Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 18, 2019 14:39:19 GMT -5
I said Chicago because they are more restrictive than the state of Illinois. Not aware of how it stands when comparing to states. It is pretty ineffective to have strict laws so very close to a location that does not have strict laws. Let's take Mexico as an example. Their guns are almost all from the USA - brought over illegally. Just like Chicago is affected by the laws of Illinois, as well Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. A national standard would help evaluate the effectiveness of certain laws. Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,419
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 18, 2019 15:31:00 GMT -5
It is pretty ineffective to have strict laws so very close to a location that does not have strict laws. Let's take Mexico as an example. Their guns are almost all from the USA - brought over illegally. Just like Chicago is affected by the laws of Illinois, as well Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. A national standard would help evaluate the effectiveness of certain laws. Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them. Let's start at super extreme. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized (not something I am advocating for). There would still be some guns, but not nearly as many as there are now given that manufacturing guns us a legit business. The ones would wanted to break laws would have to find a smuggler or an illegal manufacturer. With less supply, the price would go up and there would be a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Getting a gun now is pretty easy. So, what national laws could be put into place to stymie the flow of guns? Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends. Maybe heat maps where they trace guns used in crime could be traced back to a dealer, and if there are too many crimes associated, that dealer can be shut down. Maybe chain of custody laws could keep people from leaving their guns unlocked where unauthorized people can get ahold of it (specifically, burglars). Statistically, counties with more controls have less gun violence and states that have more controls have less homicides and suicides. I'm not sure why law following citizens are so upset about following a few more laws to save thousands of lives (suicide and domestic violence). A little paperwork, maybe it takes a few days, etc, and a lot of people can be saved. There will still be people who have guns illegally, but the goal is less. Less opportunity for suicide. Less opportunity for domestic violence. Less opportunity for a gun to be used during a crime. So many countries have figured this out. But we refuse to even try. Especially that such a huge percentage of people support background checks and bans on violent offenders being issued guns - what's the harm to all those law abiders out there?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 18, 2019 15:48:59 GMT -5
Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them. Let's start at super extreme. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized (not something I am advocating for). There would still be some guns, but not nearly as many as there are now given that manufacturing guns us a legit business. The ones would wanted to break laws would have to find a smuggler or an illegal manufacturer. With less supply, the price would go up and there would be a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Getting a gun now is pretty easy. So, what national laws could be put into place to stymie the flow of guns? Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends. Maybe heat maps where they trace guns used in crime could be traced back to a dealer, and if there are too many crimes associated, that dealer can be shut down. Maybe chain of custody laws could keep people from leaving their guns unlocked where unauthorized people can get ahold of it (specifically, burglars). Statistically, counties with more controls have less gun violence and states that have more controls have less homicides and suicides. I'm not sure why law following citizens are so upset about following a few more laws to save thousands of lives (suicide and domestic violence). A little paperwork, maybe it takes a few days, etc, and a lot of people can be saved. There will still be people who have guns illegally, but the goal is less. Less opportunity for suicide. Less opportunity for domestic violence. Less opportunity for a gun to be used during a crime. So many countries have figured this out. But we refuse to even try. Especially that such a huge percentage of people support background checks and bans on violent offenders being issued guns - what's the harm to all those law abiders out there? I'm in favor of requiring a background check on any gun transaction. The fact that we don't seems ludicrous to me. I do think if a gun owner is lax with gun safety and someone dies, they should be held accountable. It gets a little murkier when your guns are stolen. My ex had a gun safe with a keypad so the kids couldn't get into it. But if the entire gun safe was stolen, I'm sure the thief would be able to get in eventually. As far as preventing suicides, I don't think that will help. This data is about 8 years old but at that point, Canada's suicide rate was on par with ours....some years highier, some years lower. What differed was how the people killed themselves. People that want to kill themselves will find a way. People that want to kill their spouse will find a way. politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/02/us-vs-canada-suicide-edition.html#.XdMCIm5FyUk
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 18, 2019 22:11:36 GMT -5
It is pretty ineffective to have strict laws so very close to a location that does not have strict laws. Let's take Mexico as an example. Their guns are almost all from the USA - brought over illegally. Just like Chicago is affected by the laws of Illinois, as well Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. A national standard would help evaluate the effectiveness of certain laws. Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them. Careful, you will confuse them with facts!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 18, 2019 22:26:35 GMT -5
Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them. Let's start at super extreme. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized (not something I am advocating for). There would still be some guns, but not nearly as many as there are now given that manufacturing guns us a legit business. The ones would wanted to break laws would have to find a smuggler or an illegal manufacturer. With less supply, the price would go up and there would be a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Getting a gun now is pretty easy. So, what national laws could be put into place to stymie the flow of guns? Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends. Maybe heat maps where they trace guns used in crime could be traced back to a dealer, and if there are too many crimes associated, that dealer can be shut down. Maybe chain of custody laws could keep people from leaving their guns unlocked where unauthorized people can get ahold of it (specifically, burglars). Statistically, counties with more controls have less gun violence and states that have more controls have less homicides and suicides. I'm not sure why law following citizens are so upset about following a few more laws to save thousands of lives (suicide and domestic violence). A little paperwork, maybe it takes a few days, etc, and a lot of people can be saved. There will still be people who have guns illegally, but the goal is less. Less opportunity for suicide. Less opportunity for domestic violence. Less opportunity for a gun to be used during a crime. So many countries have figured this out. But we refuse to even try. Especially that such a huge percentage of people support background checks and bans on violent offenders being issued guns - what's the harm to all those law abiders out there? a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Why would they turn in the one they already have, After all they are criminals, And now ,they have a a tool to take what ever they want from an unarmed society. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized!! Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends.
