Has anyone ever noticed that there's statistic on gun violence and I don't see any statistics on other violent crimes?
I see alot of social engineering on this subject.
Printable View
Has anyone ever noticed that there's statistic on gun violence and I don't see any statistics on other violent crimes?
I see alot of social engineering on this subject.
Oly, there are statistics on all violent and non-violent crimes. It's broken down into age, sex, geography, urban vs. rural and a few other ways. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is chartered to keep track of data like that.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
You can also view similar data in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
This is from the Bureau of Justice Statics and is based on 2005, which is the latest available.
Weapon use
In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.
Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.
Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.
If it makes you feel any better, I think the whole world has gone mad.:sneaky2:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/n...l/article.htmlQuote:
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
This is a good thing. It was a predictable result. If one can stand back far enough to see.
It does appear, that there is a glimmer of hope, in the world.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...rals_-NDP.htmlQuote:
OTTAWA - The national debate over gun control that many Canadians thought had been resolved a decade ago has roared back to life after the House of Commons voted in principle Wednesday to end the long-gun registry.
don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.
a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms,
issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors.
national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.
anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.
so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.
The country would be safer, if everyone was armed.
Or no one.
Regardless of laws, someone will always be armed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NCO
Wouldn't it then be better to minimize the amount of armed people.
Not in my opinion. I think that would just create a target rich environment.(For the bad guys)Quote:
Originally Posted by NCO
We have a saying, over here....."If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them."
I have never seen a study, that says that gun control has reduced crime. In fact, here, the cities with the strictest gun control laws, have the highest crime rates.
You might call it - Victim Creation Program.
Modern history is resplendent with factual accounts of what an armed citizenry can do and what happens when that is not the case. Example, when the state of Florida created the concealed carry program, crime dropped dramatically (has be verified).
Indeed. It's worked very well to date with automobiles. Strict licensing, training and registration has dropped the death rate associated with them to ... oh, wait ... no it hasn't. Sorry, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stony
Forgive me, perhaps I'm wrong, but every weapon has a serial number and each number is recorded (at least in my state) when it's sold. That hasn't stopped the sale of weapons to undesirables and it never will. Those sales are generated through stolen weapons so a registry simply doesn't work.
For a start we need to enforce gun laws that are on the books now.
Mandatory background checks, sufficient waiting time for licensing, serious prosecution of unlawful weapons posession.
Obviously, people with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to own a gun at all and neither should those who have a record of mental instability.
Yeah, criminals will always be able to obtain guns because they are criminals.
And drug addicts will always find a way to get drugs. That's no excuse for getting lax.
Maybe we won't save enough lives to suit some of you but if one of those lives lost belonged to your loved one you'd sing a different tune.
We would save a lot more "loved ones" if we would not let true criminals loose on society.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
BTW, saving one life is great, but not if the policies used to do it, cost hundreds of lives.
I'm pretty sure that we all agree with that....but on the other hand, if they are a danger to the public, why are they on the street?Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
Agree about criminals loose in society. But that's an entirely different issue.
There are many whose first criminal act involved a gun--Columbine killers, John Hinckley, Virginia Tech killer, Mark David Chapman, The Maryland snipers, etc., etc. These people obviously shouldn't have had access to guns in the first place.
As far as your second point, what's your point?
When people call for stricter gun control laws they are not talking about people like Rick, Crash or Sarge. Thy are talking about unpredictable nuts. Can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.
How do you know who will, in the future, commit a crime? Imposing more laws, on buying guns, makes it harder for crash, rick, me, etc., to buy a gun. It does not make it any harder for a criminal, to get one. He is already getting it illegally.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
If it is harder for me, crash, etc, to get a gun, then you raise the chance of someone not having one, that may have, other wise, been able to save lives.(My second point.) A lot of lives are saved,each year, by lawful gun owners. Why make it harder on them?
I don't know about all your examples, but the columbine killers, stole those guns. The Va. Tech killer, bought those guns legally. (Yeah, he passed the back ground check.)
gangbangers and criminals don't typically buy their guns legally anyways friend... just more hurdles for us law-abiders.... 2dumb is right.. we would be safer if everyone was armedQuote:
Originally Posted by Stony
You're right Benesse. And...you'll find that some had been declared incompetent, which should have precluded them from acquiring guns and some "borrowed" guns from relatives.
