ibx 2 #26 October 7, 2015 There is so much wrong with what suggest that I don't even know where to begin. I will try though... QuoteA uniformed police officer assigned duty at the school? Why not -Teaches kids to respect police -Deters drugs, fights, bullying -Builds on very successful community policing model So you think that every school, preschool and kindergarden should have an armed police officer on the premises on standby at all times? That will be - very expensive - only the best of best of police will considered for such an honorable cause - teaches children that they live with totalitarian overreaching government - the cop would be the first target of any assailant Quote Make it harder to purchase a gun? No -Guns are already out there. Ban sales and they are still present This is literally the only way to reduce the number guns in the population. How about you think of the future? But you are like lots of Americans, you only care for what is relevant for YOU right now. You obliviously don't care at all about the dead children of the future because it might mean minor inconvenience. Quote Strict safe storage laws? Yes -You are held liable for crimes committed by your gun -People want to sue the manufacturer or FFL dealer because a third part offender used the gun illegally. Trigger locks and slide locks are provided as mandated by law, so make it a law to USE them -Certain guns, or a certain number of guns should require the use of an approved safe -Failuremof this resulting in unauthorized use of your gun in a crime is your responsibility. You charges like accessory, criminal negligence, manslaughter. Why do you go to jail for killing someone while driving drunk, but not if your God takes your gun and kills someone else? Agree if enforceable. How do enforce those laws without giving up other rights like the 4th amendment? This is only enforceable by doing surprise visits to gun owners to check if they really comply. Making somebody indirectly responsible for anything is a very slippery slope and will lead great legal trouble.And rightly so. For this to even remotely work you would need national gun registry but you haven't thought of that have you? Quote Safe ammunition storage? Yes -Guns require ammo -Ammo should be locked up separately from the firearms Agree, again only makes sense if enforceable. Quote Your rights guaranteed when your house mate has a mental condition? No. -If someone in your household has been deemed to be a liability, you can still own firearms, but must keep them stored (properly and with trigger/slide locks)'at a friend or relatives house who is eligible to possess firearms Who deems people ineligible for a firearm? Who enforces this? Where are they registered? Quote These are all some solutions that I can think of off the top of my head, that I strongly believe would have prevented at least some of these mass shooters from doing what they did. Maybe you should think a little more about your "solutions". You know what would have most of those shootings? Decent mental health care and making it really difficult to buy firearms. QuoteWhat would be wrong with any of this? Everything you've wrote is poorly thought out bullshit, as demonstrated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #27 October 7, 2015 I'm sure the boy was part of a "Well regulated militia." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #28 October 7, 2015 jclalorI'm sure the boy was part of a "Well regulated militia." He was protecting his freedom fries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #29 October 7, 2015 blue_bert***You will also note that that article was from the UK. The U.K. banned all hand guns and severally restricted most long guns as the result of a school shooting. As a result, the rate of violent crime has increased by 74% and the number one weapon of choice has become the common kitchen knife. There is a group of Doctor advocating to put a ban on long and pointy knives in the UK. Talk about making stuff up! Thats a complete load of bull and i would love to know where you got that stat from? Actually I was being conservative in my numbers. It was 77% Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997-2007, violent attacks increased by 77% http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html You guys are living in a delusion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #30 October 7, 2015 Quoteviolent attacks And what is the definition of violent attacks? And did that definition stay the same for the duration of that term? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #31 October 7, 2015 ibxThere is so much wrong with what suggest that I don't even know where to begin. I will try though... QuoteA uniformed police officer assigned duty at the school? Why not -Teaches kids to respect police -Deters drugs, fights, bullying -Builds on very successful community policing model So you think that every school, preschool and kindergarden should have an armed police officer on the premises on standby at all times? That will be - very expensive - only the best of best of police will considered for such an honorable cause - teaches children that they live with totalitarian overreaching government - the cop would be the first target of any assailant Quote Make it harder to purchase a gun? No -Guns are already out there. Ban sales and they are still present This is literally the only way to reduce the number guns in the population. How about you think of the future? But you are like lots of Americans, you only care for what is relevant for YOU right now. You obliviously don't care at all about the dead children of the future because it might mean minor inconvenience. Quote Strict safe storage laws? Yes -You are held liable for crimes committed by your gun -People want to sue the manufacturer or FFL dealer because a third part offender used the gun illegally. Trigger locks and slide locks are provided as mandated by law, so make it a law to USE them -Certain guns, or a certain number of guns should require the use of an approved safe -Failuremof this resulting in unauthorized use of your gun in a crime is your responsibility. You charges like accessory, criminal negligence, manslaughter. Why do you go to jail for killing someone while driving drunk, but not if your God takes your gun and kills someone else? Agree if enforceable. How do enforce those laws without giving up other rights like the 4th amendment? This is only enforceable by doing surprise visits to gun owners to check if they really comply. Making somebody indirectly responsible for anything is a very slippery slope and will lead great legal trouble.And rightly so. For this to even remotely work you would need national gun registry but you haven't thought of that have you? Quote Safe ammunition storage? Yes -Guns require ammo -Ammo should be locked up separately from the firearms Agree, again only makes sense if enforceable. Quote Your rights guaranteed when your house mate has a mental condition? No. -If someone in your household has been deemed to be a liability, you can still own firearms, but must keep them stored (properly and with trigger/slide locks)'at a friend or relatives house who is eligible to possess firearms Who deems people ineligible for a firearm? Who enforces this? Where are they registered? Quote These are all some solutions that I can think of off the top of my head, that I strongly believe would have prevented at least some of these mass shooters from doing what they did. Maybe you should think a little more about your "solutions". You know what would have most of those shootings? Decent mental health care and making it really difficult to buy firearms. QuoteWhat would be wrong with any of this? Everything you've wrote is poorly thought out bullshit, as demonstrated. Many of our middle schools and high school already have an officer assigned to the school because of drugs and fights. There are 300 million guns in the population right now. Just stop selling them; nothing gets reduced. Laws are enforceable like EVERY other law, break it and something happens, you get caught and go to federal fuck you in the ass prison. Mental health professionals deem people unfit. How do you think people fail the NICS check for mental health problems now? But you are right. My ideas (which would probably pass congress) are rediculous and not worth giving it a try. Of course we know how effective passing gun control laws can be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #32 October 7, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteviolent attacks And what is the definition of violent attacks? And did that definition stay the same for the duration of that term? Murders, rapes, assaults causing serious bodily harm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #33 October 7, 2015 jbscout2002***Quoteviolent attacks And what is the definition of violent attacks? And did that definition stay the same for the duration of that term? Murders, rapes, assaults causing serious bodily harm The problem you have is that previous ot this ban, people in the UK weren't quite free to walk around with a loaded firearm on them. So, you will have to explain by which mechanism the 1997 act would have led to this increase you state. If you think that prior to 1997 it was normal/easy for the British to walk around with concealed guns, you are somewhat mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #34 October 7, 2015 QuoteActually I was being conservative in my numbers. It was 77% Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997-2007, violent attacks increased by 77% http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html You guys are living in a delusion If you actually read those articles, it is clear there is manipulation of the statistics on both political sides in the UK. The Conservatives arguing that violent crime increased 77%, and Labour arguing that violent crime has reduced. Which is true? I have no idea, but the report cited was compiled by the Conservative Party, not a neutral third party agency. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #35 October 7, 2015 Well, we can always continue with the cycle as it has been for the last 8 decades or so. To use what has been recently stated by another poster: -appalling tragedy -call for gun grab -scramble to grab what you can while you still can -gun sales increas -NRA support increases -conservative states relax gun laws -liberals grow frustrated and use increasingly dramatic jargon -red necks tout bumper stickers equating gun control to using both hands -cycle repeats "Keep doing what you've always done and you'll keep getting what you've always gotten" - Unknown Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #36 October 7, 2015 QuoteWell, we can always continue with the cycle as it has been for the last 8 decades or so. To use what has been recently stated by another poster: -appalling tragedy -call for gun grab -scramble to grab what you can while you still can -gun sales increas -NRA support increases -conservative states relax gun laws -liberals grow frustrated and use increasingly dramatic jargon -red necks tout bumper stickers equating gun control to using both hands -cycle repeats "Keep doing what you've always done and you'll keep getting what you've always gotten" - Unknown That's a complete non sequitor. What does that have to do with the fact that your UK violence statistics are in question? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #37 October 7, 2015 Are they in question? I made a statement, was told it was bull, and provided to sources that led me to conclusion of that statement. You are just disagreeing with the conclusivness of the results those two sources came up with during their investigations. Prove it wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #38 October 7, 2015 QuoteAre they in question? They have been questioned. By definition, they are in question. As far as proving them wrong, this link (from the Office of National Statistics) seems to directly contradict your sources, which were generated by one political party to malign another: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/index.html - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #39 October 7, 2015 so my source makes claim that less guns does not equal less crime. your source makes claim less guns has nothing to do with crime rates. someone can surely find a source claiming guns cause all that is evil. we are still at an impasse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #40 October 7, 2015 Actually, you used your source to claim that less guns equals massive rise in violent crime. My source says crime in the UK is falling, but doesn't say anything about the relationship between crime and availability of guns. Most likely, the impact of gun ownership rates on overall crime rates is miniscule. How about we stick to talking about common sense stuff we could do in the US to combat violent crime and leave the Brits out of it? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #41 October 7, 2015 DanGActually, you used your source to claim that less guns equals massive rise in violent crime. My source says crime in the UK is falling, but doesn't say anything about the relationship between crime and availability of guns. Most likely, the impact of gun ownership rates on overall crime rates is miniscule. How about we stick to talking about common sense stuff we could do in the US to combat violent crime and leave the Brits out of it? Well since a common theme is to use the UK as an example of how successful gun control is, I though I would show what the crime trends have been since they implemented it. Back to the U.S., nothing can be done. Any control measure offered up by a gun owner to prevent violence is immediately dismissed as stupid, or an attempt to change the subject. Any attempt to grab guns just won't pass congress. No one is willing to give up anything, when it does nothing to solve the problem at hand. 98% of the population are sheep 1% of the population are sheep dogs 1% of the population are wolves Doesn't matter what any law says, or what the most readily accessible weapon is. There will always be wolves. Sometimes they may stand out, sometimes they may be disguised as the sheepdogs (police or military bad apples), but most of them are dressed in sheep's clothing. Example: Gun ownership by country - 1. USA 88.8 per 100 residents 2. Yemen 54.8 per 100 residents 3. Switzerland 45.7 per 100 residents 4. Finland 45.3 per 100 residents Highest international homiced rate per 100,000 residents 1. Honduras 91.6 2. El Salvador 69.2 3. Cote D'Ivoire 56.9 4. Jamaica 52.2 (# 103. USA 4.8) http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf "Homicide Statistics 2012". UNODC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kadde 0 #42 October 8, 2015 jbscout2002 Highest international homiced rate per 100,000 residents 1. Honduras 91.6 2. El Salvador 69.2 3. Cote D'Ivoire 56.9 4. Jamaica 52.2 (# 103. USA 4.8) "Homicide Statistics 2012". UNODC. Looks great when you compare to contries like Honduras, great goals. When you look at the current list of homicides per capita you will also see that the US is in level of many African countries that are in Civil war, same level as Albania which is basicly controlled by criminals. Other western countries are pretty much all found at 1.0 or lower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #43 October 8, 2015 Kadde*** Highest international homiced rate per 100,000 residents 1. Honduras 91.6 2. El Salvador 69.2 3. Cote D'Ivoire 56.9 4. Jamaica 52.2 (# 103. USA 4.8) "Homicide Statistics 2012". UNODC. Looks great when you compare to contries like Honduras, great goals. When you look at the current list of homicides per capita you will also see that the US is in level of many African countries that are in Civil war, same level as Albania which is basicly controlled by criminals. Other western countries are pretty much all found at 1.0 or lower. The civilized communities in the U.S. are as safe as anywhere. The feral populations tend to skew the statistics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 October 8, 2015 winsor****** Highest international homiced rate per 100,000 residents 1. Honduras 91.6 2. El Salvador 69.2 3. Cote D'Ivoire 56.9 4. Jamaica 52.2 (# 103. USA 4.8) "Homicide Statistics 2012". UNODC. Looks great when you compare to contries like Honduras, great goals. When you look at the current list of homicides per capita you will also see that the US is in level of many African countries that are in Civil war, same level as Albania which is basicly controlled by criminals. Other western countries are pretty much all found at 1.0 or lower. The civilized communities in the U.S. are as safe as anywhere. The feral populations tend to skew the statistics. Like Chicago?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #45 October 8, 2015 South Chicago for sure.... Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbscout2002 1 #46 October 8, 2015 Kadde*** Highest international homiced rate per 100,000 residents 1. Honduras 91.6 2. El Salvador 69.2 3. Cote D'Ivoire 56.9 4. Jamaica 52.2 (# 103. USA 4.8) "Homicide Statistics 2012". UNODC. Looks great when you compare to contries like Honduras, great goals. When you look at the current list of homicides per capita you will also see that the US is in level of many African countries that are in Civil war, same level as Albania which is basicly controlled by criminals. Other western countries are pretty much all found at 1.0 or lower. How about comparing to Europe then, with all the EU's praised gun control? Homicide rate per 100,000 residents according to most recent UNODC reports: Greenland 19.4 Russia 9.2 Lithuania 6.7 Moldova 6.5 Belarus 5.7 Estonia 5.0 Latvia 4.7 USA 4.7 Ukraine 4.3 How about some of our favorite vacation spots? U.S. Virgin Islands 52.6 Belize 44.7 Jamaica 39.3 Bahamas 29.8 Dominican Republic 22.1 Cayman Islands 14.7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #47 October 8, 2015 turtlespeed*** The civilized communities in the U.S. are as safe as anywhere. The feral populations tend to skew the statistics. Like Chicago? The gang infested areas, for sure. The higher socio-economic neighborhoods, not at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 October 8, 2015 AnvilbrotherSouth Chicago for sure.... which includes St Louis then ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #49 October 8, 2015 And Atlanta, New Orleans Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #50 October 8, 2015 Where're you from? Chicago. Oh? Where in Chicago? Outside Chicago. Oh? Where outside Chicago? Milwaukee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
