Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?

[mgrobertson79]

Then I guess there is nothing to do to stop gun crimes. Drive by shootings in the cities will continue with young children getting caught in the crossfire. What a tragedy but I see noone offering any solutions so I guess we have to live with it.

If those criminals were given life without parole you wouldn’t have drive by’s, but as the criminal justice system in this country is now, every law abiding citizen should be packing for their protection, the police sure aren’t going to save them. If murders swung at the gallows after there mandatory appeal instead of being released from prison in 25 years it would be better. I believe all murders should be executed, regardless. Today, criminals think that if they get caught they will just spend a long time in jail, but it isn’t the end. When they take a life, they automatically forfeit the right to their own.

 

[goofyjim]

Actually, there is something that can be done to reduce violent crime. It is to pass “shall issue” laws, where any citizen of good repute can apply for a permit to carry a weapon and – if they take the course and pass the background check – the permit must be issued.

In state after state (and some 37 now have such laws, with two more requiring no license at all) dire predictions were made when such a law was being debated. And when the law passed, in state after state, the dire predictions did not come true, and violent crime dropped.

Again what is included in that background check. If a psychiatric illness denies one permission then the law is inherently unfair. The ill would have just as much right to “protect” themselves as anyone does.

 

[goofyjim]

If those criminals were given life without parole you wouldn’t have drive by’s, but as the criminal justice system in this country is now, every law abiding citizen should be packing for their protection, the police sure aren’t going to save them. If murders swung at the gallows after there mandatory appeal instead of being released from prison in 25 years it would be better. I believe all murders should be executed, regardless. Today, criminals think that if they get caught they will just spend a long time in jail, but it isn’t the end. When they take a life, they automatically forfeit the right to their own.

I would support the death penalty if we could assure that the innocent don’t get caught in the cycle, which some do, so I don’t.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I would support the death penalty if we could assure that the innocent don’t get caught in the cycle, which some do, so I don’t.

Ok, so do away with parole all together, it accomplishes the same goal without avenging the death of the innocent.

Other criminals who may go on to commit more violent crimes after release should be evaluated and re sentenced if the eval. shows a chance of that happening. Sentences should be much longer regardless of the crime and I think we may persuade some to rethink their actions.

 

[goofyjim]

Ok, so do away with parole all together, it accomplishes the same goal without avenging the death of the innocent.

Other criminals who may go on to commit more violent crimes after release should be evaluated and re sentenced if the eval. shows a chance of that happening. Sentences should be much longer regardless of the crime and I think we may persuade some to rethink their actions.

If the person is innocent of the crime that should also be evaluated and he should be released not paroled. Only the guilty should truly stay in prison.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If the person is innocent of the crime that should also be evaluated and he should be released not paroled. Only the guilty should truly stay in prison.

Jim?

Do you think there is anyone on these forums who thinks the **innocent **should be in prison?

 

[chriskarma]

lets re write the right to a free press while we are at it…

A well educated electorate, necessary for the good self-governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read texts, shall not be infringed"
. . . apparently means that only registered voters are entitled to read books, and then only on-site at the local public library. And only government-owned books.

oh and lets call it “the bill of needs” not “The Bill Of Rights”

We don’t really need newspapers, they cause riots (google cartoon riots) we don’t really need Bibles, they cause wars, we don’t really need free speech, we don’t really need freedom of religion.

Heck, Red China drags women out of their homes & forces them to have abortions against their will, what a lovely gun control utopia!
They have very strict gun control! as did the folks who got killed in Rwanda, as did the folks in the Sudan all lovely gun control utopias like Nazi Germany all have proven we can trust governments to act on our behalf…I feel so much better now.

 

[chriskarma]

Ah, merry old England, the gun control utopia

I come from England where we live by the rule that if the police carry guns then so will the criminals and thankfully it’s worked so far so I’ll stick by it.

dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=455037&in_page_id=1770

breitbart.com/article.php?id=paFiguresThurs18Crimefiguresud2Substitute&show_article=1

If you think gun control is working in the UK you have your head deep in the sand.
Violent crimes in the UK are way up since the aftermath of the Dunblane gun bans…

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm

cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/05/15/52007b2a-9630-4b4a-b7a9-0068a6e90599.lpf

The most significant increase was in violent crime, which jumped from 282 offences in April 2006 to 376 this year.

