• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Hawaii become the model for nationwide gun-control?

TurtleDude said:
why do cities with strict gun laws often have much higher rates of gun crime than nearby "lax areas"? your logic suggests that the lax areas contribute to the high crime rate of the gun ban cities but also that would mean the lax areas would have even higher rates of violence

that is not true in the areas near DC, Chicago, Baltimore or other virulently anti gun cities.
Click to expand...
Lax areas would have higher gun crime rates if they had the same concentration of violent criminals as big cities. Why don't cities like London or Sydney have high gun crime rates? There may be plenty of violent criminals in those cities but at least they don't have easy access to guns.
 
Galileo said:
Hawaii, the UK, and Australia all have low gun death and injury rates. These places have strict gun laws and are geographically isolated from places with lax gun laws. There definitely does seem to be a pattern.
Click to expand...

Did they show any major change in their homicide rates before and after those strict laws were implemented that can be directly attributed to those laws that weren't also seen in countries that did not implement strict laws?
 
Galileo said:
Lax areas would have higher gun crime rates if they had the same concentration of violent criminals as big cities. Why don't cities like London or Sydney have high gun crime rates? There may be plenty of violent criminals in those cities but at least they don't have easy access to guns.
Click to expand...

Moscow and Mexico City have strict gun laws. How safe are those cities?
 
Rucker61 said:
Moscow and Mexico City have strict gun laws. How safe are those cities?
Click to expand...

Two nations with little rule of law. And you asked about how their laws are working. LOL
 
Rucker61 said:
Did they show any major change in their homicide rates before and after those strict laws were implemented that can be directly attributed to those laws that weren't also seen in countries that did not implement strict laws?
Click to expand...
Australia experienced a big decrease in mass shootings after its gun buyback. The UK banned handguns about 20 years ago. Before the ban, less than 1% of the population owned handguns so the ban probably didn't have a big effect one way or the other.
 
Galileo said:
Lax areas would have higher gun crime rates if they had the same concentration of violent criminals as big cities. Why don't cities like London or Sydney have high gun crime rates? There may be plenty of violent criminals in those cities but at least they don't have easy access to guns.
Click to expand...

but places like London have never had many guns. you are trying to unring the bell and all you can do now is disarm honest people. which seems to be the real goal of many who pretend its about crime
 
Galileo said:
Australia experienced a big decrease in mass shootings after its gun buyback. The UK banned handguns about 20 years ago. Before the ban, less than 1% of the population owned handguns so the ban probably didn't have a big effect one way or the other.
Click to expand...


Australia never had much in the way of mass shootings before their gun bans and confiscations
 
Jesse Booth said:
Oh wow, the tropical island paradise has low suicide rates! What a surprise!
Click to expand...

and they have very low populations of groups that tend to have high rates of violent crime and correspondingly, high populations of groups that don't have a history of high rates of such crimes.
 
Posters like TurtleDude are paranoid about small amounts of gun control being the slippery slope to a total ban on all guns. However, that hasn't been Hawaii's experience. Hawaii has both a thriving gun culture and strict gun control. Guns are registered in Hawaii so it's easy to keep track of how many guns are in circulation.

"Rapoza is just one example of the growing number of people in Hawaii who have found a reason to buy a gun. Over the last 15 years, the number of guns being registered in the islands has skyrocketed, climbing nearly 300 percent, according to a recent report by the Attorney General’s Office.

"A total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014. And that’s on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state, according to an estimate by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department in the late 1990s."
Are There More Guns Than People in Hawaii? - Honolulu Civil Beat

Keep in mind that the population of Hawaii is only about 1.4 million. So 400,000+ guns being registered in 14 years is a lot. Perhaps strict gun control can mitigate the risks associated with gun ownership. That is possibility we should be investigating. We should try to come up with a compromise that most people can agree to.
 
Galileo said:
Posters like TurtleDude are paranoid about small amounts of gun control being the slippery slope to a total ban on all guns. However, that hasn't been Hawaii's experience. Hawaii has both a thriving gun culture and strict gun control. Guns are registered in Hawaii so it's easy to keep track of how many guns are in circulation.

"Rapoza is just one example of the growing number of people in Hawaii who have found a reason to buy a gun. Over the last 15 years, the number of guns being registered in the islands has skyrocketed, climbing nearly 300 percent, according to a recent report by the Attorney General’s Office.

