National Id card

[notAFanB]

Would anyone try to argue that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if guns weren't sold like toys in the US, then MAYBE the death rate would be SLIGHTLY lower?............... errrrrr...........

certainly, go ahead and put your case.

How about the pigeons? Gotta love the pigeons...

oh, how I miss the birdS**T on my jacket while leaving work....

 

[Silent_One]

First-
Why Fear National ID Cards?
by Alan M Dershowitz
http://www.cephasministry.com/nwo_why_fear_national_id_harvard.html

October 13, 2001 At many bridges and tunnels across the country, drivers avoid long delays at the toll booths with an unobtrusive device that fits on a car's dashboard. Instead of fumbling for change, they drive right through; the device sends a radio signal that records their passage. They are billed later. It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience: the toll-takers know more about you — when you entered and left Manhattan, for instance — but you save time and money.

An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.

As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms — especially racial and ethnic profiling — that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties. I can hear the objections: What about the specter of Big Brother?

And fingerprints differ from photographs only in that they are harder to fake. The vast majority of Americans routinely carry photo ID's in their wallets and pocketbooks. These ID's are issued by state motor vehicle bureaus and other public and private entities. A national card would be uniform and difficult to forge or alter. It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.

American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous — even to create a false identity — in this large and decentralized country. A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do

Firearms:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm#findings

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,204 murders in 2002 were committed with firearms.

16.204 X 0.67 = 10,856 +/-

 

[Mariner]

Isn't a favourite saying of the gun lobby in the US:

"Guns don't kill people, people do."

Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

For example, after a quick google I found the following web page which compares murder rates.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000055.html

Assuming these figures are reasonably accurate the US murder rate as a whole is more than 3 times that of Great Britain. The murder rate by firearms is over 100 times as high in the US as in Britain.

The figures speak for themselves.

 

[London Geezer]

Isn't a favourite saying of the gun lobby in the US:

"Guns don't kill people, people do."

Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

For example, after a quick google I found the following web page which compares murder rates.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000055.html

Assuming these figures are reasonably accurate the US murder rate as a whole is more than 3 times that of Great Britain. The murder rate by firearms is over 100 times as high in the US as in Britain.

The figures speak for themselves.

Been through this already on page 2... Doesn't really matter though, taking guns away from the people is unconstitutional....

 

[notAFanB]

Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

no it doesn't. read that again.

Been through this already on page 2... Doesn't really matter though, taking guns away from the people is unconstitutional....

even if it wasn't why do you think it would be a good idea (assumin gthe gun culture in the US is the same prior to the attempt at a 'arms' purge).
?

 

[London Geezer]

even if it wasn't why do you think it would be a good idea (assumin gthe gun culture in the US is the same prior to the attempt at a 'arms' purge).
?

The fact that it is so easy to get guns in the USA certainly had an effect on the so called gun-culture there. Of course "taking them away" from the people NOW would not change that. It would take a very long time to change a culture. Still, it would help a whole lot. And it certainly would be a step forward towards a change in the culture, which is the real problem here.

The guns are an instrument of a flawed culture. The problem is the culture, however it would make it harder for some to committ some crimes if guns couldnt be bought like toys so to speak. Also, with time, the culture would change, and that can only be a good thing.

I only thank the Lord for not having a constitution that makes it legal for everyone to have a gun here. Then Americans can do what the hell they want.

 

[notAFanB]

good post.

The fact that it is so easy to get guns in the USA certainly had an effect on the so called gun-culture there.

already assumed in the hypothesis above.

Of course "taking them away" from the people NOW would not change that. It would take a very long time to change a culture.

agreed the practicality of it is (barring some sorta kill on sight policy) is overwhelming.

However how does the above lead to

Still, it would help a whole lot. And it certainly would be a step forward towards a change in the culture, which is the real problem here.

The guns are an instrument of a flawed culture. The problem is the culture,

So they should only keep the parts that the rest of the world agrees with?

Also, with time, the culture would change, and that can only be a good thing.

tommorrow they could start rounding up jews, I fail to see whether this is a good thing or not.

I only thank the Lord for not having a constitution that makes it legal for everyone to have a gun here. Then Americans can do what the hell they want.

ditto

 

[Natoma]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, a national id system won't happen because you have enough god fearing christians who would fear the mark of the beast coming to pass, that wouldn't let it happen.

 

[Mariner]

notAFanB, I said:

Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

You replied:

no it doesn't. read that again.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here.

Assuming those figures I linked are correct, the overall murder rate in the US is about three times that of Britain. However, 65% of US murders involve firearms as compared to about 8% of British Murders.

Also regarding those figures it says that 39% of US households own firearms as opposed to 5% of British households (incidentally, there is no way that 5% of British households own guns - I suppose it is possible that they include Air rifles in that figure but most of the rest will be farmers with shotguns!).

Interestingly, going by these figures would indicate that 8 times as many US households own guns which relates exactly to the ratios of murders committed by firearms in the two countries.

More guns on the streets = more people killed by guns.

It also seems a logical step to think that the number of overall murders would be reduced if the number of guns on the streets was reduced.

Please note that it's of no relevance to me who in America owns guns or not as I've yet to visit the place!

 

[notAFanB]

More guns on the streets = more people killed by guns.

this makes more sense in comparison to

Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

which ties in with

It also seems a logical step to think that the number of overall murders would be reduced if the number of guns on the streets was reduced.

can you justify the logical steps to reach this conclusion?

