I think I'm going to be sick: US teen killed because he was gay

[-ty-]

Yes.

Lighten up on strict firearms laws. If more LGBT people were armed for self-defense, the assailants would know that the group they are targeting are ready and willing to exercise 2nd Amendment remedies to the problem.

So now LBGT children can shoot back after their shot? Didn't lenient gun laws allow this to happen? Look at the statistics, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of homicide by gun with 2.97 people killed per 100,000 people. Australia has had many problems with gun homicide rates as well, rather than just allow people more guns for protection, they cracked down on gun laws and now their gun homicide rate is very low with .31 people killed by gunshot per 100,000 people. That is nearly 1/10 of the incidences we have. England, with much stricter gun laws has a rate of .12 killed per 100,000. Also, you cannot argue if gun violence goes down other types of murders go up. England's total homicide rate is 1.45 per 100,000 the U.S is 8.55 per 100,000. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries and deaths among developed countries, though we also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers. Should more people have guns?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I hope you're not suggesting we change things so that you wouldn't be required to have a license to have a gun.

I think schools are the perfect place to start to teach kids about tolerance and acceptance - two things that make people less hateful and less likely to commit horrible acts of violence. When I was in, I think, the 3rd grade we were taught a little about discrimination. Basically they said that in the past people who were different weren't allowed to go to the same schools and kids who would have been friends would never have met each other. I learned a little from that, and from things like it that throughout school. Some other ways I became more tolerant and accepting were through my school's allowing a GSA on campus and having some of the members talk to us in our 'human interactions' class, which is a kind of sex ed/tolerance building class. Getting a chance to talk more openly with someone in a safe environment probably did some good and took out some of the ignorance-based hatred that some of the kids had.

I'm not an advocate for shoving sociopolitical beliefs down kid's throats.

So now LBGT children can shoot back after their shot? Didn't lenient gun laws allow this to happen? Look at the statistics, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of homicide by gun with 2.97 people killed per 100,000 people. Australia has had many problems with gun homicide rates as well, rather than just allow people more guns for protection, they cracked down on gun laws and now their gun homicide rate is very low with .31 people killed by gunshot per 100,000 people. That is nearly 1/10 of the incidences we have. England, with much stricter gun laws has a rate of .12 killed per 100,000. Also, you cannot argue if gun violence goes down other types of murders go up. England's total homicide rate is 1.45 per 100,000 the U.S is 8.55 per 100,000. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries and deaths among developed countries, though we also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers. Should more people have guns?

The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

 

[-ty-]

I'm not an advocate for shoving sociopolitical beliefs down kid's throats.



The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

The U.S =/= England and Australia b/c of their fundamental differences about gun laws. The U.S. believes that giving more people guns to protect themselves will lower homicide rates, although it is the highest of "1st world countries", while Australia and England have low homicide rates (a tenth of the U.S) because they believe that guns are the cause of homicides.

Anyways, "criminals" and "felons" are not the ones behind over 12,000 gun homicides each years. According to the FBI statistics, "Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means." Another stat by FBI, "With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times." Another, "Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." ANOTHER, lol "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged 14 years and younger was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined." ANother, "The firearms homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." Another, "The unintentional firearms death rate was 9 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." And a final one from the CDC, "Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase."

Opinions are not as powerful as numbers, by credible sources like the FBI and CDC. Most deaths are not by "criminals"; they are by everyday-people who have domestic disputes.

 

[Black Ice]

From reading that article alone it sounds like no one in this thread could possibly understand exactly what happened. It's pretty easy to twist the evidence and peoples' emotions around so that it seems as if the guy killed the other guy simply because he was gay. That may or may not be the case.

Imagine if the U.S. prohibited guns. Most citizens don't carry guns around with them all day anyway, so this wouldn't affect them in the slightest. There wasn't a student to stop VT from happening, or Columbine, or any other school shooting. And guns would be harder to obtain for the criminals. This is the big picture, and I don't see what's wrong with it.

 

[Xyrin]

The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

I agree with this. Criminals will be able to get their guns no matter if we put strict laws on them or not. If the citizens can get them easily there will be less shootings because the criminals will know that citizens can get them easily and have a risk of being shot.

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

Someone got murdered. Okay, try the killer and lock him up. Is there a reason this gets more attention then an "everyday" killing because the victim happens to be gay?

