California's ban on handgun carry works....

http://news.yahoo.com/da-files-murde...205912328.html

A recent mass shooting at a school in California proves banning carry of handguns works. Police chiefs argue that open carry makes the job of police dangerous. Well the law worked, no police were harmed at the crime scene.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-04-2012 07:36 PM

 

Yeah, just like Gun Free Zones work.

 

Seems like the Korean dude in Oakland CA did'nt care much to be within the law. Nor did the korean gunner at VA college. So IMO: the gun laws did not work on these two shooters because they did not respect the gun laws. If gun laws are not enforced it is useless. Only the trigger happy will be eager to use it when they disagree with where their place is in society.

 

If the law was reason for low crime, then it would reduce crime, especially gun homicides, everywhere in your state. Why, pray tell, is crime so high in Oakland? Why is Stockton, CA one of the ten most dangerous cities in the US?

Why is crime so low in states like Wyoming that have carry laws and high rates of gun ownership---that is, honest citizens who buy or trade guns legally?

Bad people, bad laws, poor morals = more crime.

 

Liberals refuse to admit the clear and obvious connection between gun crimes and certain ethnic minorities. So they have to resort to gun control instead.

 

You're walking a dangerous line there. I accept that there are higher rates of gun crime among certain ethnic minorities but this is caused by alienation with a culture that could do a lot more to develop multiculturalism. To suggest that this is caused by genetics is untrue and puts anyone claiming that in line with that Nazi's. I really hope that wasn't what you were trying to say.
And gun crime is commited by people of all ethnicities.

 

I haven't seen much evidence to say that crime isn't linked to race. Do you have any statistics to support your claims? Young black males are about 1% of the population, but commit 25% of homicides in the US. What end-point multiculture is best? The one in San Fransico, Brazil, Haiti or eleswhere? Where is this liberal utopia?

 

Just look at the prison population.

 

Have you ever taken a college level criminology class? Prison populations and crime statistics are not the ONLY thing that needs to be looked at. While crime rates have many different factors which make them go up or down, it can be very effectively argued that poverty is the number one cause of crime. As poverty is highest in inner city minority neighborhoods, the crime rate will be higher in those areas. ALL factors need to be looked, not just the one. In your statement, the only factor you are looking at is race. Correlation does NOT equal causality.

 

Actually, I'm afraid you've fallen prey to the same danger you warn the previous about. Yes, there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime, but that doesn't mean that poverty causes crime. It could just as easily be that crime creates poverty - or at least that the behaviors and mindset that makes a person willing to commit crimes also leads to poverty. Or it could be a third factor brings both.

 

you are correct..I should not have said that poverty is the number one cause of crime, I should have said that poverty is the most prevalent factor in crime. And it CAN be said that crime creates poverty, however, every sociological study that has been done shows that the statistics are on the side of the reverse. But there are many other factors. Disconnect with society, lack of support groups are only a few of the many factors which contribute to crime.

 

It can also be said that immigration brings in poverty.


California would not have needed any ban on handguns if it was not for all the gang-banging children the state's undocumented Mexican immigrants have been having. More than 51% of California's students are now Hispanic. That should give some idea of the level of immigration the state has seen in the last three decades.

 

I trust it the gun lobby is fine with suspected terrorists having stockpiles of registered weapons in their homes, right?

 

Such is human nature. If you want to mitigate the negatives, a good start would be a freemarket between the US and mexico that allows fair competition.

 

If they are not citizens better to just deport them.
Otherwise we will just have to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism, the ones we anti-immigration activists warned you about.

 

Why? I thought you said you support gun rights. Obviously not. Total hypocrites.

Yes, you racist, neo-nazi activists. LOL

 

You can trust that the gun lobby respects the due process of law, and does not want the Constitutionally-protected rights of citizens taken away because our government puts some of them on an arbitrary "Terror-Watch-List" that includes everyone from newborn babies to bed-bound nursing home patients that, obviously, have nothing to do with terrorism.

Similarly, would you want their 1st Amendment Rights taken away too? I didn't think so.

If these people are truly terrorists, then I trust that the proper government officials collect sufficient evidence, file the appropriate charges, and then (if found guilty) put these people in jail for a long period of time. It's call the due process of law. Until then, such citizens should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

 

Good to hear you say this, I just have my doubts that many others here would agree despite their pro-2nd amendment speeches. Case in point, Anders Hoveland.

 

Much of California's current state of FUBAR is due to the illegal population, and the after-effects.

Back to the OP: A ban on handguns has never worked, never will.

 

Crime does cause poverty. That is easily demonstrated. In areas that have high crime, business that employ people tend to shut down or move away. The crime and needed security adds to their expense. So good jobs are lost. Stores that stay have to charge higher prices to make up for the costs of crime. People who can afford to move away to safer places. Those left are the ones who can't move, usually because they are too poor to move. Simply put, money runs away from crime, leaving poverty.

 

That is a great example of one way that crime causes poverty, but there are more.

- It is hard for people with a criminal record to get a good job. Criminals are usually forced into low-wage jobs, increasing their chances of staying in poverty.
- Part of the criminal mentality is a "something for nothing, money without work" mentality. It also includes an "I don't care about rules" aspect. Both of these run contrary to the mentality needed to get out of poverty.
- Criminals in prison often leave behind children. Those children are raised in a single-parent household which increases their chances of poverty and their chances of becoming criminals themselves.

 

Totally true. I was concentrating on how crime effect an area. You focused on the effect on the individual and his family. Both are devastating.

 

That's why our law enforcement community needs to focus on getting rid of the criminal, not guns.

 

Poverty can mean about anything to anyone at any given time. People who live in absoulte poverty can be among the peaceful and moral inhabitants of the world. Look at the present day Amish, Mennonites and similar groups with very low incomes and very low crime. Although they may be known for burning witches, the Puritans from 400 years ago lived in grinding poverty worse than any present day ghetto. They didn't have Section 8 housing benefits and lived in shacks without heat, electricity and plumbing. They didn't have access to good healthcare or Medicaide entitlements. Schools were underfunded and deteriorated. There were no WIC centers to hand out food and baby formulas and about half the children died by age five. As an ethnic minority, the poor whites were surrounded by the often hostile and racist majority native americans who would unjustly murder and enslave them. Amazingly, the Puritans and other European settlers didn't form into gangs and murder each other on a daily basis, given their hopeless poverty and access to firearms and weapons.

Similarly, why wasn't crime so high during the Great Depression? Yes Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde got the headlines, but they were a rarity, and their rampages lasted only a couple of years. Gangs like the Crips, Bloods and M-13 have been allowed to run free for decades. Crime of all types was much lower in the Depresion than it is now, and a vast majority lived in much poorer conditions than now.

I haven't seen any real evidence to prove this wrong, but historcally, crime is most directly linked to: 1) race, 2) culture/religion/enforcement of laws, 3) family structure, and 4) economic conditions.

 

we could start by ending the war on drugs which just creates criminals

arrest people for committing crimes, not for having taking a break from a hard day\weeks work

http://eazysmoke.com/marijuana-quotes.htm

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein quote on Hemp"

.