4
   

Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?

 
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 12:32 pm
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/12/21/what-difference-would-banning-guns-make-n1471616/page/full/

Quote:
In the wake of the Newtown school massacre, we've noted a strong uptick in our site traffic by people wanting to find out how different the U.S. might be if the nation adopted Canada's much more restrictive firearms laws. This post gathers all our analysis on that topic from 2011 in one place......
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 4,929 • Replies: 129

 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 12:38 pm
@gungasnake,
The big difference is that the unarmed civilian will not longer
have the chance to defend themselves from armed criminals.
Crime and murder rates would climb.

Turning our back on the US constitution is NOT the solution.
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 01:02 pm
@H2O MAN,
I concur, though safety products for gun safety should be low in price and readily available if that attitude persists.

I do not see street level safe dealers, I see gangsters who do not go to town to carry **** home or to the ride.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:08 pm
OK, Wild idea - Even though it can dish out death, the primary function of a firearm is as a deterrent .
The better armament is a taser - this can both disarm and debilitate an aggressor/intruder without having fatal consequences.
Miss a vital organ with a handgun and the, now fingerless/earless aggressor/intruder is going to be pissed and more determined.

So I vote to replace all guns with tasers.
DavJohanis
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2012 05:49 pm
@mark noble,
Very very good idea.

I vote to give central command at police HQ the power to unlock vaults or code racks via up-link, for mad murderous rampages. Shotguns in vans every few, within certain ranges, which cannot be removed without more than oxy acetylene. And kill in two hits.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 05:54 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
So I vote to replace all guns with tasers.
Men with tasers have small penises. Men with GUNS however... well ok, they still have small penises, but with a nice BIG gun they can forget about their small penis for a while. Wink
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 06:23 am
@mark noble,
I've posted this before but you clearly missed it...


There are four basic reasons for the second ammendment in the United States.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major reason for it.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e. to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The problem with drug-dealers owning AKs is a drug problem and not a gun problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:

1. Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

2. Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

3. Clamp a permanent legal lid down on top of anybody peddling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.

4. Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself and your family from criminals and wild animals. In fact, the second amendment is basically an idea whose time has come all over the world. Why on Earth should people in India tolerate having 80,000 of their number killed every year by snakes? That could simply not happen in a nation whose people were armed.

And there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans (and others from more rural areas and places in which laws and customs had remained closer to those which the founding fathers envisioned) will tell you that while money was scarce, they always had 22 and 30 calibre ammunition, and that they always had something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit forming. In any sort of a down economic situation, that fourth rationale for the second amendment quickly becomes the most important.

rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 06:32 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:
...

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.
I may not agree with you on many things. But I've always agreed with you on passing rational drug laws. The "War on Drugs" is not only a failure, but it is actually creating many of society's more severe problems. In short; "Drugs are not the problem, the 'War on Drugs' is the problem."
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2012 06:32 am
@gungasnake,


A number of very interesting articles linked from this page.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2012 02:40 am
@rosborne979,
You fail to see the crime drugs reduce.. (shoulda replied all again, sorry)
Although I agree with your conclusion, should such succeed.

We are seeking alternatives at the same time you are attempting to remove drugs, always those people not wasting away, who have no hope of brotherhood or future, require peace at home, they get it any way they can, revolution of small or large eventuality occurs because of that.

Hammering back 'allow Valium' is not the way forward to 'end illegal substances'.

Nor ultimately is marijuana the problem, though we will hypocritise ourselves amidst it, even as we age we sometimes realise the negative effects are too much.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2012 02:46 am
@DavJohanis,
"Of little consequence to me", is what we are saying in a sane world.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2012 12:16 pm
@rosborne979,

Who is responsible for the official measurement of said penises? Is she cute?
0 Replies
 
amandanyc17
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:14 am
@gungasnake,
Short Answer: Zero. Nil. None. I think the Swiss got it right when it comes to gun control - that awareness, education and respect is the key. Problem is that America's gun culture is something that you can't change overnight - with or without guns.

