It is not. To begin with, it is a different culture than the rest of the united states. Secondly, it has a much smaller population size, and population density, than the city of New York for example. Thirdly, it is an island nation and is better able to control its own borders, as there are fewer legal ports of entry to contend with. Which does not mean anything of relevance. The same must be done in the city of Chicago, and the stats of Illinois, New York, and California. But as shown on the chart presented by yourself, they are significantly higher than the state of Illinois in terms of firearm-related deaths. Ergo the permitting requirement is not doing them any good. The application process is not "a little bit of inconvenience" and there is no actual evidence presented to show that its existence is directly or indirectly contingent upon saving lives. It is nothing but speculation that the two are in any way related to one another.
You and your gun are the exception not the rule. We are talking about teachers -- the rank and file -- bookworms who became adults.
My brother has taught high school for 27 years. He would do just fine with a gun if he wanted to and was allowed.
If I understand this document correctly, it's saying that unlicensed private sellers can distribute guns legally? Therefore, it is these unlicensed distributors which propagate guns to prohibited individuals. If so, what's the point of getting licensed? And if the a PTP system is enacted, how is it enforced? What prevents an unlicensed private seller from giving a gun to an individual with no permit? Paragraph 2 "Federal law requires prospective firearm purchasers to pass a background check verifying that they meet all eligibility requirements if the seller is a federally licensed firearm dealer. But prohibited persons or anyone who does not want records linking themselves to a gun can acquire firearms from unlicensed private sellers who have no legal obligation to verify that the prospective purchaser can legally possess a firearm. In all states with PTP laws, both licensed and unlicensed firearm sellers can only legally sell a firearm to someone if they have a valid permit or license." The document linked by Galileo seems to claim that prohibited individuals can "legally" purchase guns from unlicensed private sellers. It does not claim that lawful gun owners are responsible for most gun crimes.
From the time of the ratification of the Constitution, it was a number of years before the first "police force" was organized. Prior to that, most issues of law enforcement were handled by the people themselves. There might be a town constable or sheriff responsible for dealing with keeping order, and for more involved situations the people themselves could be deputized to assist. Later, it was realized that a uniformed force of sworn officers had some merits and thus we took that path. My grandfather, who I have mentioned often on these forums, was a police officer going back to the 1930's, and at that time he patrolled an area of almost 1500 square miles by himself on the back of a motorcycle. No radio or means to call for backup... but back then the people themselves were engaged in their communities and capable of facing problems until help could arrive, and if an officer found himself in real trouble citizens often came to his aid. The officers were drawn from the community itself, and everyone knew everyone else and everyone knew who the bad apples were which were responsible for most malfeasance. The people trusted the police and the police held themselves to a higher standard as a result. In answer to your question I believe that even with the enactment of my proposal police would still have a place, but they would be recognized as the reactive force they are. They would still patrol the streets and respond to calls for assistance, but the people's behavior and their ability to protect themselves would be improved. Also, with universal compulsory militia training and service, then police officers themselves would have a closer relationship with their fellow citizens, having served in the militia alongside many of their neighbors and reducing the "Us vs. Them" divide that has grown over the last few decades. People who are susceptible to or prone to violent mental disorders would be much more likely to be identified under the stresses of training and service. Psychological evaluations are part of service, of course, and individuals identified as mentally unfit to serve could get the mental health services they need, and as a result of their adjudication be prevented from legally owning firearms. Beneficially, under such a system more people with mental disorders would get treatment and help they don't get under our current system, there being fewer cracks for them to fall through. There would still be those prone to criminal behavior who would slide through the system of course, and violent crime would not be eliminated; but I believe it would be dramatically reduced, and I think the people would be far better equipped to protect themselves from victimization, and police forces would not be as overwhelmed as they are today. Two years struck me as a valid time frame for someone to get through their basic militia training, followed by their mission-specific advanced training for whatever field they are going into, and still be able to spend long enough in active service in that field to have good, functional experience to carry with them when they return to civilian life, or to make the decision to make military service a career and transition into the regular Armed Forces. Certainly, there will be the need and opportunity for mission specific personnel to serve a full career in the militia service should they wish to, and longer periods of enlistment available than two years if desired (specialty fields might require a four year enlistment, for instance), but two years would be the minimum time of service.
The claim presented on the part of the member Galileo is factually incorrect. If an individual is prohibited from legal firearms ownership, and cannot pass the federally mandated background check when attempting to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, then they cannot legally acquire a firearm in a private sale. The acquisition is illegal in all circumstances, no matter what avenue one may attempt. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rearms_transaction_record_5300_9revised_0.pdf The opening line of the federal background check form: WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited from receiving a firearm. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine. The opening portions of question eleven. Question 11.b: Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (See Instructions for Question 11.b.) Question 11.c: Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony , or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.) Elaboration on question eleven. Question 11.b. - 12. Generally, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a felony in any Federal, State or local court, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution; has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; is subject to certain restraining orders; convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under Federal, State or Tribal law; has renounced his/her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Furthermore, section 922(n) prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony in any Federal, State or local court, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. An information is a formal accusation of a crime verified by a prosecutor. A member of the Armed Forces must answer “yes” to 11.b. or 11.c. if charged with an offense that was either referred to a General Court Martial, or at which the member was convicted. Discharged “under dishonorable conditions” means separation from the Armed Forces resulting from a dishonorable discharge or dismissal adjudged by a General Court-Martial. That term does not include any other discharge or separation from the Armed Forces.
This statement, to me, reveals the core misconception you possess. Being armed is not a choice based in fear, or based in some sense of being "unsafe." It is based in the desire to be completely self-sufficient and self-reliant and not required to be dependent upon anyone or anything else for one's survival or security. If one honestly evaluates the dangers of our society - regardless of whether we are part of a violent society or an ostensibly "safe" society - we see that the likelihood of being confronted by criminal violence as an individual is actually quite minimal. Per-capita numbers are measured sometimes in single digits per 100,000 people; in the U.S. the possibility of being murdered runs about five homicides per 100,000 people. That's a fraction of a percent overall in a nation with a population approaching 320 million people. Some places with the U.S. are more dangerous than others, obviously, but in some places violent crime is essentially nonexistent. Where I live, for instance. I live in a rural community, in a Western state that is large geographically but has fewer people in the entire state than some cities, and there is almost no crime here. Yet I am always armed, as are most of my neighbors. Here, pickup trucks with loaded rifles in the rifle racks are as common as Starbuck's in Seattle. When I get into my vehicle, I put on my seatbelt. I do not do this out of fear of a car accident but because should I get into an accident, as rare as that is, the seatbelt might save my life. When I get up in the morning I put on a gun and carry it throughout the day; taking it off only when I climb into bed. This is as natural to me as it is for some people to put a knife or a multitool in their pocket. I do not do this out of fear of crime, but because I see myself as being part of the solution to crime. Not only would a violent criminal - as rare as he might be in these parts - not find me an easy target, but facing me would make him very likely to never attempt to prey upon another innocent person again. I would not only be protecting myself, but all of that violent criminal's potential future victims. Being armed inconveniences me not one bit, but gives me the tool to take a more proactive role in the protection not only of myself and my family but my community as a whole. As Thomas Jefferson said, I consider it my "right and duty to be at all times armed." I do not see that duty as being based in fear in any way, for I do not fear violence and even feel that righteous violence is sometimes the best tool for dealing with certain situations.
It often is. e.g.:Holbert et al (2004, Fear Authority and Justice: Crime Related TV Viewing and Endorsements of Capital Punishment and Gun Ownership, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol 8, pp 343-363): "We focus on the relationships among three types of television viewing (news, police reality, and crime drama) and attitudes toward capital punishment and handguns, as well as the likelihood of actually owning a handgun. A host of exogenous variables are treated as predictors of television use, support for police authority, fear of crime, and our criterion variables. A series of direct and indirect relationships are assessed. Analysis suggests that viewing police reality shows is both directly and indirectly related to the endorsement of capital punishment and handgun ownership, while also directly predicting a greater likelihood of actual handgun ownership. In addition, TV news viewing predicts fear of crime in audience members, and this fear contributes to the endorsement of capital punishment and handgun ownership. Crime drama indexing is positively/ related to support for the death penalty"
Most gun owners I know that own guns do not own them out of fear and neighter do those that carry any more than the many I have met during my life long study of martial arts. Whether a gun owner or a martial arts practitioner, most in my experience aren’t motivated by fear nor look for opportunity to use their skills against others, but more often seek to avoid conflict and as frequently, because they have developed confidence in themselves, develop good conflict resolution skills because in that confidence, they have nothing to prove. But then, I don’t run in gangland circles where predation and intimidation is a prevalent measure of status and being arrested and convicted for gun possession as a felon is less a risk to life than being victimized by another predator... a situation where fear is a motivation. Those that question that the motives of guns owners are derived from fear are, it has always appeared to me, to be those with fear; fear in their own abilities to defend themselves, hoping others will defend them and hoping they can somehow convince others to not be predators, particularly predators with guns. They hide among the herd and hope they won’t be one of the ones that lose the role of the dice and become a victim and when they see someone victimized they blame those that have chosen to be prepared to defend themselves. As I have posted previously, I cycle 30-40 miles a day in the country side and along forested trails, weather cooperating. I carry when I ride, packing a gun with no more thought than carrying spar tubes, a pump, repair tools, and hydration. I have had flats and need to make repairs miles from home. And as I reported last year, I defended myself from attack from a pack of feral dogs. If you live in the AK, there are areas where it would be considered unwise to be out and about without some form of self defense. When I am there on one of my fishing trips I carry, carry big as it is not uncommon that I have found myself fishing along side bears...big ones over the three decades I have done it. Fortunately, while have had the occasion to pucker a bit, I have never had to defend myself and shoot one of the most amazing animals of the wild. For most of us outside the context of hunting, firearms are a last, not a first measure and are considered for the occasion the dice don’t turn to favor.
Sarcasm come in several forms, one being a condescending sneer when a left handed insult is cast in an exchange you weren’t involved in. I suspect you consider yourself superior to both the Irish and Americans...well you have both in me, so have at it lad.
Fewer violent Aussies, not to put too fine a point on it. Plain and simple: there are circumstances of criminal violence where the single most certain way to survive is to shoot your attacker and keep shooting him until his violent assault has ended. Without that option on the table your prospects for survival will be grim indeed.
Why do you only count shootings. Murder by any method is equally bad. 80 people killed in the Nice truck attack. Dead is dead. He was taken out with a gun or he would have killed more.
Oh! Bunkum! Uk has a lower homicde rate and gun control Europe has a lower homocide rate and gun control. If guns were necessary for protection why has America got a higher murder rate than elsewhere in the world
It can't be that bad. Otherwise we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. The illegals contribute heavily to the murder statistics. Having a border with Mexico doesn't help. Enjoy your island.
This is interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to talk to my democratic friends about this, hopefully they come up with some good counter arguments and then I'll post them back here for you to discuss them.
