United States & Gun Control discussion.

[walra107]

Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.

Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.

Agreed Rampart, last time I looked, the shooter aquired his weapons by stealing them...not by lawful means of purchasing. so you really cannot blame the process in which we own firearms here in America. A perpetrator is going to think twice about opening fire into a crowd of people if those people start to fire back. However some folks are just plain nuts and don't give a damn as long as they take someone with them, but again, thats more of a human nature issue rather than gun law issue.

And Mrob, if you take an actual look at the firearms industry, tell me again if you think it is not critical to our economy. Minus Department of Defense contracts, private and recreational firearms purchasing plays a major role in that industry. If you call for strict weapons laws, you're going to see a ton of people out of jobs IMO...strictly my philosphy not gospel. And yea, you can add all the gun laws you want but its not going to cut down on violent gun crimes...I saw a previous post referencing prohibition, read up on that and tell me how that worked out in the 1920's...I do believe it lead to the rise of organized crime...but I could be wrong. Again this is just my opinion....

 

[Chopstick]

90 give or take. I've called 911 for others twice in the past.

I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
Just a quick Google got me this:

Crime may be at near record-low levels, but it took cops an average of 9.1 minutes last year to respond to crimes in progress — the NYPD’s worst performance since Mayor Bloomberg took office in 2002.
Figures released yesterday as part of the semiannual Mayor’s Management Report showed police response times slowed by 42 seconds to 9.1 minutes in the 2012 fiscal year, which ended on June 30.
For most of the mayor’s tenure, cops were able to reach crime scenes in less than 8 minutes. In 2007, they made it in just 6.9 minutes.
That changed in 2011, when the average response time zoomed to 8.4 minutes.
Paul Browne, the NYPD’s chief spokesman, attributed the latest increase to a spike in non-critical calls that drove up the overall average.
Response times to critical calls, such as a robbery in progress or a man with a gun, remained flat at 4.6 minutes.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/slow_to_the_scene_aTvC00aFCavAazJHohpJfJ

 

[walra107]

I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
Just a quick Google got me this:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/slow_to_the_scene_aTvC00aFCavAazJHohpJfJ

And that is a major metro area...I work in emergency services in a very rural area where the LE is located centrally in the county so it could be a good 15-20 minutes before the first patrol shows up, and that doesnt account for dispatching time...That leaves an awful lot of time for the worst to happen.

 

[mrob]

Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.

Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

page 64. The section relating to gun-related offenses starts on 55.

 

[Ex3]

I was just wondering what would or could occur while awaiting assistance even in Manhattan.
Just a quick Google got me this:

Just passing on my personal experience, for what it's worth.

 

[JBS]

90 give or take. I've called 911 for others twice in the past.

When seconds count, cops are minutes away.

Just as a general statement, I think it is worth noting that every major mass shooting: VA Tech, the Batman shooter, the post office shootings from a few years ago, the Columbine shooting, etc., - were all in GUN FREE ZONES.

 

[Ex3]

Obviously I'm not gonna change any hearts and minds here. Have a super day.

 

[Chopstick]

Just passing on my personal experience, for what it's worth.

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion however I prefer, and my state and city laws allow me to be proactive in my own safety. I live in a small but densely populated boro on the edge of the city. We have a limited number of officers on each shift to answer calls for 9000 plus residents as well as all the transient traffic through here on any given day. Ive had reponse times from less than a minute up to 20 minutes. There are many variables that can and will affect response times. As they say Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[walra107]

Law enforcement response times are just a nature of the beast unfortunately, nothing much anybody can do about it, they do the best they can. You'll very rarely if ever have the ability to stop a crime like this as it is occuring without some sort of tragedy awaiting first responders, again its not anyone's fault jsut a nature of the beast. Unless you put a cop on every street corner anywhere...but I don't need to get into that.

 

[policemedic]

Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.

You don't know what you don't know.

 

[cbtengr]

Speaking purely as a professional, there is no one specific reason New York City has not had an incident like Newtown, CT. It simply hasn't happened...yet. It also never happened in Newtown, CT...until it did. The same is true of the Nickel Mines, PA school shooting. It never happened there, either...until it did.

