achilles95
Orange Belt
Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?
:shooter:
Achilles
:shooter:
Achilles
American Gun Laws - What do you think?
- Thread starter achilles95
- Start date
HKphooey
Senior Master
Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them. 
We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).
We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).
OP
OP
achilles95
Orange Belt
Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them.
We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).
Interesting point. I personally feel gun laws must be made much stricter and and that gun sales must be closely moderated.
Just like any other law, it is mostly the criminals that break them.
We outlawed alcohol and look who ended up profitting from it - the criminals.
But I do think we can better monitor the sales of guns. I was watching some yahoo at the chain sporting goods store the other day. He clearly knew nothing about guns, especially how to handle one. When the clerk handed him the shotgun, the customer targetted across the room at some cusotmers and then back at the clerk. And I am sure he will do the same thing when it is loaded and on his first hunting trip with his buddies (since I am sure he will not pay attention during the gun safety course).
Unfortunately I have seen the same thing several times.
The availability of lawfully-owned firearms, or lack thereof, is not what determines a crime rate. It's the culture, and to a greater extent, the thought processes of the people in a community, that determines how bad the crime gets.
Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:
City 1993 Murder rate
Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 per 100,000
Arlington, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area . . . . . 8.6 per 100,000
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1994
Even if you toss in *all* of the state of Virginia's urban areas into one lump, the rate of murder was still almost an order of magnitude lower than that of the DC area.
Some people then try to say "well, if guns are outlawed, then suicides will drop, too!"
I will simply counter, that firearms availability does not affect the ability of someone to kill himself. After all, Japan, a nation that forbids firearms to the law-abiding populace, had a suicide rate of over 20 per 100,000 people in 1990, compared to the US, which had a rate of 12.2 per 100,000 people.
In the end, placing more restrictions on firearms to the law-abiding does nothing to stop criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws. People who are Hell-bent on killing others will find ways to do so.
The best way to prevent such things is to raise your kids properly, instill a good sense of morality, and make sure that they are well-equipped to handle the challenges of the world. There is no greater influence on a child's life, than his parents, and this is where we should all begin. It's not a quick solution, but it's the best solution, and one that will work.
Let's look at a case study, where the city of Washington DC, where firearms are banned, is compared to a city just a handful of miles away (Arlington, Virginia) where lawfully-owned firearms are plentiful:
City 1993 Murder rate
Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 per 100,000
Arlington, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area . . . . . 8.6 per 100,000
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1994
Even if you toss in *all* of the state of Virginia's urban areas into one lump, the rate of murder was still almost an order of magnitude lower than that of the DC area.
Some people then try to say "well, if guns are outlawed, then suicides will drop, too!"
I will simply counter, that firearms availability does not affect the ability of someone to kill himself. After all, Japan, a nation that forbids firearms to the law-abiding populace, had a suicide rate of over 20 per 100,000 people in 1990, compared to the US, which had a rate of 12.2 per 100,000 people.
In the end, placing more restrictions on firearms to the law-abiding does nothing to stop criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws. People who are Hell-bent on killing others will find ways to do so.
The best way to prevent such things is to raise your kids properly, instill a good sense of morality, and make sure that they are well-equipped to handle the challenges of the world. There is no greater influence on a child's life, than his parents, and this is where we should all begin. It's not a quick solution, but it's the best solution, and one that will work.
Accidental shootings would decrease, but the rest I doubt.
My opinion is that if people need a license to drive, why not have the same sort of thing for guns? We can also restrict where people drive there cars, so why not where they can carry there guns?
This argument I find odd, not because of the argument itself, but because of the sorts of people that I most often here it from. By the same logic should drug bans be lifted?
Gun ownership is generally connected to the right wing of American politics is it not? Basically that it is a personal freedom and should not be infringed upon. The other side of course claiming that your freedom to carry infringes on my freedom to feel safe. Same line of reasoning that was likely used durring the prohibition days. And is also used for other personal freedoms, such as drug use, public nudity, same sex marriage, religion (why can't atheists hold many political offices?), etc. Things that the right wing typically opposes.
I'm not one to buy the safety argument. I don't see armed civillians as making things safer. More extreme perhaps, the introduction of more people with more power might reduce some crime, but like all things, crime will remain, and criminals will take things to the next level.
The freedom line I will buy. If I want to hang a AK-47 on my wall, that should be my choice. Walking around downtown with it, not so much as at that point I am a threat.
But to buy the freedom line I think you also have to swallow other personal choice freedoms. If people can own guns because it effects no one else and bad people would get them anyways. Why can't they own a few joints as well?
My opinion is that if people need a license to drive, why not have the same sort of thing for guns? We can also restrict where people drive there cars, so why not where they can carry there guns?
This argument I find odd, not because of the argument itself, but because of the sorts of people that I most often here it from. By the same logic should drug bans be lifted?
Gun ownership is generally connected to the right wing of American politics is it not? Basically that it is a personal freedom and should not be infringed upon. The other side of course claiming that your freedom to carry infringes on my freedom to feel safe. Same line of reasoning that was likely used durring the prohibition days. And is also used for other personal freedoms, such as drug use, public nudity, same sex marriage, religion (why can't atheists hold many political offices?), etc. Things that the right wing typically opposes.