There's just this argument that once you outlaw the guns, the real outlaws will have more access to guns. Then, they're now looking for the perfect scapegoat where gun violence is concerned. Like, I've read this argument on eQuibbly that mentally ill persons should be forced to seek medical treatment.. because they pose an imminent threat? How true is this.. really. Because there's no real way of knowing if someone has the crazy genes that will make him/her go on a shooting spree. Science hasn't unraveled the mysteries of the human mind yet.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2012 09:51 am
0 Replies
 
DavJohanis
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 08:37 am
@amandanyc17,
I agree with your post, but the term 'crazy genes' is scientifically innacurate due to the amount of difference being slight across the areas of hostility, even between the oppositions, that there is a more prone to aggression set of genes, does not mean that they are dissimalar enough for it to be classed as a 'crazy gene' .. Especially if you consider the opposing situation, that because you have a more 'calm' gene, you are a 'sheep gene' carrier.. Who would wish to be called that, you ignorant fool?.

Feeling Jewish?
Because poppers might feel Nazi at what you said.

And before you assume I am one of those people who calmly tolerates their condition and develops immunity to explosion as the rest of us do.. I am a mercury poisoned individual, I am 'crazy'...

Genetics has 'nil' to do with it. Mill that around your genetic principality which attempts to ridicule certain people off the Earth.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 09:37 am
@gungasnake,
Gun advocates often claim that guns do not kill people; people kill people. However, I wonder how many gun advocates took algebra with the lesson on Venn diagrams, where the two circles intersecting show where two separate criteria are applicable. Meaning: guns do not kill people; people with guns kill people. The fact that people can kill people with another mode of killing does not negate that fact that in the hands of a person, a gun can be used for killing (at least until animals learn how to use a gun).

Anyway, banning guns would, if I understand your post, possibly make us ripe for invasion by a foreign power that was not concerned about the military prowess of our armed forces, and would only be concerned with the straight shooting prowess of private citizens.

Plus, self-defense situations would not have the benefit of an old western style quick draw shoot out (especially in "stand your ground" states). And, during hard times, folks would have to put out animal traps for food, rather than have the fun experience of shooting their dinner.

Banning guns would also eliminate the many gun accidents at home, or the inebriated person deciding to do target practice not far from other civilians, who might be somewhere behind the target.

Banning guns would also eliminate the possibility of future vigilante style justice when there was some situation that totally offends the sensibilities of some group of people.

All in all, banning guns would force many people to try very hard to believe that civilized behavior needs to be the operating principal of society. It could eliminate a lot of "joy in Mudville," to quote a poem about baseball.

Oh yes, banning guns would make the lives of spouse, children and families of law enforcement officers much less stressful, since today they never know when the law enforcement officer could be shot while on duty. Now naturally, the bad guys have guns; however, banning guns could include all sorts of creative ways to take guns out of circulation, so the bad guys would not only have fewer guns, but many bad guys could not afford the inflated prices of guns on any "gun black market." In effect, banning and eliminating guns, from civil society will be like eliminating a disease with vaccines; it takes years until the disease is conquered (i.e., smallpox).
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 09:44 am
@amandanyc17,
amandanyc17 wrote:

...There's just this argument that once you outlaw the guns, the real outlaws will have more access to guns.


I do not believe that, since once guns would be outlawed, only a black market would exist for guns, and the cost of a gun would be inflated to the point where only the very wealthy criminal could afford a black market gun. The rest of us would not have to worry about the crazies with guns, since crazies are usually not able to afford inflated prices. Finally, inflation would have a good benefit.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 10:51 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Gun advocates often claim that guns do not kill people; people kill people.


Advocates of individual freedom know that guns do not kill people; people kill people.

Anti-freedom advocates claim to know what is best for the individual, they like to play God.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 03:09 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?


It might help to keep the wrong gun out of the wrong hands.

Quote:
January 2, 2013
How to Get a New Assault-Weapons Ban Through Congress
By ADAM EISGRAU

Washington

CALLING the massacre in Newtown, Conn., “the worst day of my presidency,” President Obama recently told NBC’s David Gregory: “My response is, something has to work. And it is not enough for us to say, ‘This is too hard, so we’re not going to try.’ ”

Almost 20 years ago, Senator Dianne Feinstein and other lawmakers took the same approach to build a bipartisan majority in Congress, tortuously, vote by vote, for legislation banning the future manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

As Senator Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993, I worked with her to get the assault weapons bill to President Bill Clinton’s desk. But the legislation expired in 2004 and hasn’t been renewed. Understanding what worked then is the key to doing it again in the new Congress, as Senator Feinstein has vowed to do.