What is the number of Murders actually go up? fluctuate?

in short I cannot find the logical association you are driving at.

 

[akira888]

Also regarding those figures it says that 39% of US households own firearms as opposed to 5% of British households (incidentally, there is no way that 5% of British households own guns - I suppose it is possible that they include Air rifles in that figure but most of the rest will be farmers with shotguns!).

Interestingly, going by these figures would indicate that 8 times as many US households own guns which relates exactly to the ratios of murders committed by firearms in the two countries.

More guns on the streets = more people killed by guns.

It also seems a logical step to think that the number of overall murders would be reduced if the number of guns on the streets was reduced.

The problem with this line is that you assume correlation==causation and it really doesn't. If you look at the US county by county there is actually a negative correlation between firearms ownership and murder rate. (John Lott's research)* This, to me, is a more convincing statistic since more extraneous variables are being held constant than in transnational comparisons, which I feel are next to worthless due to other factors .

*Yes Prof. Lott's (at Yale Law I believe) a bit of a flake in his personal life but his research has held up well.

london-boy:
Let's start from your premise that, if it reduces murders, then scraping the RKBA is worth it. Still, the very fact that it's actually almost as easy to buy pot as it is to buy tobacco casts heavy doubt on the efficacy of firearms control preventing criminals from gaining guns. The burden of proof is on those who would wish to trim liberty, always. (or it should be )

 

[Clashman]

The reason why pot is so easy to get ahold of is because you can grow it in your basement, for cryin' out loud. It takes next to zero technical expertise and/or high tech equiptment to produce. If the same could be said of firearms, the world would be a very dangerous place indeed.

 

[RussSchultz]

The reason why pot is so easy to get ahold of is because you can grow it in your basement, for cryin' out loud. It takes next to zero technical expertise and/or high tech equiptment to produce. If the same could be said of firearms, the world would be a very dangerous place indeed.

Alas, for want of a basement.

 

[akira888]

The reason why pot is so easy to get ahold of is because you can grow it in your basement, for cryin' out loud. It takes next to zero technical expertise and/or high tech equiptment to produce. If the same could be said of firearms, the world would be a very dangerous place indeed.

Can you make synthetic drugs (the MDMA family) in a basement without special equipment? Can you grow poppies easily here? Those are all smuggled in/smuggled through, and yet are still easy to obtain, thus my point stands. You can't guard two 1000 mile borders easily under any circumstances; it's simply not feasible short of declaring a police state.

Which is actually on the table - look at how the "Drug War" has ravaged liberty in America. What horrors would a full scale "Gun War" wreak? It boggles the mind...

 

[L233]

*Yes Prof. Lott's (at Yale Law I believe) a bit of a flake in his personal life but his research has held up well.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/lott.asp

Looks like he's more than just a bit of a flake.

 

[akira888]

*Yes Prof. Lott's (at Yale Law I believe) a bit of a flake in his personal life but his research has held up well.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/lott.asp

Looks like he's more than just a bit of a flake.

His book "More Guns, Less Crime" has stood up despite numerous attempts to replicate his calculations and derive a different result. He went batty after the book was published.

I'm still waiting to hear from a month ago where the indigenous Anatolians went when there's only 200000 left there today? Mars perhaps?

 

[Mariner]

Quote:
More guns on the streets = more people killed by guns.

this makes more sense in comparison to

Quote:
Now this is true but surely guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people and therefore make it more likely!

Guns certainly make it easier to kill someone. If you don't have a gun, what is the other main way of violently killing somebody? If you attack somebody with a knife or other hand weapon you are putting yourself at risk, especially if the person is larger than yourself or in a group of people - hence "drive-by" shootings. Guns can be used from a distance so you don't put yourself at physical risk and you need never even come in contact with the victim meaning there is likely to be less evidence.

As a somewhat crude and extreme example of this distance from the victim, I'd cite the Washington sniper. If he'd stopped after killing just one or two people would he ever have been found? There was, after all, virtually no evidence left anywhere around the crime scenes.

Please remember that I don't care if Americans want to keep guns or not - it's your country and you can do what you want there. It just seems obvious to me (as somebody who has never even held a handgun) that guns make it easier to kill. It's just human nature that the easier something is, the more likely you are to do it.

As an aside, am I right in assuming that silencers for handguns are legal in the US?

 

[RussSchultz]

As an aside, am I right in assuming that silencers for handguns are legal in the US?

They appear to be legal, but are subject to strict regulations and control by the federal government--much like machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

http://www.gem-tech.com/legal.html

 

[Mariner]

Thanks for the info, Russ.

I asked because I can't really think of a legitimate use of a silencer by a private citizen. I suppose a target shooter could say he uses one so as not to disturb his neighbours but that's a bit of a stretch because they reduce accuracy, I believe? Now you mention it I suppose the same applies to sawn-off shotguns - I can't think of any use for these except for criminal activities!

I also find the availability of assault rifles and machine guns a bit strange. I saw a documentary on TV here the other week about the state of Texas and one of the interviews was with some survivalist/militia types. They were happily espousing the use of their assault rifles with armour piercing bullets - one woman was saying she always has her gun loaded with teflon-coated bullets just in case she is attacked by a criminal in a bullet-proof vest! The other bizarre aspect of the interview was the fact that they all hated the United Nations and said they thought the US was a puppet of the UN! Strange when half of the world thinks the opposite!