HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Hmm. Laws do not keep guns away from ciminals? While that is true, from my perspective, it seems to be the wrong way of looking at it.
First of all, what do people mean when they say "criminal"? Are they talking about people with already established criminal records? Or does that include people with no criminal background who use a gun in the commision of a crime for the first time? Does it include the shooter from CT, and the one from V Tech, and the one from Aurora, who had no criminal records? The guns they used were bought legally. So, is that failure of "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" a sign that laws need to be made stricter about gun manufacture, sale, and ownership to prevent guns from legally getting into the hands of criminals, or a sign that having any laws would still allow would-be-first-time criminals to get weapons legally and thus those laws are useless?
The hand-in-hand argument that goes with this is the concern that "criminals" aren't getting guns legally, but are doing so ILlegally, and that any laws in place that restrict the legal purchase of guns only affects non-criminals who wish to LEGALLY procure firearms. My question to those who take this stance and argue that gun laws do nothing about weapons getting into criminal hands and thus these laws do no good, but actually do harm since non-criminals have a harder time getting weapons to defend themselves: is it truly just as easy for someone to get a gun illegally as it is to get one legally? Doesn't the process of background checks and waiting periods automatically put up even SOME amount of a barrier to someone getting a firearm, thus by definition making it "harder" for someone to get a gun? And doesn't someone who wants a gun to commit a crime automatically have a more difficult time getting one since he either has to go through the steps of a legal process or figure out the steps of the illegal process? Put another way, if there were NO laws about the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns, would there be absolutely no change in the ease with which criminals can get guns versus now, with some laws in place?
Furthering that question, I've seen people say gun control laws are useless and do nothing. Do they believe that the level of gun violence would be the same or even less if all gun laws were repealed?
What really gets to me is the people who bring up the "well cars kill more people than guns" and "sugar kills more people than guns" arguments. They say "why don't we ban cars and sugar". My response is, first of all, you are required to get a driver's license for a car, which requires x number of hours of driver's ed, a written test, a practical test, and the issue of an id card with your relevant info, which you have to renew every few years and which you have to update if you move to another state. So, yes, we regulate the permits for use of cars. Then, you have to register your car when you buy it, whether it's from a dealer or from a private owner; plus you have to have car insurance with certain amounts of liability coverage in case of accident to you or to someone else. So, yes, we have to let the government know about our vehicle and we have to have insurance on it to use it.Not only that, we have government regulations on safety for cars, like seatbelts and airbags and testing procedures and emissions in some states. So, yeah, those death machines known as cars are regulated and monitored and registered to a great degree.
While there are assumed to be over 300 million guns in the US versus 250 million cars, more than 90% of households own a car whereas somewhere between 30 and 50% of households own a gun. That means more people have access to a car than a gun. Also, cars get more daily usage than guns. So it makes sense that there are more deaths by car than by gun. If we 90% of households had guns, and we all used guns in our daily lives, then there sure as **** would be more gun deaths, perhaps even equal to the number of car deaths.
But the real kicker in my mind is this: why was the car invented? To transport people. Why was sugar "invented"? To sweeten food. Why was the gun invented? To kill things. Sure, regular law-abiding folk don't currently by guns "to kill people". I'm not saying that. But most secondary purposes for having a gun, whether it's for self-defense, or for hunting, or for deterrance, is directly related to the fact that it was invented to kill/destroy things. Shouldn't the object that was created for the purpose of killing be regulated in its manufacture and sale and ownership to an extraordinary degree?
Re: Guns and crime: The rate of both homicides and shootings has been dramatically decreasing in the U.S. Dec 18, 07:46
specifically, the schools, the particular theater, and the shopping mall all banned firearms, including those with Dec 18, 11:56
An interesting article from Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. He addresses Switzerland in a correction piece also linked. Dec 18, 09:02
More American Stupidity - richest country in the world - and no Universal HealthCare for its citizens - Pathetic. {nm} Dec 18, 15:13
From wikipedia, crime statistics and gun violence statistics for the U.S. Dec 18, 10:38
Hmm. Laws do not keep guns away from ciminals? While that is true, from my perspective, it seems to be the wrong way of looking at it. Dec 18, 13:53
That someone was an law enforcement officer, not some random citizen. {nm} Dec 18, 12:02
Pure luck. In his absence, a responsibly armed citizen would have been the next best thing. {nm} Dec 18, 14:51
Since I'm not a gun owner and thus haven't received training that I assume comes with earning a permit, does anyone know how Dec 18, 15:11
Requirements vary by state. Some requre yearly yearly renewal, some measure of performance. Others, probably just paperwork. Dec 18, 15:40
here are a few answers for you... Dec 18, 18:44
Thanks - it's interesting to see perspectives like this. {nm} Dec 18, 19:37
Thank you for taking hte time to explain your situation and experience with guns. It gives me better understanding and context Dec 18, 19:39
the reason the proficiency requirement was dropped... Dec 18, 20:27
Assumptions again. A wild wild west shootout could result in additional victims from an untrained civilians.. {nm} Dec 19, 08:59
(scratch 27; make that 26) {nm} Dec 19, 10:15
You get things like this happening with trained police officers. Dec 19, 10:50
I just provided an example of where involvement by trained police officers caused the unintended injury of eight people Dec 19, 11:46
I think you may find that Dec 20, 04:08
I was reading his blog last night, and it doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Dec 20, 07:18
Yes, I'm making another assumption to counter your assumption. {nm} Dec 19, 11:53
Learning how to shoot is not difficult. It requires time and patience. You put too much credit in with the govt {nm} Dec 20, 05:42
Largest massacre at a school ever didn't even involve guns. Eight pistols or even a good sword could have had same results Dec 19, 06:02
If you're talking about this one, it was 85 years ago and involved explosives. Are there controls on who can buy explosives? Dec 19, 08:23
If explosive regulation is so effective, why are we so afraid of terrorists? {nm} Dec 19, 21:40
Why would we use peoples' feelings to measure the effectiveness of regulation? {nm} Dec 20, 07:25
My point is that you cant' keep explosives out of a determined persons hands with regulation. Why would guns be different? Dec 20, 10:30
Bad arguments, or just ones you don't want to accept? Dec 20, 17:04
Heh - I probably shouldn't have checked in on Life board today. But anyway... Dec 21, 13:31