Gun Control pt.1

Randy Barnett Gun Cite - 2nd amendment advocacy page Gun Facts The US Constitution - Bill of Rights Wikipedia - Bill of Rights Wikipedia - 2nd Amendment Firearms Safety Rules Gun Safety Rules for Kids Self Defense Laws - Use of Force Civil libertarian on gun control (1976) ACLU - position statement Rutherford Inst - civil liberties Gun Control Policy Dept. of Justice on 2nd Am. Eugene Volokh - UCLA Law School Jay Wagner - Villanova Glenn Reynolds - Univ. Tenn. A FAQ Another FAQ Emerson Case - 5th District Silveira vs. Lockyer - 9th Circuit Lobbying Expenditures The National Rifle Association Gun Owners of America Pink Pistols - libertarian gays & guns 2nd Ammendment Sisters - Moms with guns Million Mom March - Moms without guns Brady Campaign The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Violence Policy Center Gun Control Network - UK Candadian Gun Control IPSC - Handgun shooting sports Civilian Marksmanship Program Wimbleton Cup - 140yr old shooting match Defensive Gun Uses - News items on right Packing.org Play the Passifier "Smart Gun" Game

1. wabbit - 1/6/2005 1:55:49 PM

4026. robertjayb - 12/15/2004 10:00:17 PM

San Francisco to disarm...Jexster must surrender grandpappy's squirrel gun...

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure -- submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors -- would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.

2. iiibbb - 12/16/2004 7:32:35 AM

Message # 3991 I recommend that Jex read adopt the strategies in the article in this post if SF takes makes that law.

3. alistairconnor - 12/16/2004 7:47:24 AM

Anyone got any numbers concerning the number of murdered burglary victims in San Francisco?

4. iiibbb - 12/16/2004 8:15:59 AM

I would just like to point out in most crime such as this one, the attacker does not surrender their unregistered, stolen handgun.

Instead they do whatever they want. Please note in the video... no cops right there to help.

5. alistairconnor - 12/16/2004 9:00:41 AM

4029 : my point is this : you seem to be alleging that making handguns illegal will result in more deaths, as law-abiding people will be unable to defend themselves.

I can not agree or disagree with this without knowing something about the numbers involved. My suspicion is that San Francisco is a place where violent burglary and gun violence are lower than in the US in general, perhaps even closer to typical European levels. If this should be the case, then your argument would be weakened.

6. iiibbb - 12/16/2004 9:08:04 AM

Well, let's put it this way. Washing DC is a place where you can't own a handgun (maybe even any gun). It consistantly competes for top honors in violent crime statistics.

But whatever. I'm never going to live there. It'll be just another datapoint on how this kind of thing won't work.

However... I am mystified why democrats are so mystified why they loose elections.... (hint - it's flakey stuff like this)

7. iiibbb - 12/16/2004 11:51:04 AM

Message # 4026

San Fran has had a handgun ban in the past. It was overturned in court in 1982.

8. iiibbb - 12/20/2004 8:38:08 PM

Assuming the DA knows anything about guns this guy is so fucked.

For those of you unfamiliar with semi-automatic firearms. You can't take the magazine out and then shoot someone twice. There can be one round still chambered (and this is the cause of many accidents), but the magazine must be inserted in order to feed an additional round.

This boy is lying... about something.

9. Wombat - 12/20/2004 9:40:13 PM

Am I missing something? The article does not say the gun discharged twice.

10. iiibbb - 12/20/2004 9:52:23 PM

Wrong link

but this raises an interesting discrepancy between the two reports. The NY Post came later... so will have to wait and see.

The victim, Dario Lam, 17, was shot twice in the chest 7 p.m. Saturday and died 30 minutes later at Kings County Hospital.

His longtime buddy, Austin Burton, 18, of East 21st Street, in Flatbush, told cops he didn't know the pistol was loaded when he pulled the trigger.

Burton shot Lam in front of two other friends who were at Burton's apartment having fun with a PlayStation. They warned Burton to put the gun down, but he insisted it wasn't loaded, according to a family friend.

"I took the clip out," he told them, the friend said.

11. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 9:32:08 AM

While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

12. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 10:31:59 AM

The study also found no support for the value of guns for personal protection, if my memory of a recent article on the NAS study is correct.

13. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 10:36:51 AM

Kleck would disagree... and try telling that to a few friends of mine.

I also met an unleashed dog in the woods Monday... which luckily turned out to be friendly... however, I've met... and been attacked by... meaner dogs.

14. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 10:40:59 AM

The reasoning behind gun control is always that it will reduce crime. That being untrue it becomes a personal decision as to how much value it has toward your personal protection.

The burden is and always will be on the gun control advocates...

15. Marc-Albert - 12/30/2004 11:39:49 AM

Move to Canada. You will have no handguns, but you will still live a safer life than if you remain an gunman in the U.S.

16. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 11:51:55 AM

Perhaps... but my family and friends aren't there. I've also moved from the place where I discovered that there are specific situations where you have to take ownership of your own safety, and gov't shouldn't interfere with your capacity to do so.

17. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 11:54:02 AM

The article on the National Academy study on gun control which iiibbb linked was slanted very differently from the article I read in the N.Y. Times. I guess I'll have to read the entire study and make up my own mind.

This illustrates how a person's preconceptions affect the sources he reads and how the sources he reads reinforce his preconceptions.

18. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 11:55:53 AM

How this process works is perhaps illustrated most clearly in the endless dialogs on religion/abortion/etc with KuliganMan in the Religion thread.

19. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 12:10:38 PM

Not just what you read, but what you experience. I used to be far less committed to the 2nd ammendment... until I hace a few situations hit close enough to home.

20. arkymalarky - 12/30/2004 12:51:50 PM

My problem with the 2nd Amendment is that people keep hollering that it's being threatened, and it simply isn't. You could say that PETA is threatening our right to eat meat, but extremists aren't going to get what they want in either case. The details--assault weapons bans, handgun laws, background checks, gun show regulation, etc,--are reasonably debatable. The right to gun ownership and use is not. It's just like gay marriage--it brings people out of the woodwork to vote who normally wouldn't lift themselves up from the La-z-boy and let go of the remote and their Fox TV long enough to go bother otherwise.

21. Max Macks - 12/30/2004 1:36:24 PM

I think that article re. gun ownership and lower rates
of crime leaves out an important factor, namely
whether the guns are in an urban area or
in remote places where responsbile gun owners have
guns to hunt , not shoot others.

22. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 1:59:04 PM

Message # 4064

Right about when I began to care I saw speeches by both Janet Reno as well as Al Gore that pretty much said flat out the goal was to ban handgun ownership. This upset me because handguns have a purpose... easier to handle than rifles... less powerful as well (which is important in certain circumstances).

Also, you can't say the rights aren't threatened. San Francisco has just proposed a ban on ownership by anyone other than Police, Military, and a select few.

The rights of people are being threatened.

While normally, gay marriage might be a good argument against your standard conservative gun owner... but I am not one of those. I am a social libertarian who believes in gay marriage (or unions... semantics don't get me down), legalizing marijuana, etc.

I maintain, that as long as you are law-abiding and aren't hurting anyone the gov't should just keep its nose out of your business.... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and all that.

23. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 2:02:09 PM

Message # 4065 What about responsible gun owners who live in cities... where crime rates may actually give someone even more cause to want to have the capacity to protect themselves?

Gun control limits peoples' capacity to do so if they wish. Also, some people (women, old, handicapped) aren't capable of dealing with a physical threat any other way. Throw in the fact that the police are not there for your personal protection.

We should concentrate on punishing offenders, not hamstringing those who otherwise pose no threat to anyone.

24. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 2:03:17 PM

I fully recognize a gun is no guarantee... it may help. it may fail to help... but an adult should be able to make that decision for themselves.

25. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 2:04:12 PM

Message # 4065 or responsible gun owners who live in cites, but go to the country... this is my situation.

26. arkymalarky - 12/30/2004 2:29:59 PM

That's San Francisco. The same folks who use San Francisco as an example of what the world's coming to are the ones who'd get off the couch to go vote against gay marriage. ;-)

And I realize you're a social libertarian and a moderate (one of the few REAL moderates I know, on line or otherwise), but most people just knee-jerk react about gun control and don't debate the real issues regarding it, which as you note handguns are one. I personally don't think handguns should be banned, but I think they and most other guns should be regulated. So far, I think US regulations are generally reasonable and meaningful. State to state and city to city it's a different story, but that's true with most issues that are left up to state and local districts to decide. I figure they go with what suits their own dynamic, for the most part.

27. PelleNilsson - 12/30/2004 2:43:28 PM

I just don't understand your preoccupation, not to say obsession, with guns, iiibbb.

28. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 3:26:28 PM

I don't think it's an obsession, although I do take it pretty seriously. This just happens to be one of my favorite place to argue about it.

I guess I just seem meso-dimensional on this site.

I have many passions that never come up in here... and you probably wouldn't find nearly as offensive/confusing.

29. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 3:39:26 PM

Besides...if I were obsessed, I would never had voted for Kerry.

30. alistairConnor - 12/30/2004 4:14:06 PM

I've also moved from the place where I discovered that there are specific situations where you have to take ownership of your own safety, and gov't shouldn't interfere with your capacity to do so.

I would not want to live in Somalia, or in any other place where I would need to carry a gun to try to increase my chances of survival.

The first responsibility of a government, any government, is to have a meaningful monopoly on violence. Violent places where the titular government can not protect the population are known as failed states.

Are there many of these in the USA?

31. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 4:20:03 PM

They have a meaning monopoly... unfortunately, it's not an immediate monopoly... except for that 5 minutes between a criminal breaking into your house, perhaps to do you harm, and the police arriving.

No state has a complete monopoly on violent crime.