There are more than enough laws on the books today to deal with folks that should not receive weapons. In fact, a few too many in my book.
illegal to own guns in D.C. = murder capital of the world
sure.... take guns away... that'll do it
And the same can be said for Chicago. There was no decrease in crime when guns were outlawed.
Yet when I get off work, in Va., and go to one of many gun shops, in Va., I can't buy a handgun, because I live 30 miles away, on the other side of the N.C. state line. Mind you, I have passed more than enough background checks, and I have a C.C. Permit, which makes it legal for me to carry a concealed handgun, in Va.
BTW, If I were a Va. resident, I could only buy one handgun, per month.
Do you think any Virginians are safer, because of these laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
That's why I said in my first sentence that we should enforce all the laws that are on the books now. If that's the only thing we do and nothing else, it would be a huge improvement.
Unfortunately, sometimes innocent, law-abiding people have to suffer because of the few bad apples (we seem to have more than our share--what's up with that?!)
I get bent out of shape for example when the comedy channel bleeps out bad words on the off chance there might be children watching.(and I don't even have kids)
Why am I being punished because there are parents who don't supervise their kids?
Don't get me started.
Kind of interesting that you picked that as an example. Seems that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are under assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Yep....that's pretty much how I feel about a lot of the gun laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
I will personally cut a nice stump in either WV or KY for anyone who wants to tell us poor backward Rednecks the "sin" of owning guns. You won't mind if the stump is next to a tall tree with a short rope will you? Open invitation, just give me a few minutes to get a crowd.
"A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year."
I am a former soldier too, but I am smart enough to know that you cannot bring any weapon into any courthouse anywhere in the U.S. even if you have a CCW permit, it is illegal to do so. He may have been a former soldier doesn't male him the sharpest pencil in the box. If he found it outside he should've stayed with it and had someone go inside and get the police, or went in himself after checking to make sure it was unloaded.
Beo,
Now after reading the entire article, hmmm, I feel sorry for the guy. He found it (says he) in his garden and took it to the police, a good thing to get it off the street, he might have been questioned but to arrest him and lock him up makes no sense to me now. But ignorance of the law is no excuse so he got f**ked in the end for doing a good deed. What a mess.
Laws don't stop criminals.... Cops do. Instead of making more laws why not make more cops? Your money would be better spent. Criminals are criminals because they don't care about laws. You can make 14 gazillion laws, not a single one will stop a criminal, not even those that carry the death penalty. By making more laws all you are doing is making more prisons, Criminals eventually get out of those. It has been proven that all Prisons are is a means for criminals to get a better criminal education. Think of prison as Criminal College. All you have to do to be accepted is break a law,resulting in better trained harder to catch Felons. Is THAT what you REALLY want???
Anyone who is against an armed populace needs to check out Kennesaw, Ga. It boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. All Citizens of this city MUST own a GUN. Since Felons can't legally own a gun, you won't find any there. Reduce the criminal population and crime rates PLUMMET. Funny how that works huh? Like the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The gun is just an instrument of intent. Take away that instrument and another will take it's place. Eventually we will all be forced to resort to sticks and stones, A "New" Stone Age. Now does that really sound like progress? Next on the "chopping block" will be knives, Bows and arrows. Followed by Hammers,screwdrivers,and lead pipes,and so on and so on.
As morbid as this will sound, I would rather be shot to death than beat to death, stabbed, or strangled. If "they" are going to kill me, at least let it be quick. Because if their intent is to kill me then they will find a way. It won't matter what "tool" you leave them to do it with.
Maybe that's the thing to do in the rest of the country since nothing else seems to work. But I can't help wondering...Quote:
Originally Posted by pocomoonskyeyes
How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?
How will it affect road rage situations?
What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?
How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?
This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.
Personally, I think we'd have a politer, more patient society.....
Yes sir, have a nice day!Quote:
Originally Posted by NightShade
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocomoonskyeyes
This is how I really honestly feel. If someone has the intent to kill another human being, they WILL find SOME way to do it. This is no different than if you feel you have to go across town, you WILL find a way. This argument against guns is no different than saying drunk drivers don't kill innocents, Cars do. Therefore all cars must be more regulated with tougher laws. Naw, Drunk Drivers aren't to blame. I know let's make it harder to get a car, that will solve the dilemma.