I'm not one to buy the safety argument. I don't see armed civillians as making things safer. More extreme perhaps, the introduction of more people with more power might reduce some crime, but like all things, crime will remain, and criminals will take things to the next level.
The freedom line I will buy. If I want to hang a AK-47 on my wall, that should be my choice. Walking around downtown with it, not so much as at that point I am a threat.
But to buy the freedom line I think you also have to swallow other personal choice freedoms. If people can own guns because it effects no one else and bad people would get them anyways. Why can't they own a few joints as well?
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
I'd like to see the gun law become both more restrictive and more open.
It would be best to make it much more difficult to legally own a gun -- at least, for instance, as hard as it is to legally drive a car.
But once you're legally licensed/certified, the guns you may legally own should be far less restricted than they are now.
It would be best to make it much more difficult to legally own a gun -- at least, for instance, as hard as it is to legally drive a car.
But once you're legally licensed/certified, the guns you may legally own should be far less restricted than they are now.
You could try to make lawfully driving a car as difficult as you want, but this would have no effect on those who choose to illegally drive.
There are always going to be people who don't register their vehicles, don't have insurance, were barred from driving due to multiple DUI charges, etc., yet a lot of them are still going to drive. You could implement thousands of more laws that would restrict the law-abiding populace (for example, putting background checks on drivers, limit the number of miles they're allowed to drive, force them to keep detailed records on their own driving, force everyone to attend defensive driving school twice a year, force everyone to have a 75 MPH governor chip on their cars, etc), yet none of the above would do anything to stop illegal drivers from driving.
Does this mean that all laws should be repealed? Of course not. There must be a certain standard. However, that standard has already been reached, and that some people don't realize that their efforts do nothing to help in the cutting down of crime. The silly examples that I mentioned above (background checks, mileage limitations, forced record keeping, forced defensive driving, etc.) are exact parallels of what the gun banners have tried to do throughout the years, even though their actions did nothing to reduce crime, since they targeted the wrong crowd: the law-abiding.
On another note, you don't need a license / registration to drive a vehicle on your own privately-owned property, in most places.
OP
OP
achilles95
Orange Belt
Very informative, thanks.
The number of people I have heard in a bar over my life that were drinking and talking about going to court over their second DUI while on probation for the first and a suspended license. They were bragging about how they drove their and would drive home.
Stupid people will do stupid things. In the UK Blade attacks and injuries have been rising for years to know I think they are trying to ban or have banned / limited Sword ownership. The attacks are still their just a different weapon.
Someone told me that Baseball bats are sold in Ireland, but no one plays Baseball. Hmmm I wonder why they sell so many?
Some people will choose to break the law, especially if they think they can get away with it.
So making it harder to get a gun, in some cases might be ok, but to totally limit or get rid of is not. (* Ignoring that the second admendment would have to be set aside *)
I think it may be useful to address the root causes.
Education levels. What are the crome stats based upon education. Now just giving everyone a Degree will not resolve the issue, it is about the process of learning and understanding the actions one takes and the ramifications of those actions.
No, take a look at Canada. We aren't any safer and our crime rate has not dropped. It did however, cost the tax payers billions.
Well now you know the cost.
I do hope the remove that for those in Canada, and go back to their old ways, or similiar ways if modernization was required.
Sadly it is the movie industry that is educating people about "gun safety", and our fascination with firearms. Just an observation but violence breeds violence. In the 60s Bruce Lee movies were very popular and everyone wanted to fight like Bruce. Over the past few years it is almost every movie that depicts guns as the end all. A lot of the movies of today are training our youth on how to deal with adversity for the future. More laws, no way.
KenpoTex
Senior Master
No...
jonathan archer
White Belt
dude your right on the money evry thing 100% i agree!!!!!!!!
burkspatrick
White Belt
Actually it could be argued that gun ownership has nothing to do with politics or gun ownership is based on location(crime, or the South) or different other reasons. In fact most liberals need to take a good look at a map because the U.S. does consist of more than just Hollywood and New York City. Sorry for rant. I'm more independant than liberal or conservative. Some things I'm liberal on and some things I'm conservative on. For instance I do think drugs should be legalized (OMG i'm going straight to hell for that one i'm in Tennessee the bible belt)
K31
Blue Belt
Making it harder for honest people to obtain firearms legally has almost nothing to do with criminals obtaining them for a crime. It is far is far easier for a criminal to simply steal a firearm or buy one illegally than it is for the legitimate purchaser to obtain one. More laws won't change that.
There are tens of millions of illegal aliens in the US and with decades of wars-on-drugs I've never heard of more than 20% being interdicted. If there is a market for something there are people willing to provide it.
The cases of people using legally purchased and owned firearms for crimes are rare. In states that have liberalized concealed carry laws crime rates have gone down and the persons who carry legitimately in those areas have almost never been involved in any crimes despite wild-west shootout fears fomented by those opposing liberalized concealed carry.
Similar threads
- Locked
