assault weapon ban again

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Not at all. No gun, no shooting deaths. Plain and simple. It's not the gun, it's the psycho/criminal who uses it. I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true. Guns give a disconnect from the crime. Most people wouldn't have the guts to commit a crime/murder if they had to do the job physically. Hammer/bat/crowbar crimes would not rise significantly if guns were banned.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Guns don't kill people.......bullets do! (written in jest.)

[yanksfan09]

Criminals would have a field day if they knew all guns were out of honest law-abiding citizens hands. Criminals don't follow gun laws, only good people who follow laws do. Guns are necessary for home defense, I never understood how people can't see that. That's all I have too say, as I hate political threads in my cards place.

[Leon]

Personally I think this needs to be a mental health debate more than a gun debate. Don't take the guns away from law abiding people. Then the only ones with them will be the criminals. I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause. I also like the idea of school administrators packing heat too (when licensed to do so).

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause.

Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

[drc]

The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

I've read these statistics as well, but you won't hear about this on the brainwashing cable media. All they want people to hear about are people getting shot *especially people getting shot in groups, as it goes with their agenda.

I wish the news went back to reporting facts. If they did, there would be no hype about gun restriction/bans. The statistics in Chicago should make every citizen want to own a firearm, for protection.

Sincerely, Clayton

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

[daywalker2029]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it.

but where do you technically draw your line ? you suggest no semi-automatic weapons? but then suggest handguns for protection ? do you mean only revolvers and not semi-automatic handguns ? if thats the case what about a double action vs single action revolver ?

also what technically defines a weapon as an "assault weapon" ?? - the reason i ask is b/c i live in NY (where we also have some of the strictest gun laws on record) - right after sandy hook ny gov't rushed to pass new restrictions - the ironic thing is that my modern AR15 is no longer allowed to be bought/sold in the state and next month will need to be registered with NY state for me to maintain legal ownership, while my fathers WWII M1 carbine is not affected at all - funny thing is his old carbine is by the definitions outlined in the orig 94 ban MORE of an "assault weapon" than my modern AR15 is

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

Tony,

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but I couldn't agree with you more on the stricter penalties. I read somewhere that only 1/10th of one percent of applicants caught lying on a gun purchase application are prosecuted. That is ridiculous! I think we need to work on enforcing the gun control laws that we do have before talking about enacting new laws. I also agree with the idea to build more prisons. Overcrowding has the scumbags getting out early.

[teetwoohsix]

Building more prisons will not fix the problems, because prisons only house criminals around more criminals-there is no rehabilitation, no program to change the criminal into a productive member of society when they get out. So, in essence, what you get is a criminal who completed his/her sentence hitting the streets with no new skills & not much of a chance to rebuild their lives. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. If you want to fix the problems, fix the criminals.

California built what, 33 prisons? Compared to how many Universities? Building prisons is not the answer-unless they are rehabilitated while in prison. They need to learn trades, skills, and transition into society with employers who will employ ex-felons. Locking people in cells for years, just to release them into the real world doesn't fix anything. Go to South Central Los Angeles, or Oakland California, and then tell me more prisons work These places are still warzones & have been for decades.

And, you can have all of the gun restrictions and bans you want, but you are only hurting law abiding citizens because criminals don't get guns the legal way-so they don't care about gun laws, etc. This is the point.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

just speaking off the cuff here, but isn't that a problem with privatizing things like jails? private companies exist to make money. prisons make money by having inmates.

there's no impetus to "solve" crime problems because the prisons NEED inmates.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true.

Then you just got proven wrong yesterday in Pennsylvania.

When someone wants to hurt/kill others, they will use any means they can.

[Runscott]

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

Well, let me put it back in your court. How many examples does it take to prove a point?

And if that toddler is annoying you too much, go tell your teacher. If that don't work, change daycares.

[Runscott]

David, it's still in your court. You made a blanket statement, based on a single incident, in response to Tony. I happen to agree with him, but I understand the guns argument. I began avoiding these discussions when a poster stated that he wanted to carry guns around in order to protect himself and others. I'm really okay with the police department - not perfect, but better than Net54 members trying to do the job.

Unfortunately, the toddlers were at the coffee shop where I go to work and do research, and there aren't many alternatives out here.

[drcy]

Most shooters are male. Second biggest statistical connection to gun violence is most probably alcohol.

So pro gun people who are men who like to drink alcohol should be careful about using statistics and demographics to decide who should be allowed to own guns.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

22 children's lives were saved because a gun was not accessible to one mentally unstable kid.

Jason, you're absolutely right...and if he would have had a gun, it could have been even higher than 22.

But the point I was trying to make though is that even when guns aren't accessible, mentally ill people will still find others ways to mass harm or kill people - knives, bombs, driving a car into a crowd, poison Kool-Aid, etc.

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

I'd agree with this.

There's a rush towards the knee jerk reaction to punish. That's what our society seems to demand (Myself included fairly often)

But the ability to deal with any underlying mental aspects even if they're known in advance is either totally missing or done in such an all or nothing way that it's unworkable.
Someone with a problem can't be forced to get help or to maintain that help. At least until they cross a certain line. And the alternative looks bad too if the people involved are clueless. Like the school that forced a kid who was fidgeting with a pencil into a 5 hour mental and physical evaluation after another kid who had been picking on him claimed he was making gun motions with the pencil - Coerced consent with no due process looks pretty ugly.

And there's no sensible provision for temporary circumstances. If someone in a bad situation says or is accused of saying the wrong thing, a restraining order is issued (probably appropriately) And that then precludes gun ownership permanently in many places. leading to the obligatory confiscations "voluntary" or otherwise. Likely prolonging the anger and making it more severe in the short term.
I can't help but think that many of those people will be just fine in some period of time. Their anger fades and the risk just isn't there. But the effects of that one mistake are for life.
An ability to temporarily remove someone's guns until a particularly bad stretch of their life has passed would be more work, and more difficult, but perhaps more fair in the long term.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.