The nature of my job has me in the woods miles from roads... I certainly don't expect the police to follow me around to make sure I'm not robbed (and I have been out there). There is also the matter of animal encounters, such as wild bigs, bears, etc. Should the gov't do something about them?

32. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 4:25:26 PM

Actually... in some places the police response time can be half an hour or more.

Over xmas a car came into my parents' culdesac doing donuts. Who knows if it was stolen or what they were up to. When I came out of the house to try to get the tag number they tore off... but my younger brother was calling 911.

My older brother and I then go to a take-out place to get supper and returned home maybe an hour after those kids were driving around. When we got about a mile from the house the car goes tearing by us. Luckily I saw it.

Now... who knows what they were up... but I called the police regular line and complained again. 15 minutes after that a cruiser drove by our house (never came up to talk). This is now about 1:15 after the initial contact.

33. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 4:25:59 PM

No state or country has a complete monopoly... even police states.

34. alistairConnor - 12/30/2004 4:30:23 PM

OK. So you're talking about the Frontier. The Wild West. (hand guns being udoubtedly a useful protection against bears...)

I thought you had been talking about urban areas, where the same frontier mentality seems to prevail in many cases.

35. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 5:27:43 PM

I'm with iiibbb on gun issues.

If you don't have the most basic right of self defense, what good are all the other rights?

Being a slight female, I view gun ownership as an important equalizer, seeing as I'm easily overpowered by at least half the human population, if not more. Why shouldn't I be able to defend myself and my husband and my property against intruders and criminals. Why can't I do that in the most effective way that makes me feel safest, especially since my gun ownership represents no threat to anyone else.

My former sec'y was dead set against having a gun in the house. Being a woman in her 60s living in a less than safe city by herself, I asked what she does for self protection. She said she keeps a knife near her bed. I said that's fine, except a man can easily overpower you and take your knife away with little fear of getting hurt. While still possible, it's a whole lot less likely with a gun.

She, no less than I, felt a need to keep ourselves safe in our own home, only the choice of weapon differed. Why should the govt have any right to interfere with that?

36. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 5:50:00 PM

I've never felt unsafe in my own home, even when I lived in inner city Detroit. The best safety precaution is to have good locks on the doors and use them. Exterior lights are also a good idea. Burglars generally focus on easy targets--unlocked houses whose residents aren't home.

37. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 5:56:41 PM

Guns in the home may be okay if there are no children, alcoholics, depressed individuals or hot tempered spouses.

38. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 6:11:59 PM

wonks, while burglary has happened a few times in my life, and it does represent a terrible violation of one's property, it is not the primary source of my fear. My fear is of rape, torture and death. In those cases, you are not looking at things like good locks and/or lights on as that presumes some degree of rationality in the criminal. In these cases you are looking at crazies who choose you as a random victim.

But the source of the fear is irrelevant. The fact is the fear is present, and I have the right to assuage that fear in whatever manner I feel is best, provided it represents no risk to others. I recognize there is no way to be perfectly safe and it is a matter of risk/benefit. But the risk of a gun in the home is still very small, if you look at the actual data vs. the rhetoric. And, there are plenty of anecdotes (though data not collected that I know of) of people who have successfully protected themselves from burglary/injury/murder by having a gun at the ready. For me, it makes me feel safer, and I'm perfectly within my rights...so far.

As hubby says, the only way to be truly safe in your own home is to offer coffee and donuts to the cops for free, 24/7.

39. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 6:17:11 PM

The risk of having a gun in the home May be small but so is the risk of rape, torture and death from intruders. Most rapes and murders are committed by relatives and friends. You've been spending too much time watching Fox News.

40. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 6:18:02 PM

Do you wear a parachute when you fly?

41. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 6:32:56 PM

Message # 4078

Alistar... it's been shown that gun owners such as me are among the most law-abiding. Just because we choose a gun as an option, doesn't mean we've cast off other self defense principles such as evasion, de-escalation etc.

The point is that there are occasions where some villian intends to do you mortal harm or whatever. I choose to have the option of dealing with them in kind if necessary. I do not seek this conflict... I shun it... but if it comes down to me and them, and I fear for my life... I won't hesitate to exercise my right to defend myself with equivalent force.

42. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 6:33:19 PM

First of all, as you should know, I don't watch fox news.

Second, as I said, the source of my fear is irrelevant.

43. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 6:35:02 PM

Message # 4080

Wonkers, why do you think they focus on houses where no one is home? They don't want to get shot.

44. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 6:38:47 PM

Message # 4083Message # 4084

The risk may be small, but it's up to me to determine what I consider an acceptable risk. The places I feel most threatened are 1) at home where I have nowhere to retreat to, and 2) in the woods where help is likely long time coming.

In between, I do rely more on my wits, such as not going to ATM's after dark... and pepper spray....

But law-abiding, peaceful people should be allowed to determine for themselves what is the acceptable risk... not have it dictated by people who don't know or understand their particular circumstances.

45. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 6:43:05 PM

wonks, you remind me of a story where a teacher was trying to illustrate to the college class how life was experienced differently by women than by men. She first asked all the men in the room what they did on a daily basis to protect themselves from sexual assault. No hand went up, no man had anything to offer. Then she asked the women in the room. The answers were many including making sure I have my car keys at the ready before I leave the store to making sure all the doors and windows in my place are always locked tight, to avoiding certain areas when alone, only shopping at certain hours, etc. You might ask mrs wonks if she ever thinks about sexual assault and what she does to protect herself from it.

46. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 6:44:54 PM

Burglars don't want to get shot nor even encounter a resident. Their motive is to enter quietly and quickly find something valuable--money, guns, jewelery, cameras--and get the hell out without anyone knowing they were there.

47. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 6:45:58 PM

My impression is that most burglars are unarmed.

48. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 6:52:01 PM

Leon & Eleanor Cash were spending a quiet evening in their Natrona Heights PA home when they heard suspicious sounds coming from the kitchen. When they went to the kitchen to investigate, a man dressed entirely in black forced his way into the house by pistol whipping Mr. Cash. When the intruder pinned Cash against a kitchen appliance, holding him down by his throat, Cash called to his wife for help. She responded by grabbing their shotgun and shooting the intruder. Ras-Saleem Hudson died at the scene and no charges were expected to be filed against Mrs. Cash. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh, PA, 9/26/04)

49. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 6:54:42 PM

By the way... I'm not sure I agree with the notion that my actions are driven by "fear". This is a pragmatic realization that a firearm can make a difference in certain situations.

Message # 4090 What do you know about a burglar's motive. Don't you watch the news? Who says it's only about burglary. Home invasion may be for rape, kidnapping... it happens.

50. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 6:56:56 PM

A Jacksonville FL man got the surprise of his life after he came home to find a knife-wielding teenage girl inside demanding his car keys. When the girl headed to another room to retrieve the keys, the homeowner, Richard Clark, ran to retrieve his gun. Moments later the two faced off in the house and the teencharged at Clark with the knife. Clark shot once, hitting the teen in the face. She was charged with aggravated battery and armed burglary. (The Times-UnionSampler, Jacksonville, FL, 10/14/04)

51. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 6:57:02 PM

Your're too smart to try to prove anything by citing anecdotes. I could cite case after case where children killed themselves or their friends with their parents' handguns, where residents shot relatives they mistook for intruders, where spouses killed their spouses with handguns in the course of a spat, etc, etc.

52. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 6:57:47 PM

Also... since when are they necessarily unarmed?

At least if they are I'm in a position to do something about it.

53. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 7:03:27 PM

As I said earlier, wonks, there is no data that I know of that's collected around citizens successfully protecting themselves against evil-doers because they were armed, but the anecdotes are there. You said your impression is most burglars are unarmed, but here are 2 cases where they were. And it is totally irrelevant how many burglars or rapists are unarmed, if the one that's just gotten into your house is.

And the fact remains that the person living in the house is far more likely to be the first on scene of a crime in their home than are the cops, for obvious reasons. It's up to you how you want to respond or protect yourself in that case. It is also up to me how I want to respond.

54. thoughtful - 12/30/2004 7:14:19 PM

One-third of all rapes are by strangers. 29% of rapists use a weapon.

Rape rate is 72 per 100,000 women. Gun death rate is 14 per 100,000.

Suicide makes up over 1/2 of the gun deaths.

Whether you want to call it fear or a rational assessment of the risk, I don't care. The fact remains that rape is far more common than gun deaths by any cause, and much more common than nonsuicidal gun deaths. I opt for an equalizer in my own home to make me feel safer. God forbid I should ever have to find out for real how effective my assessment has been.

55. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 7:32:24 PM

It's not entirely up to you how to respond. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that there are some fairly strict limitations covering shooting an intruder--e.g., shooting one in the back while he was fleeing could be a crime. Maybe somebody else could fill us in on when it's okay to shoot an intruder. There was a famous trial in Detroit in the 1940s involving a black who recently moved into a white neighborhood shooting and killing a member of a menacing mob in his front yard. This was the subject of a recently published book entitled Arc of Justice which describes the murder trial of Dr. Osssian Sweet. (He was acquitted, but I'm not sure what the theory was. I presume that it was because he believed his life was threatened.)

56. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 7:32:36 PM

If you never need it, you're still ahead.

57. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 7:33:31 PM

If you haven't already done so, you may want to check up on the law on when it's okay to shoot someone.

58. Marc-Albert - 12/30/2004 7:38:24 PM

The only time in my life I read the Denver Herald, or whatever it's called (that was a couple of years ago) there was this story that had happened the day before concerning a road rage incident between a truck driver and a cyclist. The truck driver, feeling the cyclist was mocking him, rushed back to his truck, lifted the seat, pulled a handgun and shot the cyclist dead.

Very American.

59. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 7:41:10 PM

Message # 4099

The criteria as to what constitutes a 'good shoot' ranges from state to state.