I thought all guns were outlawed, there would be no background checks. (suicide and domestic violence)
It means they would take drug, step in front of a semi, jump off a bridge. Domestic violence, kitchen knives ,and baseball bats.already being used in some cases.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 18, 2019 22:28:59 GMT -5
Perhaps this is a really dumb question (I have those often!) but if there are already laws on the books that criminals are ignoring (Chicago, for example), how would creating more laws stop crime? People like you and me will follow the laws and turn in our guns (well, I don't have any and I'm guessing you don't) but the criminals are still going to possess guns. Just like they do in Chicago and other places with very strict gun laws. We can confiscate all the guns we want, criminals will still get them. Heroin is illegal but we have overdoses every day because people that want drugs find a way to get them. Careful, you will confuse them with facts! ......says the guy who is ALWAYS confused by facts!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 18, 2019 22:33:08 GMT -5
It depends on who is stating the"FACTS"!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 18, 2019 22:36:03 GMT -5
For an example, When some state facts here, one needs to take it with a grain scoop shovel of salt!
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 18, 2019 23:52:19 GMT -5
Yeah, why bother believing anything truthful from some never Trumper human scum.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 19, 2019 8:54:31 GMT -5
Kinda interesting, Cali keeps passing more gun laws, the more people are shot! I thought passing all these gun laws were to make things safer!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 19, 2019 9:00:37 GMT -5
Kinda interesting, Cali keeps passing more gun laws, the more people are shot! I thought passing all these gun laws were to make things safer!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 19, 2019 9:10:35 GMT -5
Kinda interesting, Cali keeps passing more gun laws, the more people are shot! I thought passing all these gun laws were to make things safer! All the mass shooters, home invasion specialist, armed robbers, kidnappers, want to take time for thanking for Posting "This Is A Gun Free Area"
That way I know that I will not encounter any resistance other than an occasional fire extinguisher!! So all future criminal gun users would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation!! A BIG THANK YOU
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,419
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 19, 2019 10:04:19 GMT -5
Let's start at super extreme. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized (not something I am advocating for). There would still be some guns, but not nearly as many as there are now given that manufacturing guns us a legit business. The ones would wanted to break laws would have to find a smuggler or an illegal manufacturer. With less supply, the price would go up and there would be a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Getting a gun now is pretty easy. So, what national laws could be put into place to stymie the flow of guns? Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends. Maybe heat maps where they trace guns used in crime could be traced back to a dealer, and if there are too many crimes associated, that dealer can be shut down. Maybe chain of custody laws could keep people from leaving their guns unlocked where unauthorized people can get ahold of it (specifically, burglars). Statistically, counties with more controls have less gun violence and states that have more controls have less homicides and suicides. I'm not sure why law following citizens are so upset about following a few more laws to save thousands of lives (suicide and domestic violence). A little paperwork, maybe it takes a few days, etc, and a lot of people can be saved. There will still be people who have guns illegally, but the goal is less. Less opportunity for suicide. Less opportunity for domestic violence. Less opportunity for a gun to be used during a crime. So many countries have figured this out. But we refuse to even try. Especially that such a huge percentage of people support background checks and bans on violent offenders being issued guns - what's the harm to all those law abiders out there? a much smaller number of small time criminals who could get a gun. Why would they turn in the one they already have, After all they are criminals, And now ,they have a a tool to take what ever they want from an unarmed society. Let's pretend for a minute that all guns were outlawed and seized!! Maybe background checks would keep criminals from getting guns and giving them to their criminal friends.
I thought all guns were outlawed, there would be no background checks. (suicide and domestic violence)
It means they would take drug, step in front of a semi, jump off a bridge. Domestic violence, kitchen knives ,and baseball bats.already being used in some cases. You are correct that a law passed today wouldn't drop our gun violence rate to zero overnight. However, over time, those guns will break, get confiscated, get lost, etc. I'm also not advocating for immediate seizure of all guns, so don't attribute that to me. I am supportive of looking at laws that have worked and can be proven statistically to work, and would like those laws to become national standards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:29:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 12:51:21 GMT -5
I said Chicago because they are more restrictive than the state of Illinois. Not aware of how it stands when comparing to states. It is pretty ineffective to have strict laws so very close to a location that does not have strict laws. Let's take Mexico as an example. Their guns are almost all from the USA - brought over illegally. Just like Chicago is affected by the laws of Illinois, as well Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. A national standard would help evaluate the effectiveness of certain laws. I remember how well that worked with the 18th Amendment. Or more currently with the war on drugs. As an aside, firearms are about ready to go the way of the spear/knife. Due to advances in battery tech, LED tech. I just bought a class 4, five watt narrow beam laser, the size of a penlight, for $97, online. My 2 watt LED class 4 laser head, that required keyed, five pound plug in power source, is outdated already. 250% increase in power at 1/10th the size in five years.
|
|