A far left liberals point of veiw on gun laws.

WinterBorn said:
He is making a valid point in one respect. If the jails are filled with nonviolent drug offenders, we have overcrowding conditions and release violent felons back into society.

The laws that demand set times for possession of pot keep the dope smokers in prison.

There should be radically different sentences for those who simply smoke pot and those who threaten the lives of our citizens. This is not happening.
Click to expand...

I think it's in Colorado (not 100% on this just heard it recently on the fly) where they are releasing violent predators because of over crowding with drug offenders. Now it's different if your drug offender also is violent doing other things but if he/she is just addicted and not doing anything but harming themselves there should be a better alternative than prison. How about actually helping them? And if they don't accept the help what about having half-way houses again? I don't think we have those anymore. Probation is close.
 
WinterBorn said:
I've read your posts in this thread and you seem to be well informed about the criminal elements. Men do commit more firearm crimes than women.

But I would suggest you do more research into the number of women who defend themselves with guns and prevent violence. The numbers are more difficult to come by, since there is often no crime actually committed or reported.

"Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times."

From: (Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.)


Also, before condemning firearms as a whole, I would like to see a study that shows the number of violent crimes committed by persons who had no prior felony record. Since felons cannot purchase a firearm legally, these are the ones who obtain them by illegal means. Gun laws will not effect this group any more than making drugs illegal effects the drug users.


Given the physiological differences between men and women, the average woman needs some sort of assistance to defend herself from an attack by the average criminal male. While pepperspray and tasers may be sufficient, they also have limitations that may mean the difference between life & death for the woman.

My wife has a handgun and knows quite well how to use it.

A quick look at the response times for local law enforcement can show you the folly of removing guns. Find out how long the average response is for your local police dept. Then get a stopwatch and imagine what could be happening as those minutes tick by. Its an eye opener.



There has also not been any mention of sporting uses of firearms. I hunt quite a bit. The guns I use for that would be far more dangerous than the small handgun my wife has for defense.
Click to expand...


Well I've just got done with a violent offenders sociology class for my major (I'm a criminal justice major) and we had to do a group presentation on a topic and my group did a comparison of men/women who do crimes and we did a lot of stats and crime scenes and whatnot. So I've been really researching this with my group for the past few months since August.

The numbers I used earlier were from the UCR or the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI and unfortunately that's just for reported crimes from local/state police agencies. So yes there's probably a good bit out there on that topic just not discussed or any studies done. I think it would be an interesting addition and probably useful especially in dealing with domestic abuse cases.

As far as survey's like from Gallup I don't know if I really trust those so much. I would rely more on psychologists, criminologist (especially) or sociologist and criminal justice historians just because they actually study the particular subject for a long time and know how to do a proper investigation. Not saying it's wrong or anything just that survey's are like polls and in psychology polls aren't trusted because the person doing the poll can go to people who will give them the answer they want instead of the true results and people can also lie for whatever reasoning.

I think if you hunt and you do things like that I don't see the problem with that because you're probably well aware of your gun and have a good relationship with it and know how to properly use it. My cousin and her husband hunt and they eat what they hunt and all that. They've been hunting for yrs so they're pretty familiar with their guns. What I don't like is just your average macho Joe/Jane who keeps a gun and doesn't know how to properly use it or keep it safe etc.

Oh and something else interesting I learned in this sociology class is that the Old West wasn't really very violent like we are shown on movies and whatnot. Everyone, even women, had a gun with them all the time and they didn't have tolerance for people who commit crimes. Medicine wasn't as great back then as today with gun shot wounds so they were less likely to commit crimes. One town in California mentioned never had a single bank robbery. Carriages did have thief's but not personal belongings. Usually stuff on the top of the carriage and even then robbery was very rare. One time it was mentioned in that same town a robbery happened but only cause the guy was drunk. Another guy robbed but he went back to the people and apologized like crazy. There were also those mob groups that would go after people and basically harass them if they did anything wrong. One guy killed another guy and the other guy wasn't prepared for the fight or anything and the whole town went against the murderer the local police had to do something. When fights happened it was mostly against friends or acquaintances in bars and happen cause of a silly thing with words. Women were well respected except prostitutes. It's just very interesting.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Well what little I have read on suicide attempts people seem to want to do it to feel pain physically like it connects to their emotions or something. So perhaps that's why women use cutting and overdosing etc. than guns. Perhaps it's just something built into your brain over the yrs about women and guns or something.
Click to expand...