In Texas and Colorado, the homeowner is given a large benefit of the doubt. Other places, you are brought up on murder and it's up to you to prove it was self defense.

The coventional wisdom is,

-You can only use lethal force to protect life (sometimes property, but that's not universal)
-If you shoot, shoot to kill... there's no such thing as shooting to wound them.
-You can not pursue if they flee.

The most annoying armchair quarterbacking comes with critiquing how many times you shoot. The adrenaline dump makes it very hard to not empty the gun (if cops can't show this restraint, it's unreasonable to hold citizens to it). In my mind, you shoot until the threat has stopped. They either run or they fall. Obviously, shooting someone in the head at point blank after they're already down does not fall within this principle.

Another thing I disagree with is when they evaluate the type of bullet you use. A prosecuter might try to get you on the fact you use hollow points are because they are 'more lethal'... well no duh... the gun is lethal force.

They type of round, and how many times you discharge it is largely irrelevant.

However, pursuing someone already in retreat is not reasonable.

60. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 7:42:56 PM

What I was taught to do was to retreat to a defensible position... call 911 as soon as possible... challenge the assailant... tell them you are armed and will shoot (ideally this is on tape now that you're on the phone with 911 operator)... after that you are justified.

61. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 7:44:35 PM

Message # 4102 And the trucker hopefully got what he deserved... but I am not justfying this type of shooting.

62. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 7:47:41 PM

Wonkers... the picture you paint is a world where

-Criminals are unarmed and don't want to hurt anyone.
-Gun owners are vigilantees who would just as soon shoot someone for cutting them off in traffic as anything.

Not only is this completly unreasonable... it's almost insulting.

63. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 7:53:59 PM

As a matter of fact I read in the past few days about a road rage shooting. It does happen.

Most burglars aren't out to hurt any one. Of course there are exceptions where they kill the people they rob to eliminate witnesses. Most wear masks to avoid this problem.

64. wonkers2 - 12/30/2004 7:57:21 PM

I'm not a pollyanna. I have been mugged twice, once successfully. Neither time were the muggers armed. Both happened in Brazil, once in Sao Paulo at 6pm on a crowded intersection and the second about 9pm walking back to the Copacabana Palace hotel on the sidewalk across from the beach.

65. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 8:02:26 PM

Not saying it doesn't happen... but that type of shooting is criminal anyway. It's not the situation I am justifying.

There are ample examples in the news all the time of people using guns to defend themselves from criminals.

66. arkymalarky - 12/30/2004 8:08:27 PM

Message # 4102

Duh, M-A. What do you think Americans have the death penalty for? That's what keeps gun owners like that guy in line.

67. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 8:46:21 PM

A pro-gun site, yes, but ample news stories down the right side that show legitimate defensive gun uses.

Hightlights
84 yr old hostage shoots armed kidnappers

Defenseless in NY... we shouldn't have to use the assailant's gun for self defense.

One of these "rare" armed burglars

They respect restraining orders...not

Assailants would rather run, than confront you... not

Another elderly victim saving themselves

Another elderly victim

More armed assailants invading a home

A battered woman

example after example...

68. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 10:57:24 PM

This is perhaps the most difficult scenario

There are tons of articles out there about this story, but I've been following it closely. This is a real case in Az where a man claims he was attacked by dogs, the the dogs' owner. He fired warning shots at the dog, but then was rushed by the owner. He dropped that guy.

He's up for murder... the prosecution contends he should have used a hiking stick or martial arts... To me this is laughable. Why someone would charge an armed man unless he was attacking I don't know. Officers at the scene declared it self defense..as did detectives. However, the DA decided to pursue the murder charge.

I don't know who's guilty, but this is the nightmare scenario.

69. iiibbb - 12/30/2004 10:57:55 PM

Link here

70. wonkers2 - 12/31/2004 9:54:52 AM

I could easily match you example for example with articles about children shooting themselves, etc., as I mentioned above.

And, why are you opposed to taking handguns away from criminals or trying to keep handguns and assault weapons out of their hands by more effective gun control laws and more effective enforcement of present laws?

71. judithathome - 12/31/2004 10:27:00 AM

A man has a gun trained on an unarmed man and he kills him jus because he is running at him? What, did he think the guy was going to batter him to death? Surely he could have shot him in the leg if he was in that much fear for his life from an unarmed "assailant". That's insane...the armed man was in the power position; the charging man...obviously...was not going to kill the man with the gun.

72. Marc-Albert - 12/31/2004 10:28:05 AM

Guns in the home may be okay if there are no children, alcoholics, depressed individuals or hot tempered spouses.

What you're saying is that there should be a total ban on guns in the home.

73. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 10:33:36 AM

I brought those stories up because you contended that criminals are not armed, and don't want to hurt us anyway. Obviously you are wrong. You weren't talking about accidents or children before.

I doubt you could match example for example.... according to the stats, guns are used for self defense between 100K and 2 million times per year in this country. Firearm accidents happen only about 600 times per year.

It's up to the adults in the house to secure the guns appropriately anyhow... you can't legislate for stupidity... and there's a lot against the law with cars, but that hardly prevents accidents.

Murder is against the law either way, I don't believe the laws would prevent them because criminals do not obey these laws.

It is incumbent on the gun control people to show that such laws would prevent crime... not on me to prove I have a right to defend myself. I'm not giving up my right just because someone else commits crime or is irresponsible around their kids.

74. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 10:38:43 AM

Message # 4115 There is no such thing as shooting to wound... those shots are too difficult to make with all that's going on.

Cops don't shoot legs... they shoot center of mass. Why hold us 'inferior' civilians to a higher standard that the professionals?

If you shoot... you shoot to stop. That means center of mass.

Recognizing that there is a whole force continuum. It is the last resort. But in my mind, you just don't charge someone with a gun. That guy that got shot, could, and should have retreated. The shooter's mistake is there's no such thing as 'warning shots'... at least they're only going to get you in trouble. He'd been better off if he'd downed the dogs.

75. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 10:40:08 AM

Message # 4114 I'm not opposed to taking guns away from criminals and keeping them out of the hands of children.

However, you're running on the false assumption that gun control laws (in particular recent proposals) actually do this. They target legal, law-abiding citizens.

76. wonkers2 - 12/31/2004 10:52:08 AM

How would you do it if not by laws?

77. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 10:58:23 AM

There is nothing illegal you can do with a gun, that doesn't already have a law governing it.

Stricter enforcement.

It would make my day if this country dropped the whole "war on drugs" in favor of a "war on violence". Our prisons are populated mostly by drug offenders getting mandatory minimums... and pushing out violent criminals.

That's step 1. We can discuss step 2 once our gov't takes violent crime more seriously. However, you must agree you can't just pass laws for the hell of it... it has to have some mechanism for success. Most gun-control proposals offer no such mechanism... they just hamper the people we have nothing to worry about.

78. wonkers2 - 12/31/2004 11:02:21 AM

Okay. I agree on drugs and violence. And that gun control laws should have a "mechanism for success." Let's get started.

79. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 11:16:44 AM

Well... it seems what a lot of people want in this country is licensing and registration; "treat guns like cars" is their mantra.

OK... I would buy this if

1) Like cars, you only have to register it, if it's something you take into public. Guns kept exclusively in the home, or on your property would be exempt.
2) Like cars, operators would have to pass a test and have a license. However, also like cars, licensees would be able to carry in all 50 states (concealed or not)... with the usual restrictions of no airplanes... not while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Face serious penalties for failing these requirements. If places are restricted to carry, they must provide a safe way to check weapons and they are responsible for the individual safety of those on the premisis. Landowners may reserve the right to tell someone to leave...although it won't be criminal until the carrier refuses to leave.


Of course my willingness to compromise on licensing and registration isn't particularly reflective of the rest of the 2nd ammendment crowd... but I personally don't see a problem with the above.

80. Marc-Albert - 12/31/2004 12:04:12 PM

If places are restricted to carry, they must provide a safe way to check weapons and they are responsible for the individual safety of those on the premisis.

Reminds me of the Philippines in the early Marcos days: signs at the entrance of restaurants and discos saying "Please deposit guns at counter".

81. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 12:10:11 PM

There are businesses/corporations that don't allow employees to carry, or secure one in the car. This puts people who are legal to carry in a bit fix. I think if places are going to do things like that they have to make arrangements for the weapon to be otherwise secured.

82. PelleNilsson - 12/31/2004 1:15:17 PM

Meschugge. Ganz meschugge.

83. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 1:48:24 PM

The whole thing is crazy?

Perhaps... but I think it's crazier to let criminals have their way... or to yield my rights to government.

Perhaps Swedes don't think the same way... it is in your nature perhaps to blindly accept your fate.

Your perrogative... Of course it's easier to be that way in such a homogenous culture, with a realatively small population

84. iiibbb - 12/31/2004 1:52:45 PM

Democracy is two wolves and a very well armed sheep deciding what's for lunch.

85. greystoke - 1/1/2005 1:28:21 AM

I agree that having a gun for self defense is a right that should be recognized.

However, the purpose of right to bear arms in the Second Amendment and most state constitutions is to allow citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government.

86. iiibbb - 1/1/2005 1:49:24 AM

Well... that will be important when Bush wins his 3rd term... won't it?

87. greystoke - 1/1/2005 11:07:51 AM

Why wait?

88. wabbit - 1/6/2005 2:12:42 PM

4132. greystoke - 1/1/2005 11:50:35 AM

Vietnamese immigrant elected to Texas legislature.

"I remember my father gave each one of us a gun and said: 'Use it if you have to,'" said Vo, recalling how he, his five siblings and his parents fled Saigon in 1975 as their country collapsed. "It was chaos. The day I left, I stood on the boat, looked at horizon, seen airplanes falling from the sky."

That far exceeds any turmoil Vo has experienced following his election to the Houston-area District 149 seat he captured by a mere 33 votes the incumbent.

