Two simple laws could solve America’s epidemic of violence

Maddog wrote:It's hardly an epidemic.  And the vast majority of murders are done with handguns. Nine if that will happen without getting rid of the second amendment.  Unlike owning a car, which local authorities can ban, owning a gun is a right like speech, voting and due process.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's hardly an epidemic.  And the vast majority of murders are done with handguns. Nine if that will happen without getting rid of the second amendment.  Unlike owning a car, which local authorities can ban, owning a gun is a right like speech, voting and due process.  

So what is the harm in applying these sensible laws?

No matter that many murders are done by guns, surely you back sound reasoning to reduce the ones not done by handguns?

Owning a gun is not a right. Its an invented claim to own a gun, based on a law that simply is now not in context to the time.

If irresponsible people are banned from driving, then the same can apply to those irresponsible with guns

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

So what is the harm in applying these sensible laws?

No matter that many murders are done by guns, surely you back sound reasoning to reduce the ones not done by handguns?

Owning a gun is not a right. Its an invented claim to own a gun, based on a law that simply is now not in context to the time.

If irresponsible people are banned from driving, then the same can apply to those irresponsible with guns

Cities have passed laws like these.  They are not constitutional and get overturned. DC and Chicago had handgun bans for a while.  

Car bans are not based on being irresponsible. Certain locations have banned them because they don't want them.  The bans are legal because no one has a right to a car.  Just to move freely throughout the country.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Cities have passed laws like these.  They are not constitutional and get overturned. DC and Chicago had handgun bans for a while.  

Car bans are not based on being irresponsible. Certain locations have banned them because they don't want them.  The bans are legal because no one has a right to a car.  Just to move freely throughout the country.  

I dont believe the last claptrap, based on hearsay conspiracies

Evidence please?

I still fail to understand why you would be against two sensible laws here

Banning irresponisble people getting behind the wheel saves lives

As it would when not allowing irresponible people to have guns

I fail to see how you even have a sensible rejection to these laws.

If its down to a view on your beliefs of small governement, how selfish is that to hold here?

Do innocent lives matter here or you and others beliefs?

Its like i said earlier, beliefs are not the problem when not litterally believed. Its when they are dogmatically believed, that it turns into a major issue.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:              DopeyDawg happily ignores one discrepancy in his regularly regurgitated claptrap...
Constitutional rights are neither written in stone, nor are they some natural "god given" rights..

The American people's Bill of Rights was added into the Constitution to make up for the small problem that the core concerns of their initial Constitution weren't with the rights if the individual, but rather with the governance of their country, and rights and obligations of the different levels of government (i.e. federal, state, local..).

Amendments to the Constitution are just that --  changes that had to be made when some parts of the original were deemed inappopriate or obsolete, or to address some oversight.

The likes of DopeyDawg, the anti-democracy corporate-controlled NRA, and the more extreme open carry nutters, seem to be claiming a special place for their beloved second amendment --  falsely claiming that it endows a God-given right on every loyal and patriotic American to own a gun, and that it can't possibly be amended further to address any unforeseen consequences.

Effectkvely contradicting themselves in every other sentence that they keep on uttering in their blindly boofheaded, collective stonewalling and bullyboy manner..          

eddie wrote:The only reason I keep hearing from the people want to play with guns is that Mr and Mrs Joe Public need to defend themselves in their own homes.

Well, quite frankly, I think the very fact that kids are being shot up all over the freaking place is a good enough reason to take away people’s right to own guns.

Enough flaffing about. Get rid.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:The only reason I keep hearing from the people want to play with guns is that Mr and Mrs Joe Public need to defend themselves in their own homes.

Well, quite frankly, I think the very fact that kids are being shot up all over the freaking place is a good enough reason to take away people’s right to own guns.

Enough flaffing about. Get rid.

35 kids a year are killed in schools, which is too many.

500 kids a year are killed by their parents, almost half by their mothers.

How many stories of kids being killed by their parents have you heard about in the last year or so?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

35 kids a year are killed in schools, which is too many.

500 kids a year are killed by their parents, almost half by their mothers.

How many stories of kids being killed by their parents have you heard about in the last year or so?

