Good luck with that. Go down that road, I think you'll have bigger problems than firearms...Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Good luck with that. Go down that road, I think you'll have bigger problems than firearms...
I took mediation training and I use it a lot in my work. I have had to stand between families on the verge of violence, once between a staff member and a parent in conflict. I have parents tell me they want to go talk directly to another family about a possible bullying situation. The response to that is that I will call safety and security to be present for the conversation. I rarely have it get that far once I talk to them awhile. I even had a time that I am very proud of that I got my work cell phone back from a drunk homeless guy, I was told next time to just order the replacement and let it go. The point being that I think we could use a lot of work training more people in mediation and de-escalation. I have had some people think that I am giving in by using mediation techniques or restorative justice practices with youth, but it really does not affect the actual consequences for them. One of my best this summer was a kid who ran off, serious problem, and mom tends to be volatile and my teacher was not great either. The way that I talked to the child and the mother made the difference, he was suspended for one day and came back much better. His story was actually full of lies and I didn't need to accept those lies or take away the suspension to have a better outcome. However this takes training and practice,
I know that, iris lily.
I guess my real point is that I would feel a lot safer in general, no matter where I was, if I knew that no one, other than authorized security/police, was carrying a gun. Ever.
The main reason is that I do not think most people carrying guns around a) know how to use them and b) most importantly, know how to react in a crisis. I am more worried about getting hit by friendly fire in a crisis situation. Because I have seen how people react in crisis situations.
This is not something I think about a lot, as most of the people I know don't own guns. And most places around here don't allow guns--my workplace, for example. My feeling is that more people carrying guns, and the more places guns are allowed, the greater the chance of someone using the gun.
Stuff like this: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_...3df953fbc.html where a woman attempted to shot a guy who had snatched someone else's purse. The shooter did not have a concealed carry permit. I get that she was breaking the law just having the gun. But it is this sort of thing that concerns me--the more people hear about this sort of thing, the more it becomes commonplace, the greater the chance of killing someone by mistake.
If everyone carrying a concealed weapon had to pass tests in using the weapon, and shoot/don't shoot scenarios and had to re-certify regularly, like we do with driving and driver's licenses, or medical licenses, or the like, it would help.
We're going in circles here Peggy. Shock and awe, I know. You seem to think I'm against a registry, but I'm not. I agree it would help track guns and that it would create a data base of criminals that currently fly (mostly) under the radar, but in the end I'm not convinced it would have much effect on the crime rate. More and stiffer penalties for using a gun to carry out another act that is, in itself, already a crime hasn't proven to be a deterrent. But hey, I get what you're saying. I don't own that many guns anymore, but I'd probably fill out a form to put them in a data base just in case something happened that allowed them to fall into the wrong hands. There are millions of gun owners out there that pretty much feel the same way and pretty much live with an extremely low chance of their guns ever being used in a crime. It would probably keep a few guns off the street and help police solve a few more crimes so what the heck, but if you want to crackdown on someone I'd say making the Chuck's Guns of the world a little more accountable would be more beneficial. In the end none of that does anything to address WHY people keep shooting each other. Until we make that leap its all lip stick on a pig.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
Having gone through the long gun registry scenario now cancelled in Canada, I can advise that, IMO anyway, it is absolutely useless. The database was rarely updated so people who may have had guns at some point but none at present were singled out for having guns in situations completely unrelated today; robbers are not interested or concerned if one's registered gun is used illegally later; most guns used in crimes in Canada are handguns and illegally obtained; severe penalties were applied to law-abiding owners for legally acquired guns not paying renewal fees by certain dates; the fees were becoming ridiculous for owning guns so again penalizing those owning guns legally obtained; ...
As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”
Of course it was useless, so many laws are. But peggy does not mind if I pay more taxes for a largely useless system that may affect a tiny percentage of serious crime.
Its not that the information would be useless, it could be valuable, but the cost and effort involved to build a data base of several hundred million items and their owners would be astronomical. At some point we have to ask ourselves a couple questions. Would it be effective in reducing crime in proportion with the cost/effort? Jury is certainly out, but from my seat I don't see any way that would be possible. Is there a way to spend the money and apply the effort that would more effectively reduce crime? Since a registry does nothing to address ANY of the multiple root causes of criminal or violent behavior, I'm forced to believe there are several options that would produce a more significant benefit for the same investment. Short answer, a registry would be better than doing nothing at all, but not as effective as several of the other options on the table. Since (contrary to some popular opinions) we don't have unlimited resources it just seems more logical to start with the option that has the best chance to reach the most people and work backward until we have nothing left except mediocre options. The real problem, IMO, is that we are still doing nothing.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
Why we let the ban on assault weapons expire I don't know. We have a right to bear arms but not have assault weapons.
What's an "assault weapon"? How are they different from other arms? What arms *do* we have a right to?
I forgot to add one important concern with a registry of weapons. I am led to believe that the registry database was hacked and criminals knew exactly who had what. Some gun owners were definitely targeted in robberies.
As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote