Should we have stricter gun control?

nicholaschumbley

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, safeguarding the right to bear arms, plays a crucial role in preserving individual freedoms and ensuring the balance of power between citizens and the government. Enshrined by the Founding Fathers, this amendment is rooted in the principle that an armed citizenry acts as a deterrent against potential tyranny. It provides citizens with the means to protect themselves, their families, and their property, fostering a sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility. Additionally, the Second Amendment supports the idea of an armed citizenry as a last line of defense against external threats, promoting national security. While the issue of gun rights is complex and requires responsible regulation, defending the Second Amendment underscores a commitment to the principles of individual liberty and the preservation of a free society.

just_sayin

There are 300 plus gun laws on the books in the US.  If people break these laws every time a gun crime is committed, why should we believe more laws will lead to a different result?  Furter, most gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns, so any laws made would not impact guns that are already illegal.  This basic logic escapes leftists though, who assume that criminals obey laws. Instead leftists fight to have criminals with guns get out of jail  without bail, while they attempt to  take  away a single mother's firearm, the only means of defending her family that she has in a bad neighborhood.  Leftists don't want people to point out that there are more instances of guns being used to protect life and property a year, than gun crimes.  They want you to ignore the poor single mother who needs a gun to keep herself and her family from being robbed and raped.    

Bogan

Firearm laws are a litmus paper test as to how healthy or sick your society is.        Strong, cohesive societies which have good principles, which most people agree with, do not need strict gun laws.       Decadent and divided societies, where there is no clear agreement among the divided population as to what constitutes correct behaviour, need strict firearm laws.    This is a provable premise.       I am an Australian, and Australia was at it’s most law abiding early last century when Australia’s firearm laws were practically non existent.       Even when Australian firearm laws were made more onerous, it was pointed out that it was the rural areas of Australia who had the highest concentration of firearm ownership, was where violent crime was very low.      The town of Oberon was the third town created in the state of NSW by European settlers, and it recently made history because it experienced it’s very first armed robbery in it’s entire history.      Many country towns have never experienced an armed robbery at all. 

 If your society allows advertisers to glamourize smoking cigarettes, then surprise, surprise, kids will smoke cigarettes.      Which is why cigarette advertising is banned.     If you allow the media to glamourize suicide, surprise, surprise, suicide rates will rise dramatically.     Which is why any media which glamourizes suicide can find itself being sanctioned by governments.      But we live in a world where the media glamourizes violent criminal behaviour, usually involving firearms, and we refuse to recognise that this is having any social effect at all.     The fastest growing crime statistic is juvenile homicide.     Here in Australia, our Australian Institute of Criminology first claimed that there was no link between on screen violence and real life violence.    it then said it was “puzzled” at the rise of very serious juvenile crime.    Perhaps the mandarins within the AIC think that it may be caused by some unknown virus wafting through the air?

 TV was once hailed as “the greatest teaching device ever invented.”     It is, but the public better be more aware of what our kids are being taught.

 If you came home from work one night and found a man in your house telling your kids that it is fun to be a violent criminal, and that you should always get revenge, and that cool and fashionable people take drugs, then you would immediately  throw the bum right out of your house.    But you come home, the TV is on, the kids are watching it, and you can’t put 2 and 2 together?

 In California, two male adolescents were convicted of murdering a disabled homeless man by kicking, beating, stabbing, and finally, choking him to death.    Before he died, the young boys obtained a container of salt which they poured on the man’s wounds.    When asked by investigating police, “Why had they done that?”   One of the boys replied.  “I dunno, I just saw it on TV.”  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Dreamer ; Subsequent to 31-years in law enforcement, I can testify to the truism that "gun control" only restricts lawful gun owners who obey the law...the criminal element seldom purchases weapons from authorized, legitimate, licensed, dealers...their weapons are stolen or purchased on the street and criminals are not concerned about "gun free zones" or restricted areas of carry but interpret them as "target rich" environments.

Putin

Absolutely, the average person isn't smart enough to make a gun, even though even a chimpanzee could do it with the proper training, so us smart people and well trained chimpanzees will be the only ones who get guns.

Barnardot

@Dreamer I reckon we need strickter gun control and I reckon the first place to start is the sight. Many people over look this and consider it only as an add on but think about it. It is the one thing that gives you strickt control when you’re eying up your target. The best on the market is the Hensoldt and it will put you back a few grand but it will zoom from 6 to 24 times in an instant. So you can say knock off some one just a few yards a way then wham you see a movement 400 yards a way and you can zap that person in a split second. That’s what you call real gun control. And you can also see in red or yellow depending on the light conditions and if there is say heaps of blood all over the place.

But then the next most important aspect of strickt gun control is the type of amo you use and here I would go for the Niro Express which costs a fare bit but you can get really strickt control over how the bullet flies through the air especially if there is a side wind because it will cut straight through. And it uses hollow bullet head technology so when it hits some one in the eye it will spread out precisely and mash the brain to a pulp and it exits by taking half the back of the skull with it because by that time it has spread out so much. But again that’s just an other example of how strickter gun control gives you the leading edge.

A lot of people go for but cushions to absorb some of the recoil but I reckon if any thing it takes a way from having strickt gun control. You get a much more organic relationship with your weapon with out one so that it stays rock solid on your shoulder making it more accurate.

Factfinder

@Dreamer

Yes well the snopes article did present a false claim by obama. According to their latest data on your source, children aged 17 and under have a greater risk of dying of vehicle-related injuries. You see? ONLY counting child deaths, more people died of motor vehicles than guns. It would be wiser to go after a 'privilege' and cars than to go after a constitutional right and guns. Care to give it a 'shot'? LOL 

Dreamer

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Well maybe we need gun control for useful idiots as opposed to criminals. If people are just going to leave their handgun in their glove compartment in their car, maybe they are too careless to own a gun. A handgun tax would be a start so if the gun got stolen, it would cost the guy buyer more.

"

More guns are being stolen out of cars in alarming trend across the nation

At least 180 cities reported increases in gun thefts from cars from 2019 to 2020. They are now the largest source of stolen guns, a new data analysis found."

More guns are being stolen out of cars in alarming trend

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Dreamer I agree with "Dreamer"...the "right" to carry-possess a weapon comes with great responsibility and the potential for great liability. Thank you.

Factfinder

@Dreamer

I know, how about we tax people for freedom of speech? Then it'll make it harder to speak against stealing their right to bear arms!!!

just_sayin

Leftists are always oblivious to the evil they support.  Whether it is their misogyny, their racism, their bigotry, or their efforts to steal people's rights.  @Dreamer, since Black people are 10 times more likely to die from gun crimes than white people, why isn't it racist of you to want to take the only means a Black single mother has to defend herself and her family from rape, robbery and attack?  I've already pointed out the statistic that there are more defensive uses of guns each year to protect life and property than gun crimes, wo why would it be just to take away a Black single mother's only means of protecting herself and her family.  Would you care to explain why its OK to not allow her to defend herself and her family?  

Bogan

Just-sayin quote    .....since Black people are 10 times more likely to die from gun crimes than white people......, 

That must be impossible, Just-sayin, you think that all races are equal, so that statement does not make sense?  

As I have pointed out previously with my example of Australia, the mere presence or availability of firearms means little to crime rates, provided that the overwhelming majority of people regard the settling of personal problems with violence as being utterly wrong.      In Australia in rural areas, firearm ownership is high and homicide rates very low.  The problem is not the mere presence of firearms, it is a social problem.    The USA has five times the homicide rate of Australia.     But if all people murdered by firearms in the USA was removed from crime statistics entirely, the US murder rate would still be twice that of Australia's.      Obviously, SOMETHING other than the mere presence of firearms means that US citizens regard the settling of personnel disputes with violence justifiable. 

Okay, so here is my premise.       I have already displayed how the media can affect people's behaviour, which is why every despot owns the media.       Control the media, and you can control the minds of most people.      Advertisers use psychological tools to identify different demographic groups within every society, and then they pitch their advertising messages in such a way as to appeal to the deep compulsive needs of each selected demographic group.      "Dreamer" might like to know that advertisers would call his own particular demographic group "world savers."        The media can greatly influence people's minds.     It can start wars, endorse candidates, support causes, make people famous, make kids smoke cigarettes, cause upsurges in suicides, and cause entire demographic groups to covet certain products.     

If you want to figure out why your society is going off the rails, then you have to look at what has changed in your society in the last 100 years, not keep blaming a factor which was always present and never made much difference previously.     

What has changed?

In the USA, the principle of racial equality has meant that US blacks who were once banned from owning firearms, now have a constitutional right to own guns.      I maintain that races are not equal.    Black Africans are genetically much more prone to extreme violence than people from Asian, Indian, and European ethnicities.     Unsurprisingly, most gun crime in the USA is committed by US blacks.     In Britain, where guns are almost completely banned, it is the black African "yardie" gangs who are running around stabbing people to death who are the problem.

In the entire western world, two other very significant factors causing violent crime rates to rise, are present.       It is the family which is societies prime tool for socializing the young.     But in the western world, the family itself is under attack.       With teenaged pregnancies and easy divorce, fully one third of children today live in one parent families.      This is especially so in black communities where it is routine for young and often teenaged  fathers to abandon their children to the financial support of the state.      Fatherless young boys, who's only window to the world is a TV set, are being confronted by media inspired ideas of manliness and success that display role model heroes as being people who can either kill or beat the ever lovin' sheet out of anyone who crosses them. 

Guns by themselves do not kill people.   Movies do not kill people.      But poorly socialised, immature, low IQ, young boys and adult males, who have been conditioned by the media to think that criminal behaviour is adventurous and profitable, and that extreme violence, ruthlessness, and revenge type behaviour are manly virtues, kill people.      Either with a gun, a knife, or a box of matches.  

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Don't be fooled Ricky. Classic socialist tactics include starting out with a seemingly sensible proposition. Then there's always another one they have waiting and before you know it, through the power of incrementalism women shouldn't carry guns for protection against guys with guns. Not safe you know? As the frog boils...

just_sayin

Bogan said:

Just-sayin quote    .....since Black people are 10 times more likely to die from gun crimes than white people......, 

That must be impossible, Just-sayin, you think that all races are equal, so that statement does not make sense?  

As I have pointed out previously with my example of Australia, the mere presence or availability of firearms means little to crime rates, provided that the overwhelming majority of people regard the settling of personal problems with violence as being utterly wrong.      In Australia in rural areas, firearm ownership is high and homicide rates very low.  The problem is not the mere presence of firearms, it is a social problem.    The USA has five times the homicide rate of Australia.     But if all people murdered by firearms in the USA was removed from crime statistics entirely, the US murder rate would still be twice that of Australia's.      Obviously, SOMETHING other than the mere presence of firearms means that US citizens regard the settling of personnel disputes with violence justifiable. 

Okay, so here is my premise.       I have already displayed how the media can affect people's behaviour, which is why every despot owns the media.       Control the media, and you can control the minds of most people.      Advertisers use psychological tools to identify different demographic groups within every society, and then they pitch their advertising messages in such a way as to appeal to the deep compulsive needs of each selected demographic group.      "Dreamer" might like to know that advertisers would call his own particular demographic group "world savers."        The media can greatly influence people's minds.     It can start wars, endorse candidates, support causes, make people famous, make kids smoke cigarettes, cause upsurges in suicides, and cause entire demographic groups to covet certain products.     

If you want to figure out why your society is going off the rails, then you have to look at what has changed in your society in the last 100 years, not keep blaming a factor which was always present and never made much difference previously.     

What has changed?

In the USA, the principle of racial equality has meant that US blacks who were once banned from owning firearms, now have a constitutional right to own guns.      I maintain that races are not equal.    Black Africans are genetically much more prone to extreme violence than people from Asian, Indian, and European ethnicities.     Unsurprisingly, most gun crime in the USA is committed by US blacks.     In Britain, where guns are almost completely banned, it is the black African "yardie" gangs who are running around stabbing people to death who are the problem.

In the entire western world, two other very significant factors causing violent crime rates to rise, are present.       It is the family which is societies prime tool for socializing the young.     But in the western world, the family itself is under attack.       With teenaged pregnancies and easy divorce, fully one third of children today live in one parent families.      This is especially so in black communities where it is routine for young and often teenaged  fathers to abandon their children to the financial support of the state.      Fatherless young boys, who's only window to the world is a TV set, are being confronted by media inspired ideas of manliness and success that display role model heroes as being people who can either kill or beat the ever lovin' sheet out of anyone who crosses them. 

Guns by themselves do not kill people.   Movies do not kill people.      But poorly socialised, immature, low IQ, young boys and adult males, who have been conditioned by the media to think that criminal behaviour is adventurous and profitable, and that extreme violence, ruthlessness, and revenge type behaviour are manly virtues, kill people.      Either with a gun, a knife, or a box of matches.  

Bogie,  are you saying that Blacks have a gene that makes it more likely for bullets to hit them?  If not, then it isn't a biological issue, but based on behaviors and environment.  Which is what I keep telling you and @Dreamer.  Not all disparities are race driven.  Both you and @Dreamer make a racist claim that evidence does not support.  52% of murders are committed by Black people, mainly Black men.  A disproportionate number of Blacks die from gunshots because they have interactions with those who shoot them.  There is no gene that makes bullets seek out Black people.  There is no murderer gene either, Bogie.  If you think there is, then identify it.  By denying the behavioral and environmental differences between whites and Blacks, both you and @Dreamer will ignore issues and factors that if addressed would result in fewer Black deaths.  

John_C_87

@Dreamer

My first question is by stricter gun control as a proposed United States Constitutional Right that is not fully described in connection to established justice. Those people who do not own a firearm or study to be proficient with the intentional discharge of a gun must buy, pay all required regulations permits, pay for training, training supplies and insurance, then qualify in an accuracy test. As so there is an equality of justice between all people for criminal negligence.

John_C_87

@nicholaschumbley
Founding Fathers........Who signed the American Declaration of Independence before the War of Independence began? It is my understanding five men did so who are the founding father's?

nicholaschumbley

@John_c_87
Fifty-six distinguished individuals, among whom were the esteemed Founding Fathers John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Roger Sherman, affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. Each of these signatories played an integral role in fervently asserting the independence of the American colonies, marking a historic moment that laid the solid foundation for the birth of the United States of America.

John_C_87

@nicholaschumbley

Say Fifty-one lawyers who didn't put there name on a document that would have them hung, drawn, and quatered...........they did not play a role they staked there lives in writing. In Writing! Even now women do not by United States Constitutional Right declare themselves independent from British law. Even now many decades later after the crime of high treason is reduced to only prison terms for the most part.

High Treason against the reigning sovereign.

Until 1814 the particular heinousness of the crime could mean the convicted traitor suffered hanging, drawing, and quartering.
Remained a capital offence until the bringing into force of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 c 37 s 36, when replaced by life imprisonment.

Attainder meant that the punishment could extend to the next generation: heirs of traitors could be prevented from inheriting property or titles.

Treason - Legal history: England & common law tradition - Oxford LibGuides at Oxford University

The point our 2nd Amendment is not a United States Constitutional right it is a United States Constitutional Amendment of a united state of the union to established justice. Your right by independence might not be equal because you cannot hold the constitutional right equal between all men. This is a requirement as President and can be used against a man under impeachment who is under oath of truth. It is clearly not the American Constitutional Right that describes a person who wishes to take private property for any American Citizen, the people must pay a fair price for that property taken, the offer to ensure tranquility must come before the legislation of criminal. Fair price includes costs that may have been acquired in the preservation and acquisition of said property.