Then, as now, legislation was the product of spectacular violence. On July 1, 1993, a man carrying two semiautomatic pistols equipped with high-capacity ammunition magazines and “hellfire” triggers, and another pistol, strolled off an elevator in a San Francisco building. He entered the offices of a law firm and killed eight people and injured six others before taking his own life. In the wake of that horror, Senator Feinstein asked me to review earlier bills by two other Democratic senators at the time, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio, and blend them with her own proposals to create meaningful new legislation that could pass Congress.

The law that resulted is best known for regulating certain semiautomatic weapons and large ammunition magazines, but it’s worth remembering that its official name was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

That title wasn’t a euphemism: the law needed support from lawmakers who had viewed prior legislative efforts as toothless, as well as those who feared that a ban on assault weapons could lead to the confiscation of guns used for hunting and target shooting.

The bill had three main components. The first was a list of well-known, deeply feared guns that were banned by name (like Uzis). The second banned the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features (like a forward handgrip). The third and most critical section was Appendix A, which listed every single hunting rifle and shotgun in use at the time — there were hundreds — that didn’t run afoul of the features test in the second component. Those firearms were unequivocally exempted from the bill.

At the time, gun-control advocates resisted the incorporation of Appendix A. But the idea behind it was and remains crucial to making any meaningful changes in America’s gun laws. They must gain the support of gun owners, most of whom are heartsick over senseless carnage.

By explicitly protecting hundreds of popular sporting guns, the bill enabled senators and representatives to push back against the tide of protests — many of them generated by the National Rifle Association — at town hall-style meetings in their states and districts. They could show their constituents that their ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns were protected in Appendix A or that their guns could be added to it, if need be. Proponents of the legislation distributed blue booklets describing all three parts of the bill, including pictures of the assault weapons banned by name and the full list of guns protected by Appendix A.

The nation’s principal law enforcement organizations, whose leaders testified and lobbied aggressively for the bill, also made great use of the booklets and Appendix A. In fact, it was a survey showing overwhelming support for an assault-weapons ban from police chiefs in and around his Congressional district that persuaded Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee at the time, to support the bill. His surprise yes vote offset the no vote of the committee’s conservative chairman, Representative Jack Brooks, a Texas Democrat, so that the bill could move to the floor of the House.

The existence of Appendix A also made it possible for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Colorado Democrat and longtime N.R.A. member — coupled with his own reaction to a torrent of gun-lobby phone calls — to commit to supporting Senator Feinstein’s bill if it was essential. That moment came when a motion to table, or effectively kill, the bill came before the Senate. Although the motion would have failed with a tie vote of 50 to 50, Senator Feinstein asked Senator Campbell for his vote to show that a majority of senators supported the bill. He honored his commitment, and the motion to table failed, 49 to 51, paving the way for the ultimate passage of the bill by a vote of 57 to 43.

Following the Newtown tragedy, inaction is not an option, morally or politically. President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. (who championed the original assault-weapons ban when he served in the Senate) are on the right track with their plan to present legislation before the new Congress.

Preventing another slaughter will require not just new gun regulations, but also education, mental health care, greater access by law enforcement agencies to mental health records and assistance for parents, while respecting the whole Bill of Rights.

But the lesson from nearly two decades ago remains clear. If any meaningful change is to come, legislators must again devise a bill that both regulates assault weapons and respects and protects gun owners.

If we want to reimpose a permanent assault-weapons ban and restrict high capacity ammunition magazines, let’s include a new list of exempted rifles and shotguns used for recreational shooting in a new Appendix A (updated annually) and actively solicit input from the shooting community to make it work.

If we want to require background checks for all private sales at gun shows, let’s cap the cost so that private sales aren’t prohibitively expensive. Better yet, when we do this, let’s find an efficient way to allow individual sellers to directly use the same F.B.I.-managed background check system they must now pay federally licensed gun dealers to access for them.

If, once and for all, we want to revoke the de facto exemption from consumer product safety regulation that, thanks to the N.R.A., guns have historically enjoyed, let’s bring them under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and require gun makers to build state-of-the-art gunlock technology (like palm- or fingerprint-recognition sensors) into every handgun or rifle. But then let’s also relieve gun owners of the burden of identifying and complying with a patchwork of different state laws covering the transport of firearms and permit, under federal law, the transport of any lawfully owned gun across state lines if it’s unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car, in a childproof case.

Finally, if only because it’s the fair thing to do, let’s require states and localities to process gun registration and other applications by law-abiding gun owners within a reasonable period of time, and with firm deadlines.

We need comprehensive proposals that can gain wide support. As always, the resulting legislation won’t be perfect. For example, just as in 1993, it’s unlikely that a new bill would address assault weapons that people already lawfully own — like the one Adam Lanza took from his mother before he killed her, 20 first graders, six educators and himself. We’ll have to address that problem with publicly and privately sponsored buyback programs and other approaches. But once enacted, a comprehensive bill would, over time, make “grandfathered” weapons and ammunition magazines more expensive, harder to find and harder to repair. If such a compromise kept the wrong gun out of the wrong hands just once, I’d take it, any day.


Adam Eisgrau, a lobbyist and communications consultant, was Senator Dianne Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993 to 1995 and worked for the Brady Campaign, a gun-control organization, after the Columbine shooting in 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-to-get-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-through-congress.html?hp&_r=0
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2013 05:27 pm
Quote:
January 1, 2013
Who Pays for the Right to Bear Arms?
By DAVID COLE
Washington

IN the days following the Newtown massacre the nation’s newspapers were filled with heart-wrenching pictures of the innocent victims. The slaughter was unimaginably shocking. But the broader tragedy of gun violence is felt mostly not in leafy suburbs, but in America’s inner cities.

The right to bear arms typically invokes the romantic image of a cowboy toting a rifle on the plains. In modern-day America, though, the more realistic picture is that of a young black man gunned down in his prime in a dark alley. When we celebrate gun rights, we all too often ignore their disproportionate racial burdens. Any effort to address gun violence must focus on the inner city.

Last year Chicago had some 500 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. In the city’s public schools, 319 students were shot in the 2011-12 school year, 24 of them fatally. African-Americans are 33 percent of the Chicago population, but about 70 percent of the murder victims.

The same is true in other cities. In 2011, 80 percent of the 324 people killed in Philadelphia were killed by guns, and three-quarters of the victims were black.

Racial disparities in gun violence far outstrip those in almost any other area of life. Black unemployment is double that for whites, as is black infant mortality. But young black men die of gun homicide at a rate eight times that of young white men. Could it be that the laxity of the nation’s gun laws is tolerated because its deadly costs are borne by the segregated black and Latino populations of North Philadelphia and Chicago’s South Side?

The history of gun regulation is inextricably interwoven with race. Some of the nation’s most stringent gun laws emerged in the South after the Civil War, as Southern whites feared what newly freed slaves might do if armed. At the same time, Northerners saw the freed slaves’ right to bear arms as critical to protecting them from the Ku Klux Klan.

In the 1960s, Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party made the gun a central symbol of black power, claiming that “the gun is the only thing that will free us.” On May 2, 1967, taking advantage of California’s lax gun laws, several Panthers marched through the State Capitol in Sacramento carrying raised and loaded weapons, generating widespread news coverage.

The police could do nothing, as the Panthers broke no laws. But three months later, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed into law one of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

The urban riots of the late 1960s — combined with rising crime rates and a string of high-profile assassinations — spurred Congress to pass federal gun control laws, banning interstate commerce in guns except for federally licensed dealers and collectors; prohibiting sales to felons, the mentally ill, substance abusers and minors; and expanding licensing requirements.

These laws contain large loopholes, however, and are plainly inadequate to deal with the increased number and lethality of modern weapons. But as long as gun violence largely targets young black men in urban ghettos, the nation seems indifferent. At Newtown, the often all-too-invisible costs of the right to bear arms were made starkly visible — precisely because these weren’t the usual victims. The nation took note, and President Obama has promised reform, though he has not yet made a specific proposal.

Gun rights defenders argue that gun laws don’t reduce violence, noting that many cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws. But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states. Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response.

A cynic might propose resurrecting the Black Panthers to heighten white anxiety as the swiftest route to breaking the logjam on gun reform. I hope we are better than that. If the nation were to view the everyday tragedies that befall young black and Latino men in the inner cities with the same sympathy that it has shown for the Newtown victims, there would be a groundswell of support not just for gun law reform, but for much broader measures.

If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights, it’s not enough to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private gun sales or ban assault weapons. In addition to such national measures, meaningful reform must include initiatives directed to where gun violence is worst: the inner cities. Aggressive interventions by police and social workers focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic investment, better schools and more after-school and job training programs, are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun rights entail.

To tweak the National Rifle Association’s refrain, “guns don’t kill people; indifference to poverty kills people.” We can’t in good conscience keep making young black men pay the cost of our right to bear arms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/who-pays-for-the-right-to-bear-arms.html?hp
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 04:32:28