Vo, 48, insists the election uncertainty and recount that confirmed his victory are behind him, even though a House committee is investigating and the full House could declare Vo a winner or declare the election void and ask the governor to order a new one.

...

Vo worked as a busboy and a cook. He assembled digital watches and video games. He was robbed more times than he cares to remember as a convenience store clerk. He went door to door updating listings for telephone books. He's been a steelworker and a goldsmith, built computers and formed a computer company. He earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Houston, where he met his wife. And they're raising three children.

He got into real estate, built shopping centers, manages apartment complexes and even earned a license as an air-conditioning technician.

...

Vo approached the House effort methodically, the same way he learned Spanish — his fourth language.

...

Outside of work, one of Vo's hobbies is target shooting with a .45-caliber pistol. It's a link to his teenage years in Vietnam, where weapons and self-defense training were a high school requirement.

89. greystoke - 1/1/2005 11:50:49 AM

Damned immigrant couldn't even hold a job.

90. arkymalarky - 1/1/2005 1:19:54 PM

Why wait?

Sometimes I get this paranoid suspicion that you're actually my husband posting on some hidden laptop in another part of the house when I think he's watching tv.

91. iiibbb - 1/1/2005 1:32:40 PM

4131. greystoke - 1/1/2005 12:07:51 PM

Why wait?

I'm waiting for Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, Jackson, and Nader to 'lead' me.

92. thoughtful - 1/2/2005 8:59:48 AM

wonkers, #4107, "Most burglars aren't out to hurt any one. Of course there are exceptions where they kill the people they rob to eliminate witnesses. Most wear masks to avoid this problem."

Some data would be nice around this...do you have any to back up your statements?

93. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 9:54:37 AM

Data would be nice, but even if you could show it... the fact is there are still some that want to, or will hurt you.

I'm not basing my reaction on a behavior that only some of them may have...


If you want to take a chance that the you give the burglar what they want and they'll go away... fine... that's your gamble. Why force your beleifs on me. As the abortions rights people say ... "Keep your laws off my body".

I'm going to be in a position to defend myself.

94. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 10:05:25 AM

In other words... The stats don't matter. We're dealing with 2 populations

A group of criminals who wouldn't hurt you.
A group of criminals who will.

There is no way to distiguish the two populations from the victim's point of view.

95. wonkers2 - 1/2/2005 10:55:27 AM

No, I don't have any more data than you, thoughtful. However, I have read several articles quoting law enforcement people to that effect. Also, several years ago experienced a rash of burglaries which were consistent with my conclusion that burglars prefer to avoid contact with people whose homes they are burglarizing. You may be conflating burglary with robbery. Burglars use stealth. Robbers are confrontational and use weapons. Robbers are more likely to rob banks, 7-11s, gas stations and individuals at ATM machines.

96. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 11:09:58 AM

I'm sure someone being mauled by a bear can be comforted by the fact that it rarely happens.

97. wonkers2 - 1/2/2005 12:08:58 PM

By your theory one should never ride in a car or airplane because there is a chance of death in a fiery crash. If I were hunting Kodiak bears I might carry an appropriate handgun as a back-up. If I lived in certain very high crime, drug infested neighborhoods of Detroit I might keep a handgun accessible in my house AFTER taking other precautions such as locks, bars on windows, burglar alarms, exterior lights, etc. However, I live in a suburb where the crime rate is very low and half the time we don't even bother to lock the back door, except when we go out of town. Some fears are rational, others are way out of proportion to reality.

98. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 12:42:28 PM

No, what I'm saying there is a point where statistics mean nothing, and it comes down to people deciding for themselves whether to get on a plane.

Given that you acknowlege that there are places where a firearm is warranted... why do gun control advocates want blanket bans? I mean it's great that you can afford to live in such a peaceful place... but not everyone can. It's nice that my G/F's mom is a federal judge and threats to her would have Federal Marshals all over them.

However, I'm no-one special who finds myself in places which are not necessarily as peaceful, and I don't have a group of armed professionals protecting my person.

Ever notice the occasional news item where some murder happens in what everyone thought was such a "peaceful" neighborhood... like this quiet area in Vermont.

Again... I agree the chances are low, and understand that you have weighed your risks in your own mind, and decided that a gun isn't for you. I haven't reaced the same conclusion for myself. In the end people have nothing to fear from rational, law-abiding, peace-loving gun owners.

99. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 1:22:25 PM

I mean... if the risks are so low... why do cops carry guns? Because there are dangerous people out there right? Well, what are these dangerous people doing? They certainly don't restrict their activites amongst themselves... they frequently have victims.

Why should these victims not at least have access to the same tools the cops do?

100. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 1:28:55 PM

And before we get into how 'professional' the police are... their firearms certifications are certainly not what I would call rigorous... and the police are certainly not immune from making poor choices when it comes to discharging their weapons.

In fact, when I go to my pistol competitions, I frequenly out-compete a number of officers.

I think it's odd how much trust we point into officers. I recognize they are important public servants, but they are hardly infalable. It's odd how people apply lower standards both in terms of when it's ok to shoot, but also the level competancy with these weapons. They're given the benefit of the doubt in almost all cases... yet a civilian who defends themself are frequently painted in a negative light.

101. wonkers2 - 1/2/2005 3:48:38 PM

Obviously, the risks faced by ordinary citizens are in no way comparable to those faced by police. Moreover, the risks faced by police and citizens alike result from inadequate gun control laws and inadequate enforcement of existing laws.

102. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 4:12:38 PM

They are in every way comparable. Maybe not at an individual level... but civilians are attacked each and every day... yet are given no recourse but to accept the fate certain state governments have imposed on them.

103. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 4:14:04 PM

Oh... there is one difference... police go into harms way voluntarily... I guess that's one difference.

You apparently don't beleive that civilians have a right to self defense.

104. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 4:56:11 PM

There are some states that don't even allow civilians to pack non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray...

That really boggles my mind.

105. wonkers2 - 1/2/2005 6:55:17 PM

Try carrying a really sharp pocket knife!

106. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 8:05:20 PM

There are people that I would have no chance against with a knife. A gun is a stand-off weapon... and much more likely to deter even determined adversaries. Also, a gun is effective for a one-against-many scenarios.

107. greystoke - 1/2/2005 9:10:49 PM

arky,

"Sometimes I get this paranoid suspicion that you're actually my husband posting on some hidden laptop in another part of the house when I think he's watching tv."


No, unfortunately for me, I am just one of many "Bob" wannabes, who wish they were your husband. :-)

108. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 9:52:45 PM

109. wonkers2 - 1/2/2005 10:34:20 PM

iiibbb, excuse me for saying it, but I think you and thoughtful are borderline paranoid. Only very infrequently have I ever had thoughts about someone attacking me. And most of those times were in Brazil in places where my fears were realistic and arose from two actual incidents that I experienced and from warnings from Brazilians. Also, now that I think about it I had a bad experience with a street beggar in downtown D.C. He started out begging nicely and when I didn't give him anything he got quite nasty and followed me for about six blocks until I ditched him by ducking into the Mayflower Hotel. On that occasion I had my sharp knife unopened in my hand.

110. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 10:55:04 PM

Hardly paranoid. I've been on the receiving end of crime already. I've got friends who've been violently assaulted. One of my best friend's sister was murdered. I know of other murders that are close enough to home for me to have thought about it.

But in order to argue the principle of self defense with a gun, I'm forced to illustrate the extreme cases where it's necessary.

My position is no less delusional than your idea that criminals are not armed and don't want to hurt us.

111. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 10:56:23 PM

By the way... your example of the beggar would not be a justfied use of a gun... as you were still able to retreat. That expectation does not go away just because you have a gun with you.

112. iiibbb - 1/2/2005 11:22:38 PM

Are people who buy fire extinguishers or first-aid kits paranoid?

113. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 10:15:13 AM

iiibbb, excuse me for saying it, but I think you and thoughtful are borderline paranoid. Only very infrequently have I ever had thoughts about someone attacking me. And most of those times were in Brazil in places where my fears were realistic and arose from two actual incidents that I experienced and from warnings from Brazilians.

At least I'm not a racist.

114. Dubai Vol - 1/3/2005 11:02:30 AM

"Borderline" paranoid doesn't even begine to describe it. Sorry, but statistics say that 80% of gun murders victims are killed by friends or family. Be as responsible as you want, that stat doesn't go away. The biggest danger to you, your family, and your friends, is YOUR gun.

Personally, that suits me just fine. Darwinism in action AFAIC.

115. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 11:20:28 AM

According to Kleck and a lot of other research, those stats are flawed if not plain wrong.


Plus there is a flaw in the logic... might it not occur to you that criminals have "friends and family"

Besides... my argument is not from the basis of fear or paranoia... merely that only I can assess what my risks are.

116. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 11:26:35 AM

Is my gun more likely to be used against myself or my family?

117. Marc-Albert - 1/3/2005 11:29:48 AM

iiibbb, you're definitively obsessed.

Whenever you want to get The Mote into high gear, talk about handguns and homosexuality.

118. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 11:30:26 AM

I love unsubstantiated, uncited 'statistics'.

65% of statistics stated in forums are just made up on the spot. 85% are researched half-assed.

119. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 11:39:39 AM

You can call me obsessed if you like... that is baseless. We are debating gun rights... in order to do that I need to debate it.

I may be obsessed with the last word perhaps... but no more than anyone else in here.

Gotta love character assasination... people always fall back on that.


I maintain that if I were obsessed, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry... I'd actually pack a weapon... and I'd move to Idaho or somewhere.


Wonkers... I'll end this now. It was a fine discussion. I appreciate the fact that you merely argue the other side of the coin, unlike the late-comers.

120. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 11:41:19 AM

I also appologize for the 'racist' crack.. I was merely trying to turn the logic around.

121. Wombat - 1/3/2005 11:42:50 AM

How do the risks change when one factors in accidental shootings, suicide, misuse?

122. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 12:09:23 PM

Apology accepted. I'm a big fan of the Brazilians. When I used to travel a lot abroad on business Brazil was my favorite place to visit. The Brazilians are among the warmest and most hospitable of any country I've visited. But there is a lot of street crime in Sao Paulo and Rio. There is also quite a bit in DC or there was when I was there 1993-97.

123. judithathome - 1/3/2005 12:50:56 PM

By the way... your example of the beggar would not be a justfied use of a gun... as you were still able to retreat. That expectation does not go away just because you have a gun with you.

And yet you defended the armed man who murdered the unarmed dog owner...the armed man had the option to retreat.

124. robertjayb - 1/3/2005 1:00:55 PM

Wonkers2,

Two excellent films on youth gangs and crime in Brazil are City of God, and Bus 174.

125. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 1:26:47 PM

Message # 4167 I did not defend that man... I said that was the nightmare scenario where there are no clear answers. On the one hand you have an old man in the middle of nowhere who was attacked by dogs... followed by man who charged him after a shot had already been fired.

Then you have an unarmed guy in the woods... who was, in fact unarmed.


That is the worst-case scenario.

126. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 1:28:28 PM

Worst-case in terms of arguing gun-rights...

I don't know how much of the actual circumstances of that case were mentioned in that article. The dog had a history of attacking people. The guy who was shot had been in the hospital for mental problems.

127. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 1:29:34 PM

In fact I specifically stated that the guy didn't follow what most consider a rule... "There is no such thing as a warning shot".

128. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 1:31:10 PM

Also... there is a significant difference between retreating into a business in the city... and trying to retreat someone with vicious dogs.


Again... it's the nightmare scenario from a carry perspective because it is completely borderline.

129. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 1:33:53 PM

He probably also should have had a less-than-lethal option such as pepper spray... rather than resort to warning shots. Pepper spray will stop most dogs and most assailants.

130. judithathome - 1/3/2005 1:39:04 PM

Another good film about street crime/life in Brazil is Pixote but it is deadly depressing.

131. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 1:52:07 PM

Wonks, it matters not to me whether you consider me paranoid or not. I see from your prior posts that you feel safe carrying a knife. (Perhaps your paranoia differs from mine only in degree.) And you've also suggested that your risk assessment would change if you moved to a different location. I suspect it will also change as you age, get more frail and become less able to defend yourself.

A knife certainly wouldn't work for me, given my poor upper body strength and slow reaction time. I'm reminded of that scene in indiana jones where the swordsman is making all kinds of fabulously menacing moves weilding his saber when Jones says the hell with it and pulls out his gun and shoots him.

The fact remains that each of us makes our own assessment of risk and what the best way for each of us is to ameliorate the risk given our physical size, strength, environment, etc. etc.

The principle here though is one of the right of self defense. If you haven't got that right, how do the rest even matter?

132. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 2:11:59 PM

The issue boils down to individual rights versus what is best for society. Its pretty clear from our experience in this country and that of other countries that effective gun control laws, especially for handguns, are consistent with society's interest in reducing injuries and deaths due to gun shots, intentional and accidental. I don't know what your particular circumstances are, but I surmise that your risk of physical harm in your home from robbers, rapists, etc., is no more than average. Effective gun control laws would further reduce that small risk.

133. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 2:28:32 PM

Did you ever ask Mrs. Wonk what she does on a regular basis to protect herself from sexual assault?

134. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 2:35:03 PM

Well, now we're back to the subject of the original article... Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms

Anyhow... I'm done until something else brings it up.

Wonks, at least we know our common ground lay on the drugs and enforcement issues. Hopefully some people with more power than us can clue into this someday soon.

For those of you who obviously don't read a whole meme before commenting... this means dropping the 'war on drugs' and the mandatory minimums, in favor of more stringint enforcement of violent crime offenses.

135. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 2:38:49 PM

No, I haven't. I've never heard her express a concern about it. But now I will.

Q: What do you do to protect yourself from sexual assault?

Mrs. Wonk: Nothing. I've never been assaulted.

Q: Haven't you ever worried about being assaulted?

Mrs. Wonk: No. I've never been anywhere where I was concerned about it. If I were I might carry Mace or pepper spray or something.

Q: What about when you're home alone and I'm out of town?

Mrs. Wonk: I keep the doors locked as usual. What's this all about, anyway?

136. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 2:41:49 PM

Some places are moving to ban knives now.

137. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 2:42:46 PM

iiibbb, We have yet to try effective handgun control in this country. I'll have to read the National Academy report so that I can argue the point. But I don't know how they can determine the effects of gun control one way or the other in this country when we have never had effective gun control.

I read in the paper today that Massachusetts just became the first state to adopt an effective, quick system for checking on the validity of gun permits, i.e., to see whether any disqualifying events had occurred since the permit was issued.

138. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 2:45:49 PM

The issue boils down to individual rights versus what is best for society.

Precisely the purpose of the Bill of Rights, I'd say. Which the DOJ has just established is an individual right... with self defense being one of the legitimate purposes of this ammendment.

139. iiibbb - 1/3/2005 2:46:13 PM

...anyway... I promised I was done... :)

I am obsessed :)

140. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 3:04:53 PM

Interesting answers from Mrs. Wonk. Thanks for checking.

I'm surprised that she doesn't at least have the car keys at the ready when she leaves a store. I always do, as well as be extra aware of my surroundings when I'm coming and going...knowing exactly where I left my car and walking directly to it. That's such a simple thing with little consequence, yet frequently recommended in women's safety courses:

You don't suppose they have all these women's safety recommendations because all women are paranoid do you? Couldn't be the fact that 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women, could it?

141. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 3:32:42 PM

screwed up the post...my apologies

142. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 3:36:09 PM

Thoughtful, I maintain, that even if your fears are justified today that does not settle the issue of whether gun control is good social policy. Both could be true, ie, you may be justified in keeping a loaded hangun on you night table or in your purse under current circumstances where guns are not controlled. But it does not follow that gun control is not good social policy.

143. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 3:39:39 PM

We live in a low crime suburb. The last rape I can remember occurred about 10 years ago in a Birmingham public parking deck. We have had several bank robberies in recent months, however.

144. judithathome - 1/3/2005 3:42:37 PM

I'm like Mrs. Wonks...I just don't think about being a victim of an assault. If someone came at me now, I'd bash them in the head with my cane, which has a heavy brass pointed handle and would fell a cow if applied correctly.

But I don't give a lot of thought to being a victim of a crime; maybe I should, since I seem to be in need of a cane and look more vulnerable but honestly, about the only time I think of things like that is when I leave a shopping mall and I am always parked at the front because of my handiapped tag. I'm aware of who is in the lot and what is around me but I'm not really "at the ready" to defend myself.

That may seem naive but it's how I feel...basically, safe.

145. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 3:42:40 PM

Anyway, that is the point that IsBs and I are trying to make with you. It's great that Mrs Wonks feels safe as is. It's her right to choose what she feels is important for her to do to keep herself safe. It is not for me to judge what she should/shouldn't do to feel safe.

We each make our own risk assessment and do what is necessary to ameliorate that risk. I'd like to rely on the civility of others to keep me safe, but that simply isn't realistic. It only takes one.

146. thoughtful - 1/3/2005 3:46:48 PM

My father was assaulted in a parking lot. He was fiddling with his keys in front of his truck when he was grabbed from behind in a choke hold. He passed out. Woke up on the ground with some bangs and bruises and his wallet missing. He certainly looked vulnerable as by that time he was near 80 and his legs were ravaged by diabetes which made walking difficult.

147. wonkers2 - 1/3/2005 3:52:35 PM

Well, w2 and The Cap'n have a few more years to go yet!

148. wonkers2 - 1/4/2005 4:18:54 PM

iiibbb, What do you think about California's banning of .50 BMGs? Benedict Arnold

149. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 5:48:24 PM

I don't think a bolt action .50 cal has been used in a crime, ever...

I think it's pretty funny that Barret... the current popular manufacturer of the 50 cal BMG manufacture... sent a letter to the LA police chief that had made public statements against his product... that he would not sell nor service Californian departments anymore.

The justification is to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. My question to you is do you really think this ban is going to keep a weapon like this out of the hands of a terrorist? It's a solution in search of a problem.

150. wonkers2 - 1/4/2005 5:52:18 PM

One of the main fears is that the .50 caliber rifles could be used by terrorists to shoot airplanes down.

What are they used for? Self defense??

Mortars and machine guns aren't used to commit crimes. Should they be legal, as well?

Anyway, what's your position on the California bill banning them?

151. alistairConnor - 1/4/2005 5:55:37 PM

ii's position is to oppose it, because it's anyone's individual right to own any weapon he pleases to defend himself, including mortars, field artillery or tactical nuclear weapons.

Is that it, in a nutshell?

152. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 5:57:14 PM

I think 'shooting an airplain down' greatly exagerates the capability of a .50 cal. It can probably disable a plane... but it's not going to take one down.

They are not used for self defense... that's silly.... they weigh 25 pounds. The round will penetrate walls and car engines. Why do you keep painting gun owners as loony that way?

People who own these are into long-range precision shooting competitions. Target shooting is a legitimate sport last I heard.

153. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 5:59:32 PM

Alistar... I refuse to be painted as a nutcase. It might make you feel good... but it's a turn off.

You claim I'm close minded... say a bunch of insulting shit... and then wonder why gun owners start acting so unreasonable.

154. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 6:00:40 PM

Machine guns are legal if you're willing to obtain the proper licensing.

155. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 6:08:41 PM

I should say... fully automatic weapons are legal with the appropriate permits. There are privately owned Browning .50cal machine guns out there.

Of course this is highly regulated... and expensive.

156. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 6:16:41 PM

Weren't you guys calling me paranoid earlier... you have a firearm that's never been tied to a crime... you worry that gun owners are going to blow up people with mortars and spray people with machinegun fire.

And you're calling me paranoid.

157. Marc-Albert - 1/4/2005 6:19:40 PM

To be hones, I care little about the Americans obsession/love affair with guns in their own country, as long as it doesn't spread here.

158. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 6:27:24 PM

Well... peoples' obsession with gun owners sure concerns me.

159. iiibbb - 1/4/2005 6:42:34 PM

Wonkers... you chastized me for worrying about a violent crime being committed against me by a criminal...

...but then you turn around and say that the risk of a terror attack by a .50cal rifle is far to great.

What are the true risks for terror attacks in this country exactly?

If I should depend on the police to keep violent criminals in check, rather than take measures myself... Why can't the gov't be relied upon to catch these terrorists?

160. Ms. No - 1/4/2005 7:26:00 PM

Second article on this page at KCRW

Whistle-Blower Breaks Gun Industry Code of Silence

For the first time, a senior official in the gun industry has turned whistle-blower. Robert Ricker says gun manufacturers have long known that some of their dealers sell guns to criminals, but pressure each other into silence for fear of legal liability. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Fox Butterfield, who reported the story in today’s New York Times, has more on the pending lawsuits as well as NRA pressure on industry not to settle.

If I recall correctly it is mentioned that some 10% of gun dealers are responsible for about 90% of arms used in the commission of crimes.

10% of dealers supplying 90% of criminals.

And the Manufacturers know who they are and the BATF has been able to get this information for YEARS.

That's right: BATF has been able to aquire this information for years but they've never asked for it.

Now, why, if decreasing gun crime is important enough to pass laws infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens is it not important enough to get a list of dirty gun dealers and shut them down?

So we get folks running around passing useless laws that do nothing to deter gun violence and serve only to marginalize law-abiding citizens. It's a waste of money and time and accomplishes nothing but ill-will.

161. arkymalarky - 1/4/2005 9:28:22 PM

That's right, and the gun manufacturers use people who legitimately defend the 2nd amendment to fight their battles for them and scare them into thinking their rights are in jeopardy, when in most states and localities they aren't (I'm not referring to 3i3b here, but those who think any regulation at all is a threat). If everyone would turn their sights, so to speak, on the industry the laws that exist would be a lot more effective and law-abiding gun owners would be left alone.

162. arkymalarky - 1/4/2005 9:31:19 PM

And they ought to at least make people responsible for what damage they do cause by carelessness with guns. You should have at least the same responsibility and liability that you do with a car. We own guns, but the only personal experiences I've had with gun deaths, and I know a number of cases first hand, including one of my very best friends whose brother accidently shot and killed her other brother when they were young.

163. arkymalarky - 1/4/2005 9:32:31 PM

Oops. Fragment--saw that in a drive-by edit. The only direct knowledge I have of gun deaths involved people who were family/friends, or accidents. I could count off ten at least, just off the top of my head.

164. Macnas - 1/5/2005 3:35:01 AM

I was going to write, indeed I had it typed out and all, a long discourse on the handgun issue.

But it's beside the point really. 3i3b is being baited somewhat for his views, but he's a big boy and can more than look after himself. Discussions like this always degenerate into a guns are good/guns are bad slagging match.

165. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 6:40:38 AM

The only direct knowledge I have of gun deaths involved people who were family/friends, or accidents. I could count off ten at least, just off the top of my head.

This little piece of anecdotal evidence is pretty compelling, when combined with a statistic, cited higher up, that 80% of gun murders involve family or friends of the shooter...

... and you say in Message # 4159 Plus there is a flaw in the logic... might it not occur to you that criminals have "friends and family"

... which certainly shocked me at the time...

but after all, Arky's acquaintances are probly mostly criminals...

166. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 7:09:50 AM

just thought I'd fan the flames a bit.


but let's calm down and look at some numbers. For example, the FBI's crime figures for 2003.

In particular, This Excel spreadsheet should provide a fascinating base for discussion : murder circumstances (weapon, associated felony etc)

Here are a few numbers that particularly caught my eye :

Total murder victims          14 408 
Total firearms murders         9 638 
Breakdown of firearms murders : 
- associated with a felony     1 680 
- not assoc with a felony      4 446 
- unknown                      3 436 

167. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 7:16:16 AM

There's been a lot of talk about having a gun to defend yourself against burglars.

How many people killed by burglars in the US in 2003?

93. A not insignificant number.

What is the biggest single circumstance of gun murder? (by a very wide margin)

"Other arguments" 2 321 deaths.

168. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 9:24:15 AM

As cited further above the studies that have looked at defensive gun uses puts the number between 100,000 and 2,000,000 per year. Which dwarfs your numbers.

Besides... Murder is wrong... for whatever circumstance... and I'm certainly not here to say that nothing should happen to the 2,321 murderers.

But that is 2,321 out of how many guns? I beleive somewhere it's cited above, but if not... 36% of people own at least one gun (average 4.4) . There's almost 300,000,000 people in this country. That's just over 100,000,000 people who are _not_ murderers vs. the 2,321 who are.

It's like banning cars because of drunk drivers.

169. Marc-Albert - 1/5/2005 9:37:29 AM

as assume that you would agree that guns should be subjected to the same administrative and police control and verification as cars are.

170. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 9:44:14 AM

Are you willing that if they were... a licensee could carry that weapon anywhere in the country?

That's usually the hangup on that particular compromise.

I would be willing to be licensed by my state, and have the gun I carry registered... if it meant I could carry anywhere in the US (concealed or not)...

171. thoughtful - 1/5/2005 9:55:28 AM

AC, murder is not the only reason why someone breaks into a house. Murder is not the only bad thing that can happen to someone when someone breaks into their house.

Why do you presume murder is the only thing a homeowner has to fear during a break in? Perhaps stealing your property, getting injured or letting a felon rape your wife and/or child is acceptable to you. It's not to me.

172. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:04:31 AM

From FBI site.

Year--Population--Violent Crime--Murder & Negligent Homicide
1984-235,824,902 1,273,282 18,692
1985-237,923,795 1,327,767 18,976
1986-240,132,887 1,489,169 20,613
1987-242,288,918 1,483,999 20,096
1988-244,498,982 1,566,221 20,675
1989-246,819,230 1,646,037 21,500
1990-249,464,396 1,820,127 23,438
1991-252,153,092 1,911,767 24,703
1992-255,029,699 1,932,274 23,760
1993-257,782,608 1,926,017 24,526
1994-260,327,021 1,857,670 23,326
1995-262,803,276 1,798,792 21,606
1996-265,228,572 1,688,540 19,645
1997-267,783,607 1,636,096 18,208
1998-270,248,003 1,533,887 16,974
1999-272,690,813 1,426,044 15,522
2000-281,421,906 1,425,486 15,586
2001-285,317,5592 1,439,480 16,037
2002-287,973,9243 1,423,677 16,229
2003-290,809,777 1,381,259 16,503

So you're saying that because 2,300 gun murders justifies putting 1.2 to 1.9 million other people at higher risk?

173. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 10:35:45 AM

Wouldn't be logical to count all gun deaths, accidental and intentional, rather than only murders, when assessing the need for tighter handgun control?

174. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:45:07 AM

No... suicides shouldn't count... which account for better than half of the annual firearm fatalities.

Gun suicides outnumber gun homicides. In 1999, there were 16,599 gun suicides compared to 10,828 firearm homicides (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control).

175. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:49:53 AM

An illustration of the futility of gun registration and licensing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

176. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 10:50:34 AM

Why shouldn't suicides count? A fair number of people who use other means such as swallowing a bunch of pills change their minds and are saved by medical treatment. People who shoot themselves in the head are almost never saved. If guns weren't readily available it's likely that fewer people would succeed in killing themselves. This consideration should not be disregarded.

177. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:52:02 AM

We were talking about compromises earlier...


I would give up my weapons if the cops did too. I give Britain shit sometimes... but most of their officers are unarmed... so at least they aren't complete hypocrites.

178. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:54:18 AM

Because they shouldn't count... unless you're talking about banning guns outright... but if that's the case then we aren't even talking.

Simple restictions...registration...licensing...isn't going to prevent suicides.

179. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 10:59:28 AM

n.b. iii :

9,638 gun murderers, not 2,321 ... that second number is onle the people who murdered someone because they had an argument and a gun.

180. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 10:59:30 AM

Again... it's back to the fact that over 100,000,000 people own guns in this country. You want to punish them because it will save a portion of 16,000 mentally unbalanced people who can't live with themselves?

181. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:06:09 AM

9,638 gun murderers, not 2,321 ... that second number is onle the people who murdered someone because they had an argument and a gun.

Oh... that makes a huge difference *rolling eyes*. Let's compare... that's more than 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the total number of violent crimes, more than 4 orders of maginitude smaller than the number of people that own guns, and 4.5 orders of magnitude smaller than the number of guns.

What kind of standard is this?



Why don't you go fight a real problem... like heart disease.

182. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 11:12:09 AM

Message # 4250 Thoughtful, point taken...

but my larger point is this :

there are a lot of people who have a gun for self-defense. That implies that they are prepared to kill someone if necessary, and they have a powerful means of doing so, and that they live constantly with these two facts.

This is not my case, nor will it ever be.

My intuition is that this is a powerful factor in creating a violent social climate. I'm not saying that keeping a gun makes you a killer -- there are other, powerful factors involved.

Particularly socio-economic factors. It's easily verified that people who live close to, or below, the poverty line have a much higher gun murder rate. And as noted, most gun murders are not crime-related, but involve friends or family. People who own a gun for self-defense, and live with that possibility that they may some day kill someone with it, have their threshold considerably lowered. And one day, in a towering rage, someone gets killed. It seems this accounts for several thousand deaths a year.

Middle-class Americans may consider this an acceptable state of affairs -- all a matter of individual responsibility, after all... I can only look on in horror.

183. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 11:13:26 AM

iii :

The USA has a very high murder rate, compared to other wealthy countries.

It seems that your thesis is : that rate would be much higher, if guns were not so freely available.





Maybe you're right.

184. Macnas - 1/5/2005 11:22:37 AM

Now then, that’s an interesting facet to the argument, whether or not you would use a gun to defend yourself, and all the circumstances that might go with it.

Depending on what I'm working on, I may have five or so guns in the house at any given time. But I would be loathe to use them against another person, only in the most dire of situations, that being my life or my family’s life in direct and serious danger.

There is not one single thing I own, not a damn thing in my house, that is worth someone's life.

185. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:27:39 AM

Look... let me simplify it for you... I hate getting into a statistics match because there comes a point where statistics are irrelevant to individuals (How often are places struck by tsunamis?... it's rare... does that stat matter to 160,000 people?)

1) I have a god given right to defend myself.
2) I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions.
3) The general public has nothing to fear from people like me (in spite of what you try to imply).
4) Criminals will always have guns.
5) These guns are usually obtained illegally.
6) As a law abiding adult, I have a god-given right to defend myself, and I should be at least as well armed as the criminals.

Period. I don't give a flap about people that commit sucide, people that murder, accidents... that is irrelevant to my personal circumstances...

186. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 11:27:45 AM

Hear, hear. The idea that property is worth killing for is an obnoxious one.

187. Macnas - 1/5/2005 11:28:27 AM

As for licensing and registration, I don't think it does much in the way of preventing crime. It's a useful source of income for the government, totally free money really, as they do not do anything for the sport or wildlife with it.

It does, however, make the gun owner very mindful of what he/she owns, and begets a certain amount of responsible behaviour. If you lose your guns to the police, due to misuse or whatever, you will never get them back and you will probably never be able to get one again.

188. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:28:53 AM

Oh... and

7) There are perfectly legitimate uses of guns.
a) target shooting
b) hunting
c) self-defense

189. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 11:32:18 AM

I don't give a flap about people that commit sucide, people that murder, accidents... that is irrelevant to my personal circumstances...

This correlates well with your skepticism with respect to social security...

you don't give a flap about society...

You are a rock. You are an island.

190. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:34:11 AM

It does, however, make the gun owner very mindful of what he/she owns, and begets a certain amount of responsible behaviour. If you lose your guns to the police, due to misuse or whatever, you will never get them back and you will probably never be able to get one again.

More severly punishing the gun owner than really solving the problem though. I'd have more faith in your statement if drunk drivers were actually punished... but all I see in statements like that is the demonization of gun-owners.

I've had enough of it... all you people do is defame people like me. It's disgusting how smug you are about it too (Alistar... Pelle).

After reading your thoughts in mote-matters about bringing new people in... then you come in here and are complete and utter hypocrites.

191. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:36:05 AM

There is a point where I do become an island... and I happen to be a defended island.

192. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:37:13 AM

hypocrites about discourse that is... all you do is defame people and call it "debate".

193. Macnas - 1/5/2005 11:39:12 AM

You've struck a nerve with some, that's all iiibbb. The gun issue is a contentious one, and like I said earlier, it usually turns into a slagging match at the end of it.

For the record I think the SF motion is wrong-headed, and I think you do have every right to own a gun.

As for all the rest of it, well, it's a circular argument isn't it, guns good/guns bad.

194. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:40:31 AM

My skepticism about social security is well founded... the odds it will be there for me are low.

You're saying I should not bother having a backup plan? Isn't Bush driving it into the ground?

So which is it? I should trust the government... or not?

195. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 11:40:56 AM

hey I thought we were having a discussion about guns.

The point I'm trying to make is that ownership of guns seems to correlate with a fairly extreme brand of individualism, which I thought your post Message # 4265 illustrated pretty well. And it results in a pretty scary sort of society, for lily-livered Euros like me, in any case.

I'm very far from thinking that people like you, iii, or thoughtful, are a danger to anyone (except to anyone who would be so ill-advised as to attack you). However, I like to try to reason in terms of public policy, where the needs of the collective sometimes impose constraints on the freedoms of the individual.

Insofar as you state (points 1 and 6) that your right to gun ownership is god-given, then that makes it pretty hard to hold a policy discussion.

196. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 11:44:28 AM

You're saying I should not bother having a backup plan? Isn't Bush driving it into the ground?

I have a backup plan myself. However, I believe (this is an ideological choice) that it is important to fight for a social security system that provides for everyone, including the "undeserving". The idea that your country and mine have become too poor to do so is just bullshit, it's a matter of political choices.

197. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 11:47:43 AM

iiibbb

I have nothing against guns per se. I don't hunt or target shoot but I have no problems with people enjoying such hobbies. I probably know more about guns than you do. I certainly have handled more types of weapon than you have including machine guns and grenade launchers. But I don't own a gun: I have no desire to and I see no need to. And that makes me a hypocrite?

198. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:54:32 AM

And it results in a pretty scary sort of society, for lily-livered Euros like me, in any case.

Perhaps... and I don't mean to be cruel... but Europe and Russia have been the scene of some pretty horrible autrocities against unarmed people. As well as many other parts of the world.

So pick your poison... you can have a high murder rate... or you can wait for Hitlers, Stalins, and Saddams to roll around...

I don't know what picture you have in your head about 'individualists' like me. I'm sure if you met me on the street you'd never look my way twice. Then realize that I am like the vast, vast preponderance of gun owners.

199. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:54:44 AM

toys

200. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 11:59:22 AM

Pelle... you and others have come at me with a lame baiting and defamation... I do not feel this reflects the sentiments you have expressed recently in Mote Matters. It is for that reason I call you a hypocrite... not for your views on guns... which you for the most part have not expressed except as disdain for my viewpoint.

201. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 12:00:25 PM

Individualists like you?

I don't give a flap about people that commit sucide, people that murder, accidents... that is irrelevant to my personal circumstances...

I didn't invent that.

But if I met you in the street, I'd like to have a beer with you.

202. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:02:07 PM

This

I don't hunt or target shoot but I have no problems with people enjoying such hobbies.

does not jibe with this

But I don't own a gun: I have no desire to and I see no need to.

203. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:02:25 PM

toys

204. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:02:41 PM

toys

205. alistairconnor - 1/5/2005 12:04:18 PM

Don't take it so personally iii -- it's not you I'm making fun of, it's your crazy opinions...

206. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:05:27 PM

I will rephrase it then...as it apparently seems insensitive

I don't give a flap about people that commit sucide, people that murder, accidents... that is irrelevant to whether I personally own a weapon

207. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:06:39 PM

Message # 4285

Laugh riot, you are.

208. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 12:12:14 PM

It jibes perfectly well. I see nothing wrong in hunting, I can well understand the fascination of it but I don't hunt myself. Likewise I was a pretty good marksman once, but I didn't pursue it as a sport. What's wrong with these sentiments? In what way are they hypocritical?

209. Ms. No - 1/5/2005 12:26:23 PM

AC,

The point I'm trying to make is that ownership of guns seems to correlate with a fairly extreme brand of individualism

Except that your point isn't a fact. It's only your point of view which is shaped by an entirely different background than that of the average American. There are all different kinds of gun owners and most of them you would never even suspect of owning a gun simply because they aren't extremists or individualists. They're ordinary average people.

It's that attitude that puts iiibbb's back up. That however much you may enjoy coffee with him you will watch him from the corner of your eye like he's been exposed to rabies and could begin frothing at the mouth at any moment.

And it results in a pretty scary sort of society, for lily-livered Euros like me, in any case

Canada is scary? They've got an awful lot of guns up there and yet they have a fraction of the gun-related crime that we do. Crime is not a product of guns and addressing guns will never be the solution or the cure to the culture of violence in the US.

210. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 12:27:41 PM

Pelle... I misread your entry I guess. I thought you said that you don't see a reason for people in general to own guns.

If someone doesn't want to own them that's fine with me.

I guess my problem comes with the fact that there are people activily trying to impose their values on me... coupled with my frustration that their proposals would do nothing to solve the problems (as evidenced by the NSF study).

211. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 12:47:27 PM

That however much you may enjoy coffee with him you will watch him from the corner of your eye like he's been exposed to rabies and could begin frothing at the mouth at any moment.

The above was addressed to Alistair but since he and I have ended up on pretty much the same side in this argument I would like to strongly disassociate myself with any such sentiment. The quarrel (if that's what it is) is not with iiibbb as a person but with the society that produces and perpetrates the opinion he holds in this particular case.

212. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 1:07:28 PM

Yet... in the end, the objection to gun ownership is based on the fact that it causes crime... which is completely untrue.

If Europeans are so enlightened... why do so many of them smoke? (Sweden is the only country with a rate that's lower than the US. Smoking kills 400,000 people per year in the US alone... Most other ways to die in modern society dwarf the risk from guns.

Again... why don't the people with their panties in a wad about me owning a gun go fight some real problems?

213. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 1:07:47 PM

toys...

214. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 1:27:50 PM

If we're so into these marginal risks to our person... Why aren't we clammoring for regulation and registration of all home chemicals?

16,000 people die from falls per year in the US.
19,000 people die from accidental poisonings

over43,000 people die from automobile accidents.

If gun control were warranted... wouldn't it's rate be disproportionate to other types of accidents?

Gun Control is a over zealous response to a non-problem. As the saying goes... "It's not about the guns... it's about the control."

215. Marc-Albert - 1/5/2005 2:15:07 PM

If someone doesn't want to own them (guns) that's fine with me.

Nice of you. Thanks.

216. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 2:18:29 PM

4295. Marc-Albert - 1/5/2005 9:15:07 PM

If someone doesn't want to own them (guns) that's fine with me.

