How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your home?

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

That's not at all my argument. My consistent argument has been this: it's nonsensical to infringe on a wide majority of law-abiding citizens (by banning firearms) in a misguided belief that doing so will effectively resolve a problem (mass casualty events conducted by non-lawful citizens) that's already far wider in scope than the targeted infringement.

So, speaking to your question above about enhanced security measures......if the goal of new airport security screening and carry on limitations was to "stop terrorism", then yes, I'd consider that futile because the scope of the goal (stopping terrorism) would be broader than the reach of those measures and therefore unachievable. When you set a goal, it has to be defined narrowly enough to be reasonably achievable *and* the benefits must outweigh the costs.

I personally think the goals of airport security enhancements were to a) make air travel safer by correcting exposed deficiencies that could diminish safety and b) to restore citizens' confidence in their safety during air travel. Even with an achievable and narrowly defined goal, though, not all ends justify the means.

I'm willing to endure some inconveniences (removing shoes during security lines, limitations on liquids in carry-on, offer my bags for visual inspection, etc.) in the name of safety, but I'd not be willing to submit to strip-searches or submit to having my blood drawn for analysis during screening. If such measures were proposed, I'd oppose them because they'd mean infringing/intruding on a significant majority of lawful citizens for very little perceived incremental gain.

erm how many people have died in airplane hijacking/bombing incidents versus how many people have died in gun related incidents. How many people have been affected by the often draconian safety measures in airports vs how many law abiding citizens would be affected by an increase in gun control.

I think this discussion has really showed how much the environment you are brought up in will affect your reasoning and views. See for someone not brought up in the US the difference in how you view airport safety measures and gun control is quite astounding. I am finding this discussion very interesting .

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

But, there have been 56,060 people shot in the US so far this year. 170 today. Those numbers include suicides. And, those numbers included injuries, not just deaths. Shouldn't we care about those people too? Not just the multiple victims of the half-dozen crazies per year. I do think the people in this country who want meaningful gun CONTROL (there, I put the big scary word in caps!) care not just to help prevent the 6 or so psychos per year (I think it's a lot more than 6, but short on time to research atm), but care to prevent the suicides, the accidental shootings, the stray bullet killings, the shootings that just maim but don't kill, etc. etc.

Oh, and those numbers are per the Brady Campaign site. I did check the NRA site first, but couldn't find any statistics.

Oh, and I don't think gun control in the US would ever include a total ban. No doubt, there are plenty of people who would completely flip out and just start shootin', in the name of their Constitutional right.

LV, it's been my contention that we should care about ALL people, and that the way to care about them and for them is to treat them in a way that doesn't foster hopelessness, powerlessness, despair, and feeling like there's nothing left to lose. How many times have you read about violent crimes perpetrated by happy, fulfilled, respected people? Yeaaaaaaaah - I can't think of any either.

I advocate for solutions that involve more compassionate behavior to one another, more societal watchfulness, and bearing more civic responsibility to identify and help people who exhibit behavior suggestive of endangering themselves or others.....and none of those efforts involve denying rights to lawful citizens.

My argument has been that the clamoring to ban firearms (which some have argued passionately in favor of) isn't broad enough to effectively reach those issues, AND that the loss or rights for large numbers of law-abiding citizens is too high a price to pay. I'll admit that my proposed solutions above are also not guaranteed to effectively resolve all the problems either, BUT they don't propose the denial of rights to others to implement.

You mentioned suicides above. In an earlier post, I noted that more than half of the gun fatalities in 2007 were suicides, which numbered somewhere over 17,000. According to the Amer. Soc. for Suicide Prevention, the total US suicide count in that year was 34,598. That means 17,000+ other people managed to find another way....maybe they didn't have access to guns, but that didn't stop them.

There's no data to say how many of the 17,000 who used guns obtained them from illegal sources, either. If we're about helping everyone, then how is banning guns going to prevent the 50% of suicides that didn't involve guns, plus the ones that involved non-legal guns?

Beyond that, how could we reduce gun-related suicides with anything less than a total firearm ban? How many suicides have you heard of involving more than a single round? I can't see how gun control initiatives relating to semi-automatic weapons do anything to impact gun-related suicides.

If you're going to stretch to encompass all gun-related injuries, then you'll have to include criminals who choose to engage in high-risk behavior that goes hand in hand with violence and guns, too. Why should lawful citizens have to sacrifice the right to lawful behavior while the very intended beneficiaries of that sacrifice (the criminals who will simply get guns from illegal means) continue to engage in violent, illegal behavior?

I just personally don't feel that the call to ban firearms is warranted nor substantive enough to get the job done.

 

[lyra]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

erm how many people have died in airplane hijacking/bombing incidents versus how many people have died in gun related incidents. How many people have been affected by the often draconian safety measures in airports vs how many law abiding citizens would be affected by an increase in gun control.

I think this discussion has really showed how much the environment you are brought up in will affect your reasoning and views. See for someone not brought up in the US the difference in how you view airport safety measures and gun control is quite astounding. I am finding this discussion very interesting .

I agree Natascha. I've always been glad I was born in Canada. I lack the eloquence to describe the cultural differences, but in general we tend to be okay with giving up some rights for the general good. We accept change. These are gross generalizations, but there's truth in it.

As far as this discussion goes, we have zero firearms. I grew up in a household where my dad, mom, brother and sister were all sustenance hunters. We had at least 12 rifles at home. It was a rural area. I grew up with wildlife aplenty. Who didn't encounter a bear at some point growing up? LOL. No one I ever knew thought of shooting one though. We didn't eat bear meat. We didn't trophy shoot, that was beneath us. (Another Canadianism.) Ah well. I can live with gun control and no handguns. I can't imagine any situation where I would feel safer for having one. I'd rather take my chances.

The gun violence we have in urban areas is mostly gang and organized crime related. Same as everywhere else. Our gov't is looking at ways to thwart that too. A large part of that problem is the influx of arms brought in from the US. I'd like to see a ban on semi-automatic high capacity firearms in the US because that would actually benefit MY country in a small way. That is my only real input. I can't see a practical purpose for civilians to have assault rifles. It makes for a very uneven playing field.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Increased control does not mean change the laws but don't enforce them. Increased control means actual change.

And that means? "Actual change"? What exactly is that to you?

Laws are pointless without enforcement, and enforcement is sheerly a numbers game. Let's look at some. In 2011, New York City had over 8.2 MILLION residents and roughly 36,000 police officers. That's one officer for every 228 people. In my city of 60,789 residents, we have 87 police officers......one for every 627 residents! I'm all ears to hear exactly what detailed changes you'd propose to improve enforcement that don't include added manpower (unless you can also substantiate how my city which is already desperately in the red will find the funds to make such a manpower increase, ok?).

And yes actual increased control will lead to less homicides, violence, etc because many of these deaths and injuries are not caused by criminals or premeditated.

Even if you COULD meaningfully increase enforcement, there is no way to assert how *much* less you could achieve, and the price for doing so is to deny millions of people the right to own and use them lawfully. By LV's number provided earlier, there are approximately 112,000 gun-related injuries/deaths a year. Even if we generously assumed that a full HALF of them (56,000) are accidental or non-criminal in nature, and IF even if you could eliminate every single one of those, you'd be doing so at the expense of the rights of the 14 million people that the NICS requested background checks on during firearm purchases. Even if every one of them were repeat purchasers, that's still approximately 7 million *lawful* people whose rights you're suggesting we infringe on to offset 56,000 injuries. I cannot support that concept. The rest of that paragraph was equally illogical and unfounded, so see above.

Please look at the example I posted previously, a jewelry store was robbed and did they have guns,no , they had crowbars. While crowbars can cause a lot of damage it pales in comparison to what guns can do.

It does? Ok, now you're just getting silly. Here's a little light reading for you on how they "pale" in comparison to guns.....these are all events from 2011, and only the ones I could find and cut/paste in 5 minutes, so I'm sure there are more.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/13/man-convicted-for-killing-landlord-with-crowbar/
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Suspect-in-Crowbar-Beating-Death-Has-Fled-US-114236684.html
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/02...-with-crowbar-after-argument-over-light-bulb/
http://news.am/eng/news/56409.html - (woman killed with crowbar in Armenia)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/22/20110322peoria-beating-death-suspect-abrk.html - (man found dead in closet killed by crow bar)

 

[kenny]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So with 100 votes in 68% have no gun, yet 10% have 9 or more guns.
I find this very surprising.
I thought there would be more of an even distribution instead of peaks at zero and 9+.

People sure vary, but what could explain this oddly polarized result?

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I think this discussion has really showed how much the environment you are brought up in will affect your reasoning and views. See for someone not brought up in the US the difference in how you view airport safety measures and gun control is quite astounding. I am finding this discussion very interesting .

I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding.

I can't speak for everyone raised here, but it means something to me that my country's founders believed so strongly in the preservation of personal rights and freedoms that they were willing to risk their very lives to get it.

 

[ksinger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So with 100 votes in 68% have no gun, yet 10% have 9 or more guns.
I find this very surprising.
I thought there would be more of an even distribution instead of peaks at zero and 9+.

People sure vary, but what could explain this oddly polarized result?

Well, it always seems to me that more PS'ers live in the a)east and b) in densely populated parts of the US. We are not a balanced cross-section I'm guessing. And it would be interesting to see how it correlates with the population density where each voter lives. Guns are much more problematic the more dense and urban the living conditions are. Guns in densely packed cities represent fear of each other more. In a rural or near-rural environment, guns are much more unremarkable and are seen more as recreation, or tools - like a chainsaw. Or that's my take on it anyway.

 

[TooPatient]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I think this discussion has really showed how much the environment you are brought up in will affect your reasoning and views. See for someone not brought up in the US the difference in how you view airport safety measures and gun control is quite astounding. I am finding this discussion very interesting .

I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding.

I can't speak for everyone raised here, but it means something to me that my country's founders believed so strongly in the preservation of personal rights and freedoms that they were willing to risk their very lives to get it.

Alj -- perfectly said.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I lack the eloquence to describe the cultural differences, but in general we tend to be okay with giving up some rights for the general good. We accept change. These are gross generalizations, but there's truth in it.

I'm struggling to see the cultural differences you're noting. It's my understanding that there are two opposing schools of thought in Canada regarding gun politics as well, with one group objecting to the registration of personal firearms while the other believe in strict gun control. Sounds pretty similar to me. Moreover, it would seem that while gun legislation in Canada was at its most restrictive for nearly 20 years (beginning in 1995) in requiring all personal firearms to be registered, that requirement was abolished in all provinces except Quebec this past April. Your laws seem similar (at least to those in my state) regarding obtaining and possessing them - requires safety training, maintaining the PAL license, and security screening.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I'm totally on board with relinquishing some rights for the general good. To me, though, general good means more people benefit than are harmed. It also depends on how integral the right is, and this one strikes pretty heavily to me even as someone who owns no firearms.

The gun violence we have in urban areas is mostly gang and organized crime related. Same as everywhere else. Our gov't is looking at ways to thwart that too. A large part of that problem is the influx of arms brought in from the US. I'd like to see a ban on semi-automatic high capacity firearms in the US because that would actually benefit MY country in a small way. That is my only real input. I can't see a practical purpose for civilians to have assault rifles. It makes for a very uneven playing field.

These bolded comments substantiate exactly my contentions earlier in this thread.......that increased gun control laws would likely only impact those citizens who are already lawful (and therefore not part of the problem) but would likely not impact those engaged in gun-related violence (like organized crimes and gangs)............and that such increased gun control laws would merely create a cottage industry for other countries who aren't governed by your national laws (like the influx of arms you're describing from the U.S. relative to your country) while failing to improve the problem targeted.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In a rural or near-rural environment, guns are much more unremarkable and are seen more as recreation, or tools - like a chainsaw.

<----------------------

(Gonna have to change disclaimer line to "chainsaw wielded strictly for recreational purposes only.") LOLOL

 

[kenny]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So with 100 votes in 68% have no gun, yet 10% have 9 or more guns.
I find this very surprising.
I thought there would be more of an even distribution instead of peaks at zero and 9+.

People sure vary, but what could explain this oddly polarized result?

Well, it always seems to me that more PS'ers live in the a)east and b) in densely populated parts of the US. We are not a balanced cross-section I'm guessing. And it would be interesting to see how it correlates with the population density where each voter lives. Guns are much more problematic the more dense and urban the living conditions are. Guns in densely packed cities represent fear of each other more. In a rural or near-rural environment, guns are much more unremarkable and are seen more as recreation, or tools - like a chainsaw. Or that's my take on it anyway.

You make a very insightful point.

 

[ksinger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Well well well....hmmm.

Going Postal, Pre-Pistol
How did mass murderers operate before the advent of modern weapons?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

ETA - And for those who don't want to bother to read, explosives win hands down, something the historian I live with has been saying forever. So if they ban guns here, mass killers will probably just brush up on their bomb skills like in Europe or the Middle East...

 

[ksinger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In a rural or near-rural environment, guns are much more unremarkable and are seen more as recreation, or tools - like a chainsaw.

<----------------------

(Gonna have to change disclaimer line to "chainsaw wielded strictly for recreational purposes only.") LOLOL

I swear I only thought of you AFTER I'd already written that, and then thought, "Ah heck, why not?"

And for the record, I am comfortable handling a gun: make sure it's unloaded and you have nothing more than a blued paperweight, but a chainsaw? Scares the willies out of me.

ETA - and in true PS fashion, since I like the color of blued steel (early exposure I guess), I bought a spinel in JUST that color.

 

[LaraOnline]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

None. After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania (Australia) in 1996, the state and federal governments coordinated to ban and restrict gun ownership in Australia. A buy-back scheme was initiated so that gun owners weren't financially impacted and Australia has been the better off for it ever since.

There is a popular current affairs/panel discussion television program here in Australia. It features a changing panel of prominent politicians, academics, journalists and other high profile individuals, and as a result the discussion does not often lend itself to consensus. However, on Monday night's episode the issue of American's gun ownership and the power of the gun lobby was discussed, and the panel was united in its inability to understand America's approach to gun ownership. A very unusual circumstance indeed.

Absolutely! (fellow Aussie here)
The gung-ho approach to fire-arms in the US would just about all of us scratching our heads, I'd reckon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

 

[bee*]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I'm in Ireland and we're not allowed to carry guns. Our police are unarmed apart from a special armed branch. It scares the life out of me that people can access guns so easily in the US. If you want to get a license here, you have to go to the police and apply with a genuine reason for needing it, have to undergo medical checks, both mental and physical, have to undergo an interview and your spouse/next of kin has to be informed that you are getting a gun license. My boss has to undertake this every year as he is also employed by the government (he has to cull some animals each year). He is the only person I've ever met that has a gun.

 

[Sha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

To use your argument, then - all of the new security measures that the U.S implemented post 9/11 were futile, since the terrorists will find a way to hurt us anyway? Should the U.S have done nothing?

That's not at all my argument. My consistent argument has been this: it's nonsensical to infringe on a wide majority of law-abiding citizens (by banning firearms) in a misguided belief that doing so will effectively resolve a problem (mass casualty events conducted by non-lawful citizens) that's already far wider in scope than the targeted infringement.

So, speaking to your question above about enhanced security measures......if the goal of new airport security screening and carry on limitations was to "stop terrorism", then yes, I'd consider that futile because the scope of the goal (stopping terrorism) would be broader than the reach of those measures and therefore unachievable. When you set a goal, it has to be defined narrowly enough to be reasonably achievable *and* the benefits must outweigh the costs.

I personally think the goals of airport security enhancements were to a) make air travel safer by correcting exposed deficiencies that could diminish safety and b) to restore citizens' confidence in their safety during air travel. Even with an achievable and narrowly defined goal, though, not all ends justify the means.

I'm willing to endure some inconveniences (removing shoes during security lines, limitations on liquids in carry-on, offer my bags for visual inspection, etc.) in the name of safety, but I'd not be willing to submit to strip-searches or submit to having my blood drawn for analysis during screening. If such measures were proposed, I'd oppose them because they'd mean infringing/intruding on a significant majority of lawful citizens for very little perceived incremental gain.

The fact that 9/11 occurred in the first place highlighted the fact that several security loopholes existed. The new measures helped to close some of those loopholes and prevent other terrorist acts from occurring.

I agree that 9/11 helped to expose pre-existing complacencies and deficiencies in security (which I acknowledged above). While the new security measures may have prevented some terrorist activities, they did not 'stop terrorism'; and even more important, they did not materially infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens (though the new body scanner equipment may be on or super-close to that line).

That's not to say that all incidents will be prevented, or that some persons won't find a way to circumvent the barriers. I agree with you there. But barriers and restrictions can work. The fact that SOME people may find a way around them is not a reason to not put them in place.

And I'll agree that barriers and restrictions can help *reduce*, if not eliminate, and I support barriers and restrictions for their reductive benefits AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INVOLVE stripping away rights from millions of law-abiding citizens. *That* is the point at which I find reason to resist.

We're going to have to part ways on this one, aljdewey. I disagree with your views, but respect them. Don't think it makes sense going around in circles.

As a non-American, though, I find this discussion very intriguing. I think a lot of non-Americans struggle to understand American's attachment to guns, but I guess history plays a large role in that.. It's interesting.

 

[bee*]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Please look at the example I posted previously, a jewelry store was robbed and did they have guns,no , they had crowbars. While crowbars can cause a lot of damage it pales in comparison to what guns can do.

It does? Ok, now you're just getting silly. Here's a little light reading for you on how they "pale" in comparison to guns.....these are all events from 2011, and only the ones I could find and cut/paste in 5 minutes, so I'm sure there are more.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/13/man-convicted-for-killing-landlord-with-crowbar/
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Suspect-in-Crowbar-Beating-Death-Has-Fled-US-114236684.html
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/02...-with-crowbar-after-argument-over-light-bulb/
http://news.am/eng/news/56409.html - (woman killed with crowbar in Armenia)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/22/20110322peoria-beating-death-suspect-abrk.html - (man found dead in closet killed by crow bar)

I don't think she was saying that people can't be killed with a wallop of a crowbar-however I doubt that there is going to be a psycho going on the rampage murdering 12 people and injuring dozens of others using one. It definitely pales in comparison to the outcome of someone wanting to cause damage with a gun.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

We're going to have to part ways on this one, aljdewey. I disagree with your views, but respect them. Don't think it makes sense going around in circles.

As a non-American, though, I find this discussion very intriguing. I think a lot of non-Americans struggle to understand American's attachment to guns, but I guess history plays a large role in that.. It's interesting.

Sha, though we don't agree, I do respect your views as well.

Oddly enough, I have no personal attachment to guns at all. I don't own them, and I'd not feel comfortable shooting them. For me, this isn't about the guns at all; it's about preservation of rights. I'm happy to relinquish rights if it makes sense and benefits more people than not, but this doesn't fit either criteria to me.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha...you may as well give up,b/c Alj will not lose in a debate. FYI...her debating record on PS is 32 Wins and 1 loss.. sooo.. you ain't gotta chance..

How is she winning? It's more of beat your head against the wall situation .

based on the "3 knockdown rule"...
as a referee i must stop this fight now! your no match for Alj, but who is?? her record goes to 33 and 1..

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

[quote="Sha|1343399058|

We're going to have to part ways on this one, aljdewey. I disagree with your views, but respect them. Don't think it makes sense going around in circles.

[/quote]



another KO for Alj her record goes to 34 and 1 with 34 KO's... nobody whips Alj in a debate!!..

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I don't think she was saying that people can't be killed with a wallop of a crowbar-however I doubt that there is going to be a psycho going on the rampage murdering 12 people and injuring dozens of others using one. It definitely pales in comparison to the outcome of someone wanting to cause damage with a gun.

Bee, I'm not at all missing her point. The event she's referring to was the robbery of a jewelry store, which isn't in the same class of mass casualty event as someone on a rampage. Because you're coming into this discussion at Mile 6, you've missed that Natascha's arguments for gun control/banning aren't focused on mass casualty events because most gun death/injuries aren't caused by spree killers/rampagers, so my responses to her don't focus on mass casualty.

There's also already been an exhaustive discussion about mass casualty events and whether gun legislation can really be an effective solution in those cases (I don't think it can for the multiple reasons I've outlined.)

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I think this discussion has really showed how much the environment you are brought up in will affect your reasoning and views. See for someone not brought up in the US the difference in how you view airport safety measures and gun control is quite astounding. I am finding this discussion very interesting .

I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding.

I can't speak for everyone raised here, but it means something to me that my country's founders believed so strongly in the preservation of personal rights and freedoms that they were willing to risk their very lives to get it.

The only way I can interpret this is that you are not understanding what I am saying. What rights are being stripped?

I have never said anything about banning guns. That would be very hypocritical of me. My SO is ex-military and is a great marksman, the firearms he usually carried were an assault rifle and a M240 machine gun (yes carried, he is 6f 2'' and weighs 260 pounds). For his last birthday I got him a gift card at a shooting range to try out some new guns, when we were in Thailand I went with him to a military base because he wanted to shoot some stuff we don't have access to here. I regularly enjoy eating wild meat that some hunters in the family hunt using firearms. Tomorrow I am going to a BBQ at a friends house were I know there are several gun safes filled with firearms. My SO collects swords and daggers. The difference is people don't carry weapons around town, all firearms must be locked up in a safe, my SO collection all have blunted blades so that they cannot be used to hurt people, etc. How are our rights infringed upon?

This is what non-Americans have such trouble understanding, what personal rights and freedoms are not being preserved? And remember that I am not talking about banning firearms.

Compare how you are interpreting my words with how things are portrayed in US media. Some things like the new rules in airports have gone down quickly and without too much protest. This due to how things were portrayed in media. Meanwhile the same thing has happened in other countries regarding gun control (eh Australia and England) yet you view this as people rights and freedoms being stripped away. This is probably due to how things are portrayed in the US (its a crazy person who started spree killing, we can't control wackos so why take away peoples rights, etc) meanwhile in other countries there is a lot of discussion regarding how this could have happened and people don't assume that if we add one rule to protect the innocent then it will snowball into us loosing all our rights and freedoms.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Bee - Totally uninformed as to the law in Ireland, but are you saying people don't have guns even for hunting purposes?

****************************
Another point I wanted to bring up, and I'm no longer sure which thread to post in, but when I was reading yesterday, it seems that there is not a lot enforcement of current laws aimed at gun control. You can buy guns at gun shows without any sort of background check. I'm sure if varies by state, but it seemed like it's common knowledge that dealers aren't necessarily following the rules at gun shows. And, you can buy guns privately, with no checks. And, people also sell guns at garage sales. Not too common 'round these parts, but I saw one advertised yesterday, googled it, and it appears to be quite common. I'm not suggesting that mass murderers are bargain shopping for guns on Saturday mornings, but if you can buy privately without any checks, then what's the point of the checks at all. And, yes, I am aware that people are buying guns on the streets, etc. I guess my point is -- the whole thing is a big mess, and to go back to Thing2's post from whichever thread she posted in, no one seems to care!

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

And that means? "Actual change"? What exactly is that to you?

Laws are pointless without enforcement, and enforcement is sheerly a numbers game. Let's look at some. In 2011, New York City had over 8.2 MILLION residents and roughly 36,000 police officers. That's one officer for every 228 people. In my city of 60,789 residents, we have 87 police officers......one for every 627 residents! I'm all ears to hear exactly what detailed changes you'd propose to improve enforcement that don't include added manpower (unless you can also substantiate how my city which is already desperately in the red will find the funds to make such a manpower increase, ok?).

Actual change involves both a change in rules and regulations but also an enforcement of these. It also involves education and discussion. Change takes time but people lives are worth it.

Enforcement is not only a numbers game. Sweden actually has less police officers per capita than the US and since we have a lower population density there are many communities that don't even have a single police officer. Yet we still manage to enforce our laws and have low crime rates. Enforcement does not mean that a police officer goes door to door checking for guns. It involves the whole chain, gun stores, shooting ranges, hunting licences, if someone is carrying when they are not supposed to then the general public calls the police, when doing traffic checks and the police sees a firearm that licence is asked for at the same time as your drivers licence, etc .



Even if you COULD meaningfully increase enforcement, there is no way to assert how *much* less you could achieve, and the price for doing so is to deny millions of people the right to own and use them lawfully. By LV's number provided earlier, there are approximately 112,000 gun-related injuries/deaths a year. Even if we generously assumed that a full HALF of them (56,000) are accidental or non-criminal in nature, and IF even if you could eliminate every single one of those, you'd be doing so at the expense of the rights of the 14 million people that the NICS requested background checks on during firearm purchases. Even if every one of them were repeat purchasers, that's still approximately 7 million *lawful* people whose rights you're suggesting we infringe on to offset 56,000 injuries. I cannot support that concept. The rest of that paragraph was equally illogical and unfounded, so see above.
Please see my other post. I am not talking about infringing anyone rights so we would just end up with less deaths and injuries. Just because you don't agree with something does not mean that it is illogical and unfounded.

Please look at the example I posted previously, a jewelry store was robbed and did they have guns,no , they had crowbars. While crowbars can cause a lot of damage it pales in comparison to what guns can do.

It does? Ok, now you're just getting silly. Here's a little light reading for you on how they "pale" in comparison to guns.....these are all events from 2011, and only the ones I could find and cut/paste in 5 minutes, so I'm sure there are more.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/13/man-convicted-for-killing-landlord-with-crowbar/
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Suspect-in-Crowbar-Beating-Death-Has-Fled-US-114236684.html
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/02...-with-crowbar-after-argument-over-light-bulb/
http://news.am/eng/news/56409.html - (woman killed with crowbar in Armenia)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/22/20110322peoria-beating-death-suspect-abrk.html - (man found dead in closet killed by crow bar)

Are you being serious? You are grasping at straws and then calling me silly? All of those cases are of one single victim being (repeatedly which takes time) hit by one or two perpetrators in a somewhat private setting (the mart one had two perpetrators and there was no one else in the store). Robbing a jewelry store in a mall in those few minutes before it opens to the public is quite different. With a crowbar the perpetrator is not going to hunt the salesmen down and beat them before taking the jewelry. With a gun you can shot several people in a few seconds without going near them therefore it is easier to control them. That is not possible with a crowbar, using a crowbar takes more time and is more risky for the perpetrator so he is less liable to use it to injure people during a robbery.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Bee - Totally uninformed as to the law in Ireland, but are you saying people don't have guns even for hunting purposes?

****************************
Another point I wanted to bring up, and I'm no longer sure which thread to post in, but when I was reading yesterday, it seems that there is not a lot enforcement of current laws aimed at gun control. You can buy guns at gun shows without any sort of background check. I'm sure if varies by state, but it seemed like it's common knowledge that dealers aren't necessarily following the rules at gun shows. And, you can buy guns privately, with no checks. And, people also sell guns at garage sales. Not too common 'round these parts, but I saw one advertised yesterday, googled it, and it appears to be quite common. I'm not suggesting that mass murderers are bargain shopping for guns on Saturday mornings, but if you can buy privately without any checks, then what's the point of the checks at all. And, yes, I am aware that people are buying guns on the streets, etc. I guess my point is -- the whole thing is a big mess, and to go back to Thing2's post from whichever thread she posted in, no one seems to care!

Exactly! The first step to solving something is accepting that it is an issue.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha...you may as well give up,b/c Alj will not lose in a debate. FYI...her debating record on PS is 32 Wins and 1 loss.. sooo.. you ain't gotta chance..

How is she winning? It's more of beat your head against the wall situation .

based on the "3 knockdown rule"...
as a referee i must stop this fight now! your no match for Alj, but who is?? her record goes to 33 and 1..

She has not knocked me down a single time . You do realize that a referee is supposed to be impartial, not someone who has the same opinion as one part and therefore will always see them as having the winning argument. As this thread shows, there are some people who agree with Alj ( I think everyone is from the US, please correct me if I am am wrong since it would be very interesting to see if someone how has not been subject to the same teachings agrees with her argument) and other people who don't agree.

