Time for stricter gun legislation in the US yet??

Stricter laws on guns?

  • Hell yeah. We need a big ban covering alot of guns and how people get them

  • Not a ban. Just more legislation

  • Gun control isn't the problem

  • DON'T TAKE AWAY MY BIRTH RIGHT COMMIE!!

Results are only viewable after voting.
Mr Kris said:
Hello again,

I posted back on page 3 and don't really have the time at the moment to read every post since then, but from the last few pages it doesn't look like anyone has thrown out some real numbers yet. So here are some numbers:

(All of these numbers come from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm or http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm. The second site is a government site, and the first happens to actually cite its sources. As with any numbers that are results from statistical surveys or analysis, take the results for what you will.)

My comments are in bold.

 * In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

So, 764000/10369= 73.7... guns were used 73.7 times to defend against a criminal for every gun murder in 1997. The DoJ page has a different murder figure of 12,346 (presumably these are results of different statistical studies). Even with this number, it is 61.9 defenses per murder. The total number of gun crimes for 1997 from the DoJ page is 414,530... which again, is less than the number of gun defense uses. Also note that if you look at the DoJ page, you'll see that gun violence is down since 1997, but gun ownership is up.


* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Homicide rate: Florida -36%, United States -0.4%
Firearm homicide rate: Florida -37%, United States +15%
Handgun homicide rate: Florida -41%, United States +24% (3)


1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

If you haven't been able to tell yet, yes... I'm a responsible gun owner. I really think that most public fears surrounding guns are due to a simple lack of good information about them. I own several firearms and I shoot weekly. I've introduced many friends to shooting sports, several of which were afraid, but now come to shoot with me on a regular basis. I also like Batman, Transformers, flying stunt kites, and The Office. I thought 300 was great and Daredevil sucked. Guns are something I enjoy as part of my pretty much normal lifestyle.

There's a lot of incorrect gun terminology in this thread and a lot of misconceptions, but I don't really have time to point them all out. If you're saying things about guns and all you have is a second-hand, third-hand, or internet blog knowledge, please take the time to do some real research.

Yes, it is very sad when guns are used to commit crimes. It's equally sad when inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of people. May as well blame Budweiser for every drunk driving death and the water company for drownings.
Click to expand...

Very good, informative post :up:
 
i wrote a letter today to the michigan governer and senator about suggestions for gun legislation.
 
you know...I dont think it'll work...at this point, guns are like a**holes, everyones got one...and there's no real good way to get rid of them all...if you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns is outlaws, as the saying goes, and it's far too late in the game to fix that in this country
 
The Joker said:
you know...I dont think it'll work...at this point, guns are like a**holes, everyones got one...and there's no real good way to get rid of them all...if you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns is outlaws, as the saying goes, and it's far too late in the game to fix that in this country
Click to expand...

i know it'll likely due little if anything, but at least i tried to be pro-active about some thing i believe in...rather than just b**ching about it like most people do. and i know an outright ban will never work. i think legislation should be written to allow responsible gun owners their right to bear arms, while those unfit will find it harder to do so legally.
 
the right to BEAR arms? heh heh, I just go the funniest image in my head of a redneck with a "no fat chicks" shirt, confederate flag hat, and big bear arms :o
 
the letter i wrote:

Dear Governor Granholm,

I am a 24 year old Michigan citizen who has long been disgusted with man’s inhumanity and intolerance towards one another, specifically in America’s awkwardly gun obsessed culture. My concern with this was recently emboldened with the tragic shooting of thirty-two people at Virginia Tech University.

Though, the problem with gun violence is hardly exclusive to school shootings. Gun violence is a genuine problem in America that occurs on a daily basis. Everyday, lives are destroyed because of guns. Yet, the government has taken little action to refine gun legislation to effectively diminish the problem. Bolder gun legislation is far overdue. Too many innocent lives have been lost to guns to ignore the problem any longer. To not take action on this immediately will result in unnecessary lives being lost to guns in the future. You are in a powerful position to actually save lives! Do not let this opportunity pass you by.

The fact that someone who is willing to kill another person is able to easily purchase a gun is proof enough that current gun legislation is flawed. While the law will never be perfect, nor will it wipeout gun violence completely, it can be made far more effective. Pro gun advocates will argue that tougher legislation will only result in ‘good people’ having less guns to protect themselves while ‘bad people’ will be free to roam with illegal guns. This is not the case. Proper legislation would allow responsible people to own guns, while those unfit will find it harder to do so legally. And while a criminal would have no qualms with owning a gun illegally, it would be harder for them to do so and far more expensive. Some would debate that the criminal would merely commit crimes to get the money to buy an illegal firearm. In my opinion, they’re planning on committing crimes anyways. At least now, they will be doing so with far less lethal means. In addition to that, their committing of said crime will make them more likely to be remanded by police before they are able to obtain an illegal weapon to commit far greater and violent crimes with.

While I am no expert on gun legislation, here are some suggestions I think should be seriously considered:

-All automatic and military grade weapons should be illegal. Guns should be owned for two reasons, hunting and self-defense. These weapons are highly unnecessary for both. They are made and designed to obliterate and slaughter. There is no rational reason a civilian needs to own this.

-Mandatory psych evaluation for anyone who wishes to obtain a gun license/permit, at the expense of the potential gun owner. Anyone who wishes to own a weapon that is designed to kill should be of sound mind and be able to rationalize in a sane manner.

-Mandatory gun safety, maintenance, and training classes for anyone who wishes to obtain a gun permit/license, at the expense of the potential gun owner. At the end of the term, the potential gun owner must pass an exam. Anyone wishing to own such a deadly device needs to have a clear understanding of the weapon, how to use it properly, safely, and when it’s acceptable to use such lethal force. This should not be a one off class, but a long and intense course of classes that must be passed to obtain a permit/license.

-Gun permit/license must be renewed every 5 years, which includes psych evaluation and gun safety/maintenance exam. If someone wants to own such a deadly weapon, it needs to be ensured that said gun owner is capable of being a responsible gun owner, and not a danger to society.

-You can only purchase one gun every six months. Within a twelve-month period, of the two guns one is able to purchase, only one of those may be a concealed handgun. This will allow collectors to still collect guns, but deter a dangerous person from assembling a formidable arsenal quickly without notice.

-With the exception of law enforcement and military officials, you must be twenty-five to own/carry a concealed weapon such as a handgun. People under twenty-five are still highly persuaded by youthful and violent pressures. They are less likely to have the proper life experiences to rationalize justifiable use of a concealed weapon. Disarming those under twenty-five who already own a concealed weapon will likely be an issue. But, I believe a reasonable plan can be devised giving them incentive to do so. And anyone who is found not to be abiding the law will be reprimanded appropriately.

-You cannot carry more then one concealed weapon on your person at any time. Concealed weapons are carried for protection. There is no reason someone needs to have more than one handgun in his or her possession for the sake of protection. One should be more than sufficient.

-Gun clips can carry no more than ten rounds of bullets. One cannot carry more than two gun clips on their person at any time. If one is carrying a handgun for protection and not for any ill intent, then two clips of ammunition are quite gracious. If someone goes on a shooting spree, clips limited to carrying ten rounds will require them to reload more often, giving people a greater chance to flee with their lives.

-Gun shows must perform background checks on buyers. This just seems like common sense. Gun shows should not be exempt from this law. It is because of this loophole that the shooters at Columbine were able to obtain their weapons.

-Those who wish to obtain a concealed weapons permit/license must submit fingerprints to be kept on file. Clearly the most controversial of suggestions and most likely to be met with opposition, but this would greatly deter people from using concealed handguns illegally. Those who wish to own such a deadly weapon need to be easily identified.

Formidable opposition will likely be met by pro-gun advocates and the NRA. But, it needs to be made clear that legislation is being made to allow them their right to bear arms responsibly in the name of self defense, while at the same time not allowing those who mean others harm to own the tools to efficiently do so. No one’s rights are being lost, but lives will be saved.

Too many families have been destroyed because of gun violence. It’s time to stop reacting with grief and sympathy to the victims, and start being pro-active to diminish the problem. This is a nationwide issue, and Michigan can take a strong stance to lead the way to an effective solution. Detroit has a national reputation for its violence. If we can show the country progress there, they would be greatly inclined to follow suit. While immediate results may not be apparent, I strongly believe the results of tougher gun laws can be obvious within five years time. But, this will only be possible with an unwavering hard lined stance advocating much necessary change.

You have before you a choice to be made. Are you going to choose to stand for what’s right or wrong? Are you going to fight for saving lives, or allow more lives to be lost to senseless violence? Next time another life is lost due to a gun, are you going to be comfortable knowing you did all you can to stop that, or are you going to regret not doing more?

Sincerely,
T.J.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Kris
Hello again,

I posted back on page 3 and don't really have the time at the moment to read every post since then, but from the last few pages it doesn't look like anyone has thrown out some real numbers yet. So here are some numbers:

(All of these numbers come from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm or http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/...uncrimetab.htm. The second site is a government site, and the first happens to actually cite its sources. As with any numbers that are results from statistical surveys or analysis, take the results for what you will.)

My comments are in bold.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

So, 764000/10369= 73.7... guns were used 73.7 times to defend against a criminal for every gun murder in 1997. The DoJ page has a different murder figure of 12,346 (presumably these are results of different statistical studies). Even with this number, it is 61.9 defenses per murder. The total number of gun crimes for 1997 from the DoJ page is 414,530... which again, is less than the number of gun defense uses. Also note that if you look at the DoJ page, you'll see that gun violence is down since 1997, but gun ownership is up.


* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Homicide rate: Florida -36%, United States -0.4%
Firearm homicide rate: Florida -37%, United States +15%
Handgun homicide rate: Florida -41%, United States +24% (3)


1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

If you haven't been able to tell yet, yes... I'm a responsible gun owner. I really think that most public fears surrounding guns are due to a simple lack of good information about them. I own several firearms and I shoot weekly. I've introduced many friends to shooting sports, several of which were afraid, but now come to shoot with me on a regular basis. I also like Batman, Transformers, flying stunt kites, and The Office. I thought 300 was great and Daredevil sucked. Guns are something I enjoy as part of my pretty much normal lifestyle.

There's a lot of incorrect gun terminology in this thread and a lot of misconceptions, but I don't really have time to point them all out. If you're saying things about guns and all you have is a second-hand, third-hand, or internet blog knowledge, please take the time to do some real research.

Yes, it is very sad when guns are used to commit crimes. It's equally sad when inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of people. May as well blame Budweiser for every drunk driving death and the water company for drownings.
Click to expand...

Good post, however I'd like to point to the part in red bold. chances are that a lot of the time those victims were other criminals. I'm coming to that assumption, because when you take into consideration the odds of the right person with a gun being in the right place at the right time, and then take into consideration the daily events of the criminal lifestyle. their victims are not random victims of crime most of the time. It's often a criminal dealing with another criminal. Druggie ripped off drug dealer. Drunk idiot fighting other drunk idiots.

these numbers do mean something for the debate obviously, however it depends what your debating.

Gun banning verses gun ownership?

or gun rights verses smart gun control laws. If a gun control law isn't helping, then you abolish it. that does not lessen the merrit of a sperate gun control law.

I support the right to carry concealed weapons, and the right to own hunting rifles and hand guns.

I also support 3 day waiting periods.
No legal access to felons
renewing the ban on federal assault weapons
Mandatory safety locks on all guns sold in america from now on

the fact that guns have helped people in certain situations does not change the fact that "smart" gun control laws can help make the gun situation better. You yourself put emphasis on responsible gun ownership, and I consider many gun control laws to be responsible gun management.

and I also support my own gun control plan.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11531639&postcount=204

edit.. I would have liked for the statistics to be more specific, especially with the defending themselves from criminals thing. are they defending themselves from kids teeping their lot on halloween?
 
Motown Marvel said:
the letter i wrote:



-Mandatory psych evaluation for anyone who wishes to obtain a gun license/permit, at the expense of the potential gun owner. Anyone who wishes to own a weapon that is designed to kill should be of sound mind and be able to rationalize in a sane manner.

-
-Gun permit/license must be renewed every 5 years, which includes psych evaluation and gun safety/maintenance exam. If someone wants to own such a deadly weapon, it needs to be ensured that said gun owner is capable of being a responsible gun owner, and not a danger to society.

-You can only purchase one gun every six months. Within a twelve-month period, of the two guns one is able to purchase, only one of those may be a concealed handgun. This will allow collectors to still collect guns, but deter a dangerous person from assembling a formidable arsenal quickly without notice.