If passionate feelings about my beliefs is emotional, then I am Guilty as charged. Try telling this to the Lawmakers who have heated Arguments and call them discussions. I'm not Spock(the Vulcan, not the baby psychologist). LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Some of my analogies above(like cars and Drunk Drivers) are sarcastic I know. The rationale is the same though, inanimate objects are NOT the cause of our troubles. We are the cause of our troubles. People not things. Changing "things" does not solve the problem, Changing peoples thoughts and the way we treat each other,IS the solution. In the end result this is the only one that will really and truly work. Whatever "Object" we are talking about is irrelevant, the heart of the problem lies with people. Only by changing peoples ways of treating and reacting to each other,will this Dilemma be solved.
Look there is already enough regulation. We can argue about who is and is not capable of owning a firearm. Rick and Crash are very stable examples already used in this thread(whom I have met AND trust to own firearms). There is nothing saying that either one doesn't fall, get a nasty bump on the head and become unstable. Or develop a brain tumor and become the next shooter in the Texas Campus Tower.(Heaven forbid that happens to anyone!! But it could) Trying to determine who is and is not WORTHY of gun ownership is trying to play God. We are not Omniscient and things will still happen no matter how much regulation is emplaced AND enforced.
Adding laws only bogs down an already sluggish system, by placing even More work on those that are already tasked to enforce laws that are current. No one is going to increase the forces tasked to enforce the existing laws,adding More laws only makes their jobs harder. Making their jobs harder only means that more criminals will get away,which means more of what no one wants... More crime and more criminals. As surely as some people see current criminals "getting away with it", They too will turn to criminal activities. This does not reduce the criminal population, it increases it. This means more people screaming for more laws to deal with the increasing criminal population,creating a Never-ending cycle. STOP making new laws for things that already have laws governing them! It makes matters worse not better. Sure clarify a law if it is not clear, but don't go making more!
This is a case where I feel "Less is more". Less laws for enforcement personnel to enforce, means better quality of the enforcement of those laws. Otherwise Cops are going to have to have a doctorate to be street beat cops,just to keep up with what laws they are supposed to enforce. It's like asking some one to memorize the complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Can you do it? I know I can't. I don't think we should expect LEO's to do that either.
So Poco, how do you address some of the questions I've raised such as:
How would have Ft. Hood played out differently? (everyone was licensed and had a weapon...just not on their body at the time of the shooting)
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?
Some things will have to be figured out ahead of time whether you like it or not. If you don't want to call it another law, call it common sense, whatever. Unlike folks on this forum (you keep preaching to the choir) the rest of the population doesn't have the first clue about handling firearms.
Can't just pass out guns to everyone and say, "have at it folks."
Oh, and another thing.
Call me naive, but firearms and emotions don't mix.
Rational thinking and a cool head, yes.
(At least that's what the NRA instructor at the firing range tells me.)
I'm far from a spokesman, but I'll try to answer, a few.
And you are correct about the emotion, but there is plenty of info,(Stat's, studies, etc.) than can be seen on the web, if you want more info.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
You are so right!! Common Sense should PRECEDE Every law. I'm not preaching to anyone really. I'm sure there are some here who are on both sides of the fence of this issue. Like a Lot of things today, a lot of people just don't want to get involved. They think "What's the point? There are people from both sides arguing there views, what can I say?"Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
While some out there will NEVER carry a firearm. Some will. It doesn't matter what the law says. That's just the way it is. Even if it's legal AND encouraged, Some people just won't carry or even own one. If it's illegal there are those that will own one and carry...Once again it doesn't matter what the law says.(Think of terrorists in countries where it is illegal)
You are right we can't "just pass guns out to the populace and expect what is right from them." That is the current situation anyway. If you want a CCW you have to go through a process. Nothing would or should change there. You want one, go through the process. It all seems so simple to me.
You know....I kinda like the gun is like a fire extinguisher, thingy!
I'm gonna have to use that one.
LOL...I can see it now...why would you want a fire extinguisher....Doesn't you town have a fire dept?
Are you expecting a fire? No. Then why would you have a fire extinguisher, in the house.
Fire extinguishers should be locked away, and only used by professionals. A child could set one of those things off in a closet, and suffocate.
I'm having tooooo much fun, with this!:innocent:
This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.
Agreed 100%!Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
It's called responsibility!