About The 2nd Amendment and criminals. Page 2
|January 28th, 2011||#11|
| || |
But I grew up looking at firearms as appliances, yes they could kill people if employed that way, but so could power tools and farm equipment, as well as motor vehicles.
I saw, and still see firearms at home as nothing more than a coffee maker or toaster. Weclome to America I guess, I know many people who are the same way, and I do know way more people who own at least one firearm than people who do not own any.
(NOTE: This does not mean I do not practice gun saftey, all weapons I handle as if loaded and never point the muzzle at anything I do not intend to shoot, weapons and ammunition are stored seperatly at all times unless right before firing and unused cartriges are emptied from the weapon immediatly after use.)
Saftey measures in mind, hence now it's a appliance.
|January 31st, 2011||#12|
| || |
One could ponder... how does a gun come to be unregistered and illegal? They don't start out that way usually. i don't know about out here, but around L.A. gangs actually looked to rob guys who were known to be gun collectors. Stealing a dozen weapons is worth more to a street gang than robbing a convenience store.
In many cases, someone just sells a legal gun to whoever has the cash...what happens next...he doesn't much care. a lot of guns get transfered much like you might sell a used sofa.
I don't have a handgun. If I do decide to get one...I don't have any issues with registering or a waiting period. It's not like I have someone I'm in a hurry to shoot. Besides..a rifle is more accurate.
Last edited by old woody; January 31st, 2011 at 05:41..
|January 31st, 2011||#13|
| || |
|February 4th, 2011||#14|
| || |
Okay, the arguement for keeping guns is the fact that most gun-related crimes is commited with illegally obtained guns?
Please don't tell me that is your whole arguement, cause any lawyer can chew that up right there.
The fact is, the regulations of guns is actually more difficult to control because of the 2nd amendment. A good deal of legally obtained guns become "lost" or sold (as the above guy said) therefore a good deal of guns are circulating just like our currency. It is difficult to regulate illegal traffic of guns when its on this type of scale. I think US, can do without the 2nd amendment. Sure, the only guys that will then have a gun will always be illegally obtained and a person can't defend themselves with more confidence, but think of all the lives that is being taken away BECAUSE of this law.
Banning guns will dramatically decrease gun crime. I think I would rather have few people die and ban guns than have many people die because people don't want to let go of personal possessions or "rights". The only problem is that SOO many guns are already in U.S thanks to the 2nd amendment in play for 200 years, it will be hard to track and confiscate them.
The fact that there are already so many guns in U.S it would take years and the government to be more tight on border control for them to control it effectively. I am pretty sure many politicians and economist already know that this will be straining.
To be honest, that amendment should me withdrawn, it was flawed once modernized weapons came to be (accurate auto-firing guns). That law was to protect the citizens so they can overthrow the government if it defied the will of the people. That is almost impossible in today's USA.
It is not the fact that people are "hippy" as you said in one of your post. It is the fact that those people know that the state of gun control right now is too heavy a price on human lives.
Tell me why we have more people incarcerated than China when they have 1.2-1.4 billion people? Don't seem right to me lol, even if our judiciary system is the best in the world and have on average the highest sentences given to law offenders.
We basically = an undeveloped country when it comes to our gun crimes....
|February 4th, 2011||#15|
| || |
|February 4th, 2011||#16|
| || |
Banning firearms completely may have another adverse effect on our country's already strained budget, look at the war on drugs, effective on hard drugs yes. But after years and millions upon millions spent, today lesser drugs, (even though still categorized as a class A substance) such as Marijuana are this country's BIGGEST cash crop, that beats all legal cash crops mind you.
Banning firearms from a economic stand point would mean more money spent on another war to rid our country of something, more and more money, and look, around 2.8 firearms per household in many places in our country right?
If pot has proven such a expensive in devour (I am not pro legal by the way) to control, firearms have it beat extensively in how many people have access to them. And you can't give a test to figure out if someone has used a firearm in the last 30 days either.
Besides I honestly do not feel that banning firearms will effect crime, sure may be less gun crime, but let's face it, the U.S. is not Europe or another smaller developed nation, More people, from many many more backgrounds, and a whole spectrum of living conditions, crime will happen, without guns or not, I hate to see the nature of homicide then, but if people want it, let it be pot, guns, with or without either to steal or kill. They will do it.
I do not like that those facts, really it brings society down a small bit every time. But even automobiles under intoxicated drivers killed around 11,773 people in 2008,and thats down from 13,041 in 2007 and still a far cry from 1988's fatalities, also the automobile alone killed close to 37,261. Is alcohol deadly? Yes in the wrong situations and to unborne children, Has the government regulated it like guns? Yes, yet undesirables such as minors still drink excessively.
Least firearms have a safety switch...
Heres the kicker: has the government outlawed alchohol before? Yes, and what happened there?
That Amendment was repealed, proved to expensive and not really effective, the people wanted it, and they got it.
Besides, how would the public view our large expansive arms industry if the 2nd Amendment and what it entails is no longer in effect?
Listen I do value and continue to ask for every counterpoint, so if anyone disagrees please post it up an let me know what you think.
Last edited by Yossarian; February 4th, 2011 at 16:14..
|February 5th, 2011||#17|
| || |
I disagree with almost everything you said except the part about it being a strain on the government to control at this moment.
