| Poster | Message |
|---|
Motty
|  09 Feb '09 21:20 : 0 recs
i think this is still a big problem. |
|
| |  You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
3dc
| 21 Oct '08 03:45 : 0 recs
Alice and the rabbit are drinking tea little c.
Real men are drinking beer and watching baseball or US football. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
little c
| 06 Oct '08 10:12 : 0 recs
 |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 24 Apr '07 16:41 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 24 Apr '07 16:43
Well not necessarily.
Governments can be immune from carrying out lawful actions. But Virginia may be liable for not enforcing a law - and there is also the mental health community and others involved here.
Whether damages are involved or allowed is another matter. I suspect they still could be.
But the EPA was sued for not enforcing environmental law - and they lost at the US Supreme Court. Now they have to.
The reality is that many government employees are trying to do their job in a largely dysfunctional environment that is setup by decree and difficult to change. They have only so many resources and many problems to deal with.
So the public has to sometimes focus their priorities. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Warren BuffetCar
| 24 Apr '07 16:37 : 0 recs
Who do they sue?
The gun shop apparently followed the law, requiring him to self certify as to his sanity.
I suspect the state government as well as the federal government have made sure they are immune to actions for negligence when passing such ridiculous laws.
WBC |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 24 Apr '07 16:19 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 24 Apr '07 16:19
I reckon lawyers are already looking where class action suits could be applied. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Warren BuffetCar
| 24 Apr '07 13:08 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 24 Apr '07 13:12
PaxAm,
As far as I was aware he was required to tick a box on a form at the gunshop confirming he didn't have mental problems. Not a very good system.
As you say, laws are not enough. There needs to be systems to enforce them, including punishments for breaches.
As you point out, if it were as simple as passing laws they could simply pass one saying you can't go and shoot dead 32 innocent people. There is already such a law of course.
WBC |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 24 Apr '07 11:54 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 24 Apr '07 11:56
According to US Federal law - Cho should never have been able to buy a gun. It looks like a breakdown of the mental health reporting system.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/24/gun.loophole/index.html
BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- When a judge deemed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho a danger to himself due to mental illness in 2005, that ruling should have disqualified him from buying a handgun under federal law.
It didn't.
And his slaughter of 32 people last week has raised questions about the efficacy of instant background checks for firearms purchases by the mentally ill. (Watch how the law failed )
Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun. (Watch campus shooting rekindle debate on gun control )
His status should have been noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.
But, in Cho's case, his mental status never went in the system.
That's because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide the information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. (Read the judge's order)
Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns. (Read full story)
So Virginia never reported him, and he was not flagged in a background check.
Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell concedes that "the gap is clearly there in the state and federal law."
"We're taking a good look at whether the federal law would have been an absolute disqualifier," McDonnell said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
He said state law may need to be changed to meet federal requirements.
Laws are one thing. Enforcing them is another. And there are no background checks for buying a gun from a private individual. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
ssaines
| 23 Apr '07 23:01 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 23:06
Pax blows his stax yet again:
The Daily
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Crime statistics
2004
Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell a marginal 1% last year. While the total violent crime rate declined, the national homicide rate increased 12%.
Except for an increase in 2003, the crime rate has generally been falling since 1991 when it peaked. Police reported about 2.6 million offences in 2004, resulting in a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade ago.
Last year's decline was driven largely by a 5% decrease in Ontario, whose crime rate was the lowest in the country for the second year in a row. Most of this decline was due to large decreases in reported crime in the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) of Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and St. Catharines–Niagara.
Prince Edward Island was the only other province to report a large decline in crime. Saskatchewan's crime rate, which experienced the largest increase of any province over the past decade, fell slightly in 2004. New Brunswick reported the largest increase, up 3%.
Violent crime down but homicide rate up
In total, about 300,000 violent crimes were reported to police in 2004, the majority of which were common assault. The violent crime rate fell 2%, continuing a general decline since 1992. The violent crime rate was 10% lower than a decade earlier, but 35% higher than 20 years ago.
Canada's homicide rate rose 12% in 2004 after hitting a 36-year low the year before. Police reported 622 victims of homicide, 73 more than last year. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec accounted for most of this increase. The rate of 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 population was 5% lower than it was 10 years earlier.
[...]
nationwide homicides rates are still about a third less than peak rates seen in the mid-1970s.
Statscan
View the chart! It has steadily declined over the last twenty years! This year's stats are *down*!