The laws in NYC haven't stopped anything. Case in point- the guy shot in the head in midtown Manhattan a few days ago. The shooting happened in broad daylight within view of a school and not far from Carnegie Hall.

And just so I don't need to make a second post, I'd like to point out that since he killed his mother, it's entirely possible she had properly secured her weapons and he obtained them after killing her.

Even before he got to the school--where no one can possess a weapon by federal law--he had committed a capital crime and several felonies. Clearly, he was unfazed by the law or any possible penalties he might have to suffer. Having another law in place would not have mattered.

I am glad you said it, very well stated!! If one does a little digging into violent homicide statistics for 2011 you will find that the state of NY had just over 774 ranking the state 3d in the nation behind California and Texas. http://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/ Then if you visit the following NYC GOV website http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2011_murder_in_nyc.pdf you can get a breakdown of the homicides within NYC, NYC had 515 homicides in 2011 this is 66% of the states total homicides, now if you break that down further by method you will find that 61% of the homicides were by shooting thats something in the neighborhood of 314 deaths by shooting. That NYC has not had a mass murder by guns is just plain luck, luck that will no doubt run out one of these days. Honest responsible gun owners are going to bear the brunt of the political aftermath of this tragedy, guns do not kill people, you all are familiar with the last part of this statement, people kill people and all the laws in the world are not going to change that fact.

 

[Marine0311]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

[Rampart]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

page 64. The section relating to gun-related offences starts on 55.

Mrob
Thanks for that link. Please note the fact that Handguns were used in 44% of gun crime despite the fact they are totally banned in the UK, further in crime where firearms were discharged, handguns make up 71% of the figure. That ban on handguns is clearly ineffective law and has not prevented handguns being used in the commission of crime!

You will also note that the single most common weapon is the humble air rifle/ BB at 84% of gun crime. More evidence that any attempt at gun control laws based on firearms type is a farce.

You will also note that the current reduction in crime reported is opposed to an increased crime as a result of the police reporting in 2001-2002. Things are now back to where they were but there have been no law changes in the period 2001 to now. There has been a huge effort since 2002 to focus on addressing all "petty crime" by Police, the courts and health system. These have effected real social changes address root causes of crime in general. As a result criminal offending has been reduced at the violent end of the scale by big margins as the potential violent gun criminal is being removed from the streets and either incarcerated or treated/ rehabilitated. In other words the system is working as a preventative rather than just parking an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

The many graphs charts and conclusions in the report clearly show this and what they do not show in my first (and rapid reading) is if the weapons used were obtained legally and used by legally entitled owners. Given the handgun statistics at least 44% of gun crime was not committed by legally entitled owners as they are completely illegal.

After the Dunblane (1996) massacre and subsequent handgun ban, gun crime went up hugely. I know this is Wikipedia but the figures are availible elsewhere as well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Dunblane_massacre
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[59] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[60][61] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[62]

 

[Ex3]

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion however I prefer, and my state and city laws allow me to be proactive in my own safety. I live in a small but densely populated boro on the edge of the city. We have a limited number of officers on each shift to answer calls for 9000 plus residents as well as all the transient traffic through here on any given day. Ive had reponse times from less than a minute up to 20 minutes. There are many variables that can and will affect response times. As they say Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

To be clear, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was telling you about something that actually happened to me personally. The police response was very quick and they were very professional.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

You are right, there are a great number of people who live in rural areas who might not be close enough to LE to receive any assistance in a timely manner. So let them own a pistol, or shotgun, or rifle, but is an AR-15/any assault rifle absolutely necessary for the majority of people to defend themselves and their home? I mean does anyone really need one? Does anyone really need hi-cap or drum magazines?

And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them. Why did his mom have two pistols and an AR anyways? Newtown is not exactly known for its high crime rate. I live several towns away. Most of this area is relatively safe with very low murder rates/violent crime. He was able to get the weapons so easily because the mom was able to get the weapons easily when she probably had no business in owning an assault rifle and two other guns in the first place.

Posts like this coupled with your other ones are starting to make me think you're trolling here.
Who are you to say what's needed and what isn't? The 2nd amendment doesn't have an asterisks with a foot note at the bottom that says *only if needed.
How many people on this board do you think own pistols, shotguns or rifles? How many do you think own high powered assault rifles, high capacity or drum magazines? There's a thread on here that will start to answer those questions. Have any of our members committed acts like this? Probably not, otherwise they'd be banned.
And what does crime rate have to do with gun ownership? Again, there are no caveats about only owning a gun (or multiple guns) only in areas where murder rates/violent crimes are above a certain level. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

 

[mrob]

Posts like this coupled with your other ones are starting to make me think you're trolling here.
Who are you to say what's needed and what isn't? The 2nd amendment doesn't have an asterisks with a foot note at the bottom that says *only if needed.
How many people on this board do you think own pistols, shotguns or rifles? How many do you think own high powered assault rifles, high capacity or drum magazines? There's a thread on here that will start to answer those questions. Have any of our members committed acts like this? Probably not, otherwise they'd be banned.
And what does crime rate have to do with gun ownership? Again, there are no caveats about only owning a gun (or multiple guns) only in areas where murder rates/violent crimes are above a certain level. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

Not trolling. Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here. The Constitution was written to be a framework for how the government was run, but it was also written to address real problems they faced at the time. Look at the 3rd amendment for example that states soldiers cannot be quartered in a time of peace or war in someones house without the owners consent. I would say that has almost no relevance to modern day, but when it was written but at the time I'm sure it was very important. It directly addressed their grievances with British troops quartering themselves in colonists homes without their consent and so they wanted to prevent their very own government from ever doing that to their own citizens. The point is, times change and with that context changes. The times and context in which the 2nd amendment was written makes absolute sense, but in today's world it's just not the case.

 

[JBS]

I'm going to get some hate now, but that's never stopped me before. I apologize in advance if this sounds insensitive, but after hearing about Feinstein, and listening to that schmuck Mayor Bloomberg telling Obama to get his ass in gear, and after hearing Joe Lieberman on FOX News saying we need to ban "assault guns", this shit is really getting to me.

26 people get shot up (obviously a terrible tragedy) and now everyone has their panties in a bunch and want to ignore the 2nd Amendment. This is a country of 300 million people, folks. Can we please take a collective step back, take a deep breath and calm down for a minute before we commit to burning the Constitution and plunging us into anarchy?

 

[JBS]

Not trolling. Just posting my opinions, which clearly go against what the majority of members of this board think, but I expect that regarding this issue here. The Constitution was written to be a framework for how the government was run, but it was also written to address real problems they faced at the time. Look at the 3rd amendment for example that states soldiers cannot be quartered in a time of peace or war in someones house without the owners consent. I would say that has almost no relevance to modern day, but when it was written but at the time I'm sure it was very important. It directly addressed their grievances with British troops quartering themselves in colonists homes without their consent and so they wanted to prevent their very own government from ever doing that to their own citizens. The point is, times change and with that context changes. The times and context in which the 2nd amendment was written makes absolute sense, but in today's world it's just not the case.

Please elaborate on which part makes no sense.

 

[Rampart]

And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them.

He apparently killed his mum to get them. that seems like a fair bit of effort to me. Just saying.....

Your post does not explain how any new law will work where numerous others clearly have not. please be a little more enlightening in this area so we can understand you properly.

 

[mrob]

Please elaborate on which part makes no sense.

Well, for one do we even have state militias anymore? State militias are not even relevant anymore. They were necessary in the past when we had a weak central government who had little powers to raise an army quickly and efficiently to defend the nation. The federal government also had little power in raising taxes to pay for war so it was necessary that state's had a way to quickly and efficiently organize militias to be able to defend itself, hence the reason people needed to keep and bear arms because what good was man in a militia if he had no weapon. Now, states militias could just provide those weapons if it were needed. Guns were also more important to people's livelihoods than they are today. It was necessary to hunt for food then. It's not anymore. None of these problems exist today.