[Barstool Prophet]

Post away!

[TheAngel]

Alright, I don't understand why we're not addressing the main issue. If guns make people safer, and US has a very large percentage of their population who own guns, then why does the US have more violent crime than almost any other developed nation out there?

[clarkson_fan]

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post) Alright, I don't understand why we're not addressing the main issue. If guns make people safer, and US has a very large percentage of their population who own guns, then why does the US have more violent crime than almost any other developed nation out there?

Very good point. All countries have had a history of violence, but what is it about America that makes it so gun-happy?

I mean, this is a good video on it. It's from Michael Moore's documentary called "Bowling For Columbine" which, in my opinion, gives us a good look into guns and their history. And the whole movie is about what it is about America and guns.



"So they passed the second amendment that said that every white man could keep his gun"
"I loves my gun, loves my gun"

ETA:

This is also a good excerpt from the movie that not only shows America's history in violence, but how other countries are exposed to violence just as much, but still don't kill with guns as much as America does:

[sunnykerr]

Yeah, if Bowling for Columbine taught me anything, it's that it is pointless to look for logic in the "gun culture: of the United States.

For one thing, which isn't in the movie, it's not even an accurate term, is it? Plenty of Americans live out their lives without feeling the need to own or use guns. So I don't know where the difference emerges, but it's obvious that it is there.

[Barstool Prophet]

Provinces can create long-gun registries: Ottawa

Federal government not opposed to regional registries down the road The federal government says it would welcome proposals from any province wishing to set up its own long-gun registry if the Canadian program is eventually abolished. Ottawa was reacting to a report that the Quebec government has a so-called "Plan B" – to set up its own registry – if the federal program is scrapped. "Quebec or any of the provinces are free to move forward with any proposals within their jurisdictions," said Michael Patton, a spokesman for federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. But it's unclear what kind of role Ottawa would play – if any – in helping provinces set up their own provincial registries. Toews' office could not immediately say whether the feds would help set up such provincial programs, by sharing records for instance. P.O.V.: Should provinces create their own long-gun registries? The Conservatives have long promised to abolish the program, which they call ineffective and wasteful. With its powerful majority mandate in hand, the Tories outlined their intention to eliminate the long-gun registry in last month's Throne Speech. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's legislative majority would have no trouble killing the registry. "Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the long-gun registry once and for all and that is exactly what we intend to do," Patton said Monday. Quebec historically opposed to registry abolishment The Conservatives' plans have met the stiffest resistance over the years in Quebec, which became a hotbed of the gun-control movement after the massacre of 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989. Supporters of the registry say it saves lives, particularly in reducing the use of firearms in domestic disputes, suicides and attacks against police. Quebec Public Security Minister Robert Dutil told The Canadian Press that civil servants are considering a provincial registry if the Conservatives deliver on their promise to ditch the federal one. But Dutil said his priority is focused on convincing the Conservatives to keep the registry alive. The Quebec government has long supported the registry. During the 2008 federal election campaign, Premier Jean Charest urged the parties to maintain it and reinforce gun-control regulations.

It’s interesting when I hear conservative I don’t think stiffer gun regulations. Again, I love personal freedom but I hate these crimes that are committed by guns. It’s hard. But then are many gun crimes that use long guns? Now that its' easier to get a long gun, will crimes involving these weapons increase?
All questions I think about.

[TheAngel]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb (View Post) [B][COLOR=#365f91] It’s interesting when I hear conservative I don’t think stiffer gun regulations. Again, I love personal freedom but I hate these crimes that are committed by guns. It’s hard. But then are many gun crimes that use long guns? Now that its' easier to get a long gun, will crimes involving these weapons increase? All questions I think about.

In the US, you can buy a rifle when you're 18, but most of the times, weapons like that aren't used in crimes. They're harder to hide, ammunition is more expensive, and for some reason, they're much more widely used for hunting. Hand guns are the real problem here because they're so easy to hide on a person and can cause a lot of damage very quickly.

[Barstool Prophet]

American's can buy a gun at 18, but they can't drink until 21 right?

[clarkson_fan]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb (View Post) American's can buy a gun at 18, but they can't drink until 21 right?

That is kind of messed up.

[Barstool Prophet]

I have always been confused about how you can join the army and die for your country at 18, but can't have a beer until your 21.

[clarkson_fan]

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb (View Post) I have always been confused about how you can join the army and die for your country at 18, but can't have a beer until your 21.

And that is also messed up.

[Barstool Prophet]

[sunnykerr]

And, if you're 18, there's a bunch of States where they'll put your boyfriend (or girlfriend, possibly) if they're older than 21 and the two of you happen to have sex.

[Barstool Prophet]

Put them in jail?

[sunnykerr]

That was a remarkably convoluted sentence without much meaning in it, wasn't it?

I meant put in jail, sure, but especially put them on the register for sex offenders, which to me is the bigger crime. I don't think the jail sentences are very long in these cases, but being on the sex-offfender register is a lifelong sentence that carries the kinds of consequences that are completely ludicrous for a crime like this.

It's even stupider when you think about the fact that a 22-year-old who slept with his, let's say, 17-year-old girlfriend is far more likely to voluntarily abide by the demands of the sex-offender status than a guy regularly throlling for little boys and girls to rape.

Anyway, we're getting farther and farther away from topic here, so in an attempt to get us back on track:

Delaware governor to sign new gun control measures into law Gov. Jack Markell is poised to sign several gun control bills that his administration pushed during this year's legislative session. One bill to be signed by the governor on Wednesday authorizes Delaware to send mental health records on individuals to a federal gun purchase background check database. After the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech, Congress required states to provide mental health information to the federal database, but state officials noted that a patients' rights bill prevented Delaware from sending information that might result in the state denying a gun purchase to the federal database. Other bills to be signed into law regard gun disposal and recovery, and possession of firearms while intoxicated.

Source

The part that caught my attention in this story is that there's apparently a federal law in place requiring the availability of mental-health records for the background-check database.

Of course, we've already seen that four states have elected to forego any kind of background check when a person decides to buy a weapon. But, otherwise, it seems crystal clear that a lot of states must have these "patients' rights" bills in place because that's obviously not happening even a little bit.

And, under normal circumstances, I am absolutely in favour of protecting the privacy of anyone, especially with regard to their health concerns, but that background-check database does not appear to be open to the public, so I don't see any harm in the discreet sharing of information if it can lead to avoiding shooting rampages like Virginia Tech.

[Gray Ghost]

In American society, we are hypocrites or we create double standards for numerous things. Someone mentioned drinking and that is an excellent example of the hypocrisy and double standards we have in America. Drinking beer is not bad at all in America as long as you're of legal age. We say that we are against drinking and driving but the tone isn't there. We bash smokers and drug users more than we do drunk drivers. A drunk driver can do more damage in an instant than a smoker can do. It's okay if you drink yourself to death as long as you don't drive a car. But if you have a gun, you're a psycho or something. The hypocrisy is interesting to me. In America, we view guns, tobacco, and drinking differently. Smokers are like lepers, gun owners are psychos, but drinkers are okay.