Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(4)
(1)
Message 17 of 955 (686379)
12-31-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
12-31-2012 3:11 PM


Re: Let's...
For want of a better name, let’s call a place with gun laws like this--Chicago.
Or you can call that place Manhattan: Manhattan: New York Remains Safest Big City in the United States
Record year for crime in New York City with fewer murders, shootings
See, strict gun laws work when it's properly done. Chicago has to deal with it's location and being surrounded be other places with next to nothing for gun laws. Also, when you focus on CHicago, you're focusing on the low income and poor communities that bring Chicago's crime, shootings, and murder numbers so high. It's not rich folk shooting each other.
The answer there is NOT to loosen up the gun laws and make it the wild west.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 12-31-2012 3:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2012 4:36 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
(1)
Message 18 of 955 (686382)
12-31-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Genomicus
12-31-2012 3:17 PM


that there is something in modern society that gives birth to a violent mindset.
But there isn't. There is something in poor communities that gives rise to violence.
We're not seeing the numbers of shootings and murder going up in rich, white neighboorhoods. It's an inner city problem.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Genomicus, posted 12-31-2012 3:17 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Genomicus, posted 12-31-2012 4:12 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 20 of 955 (686388)
12-31-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Genomicus
12-31-2012 4:12 PM


That may be true for the most part, but the CT shooting doesn't fall into that classification.
Sure, but that's the extremely rare case.
RAZD's "ways to regulate guns" that he's been positing are, some of them, is what is being used here in NY. Where you have an island of 8 million people from EVERY social economical position living together. Very strict gun laws. The results are clear, Manhattan remains the safest big city.
So while cases like CT, where 29 died in one event, gets all of our attention. Cases like 29 dead in the span of a month in the inner cities should too. Because that is where the bigger gun problems are.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Genomicus, posted 12-31-2012 4:12 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 71 of 955 (686476)
01-01-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
12-31-2012 4:36 PM


Re: Let's...
So what kind of regulations work best?
I think first ALL states need to have the same set of gun laws. And it doesn't have to be anything radical or that hasn't ever been done in the US and we don't need to infringe on people's rights. Just adopt the exact rules and laws that NY has and that has proven to work in Manhattan which is a perfect model for the entire country.
It clearly works, being the safest big city in America. It's a good start.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2012 4:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 955 (686526)
01-02-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
01-02-2013 11:38 AM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
Do you think gun massacres are more of a problem in the US than other comparable countries?
The key word there is "comparable" countries. Africa is far more violent with guns than the US, but we are a close second.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 11:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 12:15 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(4)
(1)
Message 91 of 955 (686540)
01-02-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Straggler
01-02-2013 12:15 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
The US has a homicide rate completely out of kilter with it's status as a first world Western democracy.
But it's important to note that it's only a high rate in low income neighborhoods which are predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods.
There are probably numerous reasons for this.
There are two in my opinion. Poverty and the availability of guns to use in crimes.
But the bewildering attitude to guns as some sort of symbol of freedom is almost certainly part of the issue.
Those who see it as a symbol of freedom are, for the most part, white citizens. Blacks and hispanics see it as a symbol of power. Neither one is right.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 12:15 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 102 of 955 (686563)
01-02-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Genomicus
01-02-2013 1:42 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
That would seem to be the interpretation of the founding fathers
I wonder given the last statement if the founding fathers, or at least James Madison, would agree that a civilian not in the armed forces, part of the national guard, or in law enforcement, needs a gun?
"Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 1:42 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 103 of 955 (686564)
01-02-2013 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 1:45 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
the necessity of being able to call the general citizenry up into an ordered and self-provisioned militia in a time of national defense.
Haven't we already done this in the form of a standing military? No one is asked to bring their guns with them, our taxes already pay for our citizenry to own and operate the best weapons in the world.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 1:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:26 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
(1)
Message 106 of 955 (686572)
01-02-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 2:26 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
The point of the Second Amendment isn't to make it possible to arm the military.
I've never quite understood this myself since so many decide to interpret it their own way.
The first line seems to be suggesting having a military, although not an organized one. One made up of the people when necessary - thus requiring that the people bear arms in case they get called to defend the state. It was over 200 years ago mind you.
But we've since done away with that and have a standing military equiped with the best weapons our money can buy necessary to the security of a free state. Makes it pointless to continue to refer to this "right to bear amrs" as some kind of freedom to walk around with a Glock.
Here, just for reference:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:51 PM onifre has replied
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 01-02-2013 5:41 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2013 7:01 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 111 of 955 (686584)
01-02-2013 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 2:51 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
There was a standing Federal army when they drafted the Constitution.
Well no, the Federal army didn't come about until the Civil War.
There was a Continental Army during the conception of the United States and the Constitution.
As you can see:
quote:
The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states.
Which is why you get the need to write the Second Amendment.
We have since done away with that, and the current military is funded by we the people through tax dollars. Well regulated militias are not relevant anymore.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 3:34 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 118 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 4:30 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2013 7:06 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 416 of 955 (687439)
01-10-2013 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by ICANT
01-10-2013 4:29 PM


Re: Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses
Any restriction that is applied is infringing upon my rights to bear Arms.
Well NY is not infringing on anyone's rights to bear arms. It would be legal to apply these laws to every state.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2013 4:29 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2013 4:55 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(4)
Message 508 of 955 (687601)
01-14-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by ICANT
01-13-2013 4:23 PM


Re: The case for limiting the number of bullets that can be fired
nd one fact is I have many friends in Cuba and many friends who have left Cuba and live in the US.
Castro never confiscated any guns, you made that up. There are no gun manufactures on the island, and people are too poor to afford it even if there was. But, there is no law in Cuba that says you can't own a gun, so if one would want to start a gun company there you technically could - however, you'd probably go bankrupt since people would rather buy food than a gun.
I have actual family there who own guns - old Russian guns that a few metal workers can repair. Plus most farmers on the island have guns too.
Castro did relent and let them have Bibles he figured they would not hurt his soldiers.
Bibles were never taken away from anyone either.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2013 4:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 550 of 955 (687671)
01-15-2013 10:02 AM


New York is first at bat...
Here's further proof that even a state with the toughest gun laws can get tougher, yet still NOT infringe on anyone's rights.
NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre
quote:
Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.
Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.
Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.
The measure passed at the Senate 43-18.
- Oni

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 559 of 955 (687682)
01-15-2013 11:22 AM


Obama Pulling Rank
Obama/Executive Order on gun control
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said.
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
It seems like the gun nuts are losing the battle.
- Oni

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Phat, posted 01-15-2013 11:43 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 562 of 955 (687692)
01-15-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Phat
01-15-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Obama Pulling Rank
Im in favor of freedom to buy guns
That sounds crazy just reading it. But ok...
A guy doesn't need a bazooka for civilian use.
If "need" is the focus, then I can't see the need for a person to have any gun for civilian use. What possible need other than irrational fear would there be for any gun?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Phat, posted 01-15-2013 11:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024