"A total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014. And that’s on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state, according to an estimate by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department in the late 1990s."
Are There More Guns Than People in Hawaii? - Honolulu Civil Beat

Keep in mind that the population of Hawaii is only about 1.4 million. So 400,000+ guns being registered in 14 years is a lot. Perhaps strict gun control can mitigate the risks associated with gun ownership. That is possibility we should be investigating. We should try to come up with a compromise that most people can agree to.
Click to expand...

you are on record wanting to ban private ownership of firearms. SO when you come here and claim that "I am paranoid" when you want to take steps closer to that ban you want-what am I supposed to believe?

nothing you all propose has any real value in stopping violent crimes. You all seem to ignore the fact that its already illegal for a criminal to even handle a firearm and its illegal to use a firearm to harm or threaten or even reckless endanger others. everything you want harasses honest gun owners without changing the legal environment of criminals

its hard to get people like you to do these things

1) tell us what your ultimate goals are

2) if you actually believe private citizens have any rights whatsoever or are we relegated to only having what the legislature says we can have

3) if you admit that there is value to honest people having guns

4) why you think people who don't commit crimes have to be further restricted and why you think those who already own guns despite that being a felony, will somehow be controlled by merely another crime
 
Galileo said:
Posters like TurtleDude are paranoid about small amounts of gun control being the slippery slope to a total ban on all guns. However, that hasn't been Hawaii's experience. Hawaii has both a thriving gun culture and strict gun control. Guns are registered in Hawaii so it's easy to keep track of how many guns are in circulation.

"Rapoza is just one example of the growing number of people in Hawaii who have found a reason to buy a gun. Over the last 15 years, the number of guns being registered in the islands has skyrocketed, climbing nearly 300 percent, according to a recent report by the Attorney General’s Office.

"A total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014. And that’s on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state, according to an estimate by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department in the late 1990s."
Are There More Guns Than People in Hawaii? - Honolulu Civil Beat

Keep in mind that the population of Hawaii is only about 1.4 million. So 400,000+ guns being registered in 14 years is a lot. Perhaps strict gun control can mitigate the risks associated with gun ownership. That is possibility we should be investigating. We should try to come up with a compromise that most people can agree to.
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree completely
 
Galileo said:
Posters like TurtleDude are paranoid about small amounts of gun control being the slippery slope to a total ban on all guns. However, that hasn't been Hawaii's experience. Hawaii has both a thriving gun culture and strict gun control. Guns are registered in Hawaii so it's easy to keep track of how many guns are in circulation.

"Rapoza is just one example of the growing number of people in Hawaii who have found a reason to buy a gun. Over the last 15 years, the number of guns being registered in the islands has skyrocketed, climbing nearly 300 percent, according to a recent report by the Attorney General’s Office.

"A total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014. And that’s on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state, according to an estimate by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department in the late 1990s."
Are There More Guns Than People in Hawaii? - Honolulu Civil Beat

Keep in mind that the population of Hawaii is only about 1.4 million. So 400,000+ guns being registered in 14 years is a lot. Perhaps strict gun control can mitigate the risks associated with gun ownership. That is possibility we should be investigating. We should try to come up with a compromise that most people can agree to.
Click to expand...
oh btw there are plenty of people who want to confiscate guns

Thinking Beyond the Moment – Talking Points Memo

In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...de182507eac_story.html?utm_term=.802947b72ff2
 
TurtleDude said:
you are on record wanting to ban private ownership of firearms. SO when you come here and claim that "I am paranoid" when you want to take steps closer to that ban you want-what am I supposed to believe?

nothing you all propose has any real value in stopping violent crimes. You all seem to ignore the fact that its already illegal for a criminal to even handle a firearm and its illegal to use a firearm to harm or threaten or even reckless endanger others. everything you want harasses honest gun owners without changing the legal environment of criminals

its hard to get people like you to do these things

1) tell us what your ultimate goals are

2) if you actually believe private citizens have any rights whatsoever or are we relegated to only having what the legislature says we can have

3) if you admit that there is value to honest people having guns

4) why you think people who don't commit crimes have to be further restricted and why you think those who already own guns despite that being a felony, will somehow be controlled by merely another crime
Click to expand...
1) I want to help save lives and prevent injuries.

2) Of course, they have rights.

3) Target shooting isn't one of my hobbies, but it is for some people. So in that way it has value. I am not trying to interfere with how people spend their free time. I am just proposing a few common sense restrictions for public safety purposes.

