Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

How gun control impacts crime....just for Aaron
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post How gun control impacts crime....just for Aaron skinnybishop
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/3/15 8:00 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Skinny...let me get this straight Aaron Scott
The only thing the gun laws did was reduce suicides in people over a certain age?

And you mean to tell me that, contrary to the NRA's rabid beliefs, rampant murder didn't break out because of it being harder to get a gun?

See what I mean?

The point I am trying to get to is this: IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THESE MASS KILLINGS?

How do we keep such guns out these peoples' hands? Or do we? Can we? Should we?
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
10/3/15 8:30 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Skinny...let me get this straight georgiapath
Aaron Scott wrote:
The only thing the gun laws did was reduce suicides in people over a certain age?

And you mean to tell me that, contrary to the NRA's rabid beliefs, rampant murder didn't break out because of it being harder to get a gun?

See what I mean?

The point I am trying to get to is this: IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THESE MASS KILLINGS?

How do we keep such guns out these peoples' hands? Or do we? Can we? Should we?


You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals or crazy people.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7578
10/3/15 8:41 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Skinny...let me get this straight skinnybishop
Aaron Scott wrote:
The only thing the gun laws did was reduce suicides in people over a certain age?

And you mean to tell me that, contrary to the NRA's rabid beliefs, rampant murder didn't break out because of it being harder to get a gun?

See what I mean?

The point I am trying to get to is this: IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THESE MASS KILLINGS?

How do we keep such guns out these peoples' hands? Or do we? Can we? Should we?


The point I'm trying to make is an answer to your question: Will stricter gun laws reduce violence, crime, and mass murder in this county? The answer is No. Do you understand that?

Is there anything we can do to prevent mass killings? Not in terms of laws, etc.

It is nearly impossible to prevent a person from getting something they want. Alcohol was illegal to make, sell, etc. in this country, at one time. People got it. Weed is illegal in my state...people get it.

Pass all the laws you want.....if someone wants a gun, they will get it.

Make firearms illegal. Confiscate every gun in the country. Make it illegal to make guns. Stop the import of firearms..... Do whatever you want: People will still get guns and will still have the potential for mass killings.

Its not a gun problem Aaron...its a people problem
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/3/15 8:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
No, there's not. When people want to carry out a mass murder, they can do it without a gun. The 911 terrorists used box cutters to take control of the jets. No guns. What can you do to stop evil? Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/3/15 8:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Old Time Country Preacher
Eddie Robbins wrote:
No, there's not. When people want to carry out a mass murder, they can do it without a gun. The 911 terrorists used box cutters to take control of the jets. No guns. What can you do to stop evil?



Ban Box Cutters....................................and commercial jets.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
10/3/15 8:53 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Aaron, if you have an idea, propose it, and be specific.

Just going on and on that "we need to do something" doesn't advance the discussion at all.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/3/15 9:10 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Skinny Bishop Aaron Scott
Suicide is violence, isn't it? THAT was at least reduced.

In other words, assuming this is a valid study, nothing got worse...and somethings got better with gun control?

Hmmmm.... That would seem to be an argument FOR more gun control, wouldn't it?

Again, I am NOT for taking away guns. I have guns myself. I am thinking, though, that surely SOMETHING can and ought to be done to reduce the ability to inflict MASS casualties with guns.

We cannot stop every idea or idiot. But consider this thought problem: If everyone had a personal nuke, would we be more safe...or less safe? Now, if everyone had a butcher knife or baseball bat, would we be more safe...or less safe?

Whatever that principle may be, perhaps we can apply it to guns? It would be no less a tragedy if someone killed three people with a knife...but at least it wouldn't be 10, 11, 12, 13...20...etc. with a gun.

Again, we see that gun control DID reduce violence (suicide) and did NOT, apparently, embolden criminals.

Maybe, too, we are looking at THAT particular version of gun control...when another version might be vastly more effective. Possible?
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
10/3/15 9:12 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
Aaron is no different than Obama or Hillary in this. They have no specific proposal either. I heard Hillary say that we can change this just like her husband did with the Brady Bill and everybody cheeeeered!!!!! But nobody asked....how did the Brady Bill help? So, what law will stop mass killings? Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/3/15 9:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
This is a very serious problem, mass killings. CAn it be stopped? It is sorta like interpreting scripture. With experts, learned men and women cannot agree on certain scripture.

I think there are nuts in the NRA and there are some very wise people. I know there are intelligent folk on the 'Ban Guns' side along with NUTS. I wish there was an answer. I cannot see an answer to mass killings. There are too many killings that is for sure. Remember Sampson done some killing with the jawbone of an ass. (wasn't it?)

I am afraid of gun control myself, and I abhor the mass killings. In the USA IT IS MOSTLY GUNS used, but in Africa it was machetes before guns were introduced, Simpler to kill, but still the primitive ways are reverted to when the gun is not available.

Naturally I am old, ex military, white southern male, so I lean to No Gun Control. ... Sorta like our Prez said, 'the red necks'. ... hugging their guns and churches sorta contradictory looking from a liberal point of view I guess. ...
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24269
10/3/15 10:03 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
I ask....we're their murders before guns? Evil is evil. There were no drunk driving accidents before cars. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/3/15 10:05 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Skinny Bishop skinnybishop
Aaron Scott wrote:
Suicide is violence, isn't it? THAT was at least reduced.

In other words, assuming this is a valid study, nothing got worse...and somethings got better with gun control?

Hmmmm.... That would seem to be an argument FOR more gun control, wouldn't it?

Again, I am NOT for taking away guns. I have guns myself. I am thinking, though, that surely SOMETHING can and ought to be done to reduce the ability to inflict MASS casualties with guns.

We cannot stop every idea or idiot. But consider this thought problem: If everyone had a personal nuke, would we be more safe...or less safe? Now, if everyone had a butcher knife or baseball bat, would we be more safe...or less safe?

Whatever that principle may be, perhaps we can apply it to guns? It would be no less a tragedy if someone killed three people with a knife...but at least it wouldn't be 10, 11, 12, 13...20...etc. with a gun.

Again, we see that gun control DID reduce violence (suicide) and did NOT, apparently, embolden criminals.

Maybe, too, we are looking at THAT particular version of gun control...when another version might be vastly more effective. Possible?


Aaron, you literally all over the place with your argument. Arguing that decreased suicide is proof that gun control works is a serious stretch. What about the places where crime INCREASES in the face of stricter gun laws?

Let me ask you a point blank question: What do you want? Say you have a blank check for gun control. What do you do?

Don't say, "Make guns less accessible". That is not an answer.

You initiated this discussion with "Gun control is not evil". Tell me what you want.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/3/15 10:09 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Here are some SPECIFIC proposals.... Aaron Scott
I was hoping to crowd-source this, thinking that some might have good ideas on it. I don't know that mine make a bit more sense than anyone else's, but going on the assumption that doing something is better than doing nothing, let's proceed.

Anyone who owns more than three guns has to undergo more extensive background checks. (The recent mass killers tend to have at least a small arsenal.)

As in Canada, single-shot, low-caliber guns might have less requirements than semi-automatics and/or large caliber guns (this is the sort of rapid fire I was talking about; I know that automatics are not easily available).

There is a significant wait period for ALL guns, and an even longer wait period for larger guns.

You cannot buy guns or ammunition without your ID being associated with that purchase. Only if you have already passed a background check to own a gun can you purchase ammunition. You cannot buy ammunition for a gun you do not own or have registered.

I don't know that a single one of these would do a better job. All I know is that whatever we are doing NOW is not working. A single Sandy Hook is almost more than we can bear. And the truth is that if more people were so inclined, it could happen again and again and again.

If the answer is MORE GUNS, I'd be happy to go with that. But that doesn't seem to be the answer. In fact, it seems to ensure that the bad guys have easier access.

How do we make it HARDER for bad guys to get guns? That seems to be a key.

Also, since there is apparently no clear profile (although it does seem that many of them are young white men who feel excluded in some way), how do we make sure that the most vulnerable minds do not have access to such things?

Again, I am just making these proposals up on the fly. Just as a starting place. We should know that something is wrong when a Sandy Hook can take place. When a parent cannot even have an open casket funeral for their beloved child because of the damage done.

Forget the 2nd Amendment for a moment...and find a solution...or at least some way to improve things (it may be more of the 2nd Amendment, but find a way forward).
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
10/3/15 10:23 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
Your first proposal.... the law abiding citizens who have registered their guns will be subject to this. Everybody else, the bad guys, will not. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/3/15 10:47 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here are some SPECIFIC proposals.... skinnybishop
Aaron Scott wrote:
I was hoping to crowd-source this, thinking that some might have good ideas on it. I don't know that mine make a bit more sense than anyone else's, but going on the assumption that doing something is better than doing nothing, let's proceed.