since you studied some sociology, maybe you'll remember a study that came out about 10 or 12 years ago that determined the reason women use simple means like slashing wrists or overdosing was a subtle underlying subconcious notion of not messing with their faces to preserve their vanity.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Yeah, no I didn't. I said most. And from my experience, where ALL my OPINIONS come from, it's been pretty accurate. And your class would also probably tell you about the vast amount of crime caused by the prohibition of drugs right? Or do they ignore those lil tidbits?
Click to expand...

Oh no. We talked a good bit about prohibition of alcohol and the mafia groups and the bad cops and politicians and the turf wars. Most of the crime during that period was because of prohibition. Young men were getting involved and the older more experienced men who had alcohol businesses didn't so they weren't involved in crime. Which is true with crime being mostly younger people. Oh and I doubt you've talked to every American who is against guns. Nice try.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
since you studied some sociology, maybe you'll remember a study that came out about 10 or 12 years ago that determined the reason women use simple means like slashing wrists or overdosing was a subtle underlying subconcious notion of not messing with their faces to preserve their vanity.
Click to expand...

Sorry it hasn't been brought up in any of my sociology classes this far. It's mostly with homicide and violent crimes and other sociology classes I've had hadn't dealt with them. Maybe if you have the study available you can post it? I'm sure it'd be an interesting read. As far as overdosing I would probably say yes but also to where people can't see what you're doing with marks and stuff.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
total fallacy. there is no gun show loophole that gets exploited.
Click to expand...

Oh please. I remember yrs ago hearing that gun shows are using all sorts of ways to sell guns and not do background checks and it was becoming a major problem because people who shouldn't have a gun were getting guns from these shows.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh please. I remember yrs ago hearing that gun shows are using all sorts of ways to sell guns and not do background checks and it was becoming a major problem because people who shouldn't have a gun were getting guns from these shows.
Click to expand...

and when the brady bill was passed those years ago, the rules changed. Now, ALL dealers MUST use the NICS background check system to sell a firearm. What is being termed the 'loophole' is actually the compromise that was agreed to by the anti gun lawmakers. That compromise was to remove all of the 'kitchen table' FFLs and allow private sellers the ability to sell their privately owned weapons at gun shows without being forced to use NICS. This is not a loophole, but an agreed to compromise by all parties involved in the passing of the brady bill.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and when the brady bill was passed those years ago, the rules changed. Now, ALL dealers MUST use the NICS background check system to sell a firearm. What is being termed the 'loophole' is actually the compromise that was agreed to by the anti gun lawmakers. That compromise was to remove all of the 'kitchen table' FFLs and allow private sellers the ability to sell their privately owned weapons at gun shows without being forced to use NICS. This is not a loophole, but an agreed to compromise by all parties involved in the passing of the brady bill.
Click to expand...

By a few yrs I don't mean 10. I mean more like 4 or 5. During the Bush administration. And people who don't go through background checks don't deserve a gun until they check out. A male or female shouldn't be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun and then later go and kill people at their work or mall or wherever.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh please. I remember yrs ago hearing that gun shows are using all sorts of ways to sell guns and not do background checks and it was becoming a major problem because people who shouldn't have a gun were getting guns from these shows.
Click to expand...

I have a test for you. Go to a gun show and try to buy a gun. See how many questions are asked of you and note the forms. If a dealer will sell you a gun and not ask you to fill out the forms/answer the questions then he is an illegal dealer already. If he does then he is following the law as it was meant to be followed. Point is that no matter where you buy a gun you've got to jump through the hoops, as it were, IF they are following the law. If there were stricter laws there would still be those who would bypass them....as there are now. It's really not a "gun show" thing, it is a "following the law" thing.



A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “...new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.”

