This is getting out of hand.

[Yossarian]

It was the use of dodgy logic to disprove equally dodgy logic.

You should run for office here.

Basically I think it comes down to what you have with you at the time, if I have issues and the best weapon I have at hand is a fist or a baseball bat then that is what I will use, if it is a firearm then that is what I will use and Americans seem to have more firearms at hand than most others.

I can't agree with your premise, I have known indivduals who own and are licensed to carry firearms but refuse to carry their firearms on their person because they know they have temper issues.

Responsiblity cannot be legalized or inacted by law. We as Americans should realise this and take more measures to reduce the chances of these homicidal sprees by tending to the problem and not the sypmtoms.

Looking at other nations and learning from what works there and what doesn't can aid, but also we must realise that finding our own true solution will more or less be a long studious process of trail and error.

A better and more important screening method being paramount. At least in my state application of your carry permit must be re done every year, not every 3 years as previous.

Also the carry permit itself has been taken more seriously, shedding clarity on the type of firearms it covers and what it allows. Even the flimsly colorless permit card that looks like it was photoshopped by a drunken baboon at Walgreen's and lamenated, is now has been redesigned and issued as a hard plastic full color permit card with some kind of foil looking chip thing in it which can be legally used as a state photo ID.

Point is I am sure there are ways to protect rights while at the same time find and screen for possible problem cases. Such as those at a mental risk of committing such atrocities or those who are known to straw sell firearms to people who are.

Linking of criminal histories as well as mental histories and having them availible to licensed firearm dealers to use discretion when making a sale would help.

To anyone who compains about their violation of privacy, obviously has something to hide and shouldn't qualify to buy a firearm in the first place.

It's a difficult task , and in my opinion half of it lies with American society as a whole. Not just with policy makers.

It's easy to sit back and say (if you can't play nice then nobody has them). But if we applied this method of thought to every single issue in this country, then I suppose instead of mandating seatbelts it would have been a better alternative to just elminate all automobiles in this country in order to prevent motor vehicle deaths.

 

[MontyB]

Point is I am sure there are ways to protect rights while at the same time find and screen for possible problem cases. Such as those at risk of committing such atrocities or those who are known to straw sell firearms to people who are.

It's a difficult task , and in my opinion half of lies with American society as a whole.

I have no doubt you are correct but I am also prepared to bet that if you ask 5.56 what sort of screening he thinks should be in place he will start screaming about the 2nd Amendment and how no screening is acceptable as it is his god given right to pretend he is Rambo and be so afraid of every person he meets that he has to have a gun.

The fact is that there is no answer to this problem because as a nation you are not prepared to solve it, instead you hide behind the notion that more guns equals less shootings and if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away.

As far as half the problem lying with American society well I think you will find the whole problem lies with American society as I can't think of anyone else with this issue.

 

[Yossarian]

I have no doubt you are correct but I am also prepared to bet that if you ask 5.56 what sort of screening he thinks should be in place he will start screaming about the 2nd Amendment and how no screening is acceptable as it is his god given right to pretend he is Rambo and be so afraid of every person he meets that he has to have a gun.

The fact is that there is no answer to this problem because as a nation you are not prepared to solve it, instead you hide behind the notion that more guns equals less shootings and if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away.

As far as half the problem lying with American society well I think you will find the whole problem lies with American society as I can't think of anyone else with this issue.

I agree,

I love owning firearms, I love having them.

And I am a firm believer, in a mature sense, that we as a country can keep our firearms and enjoy them. For those who ask how do you enjoy such a thing, keep in mind that the vast majority of legal firearms owners use their firearms for sporting or recreation, not for homicidal murdering sprees as is commonly feared by people who look upon a gun owner.

I would be completly comfortable with a dealer or law enforcement agency looking into my mental health past, asking if I was taking any medications and checking my criminal history.

I would be buying a firearm, not toothpaste, firearms are deadly and shouldn't be permitted to land in the hands of citizen's with known problems, either mental or criminal.

I would rather get told "no" at the Gun Smith counter after I am old enough to apply for a hand gun permit (21 in my state) than have the dealer or authorities in charge look over my case, and treat the next guy the same way.

So he can go to an orphanage or crowded public sqaure and cut loose killing multiple victims.


