Educate the people, have citizens understand the importance of having a gun to protect themselves and that violence is a last resort to protect ones lives or to further a much greater cause.. Only criminals disobey laws, so gun bans won't solve much, as they don't care about the ban, only law abidding citizens. Gun crime=spelling mistakes analogy A guy makes a writing mistake. It's not his fault, it's his access to the pencils fault. We need to ban and demonize pencils as they make the mistakes, rather than teach better writing skills A guy makes a mistake with a gun. It's not the evil mind of the person, it's the guns fault. Rather than demonzing people, we'll demonize the gun and make gun bans, rather than teaching the proper use of force. In the way it's ridicilous to blame the gun for the murder problems, it's ridiculous to blame the pencil for the writing misake problems. It's the individual.
The logic failed at "only criminals disobey laws", Are you attempting to say that no-one has ever broken a law who is not a criminal? Because a criminal by definition is not a criminal until they do break a law and until then they are a citizen. But even then you would be hard pressed to find a citizen who has NEVER broken a law - travelled over the speed limit, fibbed on their tax return, jaywalked The difference is in quality of crime but again how many murderers are repeat murderers?
I'm not dismissing anyone's misfortune. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin.
You have up to ten times the gun crime of other OECD countries - there are more people shot in the USA per day than are shot in the UK per year - you have more mass shootings per year than the rest of the OECD The gun death rate as rivalled those of many countries technically at war
Only the right is cognitively dissonant enough to engage us in the historical mistake of Prohibition while expecting different social results. - - - Updated - - - More cognitive dissonance from the right? Why even have (artificial) wars on crime, drugs, and terror in the name of "liberty and safety"?
Thanks for pointing out that there is no need for gun control. I agree. Everyone should be allowed to own whatever weapons that desire. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin.
Your post doesn't make sense. In fact if cognitive dissonance was ever used it was in your post. What the do wars on crime, drugs, etc..., have to do with trading safety for Liberty? Apparently you're responding without read what my post said. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
diversion is no substitute for a clue or a Cause. Only the right is cognitively dissonant enough to engage us in the historical mistake of Prohibition while expecting different social results. More cognitive dissonance from the right; Why even have (artificial) wars on crime, drugs, and terror in the name of "liberty and safety"?
As I showed in another thread, you are safer in the US than you are in Australia, if you take all violent crime into account. Your gun ownership is receding while your violent crime rate is skyrocketing. Our gun ownership is skyrocketing while our violent crime is plummeting. What you refuse to acknowledge is that violent crime is violent crime, whether it is committed with a gun or not.
Very likely, there are multiple factors involved when it comes to violent crime, such that gun ownership may or may not lead to its increase. Given that, one should probably look at violent crimes across different factors and data sets, from income levels to number of firearms per hundred, etc. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html Given that, I think income level and factors related to it, such as job security and economic stability, play more dominant roles when it comes to violent crime levels.
That isn't what is expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.
Who is talking about going against the constitution? The question is how can we prevent or try and prevent the misuse of fire arms? Agian you have not answered the question of the topic. Just giving us the language used for the right to bear arms is no answer.
First, is 'gun crime' what is important, or ALL crime? Consider this exercize: Community A has 10 violent rapes in a year. In every case, the victim is strangled or stabbed, but no guns are used. Neighboring community B also has 10 violent rapes. In 5 cases, the victim is strangled or stabbed, and 5 the victim is shot. In case A above 'gun crime' is 0. In case B, 'gun crime' is 5. Which community is more dangerous? Now, suppose community B puts into place strict gun control measures in response to their gun crime rate that is 5x higher than their neighboring community. At the same time, community A launches an iniative to train and arm all of its law-abiding citizens in response to their violent crime rate, what effect do you think that would have on community B's violent crime rate? The overriding question is: If violence is the motive for action, why is solving 'gun crime' more important than solving ALL violent crime?
When we are posting in the "Gun Control" forum it would be gun crime. I agree crime is crime but since I was speaking to some one about this in another topic and it pertained specifically with gun crimes this seemed the most appropriate section and thus is dealing with those types of crimes. I am sure that any answer you like to give concerning stopping these types of crimes can also be used to stop other types of crimes. I did not place levels of importance I just continued a conversation in a way that would not derail another conversation.
When we talk about gun control, we talk about it in the context of the 2A or preventing crime. Singling out "gun crime" is an attempt to blame the gun for the crime. You give it a greater importance than committing the same crime without a gun. Decreasing gun crime with gun control doesn't matter if it also causes an increase in fist crime, baseball bat crime, and knife crime. People are still robbed, raped, and murdered and sometimes at a greater rate because the victims have been disarmed for the criminals.
All right I will bite how does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" prevent or lowered the misuse of fire arms? Which I might add is the topic.
simply having no clue and no Cause yourself doesn't mean I am trolling. That is a solution to gun crime.