Anthony J. Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers 53 (Aug. 2006)

A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders 6 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 2001).
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
By a few yrs I don't mean 10. I mean more like 4 or 5. During the Bush administration. And people who don't go through background checks don't deserve a gun until they check out. A male or female shouldn't be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun and then later go and kill people at their work or mall or wherever.
Click to expand...

firstly, the only reason a background check gets done on a dealer purchase is the obscene twisting of the commerce clause in the constitution. Congress does not have the power to affect private sales between individuals, your opinion notwithstanding. That means that if I choose to sell my .22 pistol during the dallas market gun show, no law can touch me.

secondly, there are already laws against murder, so do you really think that criminalizing private sales, you're going to stop workplace violence?

Maybe you should read the following article, placing aside any bias you might have currently, and pay particular attention to the scanned paragraphs in the middle.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-...minimally-trained-and-gun-control-doesnt-work
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Well I've just got done with a violent offenders sociology class for my major (I'm a criminal justice major) and we had to do a group presentation on a topic and my group did a comparison of men/women who do crimes and we did a lot of stats and crime scenes and whatnot. So I've been really researching this with my group for the past few months since August.

The numbers I used earlier were from the UCR or the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI and unfortunately that's just for reported crimes from local/state police agencies. So yes there's probably a good bit out there on that topic just not discussed or any studies done. I think it would be an interesting addition and probably useful especially in dealing with domestic abuse cases.

As far as survey's like from Gallup I don't know if I really trust those so much. I would rely more on psychologists, criminologist (especially) or sociologist and criminal justice historians just because they actually study the particular subject for a long time and know how to do a proper investigation. Not saying it's wrong or anything just that survey's are like polls and in psychology polls aren't trusted because the person doing the poll can go to people who will give them the answer they want instead of the true results and people can also lie for whatever reasoning.

I think if you hunt and you do things like that I don't see the problem with that because you're probably well aware of your gun and have a good relationship with it and know how to properly use it. My cousin and her husband hunt and they eat what they hunt and all that. They've been hunting for yrs so they're pretty familiar with their guns. What I don't like is just your average macho Joe/Jane who keeps a gun and doesn't know how to properly use it or keep it safe etc.

Oh and something else interesting I learned in this sociology class is that the Old West wasn't really very violent like we are shown on movies and whatnot. Everyone, even women, had a gun with them all the time and they didn't have tolerance for people who commit crimes. Medicine wasn't as great back then as today with gun shot wounds so they were less likely to commit crimes. One town in California mentioned never had a single bank robbery. Carriages did have thief's but not personal belongings. Usually stuff on the top of the carriage and even then robbery was very rare. One time it was mentioned in that same town a robbery happened but only cause the guy was drunk. Another guy robbed but he went back to the people and apologized like crazy. There were also those mob groups that would go after people and basically harass them if they did anything wrong. One guy killed another guy and the other guy wasn't prepared for the fight or anything and the whole town went against the murderer the local police had to do something. When fights happened it was mostly against friends or acquaintances in bars and happen cause of a silly thing with words. Women were well respected except prostitutes. It's just very interesting.
Click to expand...

The Gallup (and other sources) surveys are good because they address preventions of crimes. If someone uses a gun to prevent a crime, it may never be reported or is reported as something significantly less.


You are correct about the Old West. The movies have made it look different, but the reality was that virtually everyone was armed and could defend themselves. The movie nonsense about a gang coming in and taking over a town was pure celluloid fantasy. The Old West time period followed the Civil War. More veterans went west and those who were already there had had to take care of themselves.

It was vastly different than the "John Wayne" movies showed it to be.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, this is like giving time in prison for speeding.
Click to expand...

If that's was the consequence, then I wouldn't have room to bitch and moan about it.

What do you think would happend to me, if I continiued to drive to fast and then continued even after my driving privileges had been revoked??

I would go to PRISON.

If you break a law, there is a consequence.
If you don't like the consequence, then either stop breaking the law or work to change it.
You're not going to change it, by ignoring it.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh please. I remember yrs ago hearing that gun shows are using all sorts of ways to sell guns and not do background checks and it was becoming a major problem because people who shouldn't have a gun were getting guns from these shows.
Click to expand...


Oh please. I remember decades ago hearing that gun shows were doing everything they could, to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and now that they are doing back ground checks, it's become even better. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top