While you guys are correct, that this isn't Europe and is more multi-cultured, it is still no excuse for our high-level crime rates in comparison to larger (China) or almost same countries (politically and economically).
We have 2.03 MILLION people incarcerated (1 million more than China with them having 1.4 billion people! They have 4x them population of U.S yet we have 2x prison population).... Search up the strain on tax payers to keep these guys resided in these areas (state and federally).
In V.A it cost $300 every inmate per month or day I forgot, but thats still alot.
You are correct that deciding to ban and control guns out of nowhere would be a hard task, but that is because of the 200 years of weapon rotating around the country like U.S paper dollars. If this wasn't allowed from the very beginning (or at least changed somewhere after WW1), then that would not be so.
The thing I find most silly in your topic is your comparison of gun control to alcohol and drug control. Marijuana and alcohol are completely different than the designing and construction of a gun. The two former items can be grown/made by any person who knows how to farm correctly. Marijuana is a plant that can grow in a great variety of places, it isn't a plant that is hard to get to mature.
The drug control is a major problem mainly due to border control being ill-handled by the federal government.
Guns are more sophisticated to make, I am not saying there won't be any illegal trafficking of guns, I am saying that there will be fewer in circulation around the country. Of course there will be some people who will make, sell, and/or import guns illegally in U.S still. The thing, is now it can be more controlled.
One do not need a gun to defend themselves if they know how to use their bodies (unless the attacker has the gun). The right to defend themselves is definately true, but if less guns were available to criminals or future criminals, then by logic the crime rates involving guns should decrease as well.
People must know that they have a "right" to do and have anything they want, but just because one have the "right" it mean they really need it or to do it?
"Rights" is too overused in U.S. People must know that there are limitations to freedom. One who is too free, becomes ignorant of true freedom and abuse the freedom they already have. That is the problem with U.S today imo.
|February 5th, 2011||#18|
| || |
*We live in the biggest arsenal on the planet, and biggest dealer, who is by the way on the permenant UN World Security counsel. We make it all,especially guns and ammuntion, all kinds sizes and calibers.
*Also making firearms are not that incredibly difficult, CHILDEREN in Pakistani gun sweat shops are hand building firearms, shotguns assualt weapons also handguns any thing they can get their hands on.
I do not think with our country's detiorating budget we would ever be able to carry out an effect gun ban, let alone get through red tape to properly enforce it.
But guns, they are imbedded in our nature, we can not serperate that from Americans quickly let alone easily.
Like I said, I look for counterpoints, long story short debate like this is good, and it's through debate like this you can learn to find solutions to problems, or at least walk away from the stand with alittle something new fresh in mind.
I believe that up ending the 2nd Amedment would void belief in the Bill of Rights for many Americans. I am a firm believer and supporter in the U.S. Constitution, and rewriting ink work is something that should be thought about very seriously.
Last edited by Yossarian; February 5th, 2011 at 04:49..
|February 5th, 2011||#19|
| || |
, & the silly belief that if guns didn't exisit the crime wouldn't have happened. In fact, as esily available as guns are, only 10-12% of crimes involve guns. The high crime rate is more a product of revolving door justice, blame Society instead of the criminal & the welfare/I'm owed something by Society instead of having to work for it mentality. As far as "using your body" that might work for a fit 20-30 something male, but not for most of the population where the typical criminal is a 15-25 year old in good shape. Murder & other mayhem didn't start with the invention of guns & wouldn't end with confinscation. Crime has soared in the U.K. since the ban.
|February 5th, 2011||#20|
| || |
Thats pretty much sums up my outlook on the situation, crime itself is not a manifestation of gun ownership, merely an excessory for some crime.
And the reason for incarceration in the U.S. is because of as listed, a revolving door criminal justice system, product of policies like the "three strikes laws"
Some of the convicts in prison today are in there for numerous types of "white collar crimes", such as the recent phenomnon of electronic fraud and identity theft, guns are totally irrelevent in those cases.
Also unlike China, most U.S. states are currently having a large debate on execution or have had one in the last ten years.
As well as the U.S. has many levels of incarceration involving everything from probation to jailtime to hard time.
It is strange however, that there are more people incacerated in the U.S. than serving in the entire United States Armed Forces, the latter of which is very familar with firearms for obivious reasons ( our country's defense). While only a fraction of the criminals who are in some form of incarceration today are there for gun related crimes.
Im am NOT comparing the U.S. Armed Forces to criminals in any way, just trying to prove a point, guns alone are not the root of crime, looking elsewhere in society such as the Armed Forces you can see, that a professional and wholey good natured aspect (our men and women of the U.S. armed forces) with wide access to such tools, do not suddenly become gun toting crimnals and go on a murdering rampage. If fact they do the exact oppisite, same can be said about most gun owning private citizens, they do not go on killing sprees and like the U.S. armed forces can keep their iron holstered and practice proper saftey rules, most of which are common sense, and are of no threat to society.
It's the ocassional thug, or nutcase which should in my opinion be looked at in a mental health aspect and not their access to firearms.
In short, the Glock that the kid in a mans body in Tuscon used, did not grow a conscious and tell him to become and end of the roader,his mental instability did, and it's his mental instability which is what should be looked at, not just the tools he used.
Last edited by Yossarian; February 5th, 2011 at 19:51..