A person does not need to stoop to aggression to establish before justice that a political band has been dissolved before the All Courts as a United States Constitutional Right.

Joan.... diamonds and rust...

Bogan

@just_sayin

 Just-sayin quote   Bogie,  are you saying that Blacks have a gene that makes it more likely for bullets to hit them? 

 No, don’t do a jack on me, Just-sayin.   

 

Just-sayin quote       If not, then it isn't a biological issue, but based on behaviors and environment. 

(Sigh.)      How many times have I told you now that human behaviour is a product of both nurture AND nature?      There is a genetic component and an environmental component.      Poverty is environmental, and it can be completely independent of criminal behaviour.     Australia was at it’s most law abiding when we were at our poorest.      There was very severe poverty in Britain in 1900, to the extent that the average working class Briton of 1900 would consider that the average black person in the USA in 2023 to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.      Yet violent crime was so low in Britain and Wales that the British police, much to the astonishment of the police forces in the rest of the world, had no need to carry firearms.  

 

Just-sayin quote       Which is what I keep telling you and @Dreamer.  Not all disparities are race driven.  Both you and @Dreamer make a racist claim that evidence does not support. 

I do not know what Dreamer is saying because I very rarely read his posts.     He rarely stoops to debating at all.      All he wants to do is post links.    I do not debate against links.    

 

Just-sayin quote       52% of murders are committed by Black people, mainly Black men.  A disproportionate number of Blacks die from gunshots because they have interactions with those who shoot them. 

If any group of people comprise 13% of a population, and they are involved in 51% of murders, then it would be fair to say that thee people are roughly four times more prone to violent criminal behaviour than the rest of the population. 

 

Just-sayin quote          There is no gene that makes bullets seek out Black people.  There is no murderer gene either, Bogie.  If you think there is, then identify it. 

Okay, then why did the NAACP lobby Congress to cut off any government funding to any geneticist who was conducting research into genetics and crime?       Like to speculate?      How about, they knew that if the scientists looked for what combination of genes made people intrinsically violent, they might find it?      And since blacks are much more violent than whites, the scientists probably could link race and violence through genetics?    That would be catastrophic for the NAACP.    That would seriously rupture their grievance industry.     International genetic conferences today are held in camera with the press pointedly excluded.      I think that this is because the link between genetics and crime is already proven among geneticists.     But the subject is a political hot potato with very serious social ramifications.    So, just like in the days of Galileo, the worlds top scientists simply exchange information between themselves, and let the public and their governments wallow in their ignorance and their ideologies.

 

Just-sayin quote       By denying the behavioral and environmental differences between whites and Blacks, both you and @Dreamer will ignore issues and factors that if addressed would result in fewer Black deaths.  

 By denying that genetics and criminal behaviour are linked, you are down in the garden, dancing with the fairies.    Cold, hard facts and well reasoned arguments beat religious thinking, every time.          

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

Usually one side points to all the firearm related deaths and the other points to various totalitarian regimes and that guns are necessary.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/

In 2021 "If we were to make the same calculations within the same parameters from the ages of 1-18, it would be 3,588 number of deaths from firearms, and 3,397 deaths from motor vehicles."

I am a little confused by this argument. I don't see how a mere comparison of deaths between two unrelated things in a given year is a sufficient enough to warrent new policy prescriptions for one of them. Plus it doesn't really make any sense. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Yeah that was the jist of my response to her. Sometimes I don't articulate well. One is a 2nd amendment right, the other is a privilege. (though I would say that's debatable personally. privilege to drive I mean.) I tried and failed to expose the folly of attacking the 2nd by sarcastically suggesting we go after the 1st. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

I tried and failed to expose the folly of attacking the 2nd by sarcastically suggesting we go after the 1st. 