Yes I have heard people already complain about how long it takes for their background check to come along so they can purchase their weapons.

But again, I ask, why do you need access to a weapon so quickly all of a sudden?

If you are late for that weekend at the range with your buddies then obiviously you are not responsible enough to plan ahead and apply before, which brings to mind if you should be allowed to carry in the first place.

This is why I understand fully that Americans will have a hard time reaching any mature and tangible conclusion to this debate.

 

[headwards]

'americans rate guns higher then lives' there you have it Monty. It must be.
Yossarian your train of thought seems to be; I agree but I still want to have firearms.
The finer detail you are missing is we agree theres nothing wrong with having a rifle or purposeful tool. But walking around all day strapped with a god dam submachinegun is just ridiculous.

 

[MontyB]

'americans rate guns higher then lives' there you have it Monty. It must be.
Yossarian your train of thought seems to be; I agree but I still want to have firearms.
The finer detail you are missing is we agree theres nothing wrong with having a rifle or purposeful tool. But walking around all day strapped with a god dam submachinegun is just ridiculous.

This is the salient point, read a lot of the posts on this forum about arms restrictions and you will see that your average Kiwi/Aussie see's a firearm as a tool its for hunting pig, deer, killing opossums and rabbits and that is pretty much it, it is a utility item you rarely see Kiwi's or Aussies talking about the need to have one for defence because that is not how we are programmed to see firearms.

As I said we are programmed to beat the crap out of each other not shoot each other.

 

[Yossarian]

'americans rate guns higher then lives' there you have it Monty. It must be.
Yossarian your train of thought seems to be; I agree but I still want to have firearms.
The finer detail you are missing is we agree theres nothing wrong with having a rifle or purposeful tool. But walking around all day strapped with a god dam submachinegun is just ridiculous.

Americans around here veiw things as far as a firearm as a tool the same way. It's like post hole diggers, or garden rakes.

I admit I do not see the point in holstering a weapon in public. But holstering a weapon in public is not how the massacres that are the topic here were committed,

Average gun owning Joe doesn't wake up and decide to visit the town sqaure and on a whim decide to shoot a U.S. Represenitive because he had his ole .45 in holster that sunny afternoon.

A mentally deranged person got access to a firearm, in particular a automatic handgun, I much rather see this fact and problem attacked other than every other issue under the sun. The contineous side stepping and stabbing at firearms possesion by lawful persons is completly out of context.

I am not a whistle blower on the 2nd Amendment who constantly feels so threatened that I wish to be bristling with armament as I stroll to the grocery store.

But attacking with political disagreances and ignoring the root problem is ridiculous.

Attacking the 2nd Amendment as a whole claiming it to be the source of the problem is like turning the clock back in time to the seat belt debate, recomending that in order to save lives you must buy double policy protection from your insurance company instead of wearing your seat belt.

Meaning more useless legistration.

You can't solve a problem by legistrating more problems to make you forget about the orginal issue.

As for Submachine guns I believe you need a Type 1 FFL at the very least in cordination with NFA regulations to even own one, as for carrying it in pulbic whoever decides to do such a thing I will gladly visit them in while they are serving in jail.

 

[MontyB]

Here is a question for you, how many of these incidents have been committed by your average farm boy (grows up in a rural setting around firearms) and how many are committed by city boys who have grown up getting their view of firearms influenced by TV/Movies?Video games etc?

Americans around here veiw things as far as a firearm as a tool the same way. It's like post hole diggers, or garden rakes.

I admit I do not see the point in holstering a weapon in public. But holstering a weapon in public is not how the massacres that are the topic here were committed,

No but I think the mentality of someone who feels they need to carry a weapon in public does lead to these massacres.

 

[Yossarian]

Here is a question for you, how many of these incidents have been committed by your average farm boy (grows up in a rural setting around firearms) and how many are committed by city boys who have grown up getting their view of firearms influenced by TV/Movies?Video games etc?

That is the exact type of thinking I am looking for, I have asked these questions before.

Who did they grow up around?

What did these individuals surround themselves with?

What did they feel? (people need to stop throwing disregard to their emoitions, if they are deranged this could be an important part of the puzzle in preventing this in the future.

Were they loners?

