Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Jeff B
Recent Activity
-
Jeff commented on the article |Wow. Cancer, childhood diseases that make children suffer, endemic hunger and this site chooses to feature an over-exposed photograph of model to complain about. Who the heck cares...white, black, purple or green...she's good looking. So what? What a waste of electrons.
-
Jeff commented on the article |
This seems to be an argument against any type of technocratic rationality. So, you would legislate technology and the advancement of devices? That what it is, anyway you look at it, a device. As was mentioned above, control the criminals and don't punish the rest of us.
Moreover, Matt, I'm pro-gun and I take that right very seriously. I've never called guns "totally sweet, bad-ass guns that let me shoot a defenseless little deer 30 times in eight seconds". That sounds like something a person who has no interest entering into a reasonable discussion to promote a dialogue amongst rational parties of differing opinions. It is irrational. I own guns to protect my family from irrational people. People that have no capacity for reason, logic, dialogue or intelligence scare me the most. -
Jeff commented on the article |Lisa Dunbar said:
"I don't think the federal government should be making strict gun control laws. The states know what is best for the citizens."
Well said. -
Jeff commented on the article |I really don't have a problem with this for certain types of offenses. Violent criminal assaults, rape, attempted murderers...they get no Internet. However, this is all academic when you consider once a felon is released it is our society at large that discriminates against them and provides no second chances. Felons can't get a real job better than a paper route or janitor without lying on their job application. Once the inevitable background check catches up with them they're back in the un-employment line which eventually leads to recidivism. So, giving them Internet access will do little more than provide them something to do...but I think they are suppose to be thinking about what they did that got them there in the first place, aren't they? Obviously, Norwegians believe in second chances...Americans don't. Once you've got that felony on your record you're pretty much done. I think there is an order of operations to any problem...and internet access for felons is way down the list in my opinion.
-
Jeff commented on the article |#1 Already done, it's called an NICS check. Why does this repeatedly come up when it's already in practice? You guys already won this issue so drop it.
#2 How is this going to be enforced? Regular surprise visits by law enforcement using info from #3?#3 Several privacy issues come to mind here. Also, there is a well documented history as to why this is a really bad idea. Ask the gun owning residents of european countries during the blitzkrieg. Those guys disappeared first because their governments kept those types of records.#4 Sure, right after you repeal the Second Amendment. Has any consideration been given to what the people in this country want. Start at the district level...that's what democracy is about. If the public wants it, they will tell their representatives. However, there is not support for doing this.
#5 Immunity to what? Being sued by victims of gun violence? Slippery slope argument that sets a bad precedence for more than just the gun industry. If you guys really what to go down that road let me know so I can get my Law degree. While you're at it I'd like to stop tort reform...I might as well get rich off of other people's bad decision making.
#6 Your going to need to expound on this point.
#7 Why not, I like a good engraving job to pretty up a gun as much as anyone. Kidding. I assume your talking biometrics. I'm all for electronic wizardry. Just make sure it's 100% fail-safe. Nothing worse than picking up your gun to protect against that pesky home invasion only to find the batteries are dead. -
Jeff commented on the article |Amanda,
Where did you get your numbers? Like all personal property in this country, guns can and will be stolen. A friend of mine had his car stolen a couple of years ago. It was stolen by some kids that took it for a joy ride. They ended up wrapping it around a telephone pole and one died. Should we as a country strive to reduce/control vehicle ownership because they might get stolen and/or used to commit a crime? If I leave my car unlocked (or even if I lock it) in the mall parking lot this holiday season and it's stolen, then used in a bank robbery should I be held liable?
It is an absolute terrible tragedy for children to get a hold of a firearm and use it on themselves or others. Nobody is arguing that strict measures shouldn't be taken by responsible adults to educate and protect their children on the dangers of firearms.
However, the total number of violent crimes per 100,000 has gone from 746 in 1993 to 474 in 2006. If total gun sales were positively correlated to the violent crime rates, one would expect total sales year over year to decrease along with crime rate. They don't. During that time gun sales have remained relatively stable varying between 2.9 and 3.6 million a year. Concealed carry laws really started taking off in the mid 90's, so it does not seem that they can be positively correlated to an increase in crime rates according to the Bureau's numbers. But don't trust me, I encourage everyone to access what our tax dollars have labored to collect and run the numbers yourself. You can query and trend this info at the US Bureau of Justice website and at the ATF's website (they both have a statistics section). Happy data mining. -
Jeff commented on the article |
Chuck Hinshaw wrote:
"I wonder how many more criminals we would make if every law abbidding citizen carried guns? "
Eh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that by virtue of carrying a gun people would be compelled to commit crimes?
As far as the UK, you know they have a very different philosophy when it comes to law enforcement and what is also known as population control? They have spent billions in their large cities to make sure that everything is on camera. Everything. Big Brother to say the least. This is an experiment that the rest of world is eagerly awaiting the results on. Granted, they have less crime, but they also don't have as many large populated cities as we do. Their population just passed 61 million. We're right around 325 million.
But, I digress. What's with your original comment on guns making criminals out of everyone who owns them? Did I miss a study? Please provide some references on this phenomenon of good citizens turned criminal by having possession of a firearm. -
Jeff commented on the article |
Which states DO NOT require a background check? Texas has very stringent policies for concealed carry that requires background checks, fingerprints submitted to the FBI and a 12 hour class with target qualification just to name a few. If you bounced a check in the last 5 years you can't get a concealed handgun license. Moreover, you have to renew every four years.
So, it would seem the strict restrictions mentioned in the last section have already been imposed...on the most crime free, law abiding, mentally stable people in the population. -
Jeff commented on the article |
Confirmed...a quick google provides several references that show a murder rate of between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100K from 2000 to 2007. Placing us around 24th for homicide.
-
Jeff commented on the article |
Matt,Thanks for the leads on the stolen gun numbers. Some of those are quite old. I would think that reliable, current numbers could be mined from state crime stats or insurance databases. I realize reliable unbiased research is difficult to come by. Some of those numbers come from sources like the "Americans for Gun Safety Foundation" or other gun control or other foundations with an agenda. If we can agree to leave biased sources out, I promise not to spout out any NRA stats!
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits