Skip to main content

View Diary: American police kill one suspect every day (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Need an outright gun ban (12+ / 0-)

    like the UK and Japan have before we can reduce the armament of police. Police need to have the weapons as long as this country insists on right-wing maniacs having the weapons.

    Ban guns and much of this problem is solved. Not that it will ever happen in a country where 68 senators automatically come from gun states and 5 gasbags on the Supreme Court only read the words in the Constitution that they like and ignore the ones they don't like, such as "well-regulated militia."

    •  Doesn't seem like the US (9+ / 0-)

      has any well-regulated militias!

      Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry. F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Great Gatsby

      by riverlover on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:01:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They tried that answer in Mexico. (0+ / 0-)

      The problem wasn't solved.

    •  OK, a show of hands here... (2+ / 0-)

      You are 2000% right but..... How many of us, including yourself, really believe it is possible to root out three million guns from the hands of the population???

      Even if every politician in the land votes to disarm, How do we do it? We won't even go into getting them away from so-called "militias" or plain old gun nuts.  Hell, given the way we are headed, I probably wouldn't give up a gun either.  Actually don't own one but if.....

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:39:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's pretty easy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TKO333, kfunk937, vernonbc

        You make it illegal. You make it a 10-year mandatory minimum if you are found to possess a gun, and a 20-year mandatory minimum if you use a gun while committing a felony. Obviously cops won't be going house-to-house, but if say, there's a domestic violence call, and the cops show up and find a gun, you're under arrest.

        It's the same way we deal with anything that's illegal to own. Cops don't go house to house. It's dealt with in the normal course--if there was a reason for the cops to go to your house and they see illegal contraband (or if they pull your car over for speeding and see it in the backseat), then you're caught.

        The assault-weapons ban was enforced. It can be done.

        And yes, I know it's not going to happen. But that's because of the Senate forever being dominated by gun-loving states, not because it would be hard to enforce. All laws are somewhat hard to enforce.

        •  It would take awhile... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slipper, lissablack, kfunk937, vernonbc

          but if gun ownership, manufacture and importation were all banned, then it would get better every year. It might well take 20 - 30 years for the police to seize guns and for people to voluntarily turn them in, but at that time, there would be far fewer gun deaths. We would finally begin to look like the UK or Australia or some of the other sane societies.

          I have no problem with registered long guns for hunting or sport shooting and I have no problem with handguns for sport shooting if they are kept at a registered shooting range, but I really wish the 2nd could be reinterpreted to keep handguns out from under every pillowcase in America...

        •  You both have a good point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slipper, kfunk937

          OrganicChemist  feels somewhat the same.  Now, let's say you do just that.  It is a great idea on paper and, in decades past would have had a good chance of working.

          Imagine the open carry advocates challenged by such a law; also the so called "militias" that I spoke about.  It is just the impetus they would need to build a movement together.  

          I'm not saying we should not do just that (as you say, we won't).  It is the mine field that lies between here and there.  Does the hope lie with individual states?  Maybe.  I'm sure not knowledgeable enough to even know where to start.  Maybe not an impossible dream however.  

          So, there's two hands for yea... anymore?

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by cowdab on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The individual states (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder, vernonbc

            is the problem. Before the current idiots took over the Supreme Court, there were several gun bans in place, including in DC, Chicago, and San Francisco. A few states like New Jersey and Maryland have a virtual ban on taking a gun outside your house.

            But still, because gun laws are by individual states, it is way to easy to smuggle guns in from neighboring states.

            Maryland and DC have this with Virginia, New Jersey has it with Pennsylvania, etc. While gun-control states do mostly have firearm-death rates that are lower than the gun-loving states, the rates are still far too high. Gun control is working, but it's success is limited by the ability to easily transport guns across state lines.

            It needs to be a federal ban to be a complete success.

            •  By your own admission a federal gun ban didn't (0+ / 0-)

              work in Mexico.

              Gun bans haven't worked in Chicago, DC, or San Fran either.
              It's a tall order to suggest that because of the failures of gun control, we need more of it.

              Meanwhile, despite the repeal of gun ban policies recently San Fran is on pace to have their lowest murder rate in years.

            •  Just a little correction (0+ / 0-)
              there were several gun bans in place, including in DC, Chicago, and San Francisco.
              Not quite. In SF then mayor Feinstein wrote an intentionally unconstitutional gun ban, (CA state constitution) then didn't even sent a lawyer to defend it when it was challenged. It was a blatant publicity stunt.
              Personal note: I was parked in a cab stand across the street from 101 Cal that day. I will never vote for Feinstein.
        •  The attempted prohibitions on drugs & alcohol (0+ / 0-)

          suggests otherwise.

    •  the UK bans hand guns yes, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, divineorder, Metric Only

      shotguns and rifles, these are fine - when you have a permit from the police.  

      I have what counts as a shotgun, but no ammunition....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site