And what did the lack in nuturing them as human beings?

I ask these questions as not as a "blame society" standpoint. As I don't ask the questions for a place to put the blame, just a place to put change in how we distrubute and obatain fire arms. In an effort to prevent them from obtaining while preserving that right.

If I knew it would be so criminal mention preservation of the Constition in the process I guess I would have just stayed quiet.

For we already know the easy asnwer to this question.

Keep firearms out of the hands of mentally incapable owners or criminally dangorous persons willing to carry out these attacks.

The hard part is getting there.

For those who say screw the 2nd, repealing a Amendment from the Constitution is a BIG deal to a lot of Americans, a really big deal so no it's not that simple.

Also in a country where cigarettes and tobaco use kills someone about every 8 seconds firearms deaths total don't really even reach half of the annual tobaco related deaths. Also over many periods of time firearms related deaths were eclisped by drunk driving fatalities as well.

If we treated every Amendment like this then what reason to have a Constitution in the first place? I am not picky choosy with the 2nd, just the concept for any Amendment brings this to mind.

I know the problem here which is the topic of this thread, just looking for a way that does not punish the entire country in an effort to brainstorm a safer society.

Hence why I shared this with the world on this forum. To see what works and what doesn't the world over , to maybe find some clues to an American problem and maybe a way to an American answer.

 

[headwards]

Another point is the difference of views in that Americans have a 'right' to nearly any kind of firearm- meaning a right to use deadly force at their discretion.
I think that is far too much trust to be given to your average citizen.

 

[BritinBritain]

How many firearms related murders does a town of 5,000 normally have?

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing) but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

The reality is that guns are not the problem but they have become the solution to many Americans problems, New Zealand has one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world yet we are much happier beating the crap out of each other than shooting each other and when you can explain why that is you will have the answer to the problem.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000).

It isn't just murders that have dropped in Kennesaw it's other crimes, rapes, home invasions, vehicle theft. Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. Crime rates declined from 2003 through 2008.

The overall crime rate has decreased by more than 50% since the law was put into affect according to statistics from 2005.

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing) but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

I'm not pushing anything. The statistics speak for themselves.

Kennesaw must have something going for it as more and more people are moving there and feel safer doing so.

As I said before, criminals are not stupid, they are not going to invade a home, steal a car, assault someone, mug someone or attempt rape if they know their victims are armed.

DC was the murder capital of the US because there was a ban on handguns which has since been repealed.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets…”
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.”

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.

Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 “Heller” decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.

It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington’s size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.

If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008 , the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s late June “Heller” decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.

Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.

Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs.

http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/concealed-carry-myths/concealed-carry-laws-increase-crime/

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime

Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

 

[MontyB]

As I said before, criminals are not stupid, they are not going to invade a home or attempt rape if they know their victims are armed.

While possibly true it is not the entire story because as I have said I live in a town of roughly similar size that hasn't had a rape, murder or home invasion in the last 10 years hell I can't recall a case of home invasion or rape here ever and to be honest I can only recall 2 murders yet we don't require every one to carry weapons and in fact make it as difficult as possible for people to get firearms.

Therefore your argument may hold true in crime infested areas but you would have to ask yourself what other factors are creating the high crime rate and I am prepared to bet based on my town that lack of guns is not the cause so while arming every man and his dog may provide a solution it is really only masking the issues not solving them.

 

[BritinBritain]

While possibly true it is not the entire story because as I have said I live in a town of roughly similar size that hasn't had a rape, murder or home invasion in the last 10 years hell I can't recall a case of home invasion or rape here ever and to be honest I can only recall 2 murders yet we don't require every one to carry weapons and in fact make it as difficult as possible for people to get firearms.

Therefore your argument may hold true in crime infested areas but you would have to ask yourself what other factors are creating the high crime rate and I am prepared to bet based on my town that lack of guns is not the cause so while arming every man and his dog may provide a solution it is really only masking the issues not solving them.

There are small villages in the UK that also have an almost zero crime rate, yet in most cities like London, Birmingham etc, crime is through the roof and climbing despite having a total ban on handguns as in DC. So one cannot compare one small town or village with the rest of the world. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

As I stated some time ago I am not getting into a pro gun/anti gun debate as it has been discussed to death in other threads. What I will say however, reliable statistic from around the world prove's that armed civilians helps keep crime levels low.

Causes of violent crime? Some say lack of employment, poverty and so on. One guy was interviewed in South Africa and asked why he commits crime stated, "I did have a job, but crimes pays better and it's less work."

 

[MontyB]

I would counter your argument by saying that living in fear to keep crime low is not freedom, America will only reduce incidents like this when it improves its societal issues but in order to do this it will have to reinvent itself and the way it thinks, banning guns will not solve the problem and neither will arming every one.

 

[BritinBritain]

I would counter your argument by saying that living in fear to keep crime low is not freedom, America will only reduce incidents like this when it improves its societal issues but in order to do this it will have to reinvent itself and the way it thinks, banning guns will not solve the problem and neither will arming every one.

How is carrying concealed living in fear? Sorry that doesn't wash. Concealed carry gives someone the means to defend themselves in the event of an attack on one's person, allowing them to live without fear.

I stopped an attack on myself years ago and I didn't have to fire a shot. BUT I let it be known to my would be attacker that if he didn't back off I was prepared to defend myself.

I also prevented the rape of my next door neighbour and her 16 year old daughter. If I hadn't a firearm they would have possibly been raped and more then likely infected with HIV. When the police searched the three teenage would be rapists they were all found to be armed, IF I hadn't been armed and gone in with fists flying, I wouldn't be here now.

Can you in all honesty see America reinventing itself or the way it thinks? That's pie in the sky.

Besides which it's not your right or my right to say what is right and what is wrong in the US, if arming themselves prevents an attack on their person or that of their family then good for them.

I do however agree, that banning guns does not prevent crime, we have found in South Africa that crime actually increases.

 

[MontyB]

How is carrying concealed living in fear? Sorry Monty that doesn't wash. Concealed carry gives someone the means to defend themselves in the event of an attack on one's person, allowing them to live without fear.

I stopped an attack on myself years ago and I didn't have to fire a shot. BUT I let it be known to my would be attacker that if he didn't back off I was prepared to defend myself.

I also prevented the rape of my next door neighbour and her 16 year old daughter. If I hadn't a firearm they would have possibly been raped and more then likely infected with HIV. When the police searched the three teenage would be rapists they were all found to be armed.

Can you in all honesty see America reinventing itself or the way it thinks? Besides which it's not your right or my right to say what is right and what is wrong in the US.

No offence but you live in South Africa a border line failed state with a thin veneer of democracy, if I lived there I would be carrying a weapon as well but the USA is not a failed state just one that can't decide whether it wants to live in the 18th Century or the 21st and no I do not see the USA changing simply because they have no will to do so.

As for whether I have a right to comment on what is right or wrong for the USA I would argue that I pointed out in my first post that I couldn't care less whether Americans want to kill each other or not as I no longer have to live within that rule set however having lived there continuously for 7 years and spent at least 3 months a year there for the last 15 years I think I have a better understanding of the problem than most outsiders.

 

[headwards]

Its interesting how white south africans come here with such an underlying paranoia that they all seem to carry knives(as tools). Recently I have had the pleasure of working with a few recent immigrants and while great people they all made clear that back home not being armed was asking for trouble.
It has made me appreciate New Zealand far more.
I have read enough in this thread to gain a new appreciation for the sanity there seems to be here.

 

[Der Alte]

When shooting incidents occur, the media point the finger of blame at guns and the second amendment. But they may want to point the finger at themselves and at the first amendment.

How does simple coverage encourage more violence?

Basically, people in the audience who are susceptible to influence get ideas from what they read, what they see and what they hear. If their inhibitions are low, if they are ready to act violently, they can act on those ideas. This is a fairly general phenomenon. It´s been happening for years. Going back to the end of the 19th century, when coverage of the Jack the Ripper murders in England led to a rash of copycat crimes. Other highly publicized violent incidents, such as the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination and the 1966 arrest of Richard Speck for killing eight student nurses, also led to rises in violent crime.

Excessive media coverage surrounding violent incidents is a factor in promoting more of them. This is for two reasons. One, as noted, some people get ideas that they can commit such crimes. And second, saturation coverage – that is, covering the same story over and over again increases the chances that such incidents will occur.

An obvious answer to this problem is to give less media attention to these incidents. One thing the media can do is stop covering these violent incidents in a dramatic manner, like the movies do. Such coverage raises the odds that more violence will occur.

On the other hand, the media have to report the news, and that more violence can be considered an inevitable result. I suggest that the media cover these incidents by condemning these actions and in addition to media self-control, youngsters have to be taught that violent behavior is not acceptable or desirable. This is a shared responsibility in which we all must take part if we want to change this trend.

 

[BritinBritain]

No offence but you live in South Africa a border line failed state with a thin veneer of democracy, if I lived there I would be carrying a weapon as well but the USA is not a failed state just one that can't decide whether it wants to live in the 18th Century or the 21st and no I do not see the USA changing simply because they have no will to do so.

No offence taken. Its not a borderline failed state, it IS a failed state. The democracy favoured by the ANC is of the East German kind. Much of the crime such as farm murders have been proven to have been engineered by or supported by the ANC, which of course they deny. Sooner or later the sh!te IS going to hit the fan.

As for the US, I would suggest that much of the crime is drug or gangster related fighting over turf. During prohibition and the rise of the Mafia it was the same story.

As for whether I have a right to comment on what is right or wrong for the USA I would argue that I pointed out in my first post that I couldn't care less whether Americans want to kill each other or not as I no longer have to live within that rule set however having lived there continuously for 7 years and spent at least 3 months a year there for the last 15 years I think I have a better understanding of the problem than most outsiders.

You probably have a better understanding of the US then I do, but the fact is like it or not, in states where concealed carry is allowed in the US crime has dropped, while crime in the UK is climbing.

You don't need to carry a firearm where you live, you are bloody lucky to live in such a crime free environment, people adapt to the conditions around them.

 

[MontyB]

When shooting incidents occur, the media point the finger of blame at guns and the second amendment. But they may want to point the finger at themselves and at the first amendment.

How does simple coverage encourage more violence?

Basically, people in the audience who are susceptible to influence get ideas from what they read, what they see and what they hear. If their inhibitions are low, if they are ready to act violently, they can act on those ideas. This is a fairly general phenomenon. It´s been happening for years. Going back to the end of the 19th century, when coverage of the Jack the Ripper murders in England led to a rash of copycat crimes. Other highly publicized violent incidents, such as the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination and the 1966 arrest of Richard Speck for killing eight student nurses, also led to rises in violent crime.

Excessive media coverage surrounding violent incidents is a factor in promoting more of them. This is for two reasons. One, as noted, some people get ideas that they can commit such crimes. And second, saturation coverage – that is, covering the same story over and over again increases the chances that such incidents will occur.

I am sorry but I do not agree, while I have no doubt a few people are incited by the media I do not believe it is the root cause of the problem.

People the world over are subjected to the same news, movies, video games and television I am prepared to bet that 90% of what I watch on my TV is available to the rest of the world as well yet these crimes are not being repeated around the world in the same volume they are in the USA.

An obvious answer to this problem is to give less media attention to these incidents. One thing the media can do is stop covering these violent incidents in a dramatic manner, like the movies do. Such coverage raises the odds that more violence will occur.

On the other hand, the media have to report the news, and that more violence can be considered an inevitable result. I suggest that the media cover these incidents by condemning these actions and in addition to media self-control, youngsters have to be taught that violent behavior is not acceptable or desirable. This is a shared responsibility in which we all must take part if we want to change this trend.

I think there is a great desire to blame the media for the ills of the world but in reality it has become the scapegoat for lowering standards essentially blaming the media is the modern equivalent of shooting the messenger, if you want to point the finger at anyone then I believe we must point the finger at a society that now strips people of personal responsibility and allows kids to grow up with the knowledge that not only are there no tangible consequences to their actions but also that they are protected from any consequences by law until of course they leave school and then things aren't so rosey.

But I digress because none of this explains why these incidents occur more frequently in the USA than anywhere else in the world with the possible exception of third world war zones.

 

[BritinBritain]

Remember the LA riots? TV stations only televised the police beating the crap out of Rodney King, they didn't show King attacking a police officer. The jury saw the whole video which led to a not guilty verdict.