- This topic has 44 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Do you think it can work? What’s your opinion?
Would it eliminate gun deaths and crimes committed with guns? No. Would it reduce gun deaths in the U.S.? Yes.
Gun Control – Shoot anyone found committing a crime with a gun.
Every Jew a 22
alle yiddin, a drei hundert, fiftzik, un zibin.
A .22 ain’t gonna stop anyone.
It depends on your goal. What do you want to accomplish with gun control. For example, the largest shooting incident in America (involving civilians being shot, and not part of a war) would not have been possible without gun control (several hundred recently disarmed civilians murdered at “Wounded Knee” just over a century ago – if they had guns the casulties would probably have been less). If your goal is to reduce crime and protect citizens, gun control serves no purpose since the bad guys will ignore it. However if your goal is to get rid of pesky minorities, that will be greatly facilitated with an effective gun control program.
zahavasdad,
Every Jew a 22
popa_bar_abba,
A .22 ain’t gonna stop anyone.
Fine. New slogan: Every Jew a F-22.
Uzi does it then
“If your goal is to reduce crime and protect citizens, gun control serves no purpose since the bad guys will ignore it.”
It depends on what you mean by “bad guys” Granted gang violence would probably not decrease. However making it harder for the lone killers, especially those with mental disorders and/or on terrorist watch lists is probably a good idea
akuperma,
For example, the largest shooting incident in America (involving civilians being shot, and not part of a war) would not have been possible without gun control (several hundred recently disarmed civilians murdered at “Wounded Knee” just over a century ago – if they had guns the casulties would probably have been less).
Not to minimize the atrocity of Wounded Knee, but the shooting started during the disarming, not afterward, and between the Lakota and friendly fire, 25 soldiers died, and more were wounded. The Lakota were outnumbered and outgunned, so even if none had been disarmed and shooting started, their death toll probably wouldn’t have changed much – but the army’s death toll would have been higher.
I don’t think gun control will have any effect on the criminals. I think the only way the government is going to convince people that they are serious about gun control is if they confiscate at least 100,000 of the million of illegal guns a year. Arresting individuals selling or processing them for long terms.
In England, which has very strict gun control and even the cops (Bobbies)don’t carry them, a member of Parliament equivalent to a Congressman was shot and killed today. Would gun control have stopped that?
first thing if you want to listen to someone who really knows stats and info on gun .control go to youtube and type in Ben Shapiro gun control. If you are right wing conservative listen to all his videos, he is frum and believe me if i could i would try to convince him to be president, but that is all we need is a jewish president.
anyway, as a chaplain i speak to many people in law enforcement. most of them agree with concealed carry, as i , but, the, and yes i am pro NRA, rules have to change. There must be more background work on people who want to buy guns. It is not a matter of really laws but using common sense. mental health is a very big issue as is other people in the house for example if i am not mistaken, the sandyhook shooter got his guns from his mother.I am seriously thinking of arming myself because in the past 4 weeks or so i have had two murders at the end of my block. Could i have prevented it no probably not the were both targeted gang hits, but i know if someone tries getting to me or my family, well, as i say don,t mess with the fed. Ben Shapiro talks much better than i do try him out. He is one smart jew.
From RCP:
[going]
[there must be] a process to challenge that determination in court.”Abba-s
“In England, which has very strict gun control … Would gun control have stopped that?”
Probably not, though it may have helped prevent the countless mass shootings that are commonplace in the US, and unheard of in England.
chaplain
“I am seriously thinking of arming myself because in the past 4 weeks or so i have had two murders at the end of my block. “
If you like stats so much consider a gun much more likely to be used in accident or suicide than against an intruder. Getting a gun to protect against murders doesnt make a lot of sense
Health,
How many would it reduce?
One way to determine that would be to examine the gun death rates in other Western countries that have more robust gun control laws. They are substantially lower than the U.S. rate. Of course the cultural makeup of the U.S. is different, so it’s impossible to have an apples to apples comparison, but I think it’s a safe bet that the gun death rate would substantially decrease.
I don’t think it would be a significant amount!
On what basis?
The DemonCrats solution is off-the-wall!
Who are the DemonCrats, and what is their solution?
Do you want to stop mass killings? Gun control is Not the answer!
So what’s your answer?
I like L. Graham’s video, that’s posted on YWN news.
He makes a lot of sense!
The vast, vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. is not perpetrated by people on the no-fly list. Sure it’s a good measure to take, but in terms of reducing gun violence, it’s like trying to cure a melanoma by wiping the skin with a cloth.
NYC has one of the strictest laws in the world but that never stopped criminals. Israel has gun control but if one lives in an area or considered dangerous, is/was a reserve office in the IDF and has a clean record one can get a permit fairly easily yet the murder rate is very low, especially when factoring out terrorism, underworld hits and “family honor” killings.
America has a huge population so statistically there will be more people who go nuts. Also the mentality regarding violence is very important.
NYC has one of the strictest laws in the world but that never stopped criminals.
Despite parts of NYC being literal islands, NYC is not figuratively an island. In other words, NYC can put as many strict laws into place that it wants, but guns can always be brought in from outside of the city.
yet the murder rate is very low, especially when factoring out terrorism, underworld hits and “family honor” killings.
While murders and mass shootings get almost all of the media attention in the U.S., the large majority of gun deaths here are a result of suicides.
America has a huge population so statistically there will be more people who go nuts. Also the mentality regarding violence is very important.
Not just a huge population, but a huge quantity of guns. There are likely more guns than people in the U.S., and the U.S. population is almost 310 million.
NYC is one of the safest cities in the US, if not the world
Health,
Even if bought elsewhere, NYC laws apply!
Avi K and I were discussing criminals, not law abiding citizens. Please at least try to understand the flow of the conversation before hurling your insults.
“Every Jew a F-22.”
Absolutely!
Lets see, there are about six million Jews in Israel, five million in the US, and maybe a million in other countries. An F-22 costs around $150 million. The cost would therefore be about 1.8 quadrillion dollars, well over ten times the GDP of all the countries in the entire world put together. 🙂
“Uzi does it then “
Private ownership of the standard Uzi automatic rifles has never been legal in the US.
“It’s irrelevant where it was bought! “
Correct. That is why the entire US needs real background checks, like Israel has.
ZD: “NYC is one of the safest cities in the US, if not the world”. This is because the cops go after illegal gun dealers and have used tactics to remove illegal guns from their streets. Stop and frisk was one of these tactics it scared the criminal from carrying weapons reducing the homicide rate.
Any Federal gun control law will have to standardize the gun permit process so that if you have a gun permit you can carry anywhere in the country similar to a drivers license. The problem is that for example a permit to carry in NY State isn’t valid in NYC. This would be the only way gun advocates would agree to any gun control.
“NYC is one of the safest cities in the US, if not the world “
Yes to the US, but most cities in Europe have far less violent crime.
Example: Last year NYC had 352 homicides (down from 2,262 in 1990). London, England, with about the same population, had 118.
” the large majority of gun deaths here are a result of suicides”
This is correct, and across the US the availability of guns is much more related to the rate so suicides than homicides. The 2012 state-specific suicide rates (I couldn’t find more recent data) show that the lowest suicide rates are, in order of decreasing rate, in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, with the District of Columbia lower than any state. Those are probably the places with the strictest gun laws in America.
Avram, criminals will always find ways to get weapons. They can even make them themselves. Even teen gangs can make zip guns. Moreover, various and sundry implements can be used as weapons for both murder and suicide. This is how Abe Reles became known as “Kid Twist”.
Ubiq wrote:
chaplain
“I am seriously thinking of arming myself because in the past 4 weeks or so i have had two murders at the end of my block. “
If you like stats so much consider a gun much more likely to be used in accident or suicide than against an intruder. Getting a gun to protect against murders doesnt make a lot of sense -End quote.
Favoring statitistics over individual circumstances is closer to suicidal in Chaplain Zvi’s case.
Health: was the gun bought in America? If not, why does being an American matter.
The problem with harsher punishments is that many of these criminals are the opposite of chachamim and don’t think beyond the next 30 seconds. And of course when it comes to terrorists and other mass shooters, dying in the process is part of their end-game.
However, gun-ownership by the right people can stop a terrorist in his tracks sooner rather than later. The problem is that we apparently can’t differentiate between friend and foe when issuing gun permits.
Avi K,
Moreover, various and sundry implements can be used as weapons for both murder and suicide.