4) Only a small percentage of airline passengers are terrorists. However, everyone must be checked for weapons before boarding a plane. Having gun control laws that only affect the bad guys isn't really practical for the most part.
 
Galileo said:
1) I want to help save lives and prevent injuries.

2) Of course, they have rights.

3) Target shooting isn't one of my hobbies, but it is for some people. So in that way it has value. I am not trying to interfere with how people spend their free time. I am just proposing a few common sense restrictions for public safety purposes.

4) Only a small percentage of airline passengers are terrorists. However, everyone must be checked for weapons before boarding a plane. Having gun control laws that only affect the bad guys isn't really practical for the most part.
Click to expand...

Do all private plane passengers get checked for weapons?
 
Galileo said:
1) I want to help save lives and prevent injuries.

2) Of course, they have rights.

3) Target shooting isn't one of my hobbies, but it is for some people. So in that way it has value. I am not trying to interfere with how people spend their free time. I am just proposing a few common sense restrictions for public safety purposes.

4) Only a small percentage of airline passengers are terrorists. However, everyone must be checked for weapons before boarding a plane. Having gun control laws that only affect the bad guys isn't really practical for the most part.
Click to expand...

1) everything harmful you can do with a gun is illegal

(can you find something that is harmful that is not banned ?)

2)those who are adjudicated too dangerous to own guns or even, in some cases (such as being under indictment) assumed to be too dangerous to own guns, are banned from having, buying, owning, carrying, or using firearms

3) gun control advocates don't want to punish criminals more severely but rather want to intrude on the rights of people who aren't causing crime with firearms

4) you have to show an ID etc to travel on a commercial flight, You have to show an ID and undergo a background check to buy a gun from a dealer. You don't have to show an ID or go through TSA to fly on a private plane or travel in a car just like you don't have to undergo a federal background check to buy a second hand gun from another private citizen. You cannot buy gun legally across state lines from a private citizen either

so tell us what additional restrictions on honest people who have not broken any laws do you want to impose?
 
TurtleDude said:
1) everything harmful you can do with a gun is illegal

(can you find something that is harmful that is not banned ?)

2)those who are adjudicated too dangerous to own guns or even, in some cases (such as being under indictment) assumed to be too dangerous to own guns, are banned from having, buying, owning, carrying, or using firearms

3) gun control advocates don't want to punish criminals more severely but rather want to intrude on the rights of people who aren't causing crime with firearms

4) you have to show an ID etc to travel on a commercial flight, You have to show an ID and undergo a background check to buy a gun from a dealer. You don't have to show an ID or go through TSA to fly on a private plane or travel in a car just like you don't have to undergo a federal background check to buy a second hand gun from another private citizen. You cannot buy gun legally across state lines from a private citizen either

so tell us what additional restrictions on honest people who have not broken any laws do you want to impose?
Click to expand...

Lay off the milk?

http://www.wsmv.com/story/23594478/person-accidentally-shoots-self-in-leg-at-walmart
 
Galileo said:
Having gun control laws that only affect the bad guys isn't really practical for the most part.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the opposite also be true? Wouldn't having gun control laws that only affect the good guys be impractical as well?

"But my proposed gun control laws would affect ALL people, not just the "good" or "bad" guys..."

But isn't the definition of a criminal somebody who DOESN'T ABIDE BY LAWS?
So how would your "gun control" laws apply to "bad" guys? Thus, your laws would only apply to "good" guys, thus making those laws "impractical" by your own argument...
 
gfm7175 said:
Wouldn't the opposite also be true? Wouldn't having gun control laws that only affect the good guys be impractical as well?

"But my proposed gun control laws would affect ALL people, not just the "good" or "bad" guys..."

But isn't the definition of a criminal somebody who DOESN'T ABIDE BY LAWS?
So how would your "gun control" laws apply to "bad" guys? Thus, your laws would only apply to "good" guys, thus making those laws "impractical" by your own argument...
Click to expand...
Your definition of a criminal is flawed. A person could be a criminal for only breaking one law even though they follow 99% of other laws. Other countries such as Australia and the UK have very low gun crime rates. So gun control must be affecting the bad guys in those countries.
 
Galileo said:
Your definition of a criminal is flawed. A person could be a criminal for only breaking one law even though they follow 99% of other laws. Other countries such as Australia and the UK have very low gun crime rates. So gun control must be affecting the bad guys in those countries.
Click to expand...

you do know that those two countries had very low rates of gun crime before they engaged in anti gun legal actions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom