The 2nd Amendment and criminals.
Cost of incarceration is a lot easier to figure than the cost of them out on the streets.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
A simple 'so what?' ..........
The problem with every single plan that has been proposed that would ban guns in the United States, is the fact that there IS a LARGE criminal element that would find guns and use them.
I realise there will be those that say 'so what?' ... they seem to think that a ban means there wouldn't be any guns available for the criminal element to buy. The difference between Europe, other no-gun countries, is the fact that America is a country of great bounty and there are those who don't give a damn how they separate that wealth from 'Joe Six-pack'.
As long as there is a demand, there will ALWAYS be someone who is willing to supply the demand (legal or otherwise).
In the days when a Colt 45 made everybody a man, the fact that there was a gun on most men's hip, meant that the criminal had to be very very circumspect trying to separate the civilian from his wealth. I realise there were shoot-outs between men .. however, they were very very rare.
The problem with every single plan that has been proposed that would ban guns in the United States, is the fact that there IS a LARGE criminal element that would find guns and use them.
I realise there will be those that say 'so what?' ... they seem to think that a ban means there wouldn't be any guns available for the criminal element to buy. The difference between Europe, other no-gun countries, is the fact that America is a country of great bounty and there are those who don't give a damn how they separate that wealth from 'Joe Six-pack'.
As long as there is a demand, there will ALWAYS be someone who is willing to supply the demand (legal or otherwise).
In the days when a Colt 45 made everybody a man, the fact that there was a gun on most men's hip, meant that the criminal had to be very very circumspect trying to separate the civilian from his wealth. I realise there were shoot-outs between men .. however, they were very very rare.
brinktk
Active member
Read the books "On Killing" and "On Combat" by david Grossman and you will really see what the biggest cause of violence is in ALL Western societies. Firearms are a tool. Taking them away would only treat the symptom not the problem. Media violence through television, movies, and violent video games has a far greater effect on violent behaviour than actually having firearms. It is the conditioned and learned behaviour that very young children see on their TV screens that leads to this becoming acceptable behavior when they are teens/adults. I'm not going to sit here and try to explain this because I will undoubtably mess it up. But, these books I mention have a lot of science and statistical data to back it up.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Bingo, tools which are essentially syptoms, also I agree with Chief Bones on the fact that there will always be a supplier for illegal goods in this country, wether on a large scale or not, also if guns were banned, what scares me is the nature of said suppliers, and all of a sudden what kind of hardware they would be willing to supply.
If all firearms are illegal, then when selling them why not go all out?
"Sure, we willl start you off with an automatic, but the assault will cost a little extra." And the market would be more inclined and actually target thugs. Not supply them by a second man anymore since the dealer would be illegal anyway.
Also problems we do not see arleady may arise, as with many other laws prohibiting somthing usually entail after being passed.
rattler
Active member
One thingy seems to me is being ignored in all this discussion:
There is a way lesser inhibition to squeeze a trigger than, e.g., to get down the dirty nitty gritty road and shove a knive into a body. This means there are different attitudes towards different killing tools, and they are genetically implemented:
Man in general (and apart from sociopaths - this is an illness - ) has a killing inhibition, that goes for all including criminals.
Pointing a gun and pullling the trigger does not incite this reflexive inhibition as no physical violent effort is to be made (also why women tend to look to poison statistically). This is valid *only* for a person vs. person confrontation, when its group vs. person the inhibition is also (genetically) lifted and a different story.
From my POV this is why we here have so much less homicides than in the US, and indeed it has to do with the number of guns available and the reflexive training to use them (statistically military personell owning guns are way less involved in using them for homicide, both in the US as well as in Switzerland where they all males between 18 and 45 have their HK 36 with a clip at home - currently being phased out, btw).
FWIW,
Rattler
There is a way lesser inhibition to squeeze a trigger than, e.g., to get down the dirty nitty gritty road and shove a knive into a body. This means there are different attitudes towards different killing tools, and they are genetically implemented:
Man in general (and apart from sociopaths - this is an illness - ) has a killing inhibition, that goes for all including criminals.
Pointing a gun and pullling the trigger does not incite this reflexive inhibition as no physical violent effort is to be made (also why women tend to look to poison statistically). This is valid *only* for a person vs. person confrontation, when its group vs. person the inhibition is also (genetically) lifted and a different story.