Anyone who owns more than three guns has to undergo more extensive background checks. (The recent mass killers tend to have at least a small arsenal.)

As in Canada, single-shot, low-caliber guns might have less requirements than semi-automatics and/or large caliber guns (this is the sort of rapid fire I was talking about; I know that automatics are not easily available).

There is a significant wait period for ALL guns, and an even longer wait period for larger guns.

You cannot buy guns or ammunition without your ID being associated with that purchase. Only if you have already passed a background check to own a gun can you purchase ammunition. You cannot buy ammunition for a gun you do not own or have registered.

I don't know that a single one of these would do a better job. All I know is that whatever we are doing NOW is not working. A single Sandy Hook is almost more than we can bear. And the truth is that if more people were so inclined, it could happen again and again and again.

If the answer is MORE GUNS, I'd be happy to go with that. But that doesn't seem to be the answer. In fact, it seems to ensure that the bad guys have easier access.

How do we make it HARDER for bad guys to get guns? That seems to be a key.

Also, since there is apparently no clear profile (although it does seem that many of them are young white men who feel excluded in some way), how do we make sure that the most vulnerable minds do not have access to such things?

Again, I am just making these proposals up on the fly. Just as a starting place. We should know that something is wrong when a Sandy Hook can take place. When a parent cannot even have an open casket funeral for their beloved child because of the damage done.

Forget the 2nd Amendment for a moment...and find a solution...or at least some way to improve things (it may be more of the 2nd Amendment, but find a way forward).


I appreciate your response. Unfortunately every one of them is pretty easy to bypass if someone wanted to commit a crime.

What will an extensive background check for people owning more than 3 guns accomplish? If someone wants to commit a crime, it only takes 1 gun. Your suggestion is that people who want more than 3 guns are could be criminals, without reason.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that single shot, small caliber weapons are somehow not as dangerous as others....and should not be subject to laws that are as strict. Your suggestion leaves the door open for the same crimes we have seen in the past....with a different tool of the trade.

Your waiting period accomplishes nothing either. That suggestion assumes a potential shooter is going to act immediately, with a brand new weapon. A shooter can borrow or steal a gun....or simply wait the required time period and go to it.

Do you know we already have to present an ID to purchase guns? At least we do in Georgia. And you have to pass a background check or present a concealed weapons permit. (Which means you have been cleared by the FBI).

You don't to purchase ammo. But assuming your suggestion is passed, what does that accomplish? What does your proposed background check to purchase ammo accomplish? Again, you are assuming some guy decides he's going to shoot up a school....and strolls into Wal-Mart on the way to pick up his supplies.

If I don't have a record, what do your suggestions accomplish?
If I do have a record, I just get my buddy to buy what I need.


Anyway....I asked for some specifics and I do appreciate you answering. I don't agree with any of what you suggested...and think those restrictions are simple to overcome....but you did answer specifically.

Thanks
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/3/15 10:50 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post c6thplayer1
Mandatory arming of everyone. IF a perpetrator is shot by another civilian then so be it. Case ended. Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
10/3/15 10:53 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post John Jett
Aaron will defend a dead horse (one he shot) until the very end. He has no solution or facts, just feelings. Facts prove gun-control doesn't stop violence, it just gives the ones "in control" more "control".

Everyone has feelings, Here are mine: Gun-control is 100% about people-control as the president proves every time he opens his mouth about it. If it meant never taking a single gun off the street, he'd take that in a heartbeat if he could just get national-registration passed, he wants to know who has what first, then his party can deal with the rest later.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
10/3/15 11:23 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Response... Aaron Scott
Quote:
I appreciate your response. Unfortunately every one of them is pretty easy to bypass if someone wanted to commit a crime.

What will an extensive background check for people owning more than 3 guns accomplish? If someone wants to commit a crime, it only takes 1 gun. Your suggestion is that people who want more than 3 guns are could be criminals, without reason.

One of the things that I seem to see in this mass shootings is that the killers seem to have a "thing" for guns, and usually have several. Yes, it takes only one, but they often have a small arsenal. This background check is simply meant to MAYBE hinder that. Yes, it can be bypassed, I'm sure, but maybe it at least gives us a headstart.


Also, you seem to be under the impression that single shot, small caliber weapons are somehow not as dangerous as others....and should not be subject to laws that are as strict. Your suggestion leaves the door open for the same crimes we have seen in the past....with a different tool of the trade.

No, I fully realize that a .22 can kill you. But being shot with a .22 in the stomach would at least give us a fighting chance to survive. Being shot with a shotgun, not so much. Also, a single-shot, small caliber gun would not allow someone to take on an entire classroom as easily. You shoot once...you have to reload. I think we'd all prefer a killer enter a school with a baseball bat rather than a high-caliber, semi-automatic weapon.


Your waiting period accomplishes nothing either. That suggestion assumes a potential shooter is going to act immediately, with a brand new weapon. A shooter can borrow or steal a gun....or simply wait the required time period and go to it.

You are right--they can wait. But it would be hoped that such a wait gives authorities time to weed out at least SOME who shouldn't own a weapon...AND it gives the person time to change their mind, to maybe move on from that terrible moment, to be convinced otherwise, etc. No guarantees...just the hope that he might miss a window of opportunity he had in mind. Consider that if you wanted to do a Mardi Gras killing...but couldn't get the gun until after Mardi Gras, that would perhaps be a good thing, right?




Do you know we already have to present an ID to purchase guns? At least we do in Georgia. And you have to pass a background check or present a concealed weapons permit. (Which means you have been cleared by the FBI).

I understand. But I'm thinking that if you are KNOWN to have a 12 gauge and a .38, but are buying some other type of ammunition, the would be an anomaly that would indicate buying ammo for someone else...or for an unregistered weapon. If you are a bad guy, have gotten your hands on a .38, but then go to buy ammo for it, it would be an alert. No, it's by no means foolproof, but it is another barrier to the bad guy. He has to work a little harder, sends off alerts perhaps, all of these things to just push back against making it too easy to kill.




You don't to purchase ammo. But assuming your suggestion is passed, what does that accomplish? What does your proposed background check to purchase ammo accomplish? Again, you are assuming some guy decides he's going to shoot up a school....and strolls into Wal-Mart on the way to pick up his supplies.

Not necessarily a background check. Just associating the purchase WITH an ID. That is, you don't just show your ID, but it it recorded that YOU bought ammo, etc. So if you go to 20 different places, a flag is going to go up somewhere (or at least COULD go up). Also, if you are buying ammo for guns you don't have registered, another flag goes up. And if you are buying a large amount of ammo, another flag goes up. Doesn't mean you are arrested, just means that someone--or even a computer--can see that something unusual is happening. Just like if your credit card is stolen, a computer alerts the company that unusual purchases are being made.




If I don't have a record, what do your suggestions accomplish?
If I do have a record, I just get my buddy to buy what I need.

Right. It's not foolproof. But it does make it a little harder. For instance, if your buddy goes to buy you 12 gauge shells, but doesn't register as having a 12 gauge, that's a slow down. Maybe that means he can't buy them. Maybe that means a waiting period. Whatever we do with it, it might slow some things down. And for all we know, 10 seconds, an extra day, an extra week more, might have been enough to change everything.




Anyway....I asked for some specifics and I do appreciate you answering. I don't agree with any of what you suggested...and think those restrictions are simple to overcome....but you did answer specifically.

Thank you, bro. I know we see it a bit differently. I'm just casting my net hoping to find or provoke some good idea that might make a difference.


Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
10/3/15 11:33 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post georgiapath
John Jett wrote:
Aaron will defend a dead horse (one he shot) until the very end. He has no solution or facts, just feelings. Facts prove gun-control doesn't stop violence, it just gives the ones "in control" more "control".

Everyone has feelings, Here are mine: Gun-control is 100% about people-control as the president proves every time he opens his mouth about it. If it meant never taking a single gun off the street, he'd take that in a heartbeat if he could just get national-registration passed, he wants to know who has what first, then his party can deal with the rest later.


If he can get registration then he can take guns from the good guys, the bad guys will still be able to get guns. No way to stop them.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7578
10/3/15 11:36 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Armed guards at schools, or school employees/teachers armed and well trained for just such a scenario would work better than anything else at keeping schools safe. In every single case, these mass murderers either kill themselves or are themselves killed when confronted by police. Why let them have a head start by not having trained, armed protectors at schools all-ready, before the maniacal killers arrive at these supposedly gun-free zones? [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/3/15 11:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.