This is a variant of the old, “why bother putting up a fence along the bridge” argument. After all, someone bent on suicide would just find another way to do it if there were a fence blocking the way off the bridge. Research has shown, however, that that is not true. Suicide and many murders are impulsive acts, even if they are planned out over a period of time. A fence, a question like “how are you feeling today?” or waiting periods/background checks can be crucial to snap someone out of impulsive and reactive thinking.
“Moreover, various and sundry implements can be used as weapons for both murder and suicide.”
while what Avram pointed out is 100% true. Another thing to consider is that other implements are not as deadly, nor do they hurt as many people. A gun can take down a 50 people quite quickly a knife cant really and those that are stabbed are not usually as injured as with a gun. I have treated many many attempted suicides via overdose of every med you can think of. If those people had guns at home the outcomes could have been quite different
Avram, actually according to a recent study most murders are executions. The murderer decided that the victim did something that makes him deserving of death. According to the US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics “Almost half of the victims died in fights with the offender arising from property disputes, domestic arguments, insults or feuds. An estimated 11 percent were involved with the killer in illegal drug activities and 12 percent were collaborating in other criminal activities with their killer.” The death penalty might well deter all but the suicidal. At any rate, they will never kill again.
Ubiquitin, one can kill even more with explosives. Criminals can get either or make it without any problem.
Avi K,
Avram, actually according to a recent study most murders are executions. The murderer decided that the victim did something that makes him deserving of death.
“Actually” implies a contradiction to something I wrote. How does your statement or the statistics following it contradict anything I wrote? Deciding that someone “did something that makes him deserving of death” seems like a textbook example of impulsive thinking. So do murders arising from fights over property and domestic violence.
Ubiquitin, one can kill even more with explosives. Criminals can get either or make it without any problem.
Are hundreds of thousands of Americans injured and killed by explosives each year?
Avi
“Ubiquitin, one can kill even more with explosives”
Lol, are you suggesting explosives should be readily available and “explosive shows” often with minimal to no background checks?
How many people in the US are killed with these legally purchased (or illegally for that matter) explosives?
I don’t know how you can look at the last few years and not say change is needed.
Ubitquin, according to the US National Library of Medicine “In the United States, 36,110 bombing incidents, 5,931 injuries, and 699 deaths were reported. There were 21,237 (58.8%) explosive bombings, 6,185 (17.1%) incendiary bombings, 1,107 (3.1%) premature bombings, and 7,581 (21.0%) attempted bombings. For explosive bombings with known motives, 72.9% of injuries and 73.8% of deaths were because of homicide. For incendiary bombings with known motives, 68.2% of injuries were because of extortion and revenge, and 53.5% of deaths were due to homicide. Private residences accounted for 29.0% of incidents, 31.5% of injuries, and 55.5% of deaths. Government installations accounted for 4.4% of incidents but were the site of 12.7% of injuries and 25.5% of deaths. In bombings with known materials, nitrate-based fertilizers accounted for 36.2% of injuries and 30.4% of deaths, and smokeless powder and black powder accounted for 33.2% of injuries and 27.1% of deaths.”
I don’t see how the ingredients in all of these devices can be effectively banned. However, I do agree that sales of actual weapons should be by license as with driving (not that that helps very much either).
“I don’t see how the ingredients in all of these devices can be effectively banned.”
They cant, but I assume you agree that bombs should not be readily available at bomb shows and certainly not without a background check and doubly certainly not to those on a terror watch list.
(BTW consider the 2nd amendment doesnt mention “guns” it refers to arms So im not sure why I dont have the same right to nuclear arms, and fighter jets as to guns)
Yes we cant stop EVERY shooting, much like we cant stop every bombing (though your statistics arent impressive while obviously a tragedy for those 699 people out of over 300,000,000 that is not a big number) but that is an absurd reason not to stop some. These mass shootings are not as common in other countries. We have to be allowed to at least research as to why that is. Beleive it or not since the Dickey amendment in 96′ the CDC is effectively banned from even researching gun violence out of concern of where it might lead (namely gun control). And then gun nuts say we cant be strict about gun control because no research shows it will help!
“According to the News in TEXAS, No more gun control would have stopped this Lunatic!”
Yep as the Onion writes after every Mass shooting :
“‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”As far as I can tell, when you say “gun rights”, liberals hear “give everyone a gun”, and when you say “gun control”, conservatives hear “take away all the guns”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.