From my POV this is why we here have so much less homicides than in the US, and indeed it has to do with the number of guns available and the reflexive training to use them (statistically military personell owning guns are way less involved in using them for homicide, both in the US as well as in Switzerland where they all males between 18 and 45 have their HK 36 with a clip at home - currently being phased out, btw).
FWIW,
Rattler
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I still don't understand how all plans equal gun bans?
I look at New Zealand laws and they are very restrictive but as long as you are prepared to sit the licenses and meet the requirements (primarily criminal, mental and storage requirements) you can buy any weapon on the market.
As a result we maintain one of the highest levels of gun ownership per capita and one of the lowest gun related death rates in the world.
I think you have misrepresented this somewhat because in the days when everyone was armed everyone had to be circumspect no matter how they were interacting with someone else and I would argue that a nation living in fear of their fellow countrymen is not conducive to good mental health, trade or development.
Once again I think you fail to understand the argument I have not seen anyone argue that if guns didn't exist crime wouldn't exist I would suggest that most people know and understand reducing the number of guns in general circulation will reduce the number of gun related deaths, trust me it isn't rocket science same deal applies for all things for example reduce the number of idiots on the road and road deaths will reduce, reduce the number of intoxicated people driving and alcohol related road accidents will also go down.
Now on to the crime rate in the UK...
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime
Now if you read further up you will see that I said New Zealand had very restrictive firearms laws well I am betting the UK's laws are even more restrictive than ours and interestingly enough the UK had 14 firearms related deaths while New Zealand had 10 now given that the UK's population is 61 million and New Zealands is 4.1 million I would suggest that by implication there is a correlation.
Now I am not going to argue that crime in general is a societal problem and I completely agree that weak judicial systems, poor family values, lack of self responsibility/accountability and screwed up educational systems create the environment for crime and are areas that should be focused on but that does not change the reality that if you want to reduce firearms related deaths you have to reduce the number of firearms in general circulation.
Last edited:
That's fine if your OK with the concept of the Govt allowing you to own guns.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Hmm aren't we all in that boat?
Lets face it if the US government decided tomorrow to ban guns there is nothing on earth you could do about it.
However if my choice is 10000 murders a year and no restrictions or 10 murders a year and some restrictions I will take option 2 thanks.
Lets face it if the US government decided tomorrow to ban guns there is nothing on earth you could do about it.
However if my choice is 10000 murders a year and no restrictions or 10 murders a year and some restrictions I will take option 2 thanks.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Crime is a societal problem, and adding firearms to the mix to the issues in America today , some of which you listed above allow for gun crime to occur.
However, there is also a strong correlation between drug use, and other more serious crimes such as auto theft and rape in those certain conditions or under those certain influences.
Firearm related crimes are syptoms of various other criminal challeges faced in this country, and attacking the syptoms as said by others here before, will not in my opinion help reduce the impact of the problem.
I somwhat agree on regulation, for myself and many others in contact with legal firearms should have no problem with it, as we do not have any intent to commit homicide robbery or what have you, or use them to commit illegal acts.
I would be interested to see how a regulation plan would effect illegal weapons holders everywhere in the U.S. And attack the problem : Guns in criminals hands, or in access to person at a high risk of commiting a crime.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
One of the problems in this argument is quantifying the effect of legislation, I think we can all agree that no regulation will affect illegal gun holders because these people don't care about the law however I tend to think that processes that make obtaining a gun illegally and reducing the amount of new weapons flowing into criminal hands more difficult and expensive would have positive benefits.
From a New Zealand point of view I have a number of firearms licenses but I can only sell to other license holders and because my weapons are registered should any of them turn up in criminal hands and I haven't registered them as stolen then I would be in a world of trouble, the aim of our system is to reduce the number of weapons going into criminal hands and the possession of those who shouldn't have them aka whacko's.
The primarily emphasis here is to "reduce" not to stop as there is no way in hell you can stop people committing crimes with firearms as long as you have firearms, it is simply a balancing act between giving people the ability to own weapons and the reduction of firearm related crime to an acceptable level.
Last edited:
the problem is when one person does something (Dunblaine)& the Vulture Culture swoops in & gets Laws passed allowing confinscation of all those registered guns, or even w/o anything happening. New York City has all assault Weopans registered & then voted to ban them after the end of timelimit to register passed. many politicians just don't trust thier own people & look for any excuse to try to pull something. I believe it's pure fantasy to think that registration or confinscation would drop murders from 10,000 to 10.
rattler
Active member
Just for the record: I think this was not the question, there surely are more then 10 murders even in peaceful NZ, its about reducing gun related murders.