Det Chief Insp Vajzovic said: "Violent crime has gone up by about a third, which is totally unacceptable. It causes me concern and I will be doing everything I can to drive it down again.

VIOLENT crime in Bridgwater is up - with offences including grievous bodily harm, sex attacks and robbery ALL on the rise. Despite the financial year still …

 

[Sheeniac]

It will only work if you take the guns away from everyone. When some continue to insist it is their right to own while denying others, such as someone with a mental illness, then discrimination comes into play and the one that claims sanity actually may consider it his option to use his gun against the other. Let’s get rid of all these weapons and really become a people of peace.

Sure - take away my right to defend myself against an attacker. A gun is the ONLY thing that can prevent me from being harmed from a male intent on doing me harm.

It’s the height of mysogyny, IMO, to support gun control.

While we can strive for peace on earth, and we should, I fail to see how my owning a gun for protection only will prevent peace. Sadly, in our fallen world, violence exists. I would prefer to NOT be a victim. Perhaps you could go ponder being brutally raped and murdered, sir, and let me know if you would like a chance to protect yourself.

 

[hosemonkey]

Goofyjim,
What is your rationale for objecting to persons with mental illnesses being denied the right to carry concealed weapons? On another post you stated that this policy was discriminatory. Why do you suppose that police recruits are given extensive psych screening? People with known mental conditions are denied certain rights and privileges by virtue of their unpredictibility. I would not want a known delusional schizophrenic, for example, carrying a gun around me.

 

[goofyjim]

Goofyjim,
What is your rationale for objecting to persons with mental illnesses being denied the right to carry concealed weapons? On another post you stated that this policy was discriminatory. Why do you suppose that police recruits are given extensive psych screening? People with known mental conditions are denied certain rights and privileges by virtue of their unpredictibility. I would not want a known delusional schizophrenic, for example, carrying a gun around me.

Because then you would deny them their right to protect themselves in the same way that you claim you are doing. Unless you think their only option is to run like hell.

 

[goofyjim]

Sure - take away my right to defend myself against an attacker. A gun is the ONLY thing that can prevent me from being harmed from a male intent on doing me harm.

It’s the height of mysogyny, IMO, to support gun control.

While we can strive for peace on earth, and we should, I fail to see how my owning a gun for protection only will prevent peace. Sadly, in our fallen world, violence exists. I would prefer to NOT be a victim. Perhaps you could go ponder being brutally raped and murdered, sir, and let me know if you would like a chance to protect yourself.

Then carry a gun. But I choose not to and if I am shot by a criminal I take no responsibility for my death simply because I didn’t carry one.

 

[MariaG]

Because then you would deny them their right to protect themselves in the same way that you claim you are doing. Unless you think their only option is to run like hell.

The government has the responsibility to protect the public. It can be proven that ownership of guns by responsible citizens reduced violent crime.

It is also proven though, that gun ownership by mentally deranged people, can spark violent crime.

Because of this, we can as a society, decide to allow and in fact should encourage gun ownership and right to carry but can and should discourage gun ownership of those with mental illness.

This is just common sense.

The unfortunate fact is that some people should lose their gun rights for the good of society. The problem is that people seem to think that ALL of society would be better if responsible citizens were denied guns and this fantasy can be proven wrong repeatedly in many different cities and countries.

Cities/countries with an armed populace have less violent crime than cities/countries with restrictive gun laws. This is a fact that is repeatedly ignored by those who favor gun control laws.

 

[goofyjim]

The government has the responsibility to protect the public. It can be proven that ownership of guns by responsible citizens reduced violent crime.

It is also proven though, that gun ownership by mentally deranged people, can spark violent crime.

Because of this, we can as a society, decide to allow and in fact should encourage gun ownership and right to carry but can and should discourage gun ownership of those with mental illness.

This is just common sense.

The unfortunate fact is that some people should lose their gun rights for the good of society. The problem is that people seem to think that ALL of society would be better if responsible citizens were denied guns and this fantasy can be proven wrong repeatedly in many different cities and countries.

Cities/countries with an armed populace have less violent crime than cities/countries with restrictive gun laws. This is a fact that is repeatedly ignored by those who favor gun control laws.

It’s my understanding that the only ones who can get refused are those who were court committed not the ones who voluntarily signed themselves in. So maybe I am opposed to gun control but that means everyone, unless they have a criminal record should be permitted to use one.

 

[melensdad]

The government has the responsibility to protect the public. It can be proven that ownership of guns by responsible citizens reduced violent crime.

MariaG, very good points. But if I may be so bold as to make a minor clarification of what you wrote. The government has the responsibility to protect the general public and maintain order. However, it has been decided by the court system, that the neither the government, nor the various police agencies, have the responsibility to provide any individual protection to the citizens or any guarantee thereof. It is only a collective guarantee.

 

[MariaG]

MariaG, very good points. But if I may be so bold as to make a minor clarification of what you wrote. The government has the responsibility to protect the general public and maintain order. However, it has been decided by the court system, that the neither the government, nor the various police agencies, have the responsibility to provide any individual protection to the citizens or any guarantee thereof. It is only a collective guarantee.

Yes, of course.

And this is why individual gun ownership is so very important:thumbsup:

 

[MariaG]

It’s my understanding that the only ones who can get refused are those who were court committed not the ones who voluntarily signed themselves in. So maybe I am opposed to gun control but that means everyone, unless they have a criminal record should be permitted to use one.

I thought the laws varied from state to state? But I could easily be wrong. I thought that states that had restrictive gun laws, (as well as high violent crime), had such riders on their laws.

I do think it is dangerous to limit gun ownership, and am wary of doing so. And I am not sure how this could be done.

However, do we want people who have serious diagnosed mental illness to be allowed to go and buy guns? Can we limit this? should we?

The danger of course is that these laws that will be used to protect the populace in general, the purpose of government, will be broaden until the populace is not more protected but less because individual rights of law abiding and mentally stable people will be infringed upon in the attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

 

[goofyjim]

I thought the laws varied from state to state? But I could easily be wrong. I thought that states that had restrictive gun laws, (as well as high violent crime), had such riders on their laws.

I do think it is dangerous to limit gun ownership, and am wary of doing so. And I am not sure how this could be done.

However, people who have serious diagnosed mental illness should not be allowed to go and buy guns.

The danger of course is that these laws that will be used to protect the populace in general, the purpose of government, will be broaden until the populace is not more protected but less because individual rights of law abiding and mentally stable people will be infringed upon in the attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

Who is to determine the seriousness of the mental illness? I do not have a serious one just an illness but it is kept under control through medication. Therefore under this idea of rights to gun ownership, I have just as much right as the next guy to defend myself.

 

[MariaG]

Who is to determine the seriousness of the mental illness? I do not have a serious one just an illness but it is kept under control through medication. Therefore under this idea of rights to gun ownership, I have just as much right as the next guy to defend myself.

You bring up a good question, one that I do not have the answer to.

IF one limits the constutional rights of any citizen for the general good of the populace, what should be the criteria? And can one limit the rights of a targeted number of individuals and what the the reprecussions for the rights of everyone else?

I don’t know.

But you are correct that we start with gun ownership for all.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Who is to determine the seriousness of the mental illness? I do not have a serious one just an illness but it is kept under control through medication. Therefore under this idea of rights to gun ownership, I have just as much right as the next guy to defend myself.

First question, Do you live in the US? Second, Have you ever been voluntarily or otherwise, committed to a mental institution?

If you are only taking medicine, you can honestly fill out the Form 4476 which is what is used to purchase a firearm in the US. It asks about mental illness and you should only answer yes if you have been institutionalized for an illness.

Shizophenia and severe depression are two that prevent gun ownership due to the violent tendencies of these people towards themselves and others.

We should not only worry about what mentally unstable people would do to other people, they are more prone to suicide than the general population.

Also, Felons have lost all rights under the constitution, unless restored by law, and are more likely to offend again, even violently due in part to the hardening they experienced in prison. Most violent criminals couldn’t care less who is involved in their crimes, they shoot women, children, the elderly, who ever happens to be in the way. The only way to prevent this is life without parole for ALL violent crimes, to include domestic violence.