|
Post by bob on Feb 17, 2013 23:28:18 GMT -5
He said:
For damn sure. Chicago has one of the most restrictive gun controls in the nation. Yet last year, it also had 500 gun related deaths. Most of that was from gang warfare.
Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 19, 2013 13:33:51 GMT -5
Depending on which numbers you look at, something like 70% of the gun deaths in the US are gun owners shooting themselves (on purpose or by accident) or shooting family or friends (on purpose or by accident). Most of the remainder are young black males shooting other young black males. Gun restrictions try to curb the gang violence and the known dangerous person, but something like 1,000 guns per day in the US are stolen by burglars and sold on the black market, so background checks and such are of limited usefulness. With about 300 million guns already in circulation in the US, the NRA folk don't have to worry about the government taking them away (it's impossible, even if they tried) and the anti-gun folk don't have to worry that Congress won't pass more gun restrictions (because nothing Congress can do will have any major effect on gun violence.)
The only way to reduce gun deaths are (1) improve access to mental health for those about to snap (2) legalize and regulate illegal drugs, to deflate the drug gangs and narco-terrorists. The gun industry could help (but won't) by moving serial numbers to places more difficult to file off, to add a "loaded" indicator so people could tell that there was a round in the chamber, and to make only-owner-can-fire weapons, so burglars would have no reason to steal them (the technology already exists for this).
But I don't expect anything to seriously change, one way or the other, in my lifetime. 8-<
Fred Askew
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 19, 2013 13:47:38 GMT -5
"The only way to reduce gun deaths are (1) improve access to mental health for those about to snap"
Doubt if most would take advantage of this, & it is worrying for other reasons, including political. Gulags anyone?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Feb 19, 2013 16:21:09 GMT -5
Dear Fred:
I'm fascinated -- how does an "owner only" gun work? Fingerprints? Voice recognition?
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 19, 2013 20:06:57 GMT -5
Depending on which numbers you look at, something like 70% of the gun deaths in the US are gun owners shooting themselves (on purpose or by accident) or shooting family or friends (on purpose or by accident). Most of the remainder are young black males shooting other young black males. Gun restrictions try to curb the gang violence and the known dangerous person, but something like 1,000 guns per day in the US are stolen by burglars and sold on the black market, so background checks and such are of limited usefulness. With about 300 million guns already in circulation in the US, the NRA folk don't have to worry about the government taking them away (it's impossible, even if they tried) and the anti-gun folk don't have to worry that Congress won't pass more gun restrictions (because nothing Congress can do will have any major effect on gun violence.) The only way to reduce gun deaths are (1) improve access to mental health for those about to snap (2) legalize and regulate illegal drugs, to deflate the drug gangs and narco-terrorists. The gun industry could help (but won't) by moving serial numbers to places more difficult to file off, to add a "loaded" indicator so people could tell that there was a round in the chamber, and to make only-owner-can-fire weapons, so burglars would have no reason to steal them (the technology already exists for this). But I don't expect anything to seriously change, one way or the other, in my lifetime. 8-< Fred Askew As usual Fred, your posts get to the heart of the matter. Passing laws make people feel good, feel like they have done something. But nothing really changes. Bob Marks
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 19, 2013 20:31:50 GMT -5
The reason any measures won't work, Bob, is that there are too many guns out there, legal or not, already. Too late to be effective at this point.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 20, 2013 8:15:28 GMT -5
Debutante,
There are several technologies in the works. Two that are already available are a magnetic device in the gun that prevents the trigger from being pulled unless the person firing is wearing a ring that counters the trigger hold and the other is RFID inserts that would require the owner to wear a ring or bracelet or other thingy to send signals to the gun.
A work-in-progress uses a chip in the gun that is programmed with biometric data from the owner (and others the owner wants to add). Measures biometric data below the skin. Police and military versions would involve a generic bracelet or some such allowing multiple friendly users but denying the weapon to enemies who might capture it.
Germany has legislation in place such that, when the technology has been proven, all guns manufactured there will have to incorporate restricted-user devices.
Nothing works 100%, but even a mere reduction would be welcome. Proponants hope that restricted-user devices will reduce accidental shooting deaths of children, teen suicides by gun, criminals using stolen guns, and criminals using guns that they take from police during a struggle.
Not mentioned by the NRA and other gun proponents is the fact that many guns are taken away from homeowners and those defending themselves from criminals and used against the owners. Perhaps requiring some training to be allowed own a gun might be in order? If you can't drive a car without a license, why should you be allowed to own a dangerous weapon without proper training? At any rate, the number of gun owners who accidentally shoot themselves, family or friends is very high and that is a problem all unto itself.
Fred Askew
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 20, 2013 8:36:38 GMT -5
Joan wrote: >Doubt if most would take advantage of [access to metal health help], & it is worrying for other reasons, including political. Gulags anyone?
There is a constant push between the rights of individuals and the rights of society. Right now the accepted psychiatric criteria is "dangerous to self or others" before you can be locked up. But some say that you have a right to be "dangerous to self" while others say that you can't make a rational choice about suicide if you're mentally ill. And there's a lot of guesswork involved by mental health professionals. Psychiatry is not an exact science.
So, yeah, governments and family members can use a claim of "mental illness" as an excuse to take away someone's freedom and property. But they always could and they always will be able to. There's not really a debate over whether that's a good thing, the debate is over what constitutes "mental illness" and at what point other people could (should?) intervene in someone's life. Is merely yelling "I wish I was dead!" in frustration enough? Or should society wait until you actually make a suicide attempt? Or what?
A psychiatrist I used to work with told me that there are good reasons for suicide and bad reasons for suicide. If the voices in your hear are telling you to kill yourself, that's a bad reason. If you have an incurable disease and only have a couple of weeks to live in excruciating pain while running up huge medical bills for your family, that's a good reason. The law doesn't differentiate. At least in most states. And that's back to the conflict of individual rights v. societal rights. You can end up in a psychiatric gulag and not be mentally ill or you can freely wander the streets, dirty and starving, proclaiming that God is talking to you, and be ignored by the police entirely.
There's no simple answer. And there will always be abuse. Governments like power. And they will take as much as they are permitted.
Fred Askew
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 21, 2013 21:00:14 GMT -5
The reason any measures won't work, Bob, is that there are too many guns out there, legal or not, already. Too late to be effective at this point. Right Joan. Too many to be effective. But that doesn't stop politicians from making pompous speeches and passing feel-good laws that don't solve the problem. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by lily on Feb 23, 2013 20:01:29 GMT -5
Explanation requested:
What governments are you referencing, Fred? If the U.S. well, the people vote in the Congress. So, aren't they getting what they ask for and want?
Lily
|
|