[...]Compared to the United States, Canada has a substantially lower rate of violent crime, but similar rates of property crime[5]. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65% higher, its rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate, and its murder rate was triple.[...]
Crime in Canada
Try to blame someone else, Mr Americana. You've blamed pretty well everyone but America. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
(He claims he has me filtered...rofl) And not only that, you're pig ugly.... |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 23 Apr '07 21:08 : 0 recs : edited 5 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 21:25
I'm glad we could achieve unanimity agnostic - lol 
We still need to look at whether guns cause more actual deaths than they "save" in terms of bodily harm and murder.
The only way to do that would be to remove all the guns and then see what happens.
But as I pointed out - murder rates have dropped significantly in the United States - but have stayed relatively steady in gun control countries like in Europe and Canada.
If the Tongs start shooting each other with the same frequency as the Crips and Bloods do (not to mention Latino gangs) - it will look pretty bad out in western Canada. Just last month, a shop locale was sprayed with bullets in Vancouver and bystanders were hit.
But there are US states or regions across states where the population is culturally homogeneous, has high per capita gun owners and yet very little crime – less than European averages actually.
Americans want sane gun restrictions – but the right to bear arms. Its really more pragmatic than ideological. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
ssaines
| 23 Apr '07 21:01 : 0 recs : edited 3 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 21:20
Some excellent posts. Ag: My first time as a teenager crossing the US border was an eye-opener. Police in this nation, though armed, at that time had to completely conceal the weapon in a leather shrouded holster. I'd never seen so many guns in my life! I had certainly never seen a handgun save for once: A cousin was a Bank Manager, and thus registered (licenced) to carry a gun. Lessons were mandatory, as well as a complete background check. The Police Issue at that time was a .38 revolver. Needless to say, it was a real problem to hit anything with the damn things, and they weighed a ton.
The chances of hitting innocent civilians (still a very considered aspect with Cdn police, who look like athletes compared to American cops, even California cops) are very high when shooting wildly. Gun training is on-going and reviewed constantly.
*Every time a gun is drawn by an Ontario (and most Provinces) cop*(many Provinces contract the RCMP for Provincial duty): A report must be filed. You don't fug around with guns here. Border agents don't carry them, albeit for the US Border, where US cops come flying across illegally in pursuit of criminals, shooting wildly (I kid you not, many instances in the last few years, one lady getting killed just a year or so back), where Customs Agents are now demanding to be armed. Americans and guns are synonymous.
Since Pax dragged Canada into the debate, you might all find this interesting (and note that Alberta is not longer the intransigent, it is Saskatchewan, where unfortunately...shamefully...problems with First Nations People persist. It is a deeply shameful issue, and I use it only to illustrate the logic. I will gladly discuss the politics of it in another forum if any so desire.
The latest FOCUS CANADA Survey by the Environics Research
Group finds that three-quarters of Canadians (74% ) support the
current gun control legislation. As well, despite the controversy
over the management of the National Firearms Registry, a majority
of Canadians (55% ) believe that the concept is workable and
should be completed.
[...]
Currently, one-in-five Canadians (18% ) live in a household where
firearms are present. This proportion is essentially unchanged from
2001. Looking at attitudes toward the gun control legislation by
ownership status, we find that a majority of gun owners (55% )
oppose the current gun control legislation, with most of these
(44% ) in strong opposition to the legislation. However, a
significant minority of gun owners supports the legislation (45% ).
Further, a majority of non-firearm owners living in households
where firearms are present (77% overall, 45% strongly) support the
gun control legislation. A strong majority of other non-owners
(78% support overall, 60% strongly) also support the legislation.
[...]
A majority in every region of Canada supports the current gun
control legislation. Support is highest in Montreal (87% overall)
and is lowest in Saskatchewan, where opinions are divided
between those who support the legislation (49% ) and those who are
opposed (49% ).
Support for this legislation has decreased most notably in
Saskatchewan, Alberta, Toronto and rural British Columbia since
2001. However, support has increased marginally in both Manitoba
and in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Men (27% ) are more likely than are women (11% ) to strongly
oppose the legislation while women (64% ) are more likely than are
men (45% ) to strongly support this legislation. Other notable
groups strongly supporting the legislation include non-European
immigrants (76% ), Francophones (66% ), those with a university
degree (63% ) and those in households with annual incomes less
than $20,000 (60% ). While support for the legislation decreases
with community size, almost two-thirds of Canadians living in
communities of 5,000 persons or less (63% ) support this legislation.
[...]
