My compromise for gun control

Hmmm. I don't think so. Let's start with Diesel's post #74. Diesel said:"People are killed by fists more than rifles in our country." Bagel replied, to him (post #77): "citation needed". 'You pipe in on page 6 (post # 119):"Seriously? Are you even an American citizen? Take a look at the Constitution. There, you should pay attention to the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. No further citation needed, and none further will be given." Bagel. now replying to you, says (post #123): "Oh. The Constitution proves that more people are killed by fists than guns? Interesting. Did not know that." She is responding to your implied endorsement of Diesel's statement. After which you respond (post #124): In answer to your query, yes, I can cite. And no, I most certainly will not. Get off your lazy @$$ and read it yourself and stop acting like a troll". She says (post #125): "So you cant. Got it." You replied, with high dudgeon (Post #126): "Are you actually that stupid? There is nothing in any of my posts that says what you implied. I leave you to your own imaginations and presumption." I dunno. Although you didn't actually "say" anything about fists killing more people than guns, you implicitly and clearly endorsed the statement by Diesel and went on to mention three amendments to the Constitution that supposedly backed it up. If that's not what you meant, it's understandable that that's what Bagel, I and the others thought you meant. No misrepresentation on our part at all. Running away won't get you off the hook, whether you read it or not.

 

Gosh... reading my replies in your post I was more than a little condescending. Sorry Varmint

 

Irm

OK here is an old post but I think it still basically stands up

Now it is very difficult comparing crime figures form differing countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the US do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation,and threats within their definition of violent crime while New Zealand does and these offences comprise nearly half of all violent crime in that country (NZ MoJ). And there are problems with population density the US has a much lower population density overall than in European countries although urban areas can be similar.

But let us do a bit of a broad overview.

Police Recorded Rape Cases per 100,000 Population

US – 28.6

England and Wales -27.7

France 16.2

Germany 8.9

Cases of Robbery per 100,000 Population

US – 133

England and Wales -137

France – 181

Germany – 60

Police Recorded Cases burglary 100,000 population

US – 715

England and Wales - 986

France – 513

Germany - 456

Police Recorded Vehicle Theft Cases per 100,000

US – 258

England and Wales - 215

France – 333

Germany – 106

Number of prisoners per 100,000

US – 716

England and Wales – 148

France – 101

Germany – 80

*

It seems to me that the fear and intimidation based ideas prevalent in the US (largest number of privately owned guns, large prison population) isn’t really working very well.

It hasn’t reduced general crime in any significant way but has led to much larger numbers of gun related crimes compared with others and all the problems associated with high prison populations

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 10.3

Canada : 2.22

England and Wales – 0.22

France - 3.00

Germany – 1.10

Luxembourg - 2.02

Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

Canada : 1.6

England and Wales – 0.93

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Luxembourg 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

Canada : 0.51

England and Wales 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Luxembourg 0.62

Switzerland 0.16

 

Mac

LOL - At first you wanted to force everyone to take a mandatory mental evaluations test and didn’t think that was an undue burden on the 70% that didn’t want to have a gun just so the 30% could?

You have backed off on that in favour of free mental health exams that anyone can take of their own free will. But that really waters down the supposed ‘compromise’ by taking away the reassurance that people that have ‘mental’ problems would be weeded out from been allowed to own a gun. Why not just have mandatory test for those that choose to have a gun? I ask again if you have the right to own a gun do you have the right to own one if you are mentally unstable or irresponsible.

Well we all pay in some way or other to go online there are internet service providers I believe that in the US the average price is $60 a month that is well over the $300 you quote for training sessions.

It seems to me that owning a gun is the consumers choice that is what some do and some don’t, to me if you are you take on the responsibilities that go with it just as if you choose to drive on the public highway and own a car you take on the responsibilities that go with it.

 

Mac

As a parent you have the ability to give your toddler a razor sharp scalpel to play with does that make that ok and if you saw that or knew about it would you not want to stop it happening?

I think I’d inform social services and get the parents assessed

In the UK if you commit certain traffic violations you have to do a mandatory driving course, I think offer cheap or free parenting courses is great but the kind of people that would give a toddler a razor sharp scalpel are not likely to be the ones to take up the offer.

It’s about been responsible to me a parent that gives a dangerous weapon to an irresponsible toddler is acting irresponsibly.

A responsible parent would make sure the child been given the knife to was responsible enough to handle it correctly, I would never give a toddler a knife but I’ve been cooking with my child since I though her responsible enough to handle things like knifes.

Now think of the government as the parent and the scalpel as a dangerous weapon like a gun, isn’t it up to the parent to make sure the person been allowed to handle the weapon is responsible enough to handle it?

 

Trud

That’s just evading the question – I ask again –

If you allow ease of access to guns then it is easy for the criminal and irresponsible to get hold of a gun are you saying you want criminals and the irresponsible to have easy access to guns?

 

Trud

Again that is an evasion of the question – I mean you basically admitted you have guns so ‘if needs be’ you can kill your political opponents so the question still remains - why? What would your political opponents have to do for you to begin killing them?

 

Trud

You seem to be saying in your scenario that although these gun owners have the guns specifically so that they can kill their political opponents if they have to – but then you claim that these gun owners would never actually use then to do that, because their opponents are part of the community.

Then what is the point of having the guns in the first place?

You also seem to be arguing that the police would also never use their guns on fellow citizens because they are also part of the community

The thing is that doesn’t fit in with US history there are many examples of police officers and the national guard opening fire on even unarmed protestors and workers striking for better pay and conditions.

To bring up those lynching’s of black people again were not those black people part of the community?

And the police in these places often just turned a blind eye to the murders shouldn’t they have been protecting them as part of the community?

 

Trud

In what way does an armed society bring about less overall violence than otherwise – as pointed out before the US’s general crime rates are no a par with other comparable states except in the area of gun related homicides which are way, way higher.

Easy accept to guns just means more people are killed by guns it isn’t a good way of tackling crime in general.

 

Trud

And if your political opponents don’t give in to intimidations and refuse to comply?

Do you walk away or shoot them?

 

No,, no you dont.. You only need the car.

me thinks the only real valid license is a marriage license. certainly cant get married without it.

dog licenses exist but I know many people with dogs that have no license.

 

Don't confuse a proposal for something I personally want. The key word of the thread title is compromise. Both sides give up something to reach a conclusion. I'm personally against mental evaluations as a prerequisite to own a firearm. However, I'm willing to work out a deal where mental evals exist but they put as little burden and potential prejudice against the gun owner as possible.

To answer your question about the mentally ill having the right to own firearms, if someone is deemed a danger to himself and others by probable cause then he doesn't have that right.

 

I agree, the label "mental illness" is used far too broadly in today's society, so using it as the basis for a red flag no knock grab and go by the cops seems like a really bad idea. Consider what's a mental illness now. Depression is a popular mental illness. Then there's whatever condition requires someone to go to "anger management" training.

But consider how many folks would be fine with making someone who votes for Trump, a mentally ill person. It's THAT kind of potential for ridiculous overreach that keeps the Bill of Rights under tight control.

 

Better if you just hit the quote button.

Like I just did here.

That would be a violation of the second amendment of the Constitution of this country. And the fourth.

Hello master baiter. I should be totally ignoring your repetitious silliness but for the sake of board sanity, and this should be obvious, but you must define the criteria "criminal and irresponsible" before this can be answered.
Also to be considered: who gets to decide who's "criminal and irresponsible"?

 

That's easy, oinkers do.

 

Clarify please?

"oinker (plural oinkers) Someone or something that oinks. (slang, countable) A pig: an animal of the genus Sus. (derogatory slang, countable) A pig: a fat person."

 

Schwein!

 

Humorous, but that really is the crux of the matter.

 

Sorry, archaic term for police in the US. Analogous to Pig, Porker, Bacon and Popo!

 

huh?