Rattler
Thousands of people have been killed by Moslem extremeists in Algeria using swords. Somehow I don't think the relatives are feeling any relief that the victims were hacked to death instead of shot.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Yet sectarian extremists shooting people by the bucket load in the USA is different or are you going to argue that shooting multiple people in a parking lot, school, church etc. is not an extreme act unless carried out by a Muslim?
In fact I would suggest that the absolute desire some people have to deny the problem is in itself an act of fanaticism.
Oh and for the record there are about 50 murders a year in New Zealand so yes I would consider it relatively peaceful.
My point was, does it really matter if the murders were by gun or something else. You're still falling into the false premis that if guns didn't exist, the murders wouldn't happen(not to mention crimes that don't happen because of fear of an armed potential target). A while back someone proposed a Law for additional penalty if a cop was murdered by someone using a gun. I could see the widow being told " Your husband is dead, but @ least he was stabbed to death instead of shot because of the new Law about shooting cops!"
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Laws against murder should be laws against murder, adding an extra legal retaliation towards a homicide involving a firearm is just wrong.
Why? 1st degree murder, is 1st degree...whether it was from strangulation stabbing or whatever, further regulating the law to carry extra penalties for the use of a firearm in such a incident is just ridiculous.
The victim is still gone, and the perp is still a killer and threat to society, now I can agree that isolating them from access firearms would help, but let's face it, the main goal should be first and foremost to get the criminal OFF THE STREETS, not sit in on Q&A sessions about firearm regulation....
Sometimes I think that lawmakers in this country have their priorities askew....
Regulating the penalties against shooting a police officer higher than an assaulting with intent to kill or shooting a civilian with an firearm is trivial, these people who would do such a thing are either nuts, or just plain lost to society, do you think at such a point they would give a d#mn about the consequences of assaulting someone, especially law enforcement with a firearm at that point?
And so much for the court's ruling and such a law if the suspect gets killed in such and altercation before they even reach trial.
Excuse my fevor there gentlemen, that wasn't directed towards anyone in particular.
Yo,
Why? 1st degree murder, is 1st degree...whether it was from strangulation stabbing or whatever, further regulating the law to carry extra penalties for the use of a firearm in such a incident is just ridiculous.
The victim is still gone, and the perp is still a killer and threat to society, now I can agree that isolating them from access firearms would help, but let's face it, the main goal should be first and foremost to get the criminal OFF THE STREETS, not sit in on Q&A sessions about firearm regulation....
Sometimes I think that lawmakers in this country have their priorities askew....
Regulating the penalties against shooting a police officer higher than an assaulting with intent to kill or shooting a civilian with an firearm is trivial, these people who would do such a thing are either nuts, or just plain lost to society, do you think at such a point they would give a d#mn about the consequences of assaulting someone, especially law enforcement with a firearm at that point?
And so much for the court's ruling and such a law if the suspect gets killed in such and altercation before they even reach trial.
Excuse my fevor there gentlemen, that wasn't directed towards anyone in particular.
Yo,
Last edited:
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
MontyB, that's the whole issue. The United States Government cannot do an outright ban on firearms. It is a Constitutional Right that has been stated in the highest court in the land not once but twice that the Right for people to keep and bear arms is something that cannot be stripped.
It's not something in which the government can give it's subjects permission. It's something that the government must careful in regulating with and doing so in a manner that does not violate the rights of the people.
In the end, you can either live in a secure society with no freedoms or live in a free society with some risk. I'd take free any day of the week and I will risk my own life for that freedom.
Benjamin Franklin said:
Thomas Jefferson said:
I rely on no one for my safety nor should I. If I trade my self reliance for supposed safety then I am doomed to failure. Why? Because on numerous occasions it has been stated by our own legal system that the government has no role in my protection, defense, or well being.
Research the following cases...
Freeman v. Ferguson
Riss v. City of New York
Thurman v. City of Torrington
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
South v. Maryland
Bowers v. DeVito
With enough case law, it has been stated that the Government has no required role in my safety and protection. That is why we have a 2nd Amendment and why there were two Supreme Court Cases that stated that the 2nd Amendment is about the right for self defense and that a outright ban on a class of firearm is unconstitutional.
You may live in New Zealand and I hope you enjoy it there. I will stay in the United States of America and rely on myself for my safety and not someone else in a police station. I work in Law Enforcement and I 100% support the law abiding citizen to own and carry firearms for self defense for a very simple reason. It's their right to do so.