue.

80+ Americans a day Dead, and many more injured! How do you stop that kind of bloodshed without starting with gun control?

Regards
Gene

[A. G. Maisey]

Philosophically I find that I am able to agree with the imposition by any society of gun, and other weapons controls.

Provided that those controls are adequately re-inforced by a prolific and well trained police force.

In a society where the possession of any weapon by an unauthorized person is not possible, and where the society can strive to fulfill its purpose of enriching the Elites of the society, then we can say that those controls which prevent unauthorized possession of weapons by a populace are both effective and useful.

In such a society the management of the Society Units (people) can be tailored to produce the most effective outcomes. Society Units can be produced to fulfil identified and specific needs within the society, and replaced when they cease to be productive. Out of date, and non-productive units can be disposed of when retired from service, thus reducing overall maintenance costs of the society.

This policy of specifically engineered Society Units, and management of those Society Units to maximize outcomes, would produce very positive results for the Elites of the society, and of course, that is the purpose of such a society.

However, should we as individuals choose not to live in such a society then we do need to possess weaponry.

We need to possess weaponry to ensure that the Elites of our society cannot create the type of society I have outlined above.

The banning of any type of weaponry is the thin edge of the wedge and can only lead to tighter and tighter controls being put in place.

The price we pay to ensure that a society has the capacity to control the Elites of the society is the possession of weaponry by all members of a society, equally.

Remove from any person the right to possess weaponry and you have started down the road towards total control of the society.

If we support total control of our society, then philosophically, we should support all and any weapons controls.