Sincerely,
T.J.
Click to expand...

I personally am not satisfied with those two. A person with a real reason to feel danger, might come off as paranoid or delusional. A person who has been abused and is afraid that their abuser will return, might be seen as too depressed.

I know these school shootings re-ignite the gun control debate, however school shooting are very rare. The columbine incident is obviously relevant because they were using assault weapons, but in this incident, the real problem was that the man was crazy.

However, the guy shouldn't have been able to buy one without a background check, or a 3 day waiting period.

And I'm not entirely against psych evaluations, I just hope they are very specific, and they don't generalize every person who is a little less than happy and perfect.
 
Spider-Bite said:
I personally am not satisfied with those two. A person with a real reason to feel danger, might come off as paranoid or delusional. A person who has been abused and is afraid that their abuser will return, might be seen as too depressed.

I know these school shootings re-ignite the gun control debate, however school shooting are very rare. The columbine incident is obviously relevant because they were using assault weapons, but in this incident, the real problem was that the man was crazy.

However, the guy shouldn't have been able to buy one without a background check, or a 3 day waiting period.

And I'm not entirely against psych evaluations, I just hope they are very specific, and they don't generalize every person who is a little less than happy and perfect.
Click to expand...
well, my letter wasnt about school shootings specifically, just that the recent incidents emboldened my stance on gun control. i wrote this to help diminish gun violence in general. and yes, the psych exams should be quite thorough. i think it'd be approproiate for the state to put together a list of state sponsored doctors to conduct these exams. and its only with the approval of a state sponsored doctor that you could get your permit/license. and i appreciate the comments. thanks.
 
Kaine, I already said my opinion on LSP, but you're still an idiot.
 
so wait convicted criminals can't buy guns but people with mental health problems can.
 
The Joker said:
you know...I dont think it'll work...at this point, guns are like a**holes, everyones got one...and there's no real good way to get rid of them all...if you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns is outlaws, as the saying goes, and it's far too late in the game to fix that in this country
Click to expand...


Around 10 - 20% of guns in the hands of criminals are stolen from law abiding citizens :)
 
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But the VA Tech shooter was here on a foreign visa. It was illegal for him to possess a gun...and yet he had one. Look at how good the ban did.
 
They should just make it harder for immigrants to get guns... but they shouldnt eff up the my right to bear arms.
 
Matt said:
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But the VA Tech shooter was here on a foreign visa. It was illegal for him to possess a gun...and yet he had one. Look at how good the ban did.
Click to expand...

no he wasn't his parents moved here when he has 8...:huh:
 
Justice Bringer said:
They should just make it harder for immigrants to get guns... but they shouldnt eff up the my right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

then you get into dangerous territory of inequality based on birth. You can't have a gun because your foreign can be a form of discrimination. Then what happens if they become a US citizen- do they automatically have the right to a gun? Not all gunmen are foreign. The NRA argues self protection, does that mean foreigners don't have the right to protect themselves?
 
alsio, the concept of a foreigner in america is ridiculous

YOU'RE ALL FOREIGNERS

Actually, **** this a great idea. That way only the native americans will be allowed guns and they're actually smart enough to see that they don't need a shotgun to be happy :o

finally

04nbod said:
then you get into dangerous territory of inequality based on birth. You can't have a gun because your foreign can be a form of discrimination. Then what happens if they become a US citizen- do they automatically have the right to a gun? Not all gunmen are foreign. The NRA argues self protection, does that mean foreigners don't have the right to protect themselves?
Click to expand...

Agree 100% No-one should have guns, let alone only one section of the population
 
He WAS nationalised anyway

He'd been living in the states since he was eight

It's interesting that when was just another college student he was accepted as an american yet once he goes on a shooting spree it's all

"no, he can't be one of us, let's start calling him Korean again and pretend the whole green card thing never happened"

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Teelie
The gun violence thread. Or someone(s) got shot.
Replies
13
Views
3K
Immortalfire
Immortalfire
That'ssuper!
  • Poll Poll
Fan Fiction: Indiana Jones and the City of Gold
Replies
11
Views
2K
That'ssuper!
That'ssuper!

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,658 (members: 22, guests: 2,636)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,287
Messages
22,079,480
Members
45,881
Latest member
semicharmedlife

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"