If such a fight is to be engaged in, then it must be done appropriately, and focused on correctly. Rather than trying to keep firearms from those who would use them to harm others, the united states should focus their efforts on keeping these violent individuals away from firearms. Incarcerating them for the duration of their lives will effectively prevent them from ever harming any member of the public again, or acting as mentors to future offenders. They have already demonstrated that they do not value either their lives or the lives of others, so they have relinquished having any say in the matter. They are obviously far too dangerous to continually allow back into society, to they should be stored until such time they finally die. The cost incurred would be but a fraction of what society must pay for continually allowing career criminals out, and supplying them with a new trial every time they're caught committing yet another felony offense. You yourself said that anything that can reasonably be done should be done. Lifetime incarceration for violent offenses can indeed be done, and there has yet to be a presented reason for why it should not be considered, beyond the possibility of taxes being higher. However those taxes will be mitigated by a reduction in the number of individuals being murdered, their employment being lost, their families torn about, and the countless thousands of dollars needed to give the deceased a burial. - - - Updated - - - It is also the most logical course of action to engage in. And that is precisely the point. It is horrible, and should be horrible. The societal cost of drug addiction should be so gruesome, so disturbing, so absolutely horrifying, that no member of the public would ever want to experiment with illicit narcotic substances ever again. The cost and harm done should be so undeniably vivid, that society as a whole would rise up and denounce its use in the hundreds of millions. The subject of drug addiction should terrify everyone, not leave them believing that it will never happen to them, or that the use of illicit substances should be glamorized and envied. Then you are claiming that you support everything a particular politician may do? You have no complaints about how they manage the affairs of the country, even if their actions may be questionable or otherwise illegal? A statement you still have not proven, merely claimed.
I have never been against criminal justice reform. But alone it is too little The horror that you would want to bring to America is unbelievable. It is beyond the pale I will continue to fight against gun violence.....you may do as you please
Allowing them the opportunity to prove that they cannot be trusted, and present a danger to themselves and others, is part of the cost incurred by living in a free society. According to those who have disagreed with the Heller ruling, bearing arms constitutes having them usable at home rather than out in the public.
Pray tell how is it too little? The real world can be a horrifying place to live in. That is merely par for the course. Go to any country not categorized as being first world, or developed, or even industrialized, and you will witness the above and much more. You will observe how drug offenses bring the death penalty in all circumstances, and much worse than that. Allowing nature to take its course may well be the kindest approach there is in addressing the problem, comparatively speaking. It is little more than observing the theory of Charles Darwin, survival of the fittest. Those that are too inept to exercise better judgement will come to understand the error of their ways, when they are either overdosing on a bad batch of narcotics laced with flesh eating bacteria, or when they are left laying in the streets and on public sidewalks when the detoxification process sets in. They will either survive and refrain from future use of illicit substances, or they will die and simply add to the tally of the societal cost the use of such substances entails, while serving as a visual reminder of what such a course of action will result in as their remains decompose where others will have to walk. Either way the problem will ultimately correct itself. Without explaining, logically or illogically, how what you propose would actually do such. Claiming the other countries are doing it is not an explanation of how the mechanics work. Citing training and licensing for operation of a motor vehicle on public property is not an explanation of how the same standard properly translates to another topic. - - - Updated - - - And the cities and states that will not provide concealed carry permits to those applicants who are qualified, simply because the issuing officer is allowed absolute discretion in all circumstances, will continue to argue otherwise. According to them bearing arms means being allowed to have them at home, not in a public venue.
Please explain in detail how many lives would be saved by your plan? Perhaps you would like us to be a third world country....I would consider that a horror. I have given far more detail than you. I await your details
Far more than are being saved currently as the death toll continues to grow, but is being billed as a success because the numbers are not climbing at an exponential rate. Considering the widespread corruption of government, disregard for the law in general, and the number of individuals who are currently unemployed and homeless, the united states already qualifies as a third world country. Prohibition has been tried numerous times, and numerous times it has failed miserably. Perhaps it is finally time for the society of the united states to experience the full, overwhelming weight and cost of their desire to see illicit substances made legal for recreational use, and comprehend just what they are asking for. As those indulging in such substances die off in large numbers through overdosing, and left to decay where others must walk through their daily lives, the significance of their decisions will be made quite clear to them. No one will be able to claim ignorance, and that they had no idea of just how dangerous the use of such substances was. Eventually there will be no one left to become addicted or die of overdoses, and the matter will solve itself. That is ultimately what is desired, is it not? Continually saying "mandatory firearms training" over and over again, is not providing details of the mechanics of precisely how your program would work to achieve the desired results.
