I posted something like this in a different thread but I feel it may be worth its own. I believe that both sides of the gun debate abhor the use of guns to harm innocent people. Also I am sure that all of us would like to stop a majority of these crimes happening so I put this to all of you: Can I please ask what laws or methods would stop the people and kids committing these crimes from happening? I agree we have a problem but there are already laws on the books for background checks and laws that penalize those that use weapons in crimes. Havent they all ready decided to break the most severe laws when they decide they will kill some one? What laws or methods will be severe or effective enough to stop some one who already is prepared to die or go to jail for life ? Please can I ask that no one say libs want this or gun nuts want that, just honest solutions and discourse about this topic as it pertains to gun control. How would YOU try and correct this issue and how would those solution help or hinder the problem.
Our gun crime is at the lowest rate it's been since the 1960s. Crime isn't a major "real" problem. It's mainly a media perception problem. My mother in law used to get totally paranoid about crime--why? Well, she would watch Atlanta news, Macon GA news and Chicago news (thanks to WGN), as well as cable news. With all of those sensationalist news sources, it would be expected.
I agree to some extent that it is blown out of proportion but there is still a significant amount of criminal acts perpetrated with guns I am wondering if their is a solution that could get it down to levels more equivalent to other industrialised nations. While also keeping the gains we have made in preventing other crimes compared to other countries.
We have a different population structure and different culture than other industrialized nations. That said, if you take out gang violence, pretty much our rates are more similar to the other industrialized countries. I don't think crime is a big deal, except in certain areas.
crime is crime, regardless. do we refer to crimes committed with bats as bat crimes, or driving deaths as car crimes, or even in the US, knife crime, beating deaths as beating crimes. To give rise to a particular nature of a crime doesn't change the essence of crime itself
I can only surmise that you are referring to the "gun crime" displayed as though it is an epidemic by the media. To that I would say, one small step would be an agreement, between all members of the media, old and new, to never, and I mean NEVER publish the names of the perpetrators. Allow them to be anonymous turds left to die in the yard. Save public humiliation for those crimes that do not scream; "I wanna be known too!". Other than that, get the government out of the business of "fixing" things. They are habitual failures. .
Yeah, the public needs to be educated about why crime, especially violent crime and murder are henious and shouldn't be done. Philantriphosts blame the problem on guns, after all it's never the evil in people in causing the murders, only the gun. I make a writing mistake with a pencil. It's the pencils fault I made a mistake? It's not me and my stupidty, it's the pencils. I make a mortal mistake with a gun. It's the guns fault I made a mistake. It's not me and my evil and ignorance, it's the gun's fault. That's the logic of Obama.
A HUGE problem I see in the current "war on guns" is that by far and away, the majority of wackjobs who have committed these mass killings were already known to have severe mental issues. In many cases, people who were close to them had tried to get these problems addressed and acted upon, but society prevented that. In the case of the Santa Barbara shooter, he posted a video online that became a thread on this forum, the NIGHT BEFORE he went on his rampage, describing exactly what he intended to do. NO-ONE TRIED TO STOP HIM. So what "good" do we expect to come from more extensive background checks, when the backgrounds of these KNOWN killers were already being ignored? In view of that, you can't tell me that the purpose of these "improved" background checks would have any purpose at all but to create a more complete federal registry of legal firearms owners If the true intent is to reduce murder and mayhem, we already have the means and information to go about it. The current assault on the CONUS is NOT about finding a solution to "gun crime".
The answer to "gun crimes" is to arm the law abiding public. Arming the prey will make the predator become a vegetarian like the rest of us. It's not a perfect answer, but freedom is the best answer. The downside to this is increased accidents. There will be far fewer accidents than crimes, but they will need to be prevented when possible with education and practice. In Texas, we are responsible for every round that leaves our barrel. If we shoot an innocent bystander, we are held liable. That keeps the current gun carrying citizens on the safe side. I don't see why it wouldn't continue to do so. Those who don't wish to be armed don't have to be armed. They can ban weapons on their private property and benefit from their anonymity as an unarmed person. 30 people were shot last weekend in Chicago. Ban all the guns and you can substitute it with stabbings and beatings. Different weapon, same result. No thank you.
#1) Execute all felons convicted of capital murder and/or convicted of their 3rd or greater violent crime (manslaughter, rape, armed robbery, violent assault, muder, home invasion, etc.). All should be executed within 6 months in a fair and speedy manner. #2) Instead of registering guns, register mental cases with the local DA's. Violent psychopaths like Joker Holmes, Cho, Adam Lanza and others who did not respond to therapy should be given a jury trial to see if they need to be commited to a secure mental hospital if enough evidence exsists. This function should be taken out of the hands of the psychiatric "professionals" and judges and placed with the people. #3) Becuase street and prison gangs are responsible for between 50 and 80% of all murders---these gangs should be outlawed. The Western pioneers did not tolerate bands of roving Apaches and other savages robbing, killing and torturing them. Criminals have no 1st Amendment right to form into violent bands for the purpose of selling drugs, commiting crimes and establishing gang territory.
I have read a few authors with this opinion the "a armed society is a polite society" folks. This would be a solution if the ones causing situations like these school shootings were not already prepared to die. As much as I am for the rights of gun owners there are definitely people that should not have guns.