One big difference is several posters are trying very hard to understand how she has reached her arguments since from other points of view they are illogical. See that is the first time I have said that IMO her arguments are illogical while she says that my arguments are illogical, unfounded and that I am being silly . I have to say I love discussing with Americans. Just a quick question: do you do oppositions in school, have too argue opposing points of views in essays and have debates where you are given one opinion that you have to defend regardless if you believe in it?

 

[HollyS]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Bee - Totally uninformed as to the law in Ireland, but are you saying people don't have guns even for hunting purposes?

****************************
Another point I wanted to bring up, and I'm no longer sure which thread to post in, but when I was reading yesterday, it seems that there is not a lot enforcement of current laws aimed at gun control. You can buy guns at gun shows without any sort of background check. I'm sure if varies by state, but it seemed like it's common knowledge that dealers aren't necessarily following the rules at gun shows. And, you can buy guns privately, with no checks. And, people also sell guns at garage sales. Not too common 'round these parts, but I saw one advertised yesterday, googled it, and it appears to be quite common. I'm not suggesting that mass murderers are bargain shopping for guns on Saturday mornings, but if you can buy privately without any checks, then what's the point of the checks at all. And, yes, I am aware that people are buying guns on the streets, etc. I guess my point is -- the whole thing is a big mess, and to go back to Thing2's post from whichever thread she posted in, no one seems to care!

To say no one cares is incorrect. We all care about those who lose their lives, either by accident or intent, by being shot.

However, any law written will never cover all ground when it comes to providing security from those who would harm you without a moment's hesitation. As is evident in all things, you cannot really legislate morality, and the most immoral thing anyone can do is purposely take the life of someone else, outside of self defense.

Murder and mass murder will never be completely eradicated. Amish people don't have guns, and ban them within their communities . . . did that stop someone from entering one of their schoolhouses to kill children? Nope.

 

[amc80]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

You probably should not have a gun unless you are definitely willing to use it, practice, get a license.

Here in Nevada, a license isn't necessary unless you want to carry concealed (CCW). We are an open carry state, which means you are free to walk around with a gun in plain sight. Occasionally I will see someone doing this and it always catches me off guard. I have a hand gun and my CCW, but the gun is a bit too big to carry around (it's a Ruger SR9c, in case anybody cares). I'm looking to buy a smaller one that I can easily have in the jogging stroller for when I go on runs by myself.

Have you all seen this video? http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/07/20/elderly-man-chases-shoot-robbers?videoId=236594012
Two guys went into an internet cafe and attempted to rob it. There was an old man there who had a concealed handgun. He pulled it out and started firing at the two men. I don't think I've ever seen two grown men scramble and flee so fast.

Just curious. So, in Nevada, you can have a loaded gun, and you don't need to have it on your person? You can just toss it in a baby stroller? Uhm, is it gonna be holstered, and why not just wear it? Wouldn't it be easier to access when you have a gun pointed at you? You know, rather than digging through all the baby gear in your stroller basket?

You have to have a CCW to have it hidden. You can carry it openly without a permit, though. My stroller has a little compartment right in top where I would put it, so it would be easy to access. I don't think I'm skilled enough to run with a gun strapped to me.

 

[Laila619]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

[quote="Sha|1343399058|

We're going to have to part ways on this one, aljdewey. I disagree with your views, but respect them. Don't think it makes sense going around in circles.




another KO for Alj her record goes to 34 and 1 with 34 KO's... nobody whips Alj in a debate!!..

Your opinion isn't exactly unbiased, DF!

 

[bee*]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Bee - Totally uninformed as to the law in Ireland, but are you saying people don't have guns even for hunting purposes?

****************************
You can get a gun for hunting purposes (as in the case of my boss) but it's very difficult to get as you have to prove that's the reason that you are getting it. There is also a limit to the type of gun that you can get, ie. no automatics. I was chatting to my boss earlier today and he said that he has 2 different guns and has to have a separate license for each and this has to be renewed every 3 years but he has to notify the police yearly that he is still in possession of them. Don't get me wrong-there are some bad guys with guns but they're few and far between and the average person on the street like myself wouldn't have the first idea where to get one over here.