I have provided far more detail than you. I await your details. If we are a third world country we are the richest third world country in the world. It is an oxymoron.
the problem with "debates" with BM members is that most BM members don't debate from a position of honesty BM members claim that their schemes and proposed laws are designed to make society safer, when in reality, almost every BM member is a leftwinger and the proposals are designed mainly to harass gun owners who tend to vote GOP and the NRA which mainly supports conservative candidates
"Mandatory firearms training" is not detail. It is a thought, but devoid of explanation as to how the logistical shortcomings of funding, man hours, locations in which live fire practices may be held, ammunition shortages that will result in suspended training for months, or even the process of developing a training plan that can actually be carried out on such a large scale. Indeed you have not presented any actual measure of detail as to how your plan would work out, or even be implemented. Continual repetition of a mere slogan is not providing detail. Massive unemployment, widespread homelessness, and a gross domestic product of nearly zero percent is not evidence of wealth by any measure.
Thank you for your opinion. Let me know when you are ready for honest debate - - - Updated - - - You think the US is a third world nation? Well you are virtually alone among economists in that opinion
Nonsense, it is easier to get guns than illegal drugs everywhere - for obvious reasons. Gun bans and gun laws have no impact on the availability of guns in Japan or anywhere else. “Although Japan has some of the developed world's most stringent gun restrictions, the number of serious crimes committed with handguns here last year was the highest since the National Police Agency began keeping such statistics more than a decade ago. And the rate of gun crimes in the first six months of 2000 promises to exceed that record. "I think the public believes it is safe in Japan," said Koichi Sunada, head of a citizens' anti-gun group in Tokyo. "But the situation is changing." Gun Use Intrudes on Japanese Serenity, By Doug Struck, Washington Post Foreign Service, August 11, 2000; A17.
I notice you leave out the NUMBER of gun crimes. It is a tiny fraction of what we have here. They have a gun death and it makes national news. There were 11 last year - - - Updated - - - I notice you leave out the NUMBER of gun crimes. It is a tiny fraction of what we have here. They have a gun death and it makes national news. There were 11 last year - - - Updated - - - I notice you leave out the NUMBER of gun crimes. It is a tiny fraction of what we have here. They have a gun death and it makes national news. There were 11 last year
Gun crime in Japan has nothing to do with the availability of guns. Guns, will always be easy to obtain everywhere. Note, that in spite of strict gun control gun crime spiked in Japan - happens everywhere.
Then how many were obtained illegally in japan last year. Did gun crime spike? Did it go from 20 gun crimes to 25? LOL
This whole thread is horse (*)(*)(*)(*). The idea that we have some epidemic of gun violence in this country is laughable. Unless you are in the drug gang or part of an inner city gang, your chances of being shot are minimal. Most gun shot victims in the USA are from suicides and the USA has a suicide rate similar to Australia and less than France and Japan. The whole premise of the original post is retarded. So real simple for you. A. We already have common sense gun laws for your average law abiding citizen. B. We don't need more government in our lives. Keep that (*)(*)(*)(*) in Europe where they feel they have to regulate everyone into the ground
They have strict gun control in Japan. Result: “Shooting deaths more than doubled,”shootings increased almost twofold and guns became more of a part of Japanese crime life in 2001, according to a shocking Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) report”, The Mainichi Newspapers Co., 2001.12.21. Gun control schemes are irrational and dangerous. They clearly do not work - anywhere.
We have more shooting in a weekend in Chicago than Japan has all year. Gun control works - - - Updated - - - Thank you for your opinion
How does Japan's gun control affect their suicide rate? Japan's gun control started with the complete loss of all civil rights under the Tokugawa Shogunate. Is that what you're proposing?
You fail, just as Gun Control has failed to work in Chicago, you just admitted that Gun Control has failed by saying Chicago, in spite of Gun Control, has more shootings in a weekend, than Japan has in a year, and even with Guns, most (Law Abiding) average Japanese people would not shoot anyone. Gun Control is only obeyed by and affects only those that obey the Law. Chicago did not loosen any Gun Laws, they were ordered to begin issuing concealed carry permits to qualified people and allow them to purchase handguns, Criminals have just as much of a difficult time obtaining Guns.
No, but that's how gun control was started in Japan. Over 400 years a certain mindset about firearms sets in. All levels of violence in Japan are low. It's a cultural thing. But we've discussed this before. Russia has very strict gun laws. No one is going to claim that their violence levels are low.
Japan has no Civil Rights, it is determined by Japanese Law, that collective society has sovereignty over individuals Rights, no warrants for search and seizure, no Right to privacy, and young Girls and Women are routinely molestered in public.