Crime is crime. Looking for a solution to 'gun crime' is like looking for a solution to 'female asian gangs'. While 'female asian gangs' DO exist, and they DO create problems for society, they are not the ONLY cause of the problems, and are in fact, statistically insignificant when 'all gang crime' is examined. Same for 'gun crime' in the context of all violent crime (which, incidentally, is at a historically low level and has been trending downward for the past 10 years).
We have a broken, revolving door justice system. How bout we keep violent criminals behind bars where they belong.
The people doing these school shootings are shooting up schools because they know people can't shoot back. That's why Fort Hood has had 2 shootings. If you let our military carry a gun around base (not around fighter planes or nukes etc. unless that's part of their job to secure them) you will see fewer mass shootings. If you arm and train teachers who have CHLs (like we are doing in some TX cities) you'll have fewer mass shootings. At least fewer people may die if a mass shooter is confronted or surprised by a law abiding gun user. You can't stop all crimes with laws. There will always be criminals. The best we can do is let the public defend themselves and hold them responsible if they screw up.
You have a gun homicide rate of 0.0036%. Seems like a fair compromise for liberty. I wouldn't correct the problem. If individuals want to protect themselves they should be free to do so. Other than that, let the deaths keep coming.
I disagree with this last one. Guilt by association should not be a valid reason for prosecution. If you have evidence that an individual within the organization has committed some crime, then go after him.
Cloning. Genetic engineering. Thought control. Otherwise there is no real solution to firearm crime if you value a free society. This is something the anti firearm people don't seem to understand is that criminal care nothing for the law and often know how to get a firearm anyway. So these anti firearm laws are not really for protecting people. They can't be.
Don't look for solutions to such a problem in laws ... laws can help authorities, but authorities [applying laws] have to find a solution. Then, if you think that limitation about the possession of guns could limit gun crimes ... Italy has got enormous limitations about handguns, but since hunting is legal, you can obtain a license to keep an arsenal of rifles in your home! And carry them around, note this. If a police patrol stops you and you've got 3 rifle guns in your car, you can sustain that you are going hunting wild pigs in the woodland [in South Italy policemen are not that naive ... usually those guys are not above suspicion]. This just to say that, as we say in Italy ... "once you make a law you have made a trick to avoid it". If you declare illegal guns by law, you should disseminate metal detectors everywhere [little handguns bought in the black market are not visible, under the cloths, if carried in the proper way, even in summer] and life would become impossible. On the other hand, something which could help for real is not to give publicity to gun fights and to persons who kill. Close TV news and gun crimes will decrease!
There are many solutions, such as ensuring economic stability and income generation, proper lighting and public utilities working, better pre-tertiary education, proper gun training, etc.
It's not as if we haven't been trying to solve this for quite some time. Let's run with the advice of Jesus Christ: If you don't have a sword, sell your garment and buy one. That makes firearms education for criminals very simple and understandable: Don't mess with armed Citizens. Trust Jesus.
..as he cannot see that due to the unjust and illegal cuts to benefit, and due to the unfortunate killings caused by these cuts - David Cameron is a murderer... - he is to be held liable for what has occurred directly due to his illegal actions(benefits were previously calculated, before price and cost rises..) As a murderer, he is liable for actions listed within the self defense clause of law which states that defense against a killer can, if necessary, result in his death. All other forms of defense have been attempted, with calls and letters and protests...unfortunately to no avail..and people have died due to the caused incitement of suicide and starvation...and still this moronic and immoral murderer wants to cut 10bn more... How many more will die - possibly considered an agreeable loss by this murderer...but as the self-defense becomes more necessary and people just cannot take any more...await the gunshot....ricin in the leg/arm/chest/lungs and ears...and he will die accordingly. Strange how he gives 11,000,000 to another country and then decides to rob more money from the poor and needy he did state had no fear should he be elected...but no fear of what? That he will ensure they suffer and die! Please ensure explosives are not used as this may affect others, and in my mentally awkward position(severely head injured by the UK gov',) I think it better to kidnap him...drive him to a quiet farmhouse where any victim requesting Justice and satisfaction can punch him once - after 132,453,879 punches he will be deader than dead but I imagine most will be satisfied ensuring he cannot recover... Self defense law - if any citizen is aware of another citizen under threat he can defend threatened citizen, which means any citizen within the world that knows of David Cameron causing people to die...can defend against further deaths and kill him. ..he may have the option to compensate the robbed victims, but as this may enter into the trillions of pounds...maybe better that he is dead.
Any member of a criminal street gang (almost always racially exclusive) who has either joined or was in the process of joining, is guilty of conspiracy of any gang-related crime done by any member of the local faction of their gang for any of the dozen violations or RICO or any of the hundreds of other state and federal laws they commit. All members of street gangs that actively use violence against any other gang of a different ethnic group (even the prison gangs of American Hispanics that war against Mexican Hispanics)---are in fact in violation of about every hate crime and civil rights law on the books. I believe it is more than fitting to compare modern street and prison gangs like the Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia, Aryan Nation, etc... to the bands of hostle Native American savages that killed European pioneers and other rival Native tribes. Like the selling of narcotics today, many of these same savages, back before the 20th century, took women and children to sell as slaves. 1st logical step is to outlaw these gangs. 2nd step is to execute all gang members over 16 found guity of any of the above violations.
