Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MAKO69

The Harvard gun control study

Recommended Posts

As a former member of the armed forces and now working in public safety for several years. I'm a fence sitter when it comes to this heated topic of "GUN CONTROL". There are pro and con arguments on both sides. I do feel a law abiding citizen a reasonable and prudent person should not have to jump through hoops to legally own a firearm. There should be serious penalties for those that use firearms unlawfully. There are criminals who have used firearms in commission of a crime and are back on the streets within weeks to months. A failure of our legal system, our government? Remember the US Boarder Officer that was killed via a rifle from the ATF's "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, some government we have, eh. What's the point of having stricter laws for the legal owners when the scales of justice are grossly and unequally tipped. The laws on both sides must match. If the laws are to make it harder to own a firearm, well then the laws that punish must be equally strict or even harsher. If evil people want to hurt the innocent they will find a way, firearms are just one choice. A car was used to kill a woman and hurt several others in Cali recently, the Boston Bombers used fireworks to create the pressure cooker bomb killing 3 people and injuring 260+, Timothy McVeigh part of the Oklahoma City bombing the attack that killed 168 people and injured over 600, used a box truck fertilizer and fuel oil. Where there's a will, there will always be a way to hurt and kill. Here is the article on the Harvard study on gun control. When reading this remember that people from different countries have different histories so beliefs and values differ. So to say if a majority of the people of one country say the U.S. has legal firearms would murder/suicide be reduced? That would be a tough question to answer. Well, lets just say this country has a lot of guns already, thankfully most are legally owned.

 

 

http://usfinancepost.com/harvard-gun-control-does-not-reduce-crime-6179.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The control and possession of weapons is so different from State to State and world cultures. I personally come from a country where, at least, if you're not in the armed forces or a national police officer , the ownership of a firearm is unwelcome , and the owner (who need to obtain a license for ownership and public weapon holding) considered , under most cases, as a stupid-degenerated 'cowboy'... a country where it is still, from a law point of view, perfectly legal to walk in the street with a sword, or any other blades, provided it remains in its scabbard ( I pity the poor guys who want to walk around with a Claymore... ) . And we see that our calibrated mindless killers open fire on citizens with weapons illegally obtained and, of course , without any license.

Honestly I wait for my next location, in Canada, to spend an equivalent license , and finally access a dream: detain, practice and enjoy a Taurus Raging Bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the limit of gun control, ends with thorough background checks prior to selling of firearms.  A felon or a person with mental problems should not own or be able to acquire a firearm.  Why do I feel this way, you ask?  Long term, politicians who are given the reins of owning all of the firearms will eventually take advantage of that fact on the populations they rule.  When the population is armed to the teeth, they are less inclined to do more aggressive stupid things.  Also, anyone who decides to invade the US will fight on every corner and down every road against a population that will never surrender and that population has the means to do so.  In my opinion, we have to put up with the occasional criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, but the message should be consistent and clear that the price to pay for such action is heavy.  I think we need more judges on the bench that understand this.  Regardless of age, ethnenticity, background, social status, or wealth, the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime should be heavy and consistently applied. 

 

It has always been a strong deterrent to the petty criminal that they may encounter someone armed upon which they attempt to commit their criminal act.  What may appear to be an easy kill may end up with a swift and terminal resolution not to their liking.  As long as firearms are assessable to the public, that deterrent is in effect. 

 

My strong advice is to choose another way to get money (like a job) in Alabama.  Folks don't cotton to criminals down south and take extreme exception when provoked.

Edited by Jug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the what I'm talking about the suspect a Devon A. McLeod, 29, of 38 Berkmans St, was charged with four counts assault with a dangerous weapon, armed robbery, four counts armed assault to murder, firearm use in a felony, four counts home invasion, carrying firearms without a license, possession marijuana with intent to distribute and carrying a loaded a loaded firearm without a license, WITHOUT A LICENSE. Bad guys get guns this dirtbag needs to go away forever or worse!http://www.telegram.com/article/20130830/NEWS/308309828/1116#.UiB6L6MEjJ4.facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is it doesn't matter if you're legally allowed to buy a gun if you have a friend or relative who is...and then gives you easy access to said gun. Doesn't matter if they willingly allow it or not, if you have a brother or neighbor who doesn't keep their weapons in a safe with a combo you do NOT know.

 

The Sandy Hook tragedy was enabled by a woman who under no law should have been barred from getting a weapon...yet had a son that under any reasonable determination should not have been allowed one.

 

Arguments about ownership or purchasing are largely irrelevant because IIRC most crimes committed with legally purchased and owned guns...are not committed by those who purchased or own them, but people who've taken them!

 

Maybe we need a mandatory DNA lock like Bond had in Skyfall...so only the legally registered owner of the gun is capable of firing it. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to start thinking outside the box, because the two simple stances of "no one should have any because of a bad few" (let's allow the crazies to ruin it for everyone) and "if everyone had one the bad few wouldn't try it" (when of course they still would because they're not criminals, they're crazy) will never meet.

 

While I'm sure there are "purists" who would argue any such mod to an existing gun ruins its value to collectors blah blah blah, the upside is allowing the legal owner of the gun full access while denying the illegal ones is the goal. Since it's not the NRA members that are out robbing stores or shooting up schools, it's of course ridiculous to punish them. The problem is they haven't put forth any plan themselves that would improve things.

 

If simple deterrence really worked...then why do people still shoot at cops? After all, everyone KNOWS they're armed! Same with the freak at the Army base. He was certainly under no delusions that there wouldn't be an armed response, but he did it anyway...yet even on a military base most soldiers don't walk around carrying an M-16 or even a sidearm. If trained soldiers don't do it, to think the general public should (with less or even no training) is certainly not wise. I would imagine an increase in injuries and possibly deaths from accidental discharges that would be nontrivial.

 

I don't know if something like a DNA/palm lock is really workable right now, let alone how easily one could be defeated. I'm sure if someone stole it and took it back to a workshop there would be a way of removing it, but I would imagine it would eliminate a large number of problems from people who steal a gun and use it shortly thereafter. I think both sides need to start thinking along these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the government really wanted to take a positive active part in the gun ownership issue, they would make gun safety training mandatory for everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen to that. I would think the best time would be in high school. After all, if you enlist in the military, it will be the year after graduation. As such, I don't think people can make the BS "they're too young" argument...when would you like them to wait till?

 

Besides, you don't need live ammo to teach gun safety. It could be taught in class with occasional field trips to firing ranges for practical experience and would get around the thorny "no guns on school grounds" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..