Oh I don't know about that.  Your point was not lost on me.  In fact, I wish I would have thought of it first.

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Yeah that was the jist of my response to her. Sometimes I don't articulate well. One is a 2nd amendment right, the other is a privilege. (though I would say that's debatable personally. privilege to drive I mean.) I tried and failed to expose the folly of attacking the 2nd by sarcastically suggesting we go after the 1st. 

tbh, I was mainly reading the comments before I fully read the OP. Now, I am guess your comments were kinda satire. 

John_C_87

@Factfinder

Yeah that was the jist of my response to her. Sometimes I don't articulate well. One is a 2nd amendment right, the other is a privilege. (though I would say that's debatable personally. privilege to drive I mean.) I tried and failed to expose the folly of attacking the 2nd by sarcastically suggesting we go after the 1st. 

A common misconception of a United States Constitutional Right is that the order of Civil Right appears on the Bill of Rights is based on the time written, while in fact according to the Preamble it is measure and weighed by its level of perfection it contributes to a general welfare and established justice in a United State. Driving can be described as a United States Constitutional Right it is not ratified is the only limitation. You can hold the 2nd Amendment as your right to own a gun. You cannot hold the 2nd Amendment as a United State of Right for all people. Noteworthy to put in writing is that the United States Constitution has right that can be sued to take way the 2nd Amendment as it is not being conducted as a crime. Again, the issue is people are not choosing to follow the powers of Constitutional Right in this matter. 

Factfinder

John_C_87 said:

@Factfinder

Yeah that was the jist of my response to her. Sometimes I don't articulate well. One is a 2nd amendment right, the other is a privilege. (though I would say that's debatable personally. privilege to drive I mean.) I tried and failed to expose the folly of attacking the 2nd by sarcastically suggesting we go after the 1st. 

A common misconception of a United States Constitutional Right is that the order of Civil Right appears on the Bill of Rights is based on the time written, while in fact according to the Preamble it is measure and weighed by its level of perfection it contributes to a general welfare and established justice in a United State. Driving can be described as a United States Constitutional Right it is not ratified is the only limitation. You can hold the 2nd Amendment as your right to own a gun. You cannot hold the 2nd Amendment as a United State of Right for all people. Noteworthy to put in writing is that the United States Constitution has right that can be sued to take way the 2nd Amendment as it is not being conducted as a crime. Again, the issue is people are not choosing to follow the powers of Constitutional Right in this matter. 

I know the driving isn't ratified but how it it a privilege? We pay for roads, fuel and cars, if anything it's a service. And I have aright to get what I paid for, you know? Not a constitutional right but not a bureaucratically granted privilege either. In my opinion. 

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Australia was at it’s most law abiding when we were at our poorest. 

Yes sure and the sky is red. Whatever the truth might be a half brain exstream nit is going to come out and say the opposite to the truth and post false made up videos and newspaper clippings from sites that are closed down as evidence. Just so he can be as offensive and dishonest as he can. I would like to see that person stand on a box out side his local Walmart where he lives and try and preach that sort of crap to every body. Well like back in the poor days Ned Kelly and all the other bush rangers shot people and robbed them and banks and all the police and soldiers killed Abos for no reason at all. And year. We were all law abiding in them days.

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;I am a little confused by this argument.

Well thats totally understandable because every one else is going off in different tangents.

And that goes to the central core of what really gun control is all about.

For example it is important to join a firing range so that you can learn about the finer points of what gun control is all about. I know some firing rangers get you to run a round a field a couple of times and then get you to lie on the ground strait a way and fire off some rounds. Its all about controlling your breathing so you compensate for your fire arm going up and down as you breath in and out. Because in reel life situations thats what its all about. When you have been stalking and running after your victim you have no time to waist getting your breath back. Your got to hit the deck strait a way and go for the kill with one shot.