It's kind of fashionable, I guess. In the last few decades it's been Jews and black people in the spotlight for hate crime targets, mostly. They still get attacked/killed for being Jews and black people. But since the Jews dare to fight back (Israel vs occupied territory fashioned as "Palestine") and since Obama's in the White House, obviously, according to the media, it's not a problem.

 

[lahishendeeir]

the earth has a bad case of 'the humans'.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I hope you're not suggesting we change things so that you wouldn't be required to have a license to have a gun.

When you pass a background check and have no criminal history, but the county still won't issue a license because of pure politics, that's not right.

The U.S =/= England and Australia b/c of their fundamental differences about gun laws. The U.S. believes that giving more people guns to protect themselves will lower homicide rates, although it is the highest of "1st world countries", while Australia and England have low homicide rates (a tenth of the U.S) because they believe that guns are the cause of homicides.

Anyways, "criminals" and "felons" are not the ones behind over 12,000 gun homicides each years. According to the FBI statistics, "Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means." Another stat by FBI, "With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times." Another, "Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." ANOTHER, lol "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged 14 years and younger was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined." ANother, "The firearms homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." Another, "The unintentional firearms death rate was 9 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." And a final one from the CDC, "Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase."

Opinions are not as powerful as numbers, by credible sources like the FBI and CDC. Most deaths are not by "criminals"; they are by everyday-people who have domestic disputes.

People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

 

[-ty-]

When you pass a background check and have no criminal history, but the county still won't issue a license because of pure politics, that's not right.



People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

So spouses should keep a gun for each of them under their bed?

As far as "criminals" go, yes AFTER they kill someone they are one. Prior to the fact, most people who commit homicide domestically do not have an extensive criminal record.

I see you have an opinion, but the facts say that having a gun in the home puts the family and other people at higher risk. The statistics show that our leniency toward gun control have led us to have the HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE BY GUNS AND THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE of ALL industrialized countries. So how to you suppose we lower the rate? Give everyone more and more guns?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So spouses should keep a gun for each of them under their bed?

As far as "criminals" go, yes AFTER they kill someone they are one. Prior to the fact, most people who commit homicide domestically do not have an extensive criminal record.

I see you have an opinion, but the facts say that having a gun in the home puts the family and other people at higher risk. The statistics show that our leniency toward gun control have led us to have the HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE BY GUNS AND THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE of ALL industrialized countries. So how to you suppose we lower the rate? Give everyone more and more guns?

You haven't shown the link between gun laws and gun violence, you merely stated that X country has strict gun laws and low violent crime. No causal link has been presented to connect the two. Also, you are referring to gun in the home, while I taking about public carry. Those are completely different things.

 

[Black Ice]

I agree with this. Criminals will be able to get their guns no matter if we put strict laws on them or not. If the citizens can get them easily there will be less shootings because the criminals will know that citizens can get them easily and have a risk of being shot.

You miss the fact that America does not have strict gun laws and yet most mass shootings are not prevented by an everyday citizen with a gun. Either the police arrive or the guy kills himself.

 

[-ty-]

You haven't shown the link between gun laws and gun violence, you merely stated that X country has strict gun laws and low violent crime. No causal link has been presented to connect the two. Also, you are referring to gun in the home, while I taking about public carry. Those are completely different things.

So why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)

Why do we the highest homicide rate with firearms?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)


Do you think that if everyone had a gun for protection that crime rates would lower?

Are you suggesting that the boy who was shot could have protected himself by shooting the other boy first? Or that the boy who killed the other boy would be too scared to shoot the gay boy simply b/c he knows that he has a gun and that the LBGT community would seek revenge? If you answer affirmatively to the latter of the two questions, should we become vigilantes, and wage wars between races or sexuality?

I would appreciate it if you could please answer ALL of the SPECIFIC questions above, so I understand why you believe that there is not a causal link, rather than just state that there not a causal link.

I brought up domestic dispute statistics to debunk the false claim that these murders by guns are commited by those with extensive criminal backgrounds. Sure a gang member can illegal obtain a gun, but most of the people who commit gun murders do not have such connections.

 

[Myles]

People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

Okay, that's ridiculous. They are only criminals after the fact, not before. If you had to illegally obtain a gun beforehand, it would essentially remove non-premeditated murder by guns.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

I'm sure you have sound evidence to back this up. Not to mention you can't have a concealed weapon so everyone isn't just standing around armed all the time, waiting for a murderer.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)

Why do we the highest homicide rate with firearms?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)


Do you think that if everyone had a gun for protection that crime rates would lower?

Are you suggesting that the boy who was shot could have protected himself by shooting the other boy first? Or that the boy who killed the other boy would be too scared to shoot the gay boy simply b/c he knows that he has a gun and that the LBGT community would seek revenge? If you answer affirmatively to the latter of the two questions, should we become vigilantes, and wage wars between races or sexuality?

I would appreciate it if you could please answer ALL of the SPECIFIC questions above, so I understand why you believe that there is not a causal link, rather than just state that there not a causal link.

I brought up domestic dispute statistics to debunk the false claim that these murders by guns are commited by those with extensive criminal backgrounds. Sure a gang member can illegal obtain a gun, but most of the people who commit gun murders do not have such connections.

Whether a gun is purchased on the black market or stolen from a friend or family member, it was still obtained illegally and deserves punishment. The person who padded a background check and legally registers his or her gun is under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is reasonable to require to the use of a trigger safety and to keep the gun unloaded while in the home to reduce gun-related domestic disputes.

While a hate crimes law might punish the bigot more harshly, it doesn't proect the victim's death beforehand. No one knows who would win in a gun fight, but with an armed bigot and an unarmed LGBT victim, the cards seem stacked against them. At lest under my proposal, they'd have a fighting chance.

I'm sure you have sound evidence to back this up. Not to mention you can't have a concealed weapon so everyone isn't just standing around armed all the time, waiting for a murderer.

Concealed carry is legal in California. Butte County (a red county) issued me a concealed carry permit for my 9mm pistol. I also have a hunting rifle and am looking into purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle. The county decides who to issue to (if it will ossue any at all). This means that liberal counties like San Francisco won't issue them even if your record is cleaner than Jesus, while Orange and the more rural counties do issue concealed carry permits to those who pass a background check and register their guns with the police department or sherrif's office.

 

[-ty-]

Whether a gun is purchased on the black market or stolen from a friend or family member, it was still obtained illegally and deserves punishment. The person who padded a background check and legally registers his or her gun is under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is reasonable to require to the use of a trigger safety and to keep the gun unloaded while in the home to reduce gun-related domestic disputes.

While a hate crimes law might punish the bigot more harshly, it doesn't proect the victim's death beforehand. No one knows who would win in a gun fight, but with an armed bigot and an unarmed LGBT victim, the cards seem stacked against them. At lest under my proposal, they'd have a fighting chance.



Concealed carry is legal in California. Butte County (a red county) issued me a concealed carry permit for my 9mm pistol. I also have a hunting rifle and am looking into purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle. The county decides who to issue to (if it will ossue any at all). This means that liberal counties like San Francisco won't issue them even if your record is cleaner than Jesus, while Orange and the more rural counties do issue concealed carry permits to those who pass a background check and register their guns with the police department or sherrif's office.

The questions that I requested you to answer were ignored. I will not be able understand why you believe guns need to have less restrictions and should be dispersed and carried on everyone so that they can use them at any given time, and also the relationship between our high gun homicide rates and lax gun laws. If you respond I would greatly appreciate if you answer the questions from my previous post.

 

[Black Ice]

Sounds like what you want is for everyone to be required to have a gun.

I'm sure that would be better.

 

[Dawn]

Not around here. You need a license to carry a firearm, and most counties have a no issue policy.

What is a "no issue policy"?

...

I'm just going to assume that means most countries don't require licenses. I think that you're suggesting we remove the need for licenses. Seeing as that's a controversial topic in and of itself I think it deserves its own thread if anything.

Because I for one am certainly not willing to branch off into other controversial topics than the one I came to the thread for, simply because the new topic is not something I would've posted in to begin with.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What is a "no issue policy"?

...

I'm just going to assume that means most countries don't require licenses. I think that you're suggesting we remove the need for licenses. Seeing as that's a controversial topic in and of itself I think it deserves its own thread if anything.

Because I for one am certainly not willing to branch off into other controversial topics than the one I came to the thread for, simply because the new topic is not something I would've posted in to begin with.

A no issue county has a policy of not issuing concealed carru permits, no matter how upstanding your background check proves you are. San Francisco County is no issue, for example. These policies are motivated purely by partisan politics.