Majority Support for Gun Control;
Support for Gun Control will have increased, I'm sure, in recent years. The latest event in Va will affect Cdns more than Americans!
Police Chiefs in this nation are almost unanimous in believing that guns cause deaths. Period. Canadians agree, and the last thing we want is American style Gun Culture here. As it is, tens of thousands of guns are seized at the border every year.
We don't want them, we don't need them. (In the general population) Nor do any other developed nations. And that includes the Swiss, btw! The Swiss are an interesting study. They are mandated to take their service rifles home with them, fully loaded. (Every able-bodied Swiss was required, up until very recently, to be a member of the Armed Forces) Handguns are banned in Switzerland (it is Federal Law I believe) and yet the crime rate is astoundingly low. No-one uses their service rifle to commit offences. They are locked but kept ready in case of any invasion...as the US Constitutional Framers meant!
It's a cultural thing...and therein lays a massive point. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 23 Apr '07 20:22 : 0 recs
Pax:
Amen to that.
As c would doubtless say, unanimity has been achieved! |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 23 Apr '07 19:19 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 23 Apr '07 19:20
Agnostic - I too tend to give weight to my personal experiences and I'm sharing some here like you - and of course like you - I try to realize they are personal and not necessarily the complete picture.
But I don't blame you for not wanting to come back to the US if you were treated that way - I wouldn't either.
And congrats for not having a TV - I never turn mine on much anymore
WBC - I actually felt bad for the cop who almost shot me. Maybe that's weird but he was investigating drug squatters from a local complaint and I surprised him. Deputies who get surprised in gang areas can end up dead. It’s just a matter of statistics - how many calls they go out on.
I have to agree that we are talking about what kind of defense is allowed citizens. And I suggest that a national policy cannot properly cover every county and region in the United States - and should at least be flexible due to local concerns.
I also admit that assault rifles and modern automatic hand guns are not needed for defense unless one is expecting a military invasion. So these should be extremely restricted or prohibited.
The right to bear arms does not specify exactly what kind of arms. I assume nobody wants muskets anymore - but that's what they had then. So common sense suggests that modern weapons need some regulatory response as they become more powerful, deadly and rapidly fireable. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Warren BuffetCar
| 23 Apr '07 18:47 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 23 Apr '07 18:50
PaxAm,
There is a particularily wide gulf between many Americans and people such as yourselves in concept here. You consider self defense as exclusively the realm of officially designated police forces.
I don't believe this is the view we are expressing. What we are examing is whether easy availability of guns makes people safer or not.
I think everyone has a right to defend themselves. The point is what weaponry are they allowed to keep to do this?
An I allowed hand grenades for example? Gas? Nukes?
This might appear extreme, but undoubtably hand grenades would be useful in some scenarios, eg a shop keeper trying to defend his property during a riot. But as far as I'm aware they are banned in most states. So even in the US lines are drawn as to what type of weapons you are able to keep legally to defend yourself. In Europe, where the murder rate is on the whole much lower, most of us consider handguns too extreme, and consider that we'll be less safe rather than more safe if they are more easily available.
On a global level the US is apparently happy for Iran to have tanks and missles. I'm sure this is a policy supported by many of the advocates of gun ownership. But the USA considers that for Iran to have nukes is a step too far? Why? Why not just require they can only be used in self defense, and then make them freely available to other countries in the region? This is no differrent to many of the "liberal" views on gun ownership. Its no defence to say Iran is "mad". Mad people are able to buy guns too.
WBC |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Warren BuffetCar
| 23 Apr '07 18:41 : 0 recs
PaxAm,
I'm glad he had good control - but I do note that citizens mistakenly shot criminals only 2% of the time - while police are 11% mistaken according to the stats.
I should imagine the police figures look great compared with those of the US military.
Of course here in the UK our plod have shot 2 people in London since the war on terror started. Both were innocent, one wasn't even a muslim - he was Brazilian. Perhaps we should be discussing arming less of our police here rather than more of them.
WBC |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
agnostic
| 23 Apr '07 18:31 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 18:41
Pax:
Just to complete the story - we were in the USA as guests of a major US corporation. Their representatives were extremely apologetic about the incident. Whether they subsequently complained to the authorities, I have no way of knowing. We were out of El Paso 36 busy hours later.
We were given a through briefing about the border situation - accredited journos are always briefed about everything, sometimes to the point of distraction.
Watch too much? I don't watch anything. I'm one of the 4% (in the UK) that doesn't have a TV, out of choice. My views are formed in many ways, out of personal experience as far as possible, and out of listening to sensible people (including you) telling it as you see it. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 23 Apr '07 18:04 : 0 recs : edited 7 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 18:16
Yup.
And the police killed a lot more.
Self defense is not the primary reason folks own guns I believe. But lets stick to that topic for sake of argument.
Do you have any idea how thinly spread the police are in the United States in many urban areas? Some nights in Southern California - there could be one squad car for a 200 mile radius in some extended cities. But out in the countryside - the coverage areas are even larger and police forces thinner.
Again - I am wide open to the argument that guns as self defense on average kills more people than it prevents people from dying. But I think we'll need a little more than the wacko sites on both sides to get there.
There is a particularily wide gulf between many Americans and people such as yourselves in concept here. You consider self defense as exclusively the realm of officially designated police forces. That is not the attitude I've seen in America - especially in rural areas. They call the police if they can't handle their self defense - or perhaps after they have.
America is such a savage land.  |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
MingToo
| 23 Apr '07 17:56 : 0 recs
but I do note that citizens mistakenly shot criminals only 2% of the time
Seems to me that from the figures quoted, that is 30 people a year killed by other people by mistake. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 23 Apr '07 17:36 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 17:41
Agnostic - I wasn't going to respond - but I will.
The border agent you encountered was rude and aggresive - I've been across that border many times and never had guns pulled. If you and others had complained - he might have been disciplined.
In recent times though, the border has become more tense. Mexican drug cartels have been responsible for the assassination of border agents - and you never know what experiences may have just occured when you decide to cross.
I am in much more fear of Mexican Federalis. Mexico can be a blast - but if you get off the beaten tourist path and have any issue at all - even a car accident - you had better have bribe money. If you don't - you can tell us about your Mexican jail experiences in a few years. That would be a real story.
I fear you may have known less about US/Mexican border conditions than you should.
As for guns - I've only ever had one pulled on me when I entered an abandoned house in a rough area I was investigating as a rehab. A sherrif deputy was in there on a call (I didn't know) and I suprised him. That's it for me in 4 decades of living in the USA.
I'm glad he had good control - but I do note that citizens mistakenly shot criminals only 2% of the time - while police are 11% mistaken according to the stats.
Really agnotistic - if you are afraid of getting shot in the USA - you watch way too much CNN or BBC. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
PaxAm
| 23 Apr '07 17:30 : 0 recs : edited 5 times : last edit 23 Apr '07 17:48
It’s true that was a rah-rah site for guns. I don’t think even most gun owners are that rabid.
No waiting? No background checks? Maybe if you live in Vermont where there are no urban areas with gangs.
And maybe some of the stats are just as skewed as the anti-gun crowd studies. Yes - the most rabid of those have bs disguised as facts too - its just a matter of which brand of excrement you enjoy more.
The point is - guns are not infective in self defense and they do inhibit criminals. A good question is whether an alternative can be proposed that makes people even safer - and will Americans go for that? Again - I have never owned a weapon for self defense.
The only reason I enjoyed the story of Miss America 1944 - is that an 82 year old lady was able to defend herself and prevent robbery on her property. But I am incredibly frightened of old people running around with guns.
But I'm afraid it is true that criminals fear homes that have guns. And you and I both know that in English commonwealth countries - there is a strange sickness among white youth punks that have no regard for elderly people.
I was shocked at crime stories in Vancouver where young punks broke into elderly people's homes and literally beat them near to death - then robbed them. This is not an isolated story - it happens far too often. One BC town I wont mention has an epidemic of young punks running the streets and harassing old people. And I'll bet that happens in Britain too.
Try it on Miss America 1944. Believe me - any punk in the surrounding area now knows not to go near that farm.
I might also mention that during my experiences living with the Crips and Bloods (literally) - I saw drive by's and heard the shootings in the night. They may be more violently active and they don't care where their bullets fly - but there was some kind of unofficial code of conduct on the street. I was under threat because I started a neighborhood watch - but the gangbangers seemed to respect women and older folks - they never bothered my wife or any of the elderly on the street. 80% of the kids in these neighborhoods have no natural father living with them - so they don't respect male authority much - but they do tend to have some respect for women and elderly (for the most part) unless they are completely stoned.
What is wrong with young white English punks trying to imitate Clockwork Orange? I’d say there is a real social problem there – lack of respect for the elderly.
As I said - and now I'll keep saying. Americans want more gun regulation than they have. But most Americans still believe in the right to have guns. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
|
|
|
