Gun Violence Vs. Legislative Response

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Frank Sanoica, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,838
    Likes Received:
    3,430
    My nephew sent me this interesting comparison, state by state, of the reaction of each to major criminal acts involving firearms. From Time Magazine, I expected more "slanted" reporting. Surprisingly, in many cases, the state reaction to a major killing spree has been to extend MORE rights to gun owners! I hope his highlighting is legible. Notable overall AFAIK, is the one state which responded in a most ridiculous way: legislation against armor piercing ammunition? Why in hell would such ammunition make any difference whatsoever if used during a mass killing? Note that very many states have NO laws regulating any of these considerations. However, those states may have LOCAL LAWS far more restrictive than state law, especially those states bounded by our Northeast Coast. Understandably, those areas have some of the heaviest concentrations of population density in the entire country. Fact remains, IMO, that given very high population density, criminal activity invariably far exceeds that in Podunk, Idaho. Bear in mind, we talk of activity in terms of PER CAPITA. IOW, a family living in a rural area set apart from the city, is always far "safer". No surrounding people, no criminals present. Frank


    [​IMG]
     
    #1
  2. Mike Dobra

    Mike Dobra Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    99
    Overwhelming and almost incomprehensible. Over here, after the Dunblane in Scotland massacre, laws were tightened up. It seems to a foreigner that the US government will have almighty problems breaking the love affair with killing weapons. Your charts above indicate to me, "Fiddling while Rome burns....."
     
    #2
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  3. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,838
    Likes Received:
    3,430
    @Mike Dobra
    Most unfortunately, the published statistics in the Media do not reflect truthful information. For example, ALL gun homicides are included. This means the legally excusable, which include self-defense killings by both civilians and Law Enforcement and suicides, which are by some estimates at least half the total or more, tell a tale of wanton killing using firearms. Certainly an unfortunate fact, but, certain individuals committing heinous acts against the law-abiding, likely should be disposed of.

    I suspect that the law-makers actually know deep down inside that should complete elimination of firearms in the public sector be accomplished, the homicide rate would likely change by only a small fraction, as the various crimes of passion, heinous intent, and others leave available quite a large number of tools usable to accomplish the same feat: kill someone.

    Then, too, there is the simple fact that one possessed of criminal intent desiring to have a firearm, will ALWAYS be able to obtain one. In that context restriction of firearms availability to the law-abiding individual leaves him open as easy prey to the armed criminal.

    Rant finished. Frank
     
    #3
  4. Babs Hunt

    Babs Hunt Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Messages:
    5,414
    Likes Received:
    6,885
    #4
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  5. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,838
    Likes Received:
    3,430
    #5
  6. Babs Hunt

    Babs Hunt Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Messages:
    5,414
    Likes Received:
    6,885
    We are losing the war on drugs because we are not bringing down the Drug lords...just their minions.
     
    #6
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  7. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,838
    Likes Received:
    3,430
    @Babs Hunt
    I feel a bit differently about that. Knowing that the War on Drugs has provided the "legal" means for a variety of "Public Servants" to confiscate private property, to end the "War" would drastically reduce the amount of revenue being added through confiscation.

    To confiscate the contents of a man's wallet, and never charge him with a crime, is one of the worst Un-American acts I can think of, and it continues to expand. See: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...rfeiture-sessions-brandes-20170719-story.html
     
    #7
  8. Babs Hunt

    Babs Hunt Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Messages:
    5,414
    Likes Received:
    6,885
    I hear you Frank...it's kind of like the same reason they don't "find" a cure for cancer, etc....there would be no more raking in the big bucks if they did.
     
    #8
  9. Mike Dobra

    Mike Dobra Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    99
    Would a 50% sales tax on guns help to reduce volume of sales ?
     
    #9
  10. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    15,013
    Likes Received:
    13,759
    Probably not and it would give criminals the advantage I think. They don't pay tax on their guns since most are stolen or gotten in other ways.
     
    #10
    Frank Sanoica likes this.

Share This Page