Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    ALSO
    Bells

    to piggy-back on this... it never has, and it never will

    making laws against murder haven't stopped murder ... i wonder why this is? (not sarcasm or hyperbole, but very relevant)

    it is simple: it's because it doesn't address the core problem of violence, hate, etc
    ... it simply creates a guideline for law abiding people to follow when they actually feel like following it, kinda like a speed limit (you know, that thing that gets broken by everyone but has a few miles plus/minus that everyone knows is OK to do and not actually get a ticket????)

    the problem with making laws against guns is exactly the same problem with exactly the same core problem
    (except that i've noticed, as well as "T", that the laws aren't always enforced by the appointed or hired legal representatives)

    oddly enough, this is one of the key arguments of anti-gun advocates to infringe upon the rights of legal responsible gun owners

    stop and think for just one minute...
    making laws hasn't stopped speeders, rapists, murderers, fraudsters, breaking and entering, assault and battery, spouse abuse, child abuse or any other type of criminal act that we have on the legal books... so what makes anyone think that creating more laws will "stop" any crime from being committed?

    especially (and this is important, so take note) especially when the existing laws aren't actually enforced like they should be

    and again, this is not because of the stupidity of the adult who was irresponsible, but the legal system who didn't actually do their f*cking job

    those prosecutors deserve neither the job nor the pay for those actions, and you should be concentrating on them, not the legal responsible owners


    and before T gets back in here with "you're responsible until you aren't"...
    that gibberish is no different than ownership of a car or any other tool... it's true. you are responsible until you aren't
    but then again, it's also false - you're responsible until you get caught being irresponsible

    what yall want to do is punish those who are stupid or irresponsible
    guess what?
    there are laws for that already... and again, to keep beating the dead horse some can't seem to accept: the argument to make laws to obey when we don't obey or enforce the laws that we already have is a nonsensical argument from delusion

    and lets not forget the fact that criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws....
    this is absolutely true

    of course, more irresponsible gun owners might actually take better care if existing laws were actually enforced as well, don't you think?

    this doesn't mean i advocate for the removal of existing gun laws any more than i advocate for the promotion of more gun laws
    it means, very simply, that until we actually enforce the gun laws we have already, the point of making more laws is crazy stupid, IMHO
     
    sculptor and Dr_Toad like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,513
    Because nothing is perfect.

    Take drunk driving laws. They have greatly reduced - but have not stopped - the problems of drunk driving. The lesson we can take from that is that good laws can reduce - but never eliminate - the incidence of the crime.
    Laws stop a lot of crime from being committed. They do not stop all crimes from being committed.

    Let's take your comment above about speeders. Let's say a school opens on a busy street where speeds are very high. There are a few incidents and several close calls. So the city puts in a traffic light and reduces the speed limit on the road. Will that guarantee student safety? No. But will it increase their safety? Yes.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    well yes... especially when they are enforced...
    your example is a great one too... we had DUI laws in the US in the '70-'80's... but there was rampant DUI problems...
    we cracked down on DUI and look what happened: so when we got tough and actually started enforcing laws and educated people about the problems... things started to change for the better

    this is exactly my point, BTW... and thanks for bringing it up because this is what i've been trying to point out for a very long time to people who want to argue for "more laws" kinda thing!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,372
    As with most such laws related to driving, it's a dangerous example -

    partly because it reduced unintentional disaster by punishing gross negligence, which is something the law can do but that is a comparatively minor factor in gunshot deaths (worth addressing, of course, but nowhere near the bulk of the problem), and something quite different from the purpose of most gun control laws;

    and partly because it is a famous example of mission creep in the law: it started out that if pulled over for cause one could be tested for alcohol and assigned more severe penalties for measured blood alcohol concentrations above .1 whatever;

    and within a few years the police were setting up random roadblocks on the freeways, pulling everyone over and making them blow into alcohol measuring machines, running dogs through their cars to sniff out drugs of any kind, running their driver's license for warrants etc, and suspending their commercial as well as private licenses immediately (before conviction) for testing at blood alcohol levels of .o8.

    That's because the old law didn't get all the drunks off the roads. So the authorities, as is their wont, redoubled their efforts against diminishing returns.

    That's not the reminder you want fresh in mind when advocating for more restrictive gun laws.
     
  8. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    sculptor and Dr_Toad like this.
  9. mwesson Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    I am not completely sure. I spent some time in North Dakota. Canadians come down quite often. I had, in the past, spoken to a few. From what I gather a Canadian can own a pistol but cannot be permitted to walk around with it. Hunting rifles and shotguns are a plenty. People in Canada DO get gunned down in crimes. I do not have the answers. Yes, we have a problem in America. One of the biggest problems we have is our government. Too many special interest groups drive the agendas here. The government in America has often times created situations in order to get something done. First case in point being Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Once our government saw the potential of mass earnings to feed the appetite of the corporate pig it has all been business as usual since. The war between the Union and Confederacy is another example. I dare never call it the civil war; no war is civil. In this situation you had a United States with no real major export cash crop. The CSA had cotton and them boys were raking in the dough. But they were too dumb to realize they needed infrastructure. Another example is Korea. The MIC had already gotten rich off of WWII. They needed more money. Viet Nam netted Lyndon Johnson and his wife a treasure trove with Brown and Root. This is why Kennedy was knocked off. Panama in 1989 justified the MICs development of the stealth fighter/ attack plane known as F117. Afghanistan has netted billions upon billions for the pharmaceutical corporations along with Halliburton, formerly known as Brown and Root.
    In short, but taking the long way to the point, the government in America is the number one leading cause of the people killing each other. Sandy Hook? Government hit job to push an agenda. Happened on Obama's watch. The Parkland,Florida shooting; government hit job. Las Vegas; government hit job. Right now, in Canada, the Islamic extremists are stockpiling masses of fully automatic weapons. They are doing so in America. Of all that I have ever seen of Canada I can see nothing that leads me to think Canadians are my enemy. America is collapsing from within because nobody can successfully invade America; everybody is armed. Canada has nothing anybody wants. Mexico is a corrupt drug distributor along with most of Central America. The problem is not us; it is our government. We cannot trust them. Too many times they have proven to us that they cannot be trusted. Democrats or Republicans, neither are trustworthy. But our roots start in England and they have plenty of blood on their hands.
     
  10. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    I disagree:
    Poutine
    fossils
    Fraser Cain
    Mineral fuels including oil -
    Vehicles-
    Machinery including computers
    Gems, precious metals
    Wood
    Plastics
    Aluminium
    Aircraft
    Electrical Machinery, equipment
    Oil seeds
    Dirt
    energy products

    The United States is by far the largest destination for Canadian products (75 percent of total exports); followed by the European Union (8 percent), China (5 percent) and Japan and Mexico (2 percent each).


    references:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine
    https://koritejewelry.com/canada-fossils/
    https://www.universetoday.com/
    http://www.worldstopexports.com/canadas-top-exports/
    https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/exports
     
    sculptor likes this.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,017
    wow someone who managed to be more crazy and batshit than the gun nuts and their dishonesty. my props but seriously no just no.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,513
    Wow.

    Are you off your meds? Is there someone we should call?
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    Curiously: The geneva convention specified the use of fmj rounds because they were designed to wound rather than kill.
    OK
    Why do cops not use fmjs?
     
  15. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,989
    Which cops don't?
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,435
    What Cops Carry
    While there’s lots of good ammo out there, most departments are using premium loads from the “Big Four” brands. Those would be, in alphabetical order: Federal HST, Remington Golden Saber, Speer Gold Dot and Winchester Ranger. All of these loads have been exhaustively, expensively developed to meet the demanding performance specs of the FBI in terms of expansion and penetration. Because these rounds are tracked regarding field performance, they are the ones that have the most documentable records.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://americanhandgunner.com/police-ammo-for-the-rest-of-us/
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    people wants guns to control society with
    society doesnt want to be controlled by guns
    the american problem...
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,372
    Not quite.
    You could say that fmj rounds are "designed to kill rather than wound", and be just as accurate.

    The Hague Convention (not Geneva Convention) banned the use of expanding, explosive, or poisoned rounds because they caused suffering - they were designed to kill and injure in ways thought to be barbaric, and to create a greater burden of suffering in the aftermath of war, when military necessity had no more role.

    The nature of the wounds, not the goal of wounding, was at issue. The full jacket rounds of the time were designed to kill - but their wounds when they did not were, by circumstance not design, "cleaner".

    The US did not ratify it. The modern militaries that did (and the US) have developed workarounds, high-speed bullets that create shock waves and bullets that tend to tumble on impact and so forth - horrific wounds as desired, technically in compliance.

    Some US police prefer to avoid high-penetration (fmj) rounds because they ( in theory ) are a bigger risk of hitting people and things not aimed at - they go through barriers, ricochet and deflect at higher speed, etc.

    Most US police, by policy and edict, are not supposed to shoot anyone they do not intend to kill. And most police shootings happen near quickly obtainable medical care, which is not supposed to be a burden on an enemy. So the nature of the wounding is not - in theory - an issue.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,989
    I missed the part where cops use unjacketed rounds. Little help, please.
     
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,989
    What other crazy faction of society gets that much power?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,372
  22. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,989
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,372
    The link was to an article on the bullets cops use (or at least buy and load into their weapons), the bullets listed are examples (some matched with specific police departments as examples), and I chose one to illustrate by linking to a complete description.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM

Share This Page