Good Point there is Hundreds of Kids Shot by their parents too And we should Be Pushing For Stricter Gun Controls to Prevent These too.
SO Many Preventable deaths in America due to the Crazy Lack of Gun Control

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Good Point there is Hundreds of Kids Shot by their parents too And we should Be Pushing For Stricter Gun Controls to Prevent These too.
SO Many Preventable deaths in America due to the Crazy Lack of Gun Control

Murdered, not shot.

Most murdered kids are slammed against walls, punched or kicked. Lots of them are infants.  

Nice try though.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Murdered, not shot.

Most murdered kids are slammed against walls, punched or kicked. Lots of them are infants.  

Nice try though.

OBJECTIVES: Examine fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries among children aged 0 to 17 in the United States, including intent, demographic characteristics, trends, state-level patterns, and circumstances.

METHODS: Fatal injuries were examined by using data from the National Vital Statistics System and nonfatal injuries by using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Trends from 2002 to 2014 were tested using joinpoint regression analyses. Incident characteristics and circumstances were examined by using data from the National Violent Death Reporting System.

RESULTS: Nearly 1300 children die and 5790 are treated for gunshot wounds each year. Boys, older children, and minorities are disproportionately affected. Although unintentional firearm deaths among children declined from 2002 to 2014 and firearm homicides declined from 2007 to 2014, firearm suicides decreased between 2002 and 2007 and then showed a significant upward trend from 2007 to 2014. Rates of firearm homicide among children are higher in many Southern states and parts of the Midwest relative to other parts of the country. Firearm suicides are more dispersed across the United States with some of the highest rates occurring in Western states. Firearm homicides of younger children often occurred in multivictim events and involved intimate partner or family conflict; older children more often died in the context of crime and violence. Firearm suicides were often precipitated by situational and relationship problems. The shooter playing with a gun was the most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger and older children.

CONCLUSIONS: Firearm injuries are an important public health problem, contributing substantially to premature death and disability of children. Understanding their nature and impact is a first step toward prevention.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

OBJECTIVES: Examine fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries among children aged 0 to 17 in the United States, including intent, demographic characteristics, trends, state-level patterns, and circumstances.

METHODS: Fatal injuries were examined by using data from the National Vital Statistics System and nonfatal injuries by using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Trends from 2002 to 2014 were tested using joinpoint regression analyses. Incident characteristics and circumstances were examined by using data from the National Violent Death Reporting System.

RESULTS: Nearly 1300 children die and 5790 are treated for gunshot wounds each year. Boys, older children, and minorities are disproportionately affected. Although unintentional firearm deaths among children declined from 2002 to 2014 and firearm homicides declined from 2007 to 2014, firearm suicides decreased between 2002 and 2007 and then showed a significant upward trend from 2007 to 2014. Rates of firearm homicide among children are higher in many Southern states and parts of the Midwest relative to other parts of the country. Firearm suicides are more dispersed across the United States with some of the highest rates occurring in Western states. Firearm homicides of younger children often occurred in multivictim events and involved intimate partner or family conflict; older children more often died in the context of crime and violence. Firearm suicides were often precipitated by situational and relationship problems. The shooter playing with a gun was the most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger and older children.

CONCLUSIONS: Firearm injuries are an important public health problem, contributing substantially to premature death and disability of children. Understanding their nature and impact is a first step toward prevention.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486

Yes, "children" do shoot each other too.
 

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, "children" do shoot each other too.
 

Is that what you took from the report?

Seriously?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is that what you took from the report?

Seriously?

I edited my comment.

Veya and I were talking about kids murdered by their parents. Not kids who were shot. Those two groups have some overlap, no doubt. I know of a few cases where parents did the murder suicide on their children with guns, but that's not as common as the pissed off parent shaking the baby to death because they won't stop crying.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I edited my comment.

Veya and I were talking about kids murdered by their parents. Not kids who were shot. Those two groups have some overlap, no doubt. I know of a few cases where parents did the murder suicide on their children with guns, but that's not as common as the pissed off parent shaking the baby to death because they won't stop crying.  

Well kids are also shot by a suicidal parent, or one that hates the other parent etc.

You read about them all the time in the press.

The majority of children are not also babies

I doubt each of us know the stats on this and would need to see more, so there is little point in speculating.

However, as seen look at the number of gun related deaths and injuries to children.

That is staggering

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well kids are also shot by a suicidal parent, or one that hates the other parent etc.

You read about them all the time in the press.

The majority of children are not also babies

I doubt each of us know the stats on this and would need to see more, so there is little point in speculating.

However, as seen look at the number of gun related deaths and injuries to children.

That is staggering

It's staggering until you realize that many members of gangs are "children". I'm not saying they don't matter, but 16 year olds getting shot by rival gang members is fairly common.

Maddog wrote:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm

It's not speculation.

Gang homicide victims were significantly younger than nongang homicide victims in all five cities (Table 1). Whereas 27%–42% of the gang homicide victims were aged 15–19 years, only 9%–14% of the nongang homicide victims were in this age group. Approximately 80% of all homicide victims were male in each city; however, Los Angeles, Newark, and Oklahoma City still reported significantly higher proportions of male victims in gang homicide incidents compared with nongang homicide incidents. In Los Angeles and Oakland, a significantly higher proportion of gang victims were Hispanic and, in Oklahoma City, a significantly higher proportion of gang victims were non-Hispanic black compared with nongang victims.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's staggering until you realize that many members of gangs are "children". I'm not saying they don't matter, but 16 year olds getting shot by rival gang members is fairly common.

Speculation yet again

Lets look at this sensible

Would so many die or be injured, if you took guns out of the equation?

The simple answer is yes.

You would have zero gun accidents

You would not have mass shootings (trying the same with a knife is a lot harder as a lone killer and would be difficult to achieve as a gun can achieve)

I mean I can go on based on the element of risk and outcome on weapons. Where a gun has maximum killing power and from range. Making that much harder to tackle a gunman

Lets not forget tens of thousands are also injured each year by guns

It just proves how people are ultimately selfish, when it comes to gun laws, when they should be looking to get as rid of as many as possible

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm

It's not speculation.

Gang homicide victims were significantly younger than nongang homicide victims in all five cities (Table 1). Whereas 27%–42% of the gang homicide victims were aged 15–19 years, only 9%–14% of the nongang homicide victims were in this age group. Approximately 80% of all homicide victims were male in each city; however, Los Angeles, Newark, and Oklahoma City still reported significantly higher proportions of male victims in gang homicide incidents compared with nongang homicide incidents. In Los Angeles and Oakland, a significantly higher proportion of gang victims were Hispanic and, in Oklahoma City, a significantly higher proportion of gang victims were non-Hispanic black compared with nongang victims.

That is stats on gangs in 5 US cities, not all gun homicides or gun deaths

Hence speculation

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Speculation yet again

Lets look at this sensible

Would so many die or be injured, if you took guns out of the equation?

The simple answer is yes.

You would have zero gun accidents

You would not have mass shootings (trying the same with a knife is a lot harder as a lone killer and would be difficult to achieve as a gun can achieve)

I mean I can go on based on the element of risk and outcome on weapons. Where a gun has maximum killing power and from range. Making that much harder to tackle a gunman

Lets not forget tens of thousands are also injured each year by guns

It just proves how people are ultimately selfish, when it comes to gun laws, when they should be looking to get as rid of as many as possible

How many crimes would be stopped by guns, if guns were out of the equation?

When a government no longer trusts it's citizens to be armed, what does that say about the government?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How many crimes would be stopped by guns, if guns were out of the equation?

When a government no longer trusts it's citizens to be armed, what does that say about the government?

It says that people cannot be trusted with guns, which is the problem

You should be asking yourself, what does that show about the selfish nature of people?

When they place an unnecessary need, over the lives of others.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


It says that people cannot be trusted with guns, which is the problem

You should be asking yourself, what does that show about the selfish nature of people?

When they place an unnecessary need, over the lives of others.

There are thousands of people every year, that find a gun to be necessary. At least it provided them an additional level of defense that a knife can't.

Could you stop 3 men with knives kicking in your door?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are thousands of people every year, that find a gun to be necessary. At least it provided them an additional level of defense that a knife can't.

Could you stop 3 men with knives kicking in your door?

But if there is no guns, why would they need them?

The vast majority in the UK, do not need or carry guns in self defense

We have very little gun related deaths

To your question, depends on time and strengh of the door and if I could easily reinforce it with another big object. Thus all I need to do is delay them and call the Police

Again the self defense argument is complete bollocks

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


But if there is no guns, why would they need them?

The vast majority in the UK, do not need or carry guns in self defense

We have very little gun related deaths

To your question, depends on time and strengh of the door and if I could easily reinforce it with another big object. Thus all I need to do is delay them and call the Police

Again the self defense argument is complete bollocks

I guess you could throw tea in their face.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


But if there is no guns, why would they need them?

The vast majority in the UK, do not need or carry guns in self defense

We have very little gun related deaths

To your question, depends on time and strengh of the door and if I could easily reinforce it with another big object. Thus all I need to do is delay them and call the Police

Again the self defense argument is complete bollocks

I guess you could throw tea in their face.

If they are determined to murder me, there would be very little I could do about it, even if I carried a gun in self defense..

That is what you miss

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I guess you could throw tea in their face.

If they are determined to murder me, there would be very little I could do about it, even if I carried a gun in self defense..

That is what you miss

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


If they are determined to murder me, there would be very little I could do about it, even if I carried a gun in self defense..

That is what you miss

that's not how it works in Maddog's make believe Movie world, the guy in the white hat always wins the gun fight

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


If they are determined to murder me, there would be very little I could do about it, even if I carried a gun in self defense..

That is what you miss

that's not how it works in Maddog's make believe Movie world, the guy in the white hat always wins the gun fight

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


If they are determined to murder me, there would be very little I could do about it, even if I carried a gun in self defense..

That is what you miss

Oh, so now guns are not very lethal against people?  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Oh, so now guns are not very lethal against people?  

Oh they are lethal and I see you miss the point again.

If somone is determined to murder you, there is very little you can do about this.

Luck or intelligence on this will only give you a chance

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh they are lethal and I see you miss the point again.

If somone is determined to murder you, there is very little you can do about this.

Luck or intelligence on this will only give you a chance

Yeah, never happens.  

Maddog wrote:A 23-year-old man was fatally shot Monday evening by a 58-year-old man he was trying to rob in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Shaquille Gales, 23, of Bellwood, walked up to the older man about 5:45 p.m. in the 5500 block of West Thomas Street, pulled out a gun and demanded his property, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/police-man-23-fatally-shot-in-head-while-trying-to-rob-58-year-old-in-austin/

Yeah, those guns never work.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, never happens.  

I see you cannot grasp the point can you?

Like I said, guns are unneccessary selfish materialistic need.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, never happens.  

I see you cannot grasp the point can you?

Like I said, guns are unneccessary selfish materialistic need.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:A 23-year-old man was fatally shot Monday evening by a 58-year-old man he was trying to rob in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Shaquille Gales, 23, of Bellwood, walked up to the older man about 5:45 p.m. in the 5500 block of West Thomas Street, pulled out a gun and demanded his property, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/police-man-23-fatally-shot-in-head-while-trying-to-rob-58-year-old-in-austin/

Yeah, those guns never work.

So a man pulled out a gun to rob someone and was shot.

How would that happen, taking away the guns?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So a man pulled out a gun to rob someone and was shot.

How would that happen, taking away the guns?

Is a gun necessary to rob an older person?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I see you cannot grasp the point can you?

Like I said, guns are unneccessary selfish materialistic need.

I know what you said.

I say you're wrong.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:A 23-year-old man was fatally shot Monday evening by a 58-year-old man he was trying to rob in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Shaquille Gales, 23, of Bellwood, walked up to the older man about 5:45 p.m. in the 5500 block of West Thomas Street, pulled out a gun and demanded his property, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/police-man-23-fatally-shot-in-head-while-trying-to-rob-58-year-old-in-austin/

Yeah, those guns never work.

So a man pulled out a gun to rob someone and was shot.

How would that happen, taking away the guns?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So a man pulled out a gun to rob someone and was shot.

How would that happen, taking away the guns?

Isleworth Crown Court heard the two thugs lurked outside the Ladbrokes, waiting for the OAP after they noticed him in a previous betting shop.

As the 74-year-old made his way to a nearby bus stop, Bailey pounced on him with so much force, the pensioner fell onto the ground.

Bailey then punched his defenceless victim 13 times, using both fists, while Bennett, his accomplice looked on.

In a bid to steal his winnings, the pair dragged the OAP into an alleyway, and continued to launch a barrage of punches and kicks on him.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4875437/pensioner-attacked-hayes-hillingdon-betting-shop-winnings/


Like this. Look at that old mans face. But look on the bright side. The pieces of shit that did this too him weren't harmed.

Night boys.