Political Crossfire Forums

[wyldejackyl]

I don't know about legalizing drugs for sale/use in public. My main concern would be the increased usage illegally by minors. While I realize that the same problems exist with alcohol, I believe cocaine, crack, heroin, ecstacy and others are much more addictive and damaging than a few beers or even a few shots of vodka can be. I believe that people have a right to do what they want in their own homes so long as their practices don't affect my freedom or my safety...however the second that becomes even more available to kids and the stigma of how dangerous drugs can be goes away with them being "illegal," I think you'll see more problems.

It'd be a trade. Less gang murders, but more drug addiction. I'd rather have neither, and this isn't a simple problem to solve. That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence. Are guns responsible? Of course not. There was a man who was caught in my neighborhood and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and B&E. Guess..just GUESS what his weapon was that he threatened the homeowner with?

A SCREWDRIVER. He used what he had on hand. Should we ban those too?

[TNBiologist]

wyldejackyl wrote:
That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence.

You just hit the nail on the head. There is not one single thing that will reduce crime or homocide rates. It will take many and it will take all strata of society from rich to poor working together in order to effect change.

[Lucky Luke]

wyldejackyl wrote: The box you put yourself in is tying the acts of people to inanimate objects.

Luke, wouldn't you say banning MONEY would reduce the murder rate? Why..if there was no greed, no one would have to steal anything!

That's it, I hope the government takes my money away (oops, they already do), because that way I'll feel more secure. Europeans are more laid back than Americans, and it isn't because of guns or lack thereof. Please look elsewhere to push your arguments for social reform other than gun banning.

Most murders are not committed around or because of money Wyldejackyl, what makes you think that they are?

But you are right money is very much controlled, we all have to declare how much money we get. Why not putting control on lethal weapons?

Gun control is not an argument for social reform, who told you that it was, the NRA? What next? Are anti gun control sources going to make you believe and spread the message that gun control can even not cure cancer?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

I don't think that banning guns /restricting guns would have any significant effect on the murder rate. Guns are just a tool. They can be used for evil purposes or for good purposes depending on teh person using the tool. It is no different than a hammer. I can use a hammer to repair something or I can bash in my neighbors head with it.

Here is a link to the CDC study that found Quote: The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes : http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

...........

Oops TNBiologist you can't use the conclusion of a CDC study that found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes to claim that gun control laws would have no significant effect on the murder rate of America.

The CDC study did not study the effectiveness of the gun control laws on the act of murder, not on the act of violent crime but on violent outcomes! A fact for you murder accounted for 1.2 percent of the violent crimes in America in 2005.

Furthermore we know that statistically very few violent crimes involve a firearm, what does that say about the number of firearms used in violent outcomes? Please understand that many more kicks & punches are dispensed every year that guns are used in violent acts. How gun control can reduce the number of kicks & punches dispensed TNBiologist, magic? Please let us know.

There is too another reason for the CDC to have return this finding but it is a statistical reason in the way this study was set up but I won't bore you with the details of that.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote: ....................

Here is a link to a published paper discussing the validity of gun control compared to drops in crime rates between the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf
By the way, the Frazer institute is based in Canada and has no allifiation with any pro or anti gun groups.

Things that I believe would have an effect on the crime rate:
1) Enforce the existing guns laws.
2) Legalize most of the common street drugs. The illegal sale, transport and manufacture of these leads directly to gangs fighting for control of areas to sell drugs in. This harms gang members and inocents. If most street drugs are legalized and then sold just as alcohol or tabacco you eleminate the stigma associated with drugs as well as the drug gangs need of violence to protect their selling area. Once most street drugs are made legal make it a crime to sell them unless out of a store similar to alcohol/tabacco thus focusing police pressure on illegal dealers which use violence to enforce/control their selling area.
3) Teach gun safety on a more open basis. Almost no schools actually teach gun safety. They teach guns are bad and don't touch, which is good for young children but by the time a person is 17, they need a little more detailed leason. Bring in gun safety instructors to teach high school students how to properly handle a gun if they find one and how to properly make a gun safe. This would help decrease the number of accidental gun deaths. Part of the problem is that children are taught by schools that guns should be left alone, this only makes a child want to see/play with this prohibited item. Reinstate school sponcered marksmanship teams (most use pellet rifles), this will allow those interested in gun a chance to learn about them without getting trouble.

Gun control doesn't reduce violence, it doesn't reduce crime rate, it doesn't reduce violent crime rates, it doesn't reduce murder rates committed with other weapons than guns, gun control reduces the murder rate with guns. In fact as 70% of the murder rate with guns is with handguns in America, better handgun control is what America requires.

Gary Mauser, your professor from the Simon Fraser University had his work funded by the NRA. His study is of course incorrect and misleading and he is American too.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

wyldejackyl wrote: I don't know about legalizing drugs for sale/use in public. My main concern would be the increased usage illegally by minors. While I realize that the same problems exist with alcohol, I believe cocaine, crack, heroin, ecstacy and others are much more addictive and damaging than a few beers or even a few shots of vodka can be. I believe that people have a right to do what they want in their own homes so long as their practices don't affect my freedom or my safety...however the second that becomes even more available to kids and the stigma of how dangerous drugs can be goes away with them being "illegal," I think you'll see more problems.

It'd be a trade. Less gang murders, but more drug addiction. I'd rather have neither, and this isn't a simple problem to solve. That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence. Are guns responsible? Of course not. There was a man who was caught in my neighborhood and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and B&E. Guess..just GUESS what his weapon was that he threatened the homeowner with?

A SCREWDRIVER. He used what he had on hand. Should we ban those too?

If screwdrivers were used in 70% of an insane murder rate, of course you would have to introduce screwdriver legislation to control the problem, what else would you do? Easy and simple.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence.

You just hit the nail on the head. There is not one single thing that will reduce crime or homocide rates. It will take many and it will take all strata of society from rich to poor working together in order to effect change.

I ask you TNBiologist, what is the easiest way to reduce an insane murder rate with guns?

:-D
:-D

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence.

You just hit the nail on the head. There is not one single thing that will reduce crime or homocide rates. It will take many and it will take all strata of society from rich to poor working together in order to effect change.

I ask you TNBiologist, what is the easiest way to reduce an insane murder rate with guns?

:-D
:-D

Th easiest way is to use force against those commiting murder, be it by increased police, longer jail terms or an armed populus to defend themselves. But what you should be looking at is what can be done to reduce overall homocide rates.

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote: ....................

Here is a link to a published paper discussing the validity of gun control compared to drops in crime rates between the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf
By the way, the Frazer institute is based in Canada and has no allifiation with any pro or anti gun groups.

Things that I believe would have an effect on the crime rate:
1) Enforce the existing guns laws.
2) Legalize most of the common street drugs. The illegal sale, transport and manufacture of these leads directly to gangs fighting for control of areas to sell drugs in. This harms gang members and inocents. If most street drugs are legalized and then sold just as alcohol or tabacco you eleminate the stigma associated with drugs as well as the drug gangs need of violence to protect their selling area. Once most street drugs are made legal make it a crime to sell them unless out of a store similar to alcohol/tabacco thus focusing police pressure on illegal dealers which use violence to enforce/control their selling area.
3) Teach gun safety on a more open basis. Almost no schools actually teach gun safety. They teach guns are bad and don't touch, which is good for young children but by the time a person is 17, they need a little more detailed leason. Bring in gun safety instructors to teach high school students how to properly handle a gun if they find one and how to properly make a gun safe. This would help decrease the number of accidental gun deaths. Part of the problem is that children are taught by schools that guns should be left alone, this only makes a child want to see/play with this prohibited item. Reinstate school sponcered marksmanship teams (most use pellet rifles), this will allow those interested in gun a chance to learn about them without getting trouble.

Gun control doesn't reduce violence, it doesn't reduce crime rate, it doesn't reduce violent crime rates, it doesn't reduce murder rates committed with other weapons than guns, gun control reduces the murder rate with guns. In fact as 70% of the murder rate with guns is with handguns in America, better handgun control is what America requires.

Gary Mauser, your professor from the Simon Fraser University had his work funded by the NRA. His study is of course incorrect and misleading and he is American too.
:-D
:-D

Source for the NRA's funding of this study please?

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

I don't think that banning guns /restricting guns would have any significant effect on the murder rate. Guns are just a tool. They can be used for evil purposes or for good purposes depending on teh person using the tool. It is no different than a hammer. I can use a hammer to repair something or I can bash in my neighbors head with it.

Here is a link to the CDC study that found Quote: The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes : http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

...........

Oops TNBiologist you can't use the conclusion of a CDC study that found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes to claim that gun control laws would have no significant effect on the murder rate of America.

The CDC study did not study the effectiveness of the gun control laws on the act of murder, not on the act of violent crime but on violent outcomes! A fact for you murder accounted for 1.2 percent of the violent crimes in America in 2005.

Furthermore we know that statistically very few violent crimes involve a firearm, what does that say about the number of firearms used in violent outcomes? Please understand that many more kicks & punches are dispensed every year that guns are used in violent acts. How gun control can reduce the number of kicks & punches dispensed TNBiologist, magic? Please let us know.

There is too another reason for the CDC to have return this finding but it is a statistical reason in the way this study was set up but I won't bore you with the details of that.

:-D
:-D

Why could one not assume that since the study showed insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes that the same could be argued for murder rates? Last time I check murder was a violent outcome. Did you actually read the entire report? If not then please do.

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
That's why the approach of banning guns is so asinine. It only lifts one tiny corner of the societal problems that cause violence.

You just hit the nail on the head. There is not one single thing that will reduce crime or homocide rates. It will take many and it will take all strata of society from rich to poor working together in order to effect change.

I ask you TNBiologist, what is the easiest way to reduce an insane murder rate with guns?

:-D
:-D


Th easiest way is to use force against those commiting murder, be it by increased police, longer jail terms or an armed populus to defend themselves. But what you should be looking at is what can be done to reduce overall homocide rates.

No, this is how to reduce crime TNBiologist and it is not working in the US. You have the death penalty in many states, the worst prison population in the world per capita and yet you have the same level of crime that we have with an insane murder rate, a murder rate 70% with guns!

Now tell us how to reduce this insane murder rate with firearms in the US, the murder rate with firearms in the US is twice the murder rate with all weapons in the UK. The only way to reduce your homicide rate is to reduce your homicide rate with firearms or to be more precise as 70% of the murder rate with firearms is with handguns, the way to reduce your homicide rate is to reduce your homicide rate with handguns.

How do you reduce a murder rate with handguns TNBiologist?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

Source for the NRA's funding of this study please?

Lucky Luke wrote: Gary Mauser, your professor from the Simon Fraser University had his work funded by the NRA.

Quote: Gary Mauser, Business Professor at Simon Fraser University and a spokesperson for the B.C. Wildlife Association. Professor Mauser’s earlier work on arming for self-protection ("Ownership of Firearms in British Columbia: Self Defense or Sportsmanship?") was funded in part by the American National Rifle Association.

Quote: Mauser’s research has been funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Langley Symposium, a pro-gun organization.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html#affidavits

And of course he is representing the Canadian National Firearms Association:

Quote: Statement by Gary Mauser
National Firearms Association (Canada)


Mr President, distinguished delegates,

I am Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, Canada. I am representing the National Firearms Association.

http://www.nfa.ca/international/statement-by-gary-mauser-at-u.n.-small-arms-and-light-weapons-conference.html


:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote:

Why could one not assume that since the study showed insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes that the same could be argued for murder rates? Last time I check murder was a violent outcome. Did you actually read the entire report? If not then please do.

I did read the report, this is why I know that violent crime rates and homicide rates were not studied TNBiologist.

You are wrong to assume that guns or gun control laws have any weight in changing the number of violent outcomes one way or another. Gun control laws just make it harder for violent people to use a gun but not harder for violent people to be violent.

Not only I read the full report and its findings but I read what the people who wrote it think of people like you:

Quote: The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.


http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1019

:-D
:-D

[evil muppet]

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote:

Why could one not assume that since the study showed insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes that the same could be argued for murder rates? Last time I check murder was a violent outcome. Did you actually read the entire report? If not then please do.

I did read the report, this is why I know that violent crime rates and homicide rates were not studied TNBiologist.

You are wrong to assume that guns or gun control laws have any weight in changing the number of violent outcomes one way or another. Gun control laws just make it harder for violent people to use a gun but not harder for violent people to be violent.

Not only I read the full report and its findings but I read what the people who wrote it think of people like you:

Quote: The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.


http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1019

:-D
:-D

NO, gun control is designed to make it more difficult for the law abiding to get their hands on firearms. Originally just the darkies, now everyone.

[Lucky Luke]

TNBiologist wrote: ........

Here is a link to a published paper discussing the validity of gun control compared to drops in crime rates between the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf
By the way, the Frazer institute is based in Canada and has no allifiation with any pro or anti gun groups.

........

And here is the link for a thread dedicated to the author of this study TNBiologist:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70458&highlight=

Thank you for pointing it out to me.

:-D
:-D

[Æ]

Everyone should be armed, Lucky Luke. Yes, even you should be armed.

[Lucky Luke]

Æ wrote: Everyone should be armed, Lucky Luke. Yes, even you should be armed.

Everyone Æ? Murderers, criminals, terrorists, rapists, abusers, violent people, the mentally challenged, prisoners, teenagers, children, babies?
Are you sure?

:-D
:-D

[Rankor and Pissing]

Lucky Luke wrote: Æ wrote: Everyone should be armed, Lucky Luke. Yes, even you should be armed.

Everyone Æ? Murderers, criminals, terrorists, rapists, abusers, violent people, the mentally challenged, prisoners, teenagers, children, babies?
Are you sure?

:-D
:-D

Sure... more targets. :-D

[Thrilla]

Lucky Luke wrote: MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Show this to your brother and tell him to get rid of his handguns:

Quote: MEMORANDUM TO ALL UNITED STATES' ATTORNEYS

FROM:The Attorney General /s/ John Ashcroft

RE:United States v. Emerson

On October 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Emerson. I am pleased that the decision upholds the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) - which prohibits violent persons who are under domestic restraining orders from possessing firearms. By taking guns out of the hands of persons whose propensity to violence is sufficient to warrant a specific restraining order, this statute helps avoid tragic episodes of domestic violence. As I have stated many times, reducing gun crime is a top priority for the Department. We will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws in order to accomplish that goal.

Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . ." The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8272.resp.html

:-D
:-D you wont find too many people who are to argue that guns in the hands of "unfit person" is a good thing and shouldnt be addressed..... common sense

now back to the issue about taking guns from the "fit persons"

[Æ]

Lucky Luke wrote: Æ wrote: Everyone should be armed, Lucky Luke. Yes, even you should be armed.

Everyone Æ? Murderers, criminals, terrorists, rapists, abusers, violent people, the mentally challenged, prisoners, teenagers, children, babies?
Are you sure?

:-D
:-D
I said what I meant, LL. If there are more law abiding citizens than not, such a design would likely prove very effective.