Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Thundercrack85]

I don't understand the argument that guns are needed for defense. Gun crime would go down if they were taken away, surely that's the fix?

No. It's cliche, but it's true, if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. Almost all guns used in crimes are illegally acquired.

In the United States the cities with the worst gun crime rates have the toughest gun laws.

Chicago is the best example. In DC, crime actually declined after they legalized handguns (they had been outlawed).

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's what we did down here in 1996, a gun buy back scheme, and it worked. One mass shooting is all it took for our conservative PM to make changes, he had objection from within his own party and our own gun lobbyist (who admittedly aren't nearly as big as the US ones), but morally he knew what the right thing was to do and in many ways defined his first term as Prime Minister. The results? We haven't had a mass shooting since because the ability to obtain firearms is a long process with lots of restrictions. Are we free of guns? Nope, and we never will, but we don't live in fear of our schools being shot up, we don't have security guards or metal detectors at schools, a parent can drop their child off and feel comfortable they're in a place of safety for the next 7 hours. The great irony is that the US tries to present itself as this great moral leader to the rest of the world yet seems to lack the morals to change their attitude toward shootings and guns in general.

There are more guns than people in the United States (that's more than 300 million). Guns are expensive. People value them. Good luck buying them all back.

You can't expect people to give up their property / right because of lunatics using them to kill people.

Granted, I don't think it's unreasonable to have restrictions on certain guns, but you seem to be talking about firearms period.

 

[jmc]

There are more guns than people in the United States (that's more than 300 million). Guns are expensive. People value them. Good luck buying them all back.

You can't expect people to give up their property / right because of lunatics using them to kill people.

Granted, I don't think it's unreasonable to have restrictions on certain guns, but you seem to be talking about firearms period.

The gun buy back scheme was for assault weapons not all guns, should have made that clear. Regardless, the message has to be gotten across that it's in the nations best interest to give up that piece of property. As for giving up their 'rights', people have the right to defend themselves, the manner in which they do so should come into question however. People don't need a piece of weaponry designed for rapid fire killings, from my perspective that's a bastardized interpretation of ones right to defend themselves in the name of owning something 'cool'. The question should be 'Why don't you want to give up your guns?'.

 

[dnno1]

In some schools in Israel, some of the teachers are trained and are armed themselves. No shooting massacres in those particular schools. It might have something to do with not being a soft target.

That is factually not true.


http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx

 

[Hawkingbird]

No. It's cliche, but it's true, if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. Almost all guns used in crimes are illegally acquired.

In the United States the cities with the worst gun crime rates have the toughest gun laws.

Chicago is the best example. In DC, crime actually declined after they legalized handguns (they had been outlawed).

But countries with a ban on guns for the public have lower gun crime completely?

 

[dnno1]

 

[dnno1]

 

[dnno1]

 

[dnno1]

[YT]64G5FfG2Xpg[/YT]

 

[Kable24]

How is the NRA planning on paying for all these armed guards? I suppose you could fire the teachers. That should about cover it.

4,000,000 NRA members at $35 a year a member plus any donations that donors give. I believe companies like Colt, Remington, Winchester, Brownells and others would help as well. I said I wouldn't have a problem with my dues going up to help fund the National School Shield.

 

[SV Fan]

4,000,000 NRA members at $35 a year a member plus any donations that donors give. I believe companies like Colt, Remington, Winchester, Brownells and others would help as well. I said I wouldn't have a problem with my dues going up to help fund the National School Shield.

That equals 140M dollars. Now let's say they go cheap on hiring these people(30k), that is about 4000 guards they can hire. There is about 100k schools in the US.

The best part if the people who want to implement this ridiculous plan would refuse to pay for the new taxes to implement it.

I would love to see a bill put infront of Republicans that says hey we will do this but we have to increase taxes to pay for it. Do they side with the NRA or Grover Norquist(ie don't raise my taxes guy)

 

[Kable24]

That equals 140M dollars. Now let's say they go cheap on hiring these people(30k), that is about 4000 guards they can hire. There is about 100k schools in the US.

Which is why I also said from donations from members and companies like Colt, Winchester, Remington, Taurus, Beretta, Brownells, but I guess you missed that. Most people don't realize that the NRA has some serious power in the right places.

I highly doubt all 100K schools would opt in. Some schools wouldn't have it because they allow their teachers to conceal carry (TX, OK etc) I guarantee most schools where the majority is to the left would opt out.
of course anything the NRA proposes is wrong in the eyes of the Left and media. The problem with most diehards on either side of the political spectrum is they are so blinded by their own stubbornness they don't want to compromise or see someone else's point of view.

 

[Paradoxium]

That's what we did down here in 1996, a gun buy back scheme, and it worked. One mass shooting is all it took for our conservative PM to make changes, he had objection from within his own party and our own gun lobbyist (who admittedly aren't nearly as big as the US ones), but morally he knew what the right thing was to do and in many ways defined his first term as Prime Minister. The results? We haven't had a mass shooting since because the ability to obtain firearms is a long process with lots of restrictions. Are we free of guns? Nope, and we never will, but we don't live in fear of our schools being shot up, we don't have security guards or metal detectors at schools, a parent can drop their child off and feel comfortable they're in a place of safety for the next 7 hours. The great irony is that the US tries to present itself as this great moral leader to the rest of the world yet seems to lack the morals to change their attitude toward shootings and guns in general.

Violent crimes, robbery and rape has increased across the board in Australia. So yea, it's a bit more complicated than that. Take Brazil, they did their ban. Their gun murder rate is many times higher than America still. It went up actually.

 

[Spider-Who?]

If I was a gunman who wanted to attack a school with an armed guard, he'd be my first target.

BAM! Now I've got his gun too.

If that was so easy, then whats the point of having armed guards ANY where?

 

[wiegeabo]

If that was so easy, then whats the point of having armed guards ANY where?

If they're rent-a-cops, not much. They rely on their presence to be a deterrent. Not really gonna deter a suicidal gunman.

Even if they are trained, you're going to need several, at least. Especially for those large high schools where it can take minutes to cross the campus.

 

[dnno1]

4,000,000 NRA members at $35 a year a member plus any donations that donors give. I believe companies like Colt, Remington, Winchester, Brownells and others would help as well. I said I wouldn't have a problem with my dues going up to help fund the National School Shield.

That equals 140M dollars. Now let's say they go cheap on hiring these people(30k), that is about 4000 guards they can hire. There is about 100k schools in the US.



I would love to see a bill put infront of Republicans that says hey we will do this but we have to increase taxes to pay for it. Do they side with the NRA or Grover Norquist(ie don't raise my taxes guy)

According to Lawrence O'Donnell, it would cost $6.7 billion to have an armed guard at every school in the Nation as Wayne La Piere would want. What the NRA would contribute wouldn't even amount to a sixth of what would be needed.

 

[jmc]

Violent crimes, robbery and rape has increased across the board in Australia. So yea, it's a bit more complicated than that. Take Brazil, they did their ban. Their gun murder rate is many times higher than America still. It went up actually.

Sorry man, but you have no idea what your talking about in regards to Australia, robbery and the murder rate has decreased since 1998. On average there's 1 murder for every 100,000 people in this country, and what was the weapon of choice? A knife. The US has had more shooting incidents in the days following the recent massacre than we've had in an entire 6 month period.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Is this "armed guards in schools" idea a serious suggestion, or is just a way for us to not look at guns and the regulations of them (which the NRA obviously doesn't want to do)?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Is this "armed guards in schools" idea a serious suggestion, or is just a way for us to not look at guns and the regulations of them (which the NRA obviously doesn't want to do)?

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

 

[dnno1]

Violent crimes, robbery and rape has increased across the board in Australia. So yea, it's a bit more complicated than that. Take Brazil, they did their ban. Their gun murder rate is many times higher than America still. It went up actually.

Sorry man, but you have no idea what your talking about in regards to Australia, robbery and the murder rate has decreased since 1998. On average there's 1 murder for every 100,000 people in this country, and what was the weapon of choice? A knife. The US has had more shooting incidents in the days following the recent massacre than we've had in an entire 6 month period.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

You did the right thing in illustrating the statistic as a population instance rate (per 100,000 people) since that gives you a comparison to the United States, which has more than four times that rate. One other point to make is that Australian citizens apparently never had the constitutional right to a firearm and the buy back program was only for specific types of firearms. Also just citing a general statistic for all homicides does not really give you an indication of what contribution came from the presense (or lack there of) of guns.

 

[dnno1]

Is this "armed guards in schools" idea a serious suggestion, or is just a way for us to not look at guns and the regulations of them (which the NRA obviously doesn't want to do)?

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

Actually, I'm taking it seriously. It may very well be a message to the right-wing noise machine and to pro-gun politicians that this should be the talking point and the bargaining chip to counter any legislation that would ban assault weapons and other firearms. I noticed that legislators like Diane Feinstien are already welcoming the suggestion, but are still insisting on other regulations that would prevent criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining a firearm.

Just for the record, there already are a number of schools who already have armed guards/law enforcement that either are on the school campuses or are within close proximity of the school. Columbine high school had an armed guard on campus at the time of the 1999 massacre and we should all know how that turned out.

 

[jmc]

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

You did the right thing in illustrating the statistic as a population instance rate (per 100,000 people) since that gives you a comparison to the United States, which has more than four times that rate. One other point to make is that Australian citizens apparently never had the constitutional right to a firearm and the buy back program was only for specific types of firearms. Also just citing a general statistic for all homicides does not really give you an indication of what contribution came from the presense (or lack there of) of guns.

According to last statistics published for 2011 39% of all murders in Australia were knife related, 40% of weapons were of an unknown origin, and guns made up 13%. Given there were 260 homicides during the last round of statistics that means 34 people were killed by firearms for the entire year. You are correct though, we don't have a constitutional right to carry firearms.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

And what if one of these armed guards snapped? Schools should remain gun-free zones.

 

[Baramos]

No. It's cliche, but it's true, if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. Almost all guns used in crimes are illegally acquired.

In the United States the cities with the worst gun crime rates have the toughest gun laws.

Chicago is the best example. In DC, crime actually declined after they legalized handguns (they had been outlawed).

Oh, come now, you know those gun laws came about because of the high amounts of murder and muggings in cities, not the other way around. You are putting the cart before the horse in the worst way.

Not to mention the rise in use of crack cocaine, a much more obvious cause for increases in crime in the inner cities in the '80s than a ban on guns.

The DC gun ban is still mostly in effect, to the tune of making it incredibly difficult to legally purchase and own a handgun, and the ban on assault rifles and large-sized ammunition magazines remains in force. If you want to argue the drop in crime rate was based solely on people having the possibility of owning a handgun, you may, but statistically you have no real data to say what the effect of a loosening of the gun ban will be.

EDIT: As for how to get people to give up their assault rifles, you simply make owning one a felony and give people 90 days to relinquish their assault rifles to collection centers. That's it.

Most people will willingly follow laws as long as they don't consider them blatantly unjustified. If you really think the majority of assault rifle owners will secret them away, risking prison sentences of something like a minimum of two years if they were ever discovered, I think you would be mistaken.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Sorry man, but you have no idea what your talking about in regards to Australia, robbery and the murder rate has decreased since 1998. On average there's 1 murder for every 100,000 people in this country, and what was the weapon of choice? A knife. The US has had more shooting incidents in the days following the recent massacre than we've had in an entire 6 month period.

Britain also have a lower gun crime rate.