We have the right to remain silent. Anything we say can be used against us in a court of law.
Ever hear that? I have heard time and again how repressive it is to give a job all you have, spend countless time, and finally catch a criminal using the laws we have........................................................only to see the person on the street the next day.
Do we have the right to remain safe? An extremely high percentage of thugs committing crimes are repeat offenders with records. Why are they on the street again killing other people? If you think it is because guns are easily accessible, I have some bad news for you: you have been brainwashed. The single biggest reason we have so much crime is because we have so many criminals(people that break laws) ON THE STREET. No, that is not breaking news; it is old news getting old.
How do we keep those people away from us? Our executive order should show how to keep them off the street, instead of letting them go so they can stack the odds against us. Our system is simple: F A I L U R E .
No guns in the prison system? Maybe that is where criminals should be instead of driving around looking for trouble.
The cost of being moral. We must not imprison those who do not disserve it. We must KNOW that someone is guilty, and by "we" I do not mean the investigator. Just because they "know" that someone is guilty does not establish that they ARE in fact guilty. Unfortunately, our justice system has a ridiculous definition of "proof". Then again, maybe not so ridiculous (more so practical?). By the actual definition of proof, far less people would be imprisoned. This is also why we still falsely imprison some people. We are in the gray area as it is. Where we should be? I don't see an answer.
Another point is that we don't want to put someone away for life for shoplifting, or accidents. That would be us ruining someone's life, and I would definitively argue they do not disserve it. Unfortunately, my points to this (that I will not go into unless asked) also apply to people who have even committed murder. This seems plausible, though, if we consider rehabilitation.
We are in the gray area as it is. Where need we be? I don't see an answer.
This is factual information, show me some to back up your claims?
As a matter of fact…
I can do you one better…
here are the statistics for the first 5 days of 2015…
how sad…
how pathetic…
and less gun control is what you are advocating
because you think Obama’
s thugs are going to take your guns, redistribute
your wealth, and send you to reeducation camps that teach you about global warming?
Read this…
it’
s fucking sad. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/sites/default/files/toll.png?ts=1452011743
Let’
s stop being retarded and fix it with common sense…
is any of that left in this country? Jesus.
My complaints about the current administration are the kinds of gun control and the approach the are using. I think it was stupid to ban high capacity magazines or "assault weapons". Really, I'm not sure how I feel about restricting any kind of gun ownership (except tanks and the like). "If you ban one type of gun, people will just use another kind" is a nice general statement. But I think we need to clarify the question we are trying to answer: what is it we are trying to fix? You're quote mentions the number of deaths related to gun violence.
As quoted from the wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention).
Of the homicide figure, according to the FBI (
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...w-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data), about 38% had unknown circumstances. That means we are looking at about 7000 deaths we KNOW we want to deal with. We can tackle the suicide problem (without punishing about half of America that owns guns) by fixing up our mental health care system. We can tackle the accidental number by improving training and awareness. Now, of these 7k, a decent chunk is certainly by gang related violence.
Consider this paragraph, which I think makes this point well:
In New Orleans, between 35-55% of homicides are classified as gang-related. In Chicago, an estimated 80% of homicides are gang-related. And in Baltimore, the police commissioner states that 80% of homicides are drug-related. (But again, most of this depends on methods of keeping records, and, often, personal opinions.)
The point is, it varies a lot by location. In the middle of no where, homicides will have near 0 relation to gang violence because gangs are not very prominent in rural areas. To be general (and conservative), let's say about 40% here. So, by tackling gangs and drugs, we can tackle another 3000. That leaves us at 4000 that we need to question.
Now, remember this line of thought is questioning how we need to tackle the problem. Overall banning or restricting guns is not a solution, as demonstrated by Chicago. Even though if it where applied nationwide, it would probably reduce (potentially greatly) gun violence. But this is a major infringement on a right as laid down by the constitution, and will significantly change the way of life of a large portion of our population, and potentially ruin the lifestyles of a good number of people. So, that is impractical. There are a lot of facets to this point, but I won't go into them here. Message me if you wish to discuss it more.
So, we know we want to deal with that 4000, and we want to deal with the other unknown 38% (another 4k) but we don't know what to do with that (cause we don't know what it is!). What is our known 4k? Arguments, and other kinds of criminal activity than gang violence. This is where the debate is. Completely unrestricting guns is not a solution. It is to ignore the problem. Completely restricting guns is not a solution, it is a Band-Aid patch job that is as equally lazy as ignoring the problem. There is also the floating understanding that we must protect our society from the threat of a totalitarian government. That, arguably, is the greatest purposes of guns. Anyone who denies this possibility is not thinking. Sure, the government is not like that now, but we don't know where it will be in 20, 50 or 100 years. Such a result would be the end of our society, and, given our level of technology, a good chunk of the world. This is a risk of background checks. What defines someone as restricted? Mentally unstable? We can't use that definition until we reform our mental health system. We don't know what we are talking about half the time (yes, I'm exaggerating, but the point remains)! Oh look, this solution has popped up again....interesting. So, AFTER improving our understanding and application of mental health, background checks limited by mental health might be good. This will only work IF the government keeps its nose out of the mental health sector (DSM classifications and the like) for the reasons of protecting against totalitarian governments. Other restrictions, what about age restrictions? Duh, we already have that. Criminal history restrictions? This one gets...interesting. I think the answer to this lies in the mental health solution. We don't know what past behavior indicates. At least some people can certainly be rehabilitated. In contrast, some seem like they cannot be. How do we sort that out? Improve our understanding of the mind seems an obvious answer.
Well, what if we increase training and safety education, and more so encourage people to arm themselves for self defense? Seems reasonable on its face. It would tackle the problem of victims of crimes (give them more of a chance), but also (likely) make our criminals more dangerous. There is something to be said that most criminals are not going to go to the level of killing someone. This would likely reduce crime rates (look at Switzerland), and
possibly reduce the 4k figure we are tackling (this is a very unclear point though. To the point that this speculation is to be discarded. Message me if you want more discussion on this point). Really, I don't see a great solution to tackle the 4k figure.
The above discussed is the only idea that I have heard (or thought about), but there are many more problems that I haven't discussed (like the governments stupid idea of what qualifies a person for concealed carry. For goodness sake, at least make the training requirements more than a one time thing!!!! And make it so people have to always hit the HUMAN SIZED TARGET {but allow 2 or 3 goes every couple of years} not some idiotic 70% garbage. If you can't shoot a person sized target on a range at 15 yards, you have no business having a gun in public in a criminal situation!!!!!!!!! Ok, that rant is over :/ ).
My opinion here is this is a problem I don't see a solution to yet. So, just like we did with the unknown 38%, we must answer this with a no answer right now. Unfortunately, that means that I don't see a way to
intentionally tackle 75% of the homicide figure. But, we have one solution for about 25%. Fix our mental health sector, and understanding of human psychology. Most importantly,
leave it to the scientists. Not some stupid politician that pretends they know what they are talking about, and really just get in the way of progress.
The main point of what I just discussed is we really don't have an answer to this problem. There are just a few things that we know NOT to do. The extremes of both liberals and conservatives have awful answers. We have a direction to go in. Let's go in that direction, and see if we find new answers. This isn't a problem that has a catch all answer. I honestly don't think we can truly fix this problem. Criminals will always exist. We need to recognize this fact, do what we can, but not sacrifice who we are. Else we loose what we are trying to fix.