Nice of you. Thanks.

You're welcome...

... obviously you've not known me from other posts... I am pro-gay marriage, pro-choice (abortion), de-criminalization of pot, equal rights...

In other words, I'm just being consistant.

217. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 2:34:17 PM

People die from other causes than guns. Hence gun control is not warranted. This is not worthy of you, iiibbb.

218. Marc-Albert - 1/5/2005 2:36:00 PM

It’s interesting to look at the homicide statistics of a country that in so many ways is considered so much like the U.S.

Homicides in Canada - 2003

The national homicide rate dropped 7% in 2003. The rate of 1.73 victims per 100,000 people was the lowest in over three decades. The homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s.

Canadian police services reported 548 homicides in 2003, 34 fewer than in 2002. This decline was related to a large drop in the number of females killed (50 fewer compared with 2002). At the same time, there were 16 more male victims. Men accounted for 72% of all victims in 2003.




Most homicides were committed by someone known to the victim. In 2003, 57 victims (14%) were killed by a stranger—the lowest number in more than 25 years. Half (51%) of all victims were killed by an acquaintance and one-third (34%) by a family member.

Canada's homicide rate was about one-third that of the United States (5.69). It was also lower than England and Wales (1.93), but slightly higher than France (1.65) and Australia (1.63).

There were 109 homicides committed with a handgun in 03, slightly more than the average over the past decade.

Other common methods used to commit homicide in 2003 were stabbings (26%), beatings (22%) and strangulation/suffocation (12%).

Slightly more than half (52%) of all adult homicide victims and 15% of youth victims had a criminal record.

219. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 2:47:51 PM

4297. PelleNilsson - 1/5/2005 9:34:17 PM

People die from other causes than guns. Hence gun control is not warranted. This is not worthy of you, iiibbb.

Not the point made at all... I'm saying it doesn't warrant the degree of hysteria that seems to be directed against private gun ownership...

Put it in perspective.

However... I was called 'paranoid' for worrying about violent crime. Which occurs at rates much higher than the accidents I seleted.

You people keep using double standards.

Me: I have a gun because I'm worried about violent crime
X: [You are paranoid]
Me: My guns are no threat to the general public relative to other hazards
X: [Gun control is warranted because handgun violence is out of control]

Well..we're back to step one.

Me: I have a gun because I'm worried about violent crime.

220. Ronski - 1/5/2005 2:59:18 PM

alistair,

This little piece of anecdotal evidence is pretty compelling, when combined with a statistic, cited higher up, that 80% of gun murders involve family or friends of the shooter...

It's not "family" and "friends." It's relatives and acquaintances. When I was living in Brooklyn in the late 80s during the height of the crime wave, I was acquainted with numerous individuals I would never have turned my back on. I certainly wouldn't have called them friends.

If one had attacked me, and one did threaten me, the police would have noted that since I knew the identity of the perp, he was an acquaintance.

That period of my life was the only time I considered getting a hand gun. It's a right I would not want to see denied any sane, sighted adult, though it is effectively denied many Americans already, mostly urban dwellers.

221. thoughtful - 1/5/2005 4:38:47 PM

Pelle, nice sentiment to think a human life isn't worth property, but if that property represents your livelihood, would it then be worthwhile saving? Even at the cost of human life?

That is the decision many business owners were faced with during the LA riots. Gangs of looters were roaming the streets destroying and pillaging homes and businesses. Many of those businesses were run by poor immigrants who themselves were dirt poor. Certainly couldn't afford any insurance. Would their means of survival be enough to warrant having a gun to use in self defense?

And, in my case, having a gun is not about a desire to shoot anything and everything. Rather the gun, as equalizer, would be to protect my person, family and property in the hope that shooting would NEVER be necessary. The idea, and as happens in many of the anecdotal cases I've seen, the gun alone is sufficient to cause the perp to flee or to hold them until the cops arrive to arrest him/her.

The chart on the crime stats in canada is interesting because it is consistent with that of the US where crime rates have also fallen. The cause seems to be demographics...most violent crimes are committed by teens and young men. The curve reflects the baby boom.

222. thoughtful - 1/5/2005 5:01:24 PM

Another comparison which would yield interesting results would be the rate of gun ownership, gun crimes and gun control in the US historically. I would suspect that the rate of gun ownership in the 1940s & 50s was much higher than it is today, gun control laws fewer and gun-related crime rates were probably lower. Unfortunately, that's just a supposition...I don't have the data.

Clearly there is a strong correlation between economic health and crime rates. There is also a strong correlation between drugs and gun crimes (if you're involved in illegal activities, you can't call the cops for protection, so what do you do? carry a gun...even if you're a 14 year old mule for the local drug lord.)

223. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 6:28:03 PM

We've been debating guns vs. gun control as if it were an either/or issue when the real issue is what form should gun control take. The range could be from no restriction whatsoever as to type of gun or who could own them and where and when they could be carried to an absolute prohibition on private ownership of any type of gun.

My impression is that none of us is at either end of the spectrum--complete freedom or complete prohibition. Maybe we should discuss what type of gun control or regulation is in the public interest.

Anybody who lives near a city with a high homicide rate as I do--in 2004 Detroit ranked number 1 out of the nation's 10 largest cities at 39 per/100,000 totalling 361--and who reads the daily newspaper can hardly help but conclude that more effective gun control is needed. Current and previous mayors, police chiefs and police unions in Detroit and throughout Michigan have called for more effective gun control for many years. And most people in the surrounding suburbs slao support more effective gun control.

However, the NRA and other 2nd amendment absolutist organizations have prevented the adoption of more effective state gun control laws. Even dyed-in-the wool Democrat, Congressman John Dingell who represents a downriver community with a lot of hunters has consistently voted against gun control proposals, including the ban on assault weapons.

[Other large cities for comparison: New York-6 per 100,000, Washington DC-43 per 100,000, New Orleans--57 per 100,000 and Gary, Indiana--66 per 100,000.]

Seems to me that more effective laws and more effective enforcement are not inconsistent with thoughtful's and iiibbb's concerns about personal protection, hunter's rights, etc. There is IMO plenty of room for reasonable compromise. I'm not sure what that is because I've never seriously studied the issue.

224. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 6:31:04 PM

Detroit's Murder Rate

225. Ms. No - 1/5/2005 6:55:12 PM

Wonk,

The problem is not the guns, it is the ghettoization of the urban areas. Whites fled to the suburbs to get away from the blacks and browns and now they've decided that it's guns because good liberals aren't allowed to say that it's blacks. The truth of the matter is that it's poverty and disenfranchisement.

When you've got a decent place to live and enough food to eat and a real chance at making something of your life you have reasons not to join a gang and shoot other kids or get shot yourself.

Yes, there will always be criminals and yes there will always be drug addicts but the real crime is that 150 years after Emancipation we're still segregating and disenfranchising African Americans in this country.

And what about the whites killing each other? Invariably they are also poor, poorly educated and have few prospects of achieving the American Dream.

And every minute of every hour of every day we've got a media circus salivating over violent gossip and feeding the fears of the populace.

But these things are more difficult to address and more costly both in terms of hard cash and hard work so we cop-out and agitate for stricter gun laws which do nothing at all about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals who disregard the laws anyway.

226. arkymalarky - 1/5/2005 6:57:46 PM

Message # 4244

but after all, Arky's acquaintances are probly mostly criminals...

You're a real funny fella, Alistair. Actually, they're mostly inbred cretins with an occasional criminal here and there. And it also would depend on your definition of criminal. Is it criminal for a long-suffering woman with several grown children and a number of grandchildren to shoot a cheating husband? Evidently the legal system here didn't think so. I know the family and feel for her, but she walked off with no punishment at all (Bob knew her husband and doesn't feel for her a speck).

227. iiibbb - 1/5/2005 7:11:40 PM

While I'm no fan of the NRA... you slightly misrepresent their approac... which is stricter enforcement of current laws. The have sponsored a number of programs, such as 'operation exile' which concentrates on enforcement of current laws.

I would argue that they've become absolutist as a similar reaction that I have had to certain attitudes conveyed in this discussion. I'm not saying it's right... but they recognize that the strategy employed by the other side is one of erosion.

The politics of gun control has made it kind of hard to be moderate.

However... they are a shitty organization. I think they must be one of the most top-heavy organizations I've ever seen... all of these big lobbyist organizations are... they are more concerned about membership (dues) than their causes. Sierra Club is the same way... or at least has been in their correspondence to me.

It's never-ending junk mail from both as soon as you express any interest in either.

228. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 7:29:38 PM

MsNo, I don't disagree with anything you said. Except you should note that the majority of people in the city of Detroit and in most of its surrounding suburbs support stricter and more effective gun control. They are tired of reading about or witnessing drug-related drive-by shootings, children shooting children, criminals killing police officers making routine traffic stops, stick-ups of 7-ll and liquor stores, etc.

But their wishes are frustrated by lobbying efforts by the NRA "forces of evil," supported financially by gun manufacturers as well as rank and file members.

229. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 7:32:58 PM

Ps, I am one of the whites who moved out of the Detroit after three years and having my car stolen and wrecked while it was parked on the street in front of my apartment house.

230. robertjayb - 1/5/2005 8:02:21 PM

They shot your car? Man, that's cold!

231. wonkers2 - 1/5/2005 8:20:03 PM

No, they just wrecked my red '57 Corvette. I got it back and my insurance company fixed it. But I was getting too many speeding tickets and sold it soon thereafter and got something more sedate, a Tempest as I recall.

232. robertjayb - 1/5/2005 11:53:03 PM

A Tempest, huh? I had a '67 convertible. Six cylinders. Cool looking and great mileage but it wouldn't pull your hat off.

It was vandalized too. Little bastards slashed the top.

233. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 7:40:19 AM

Here's why police support handgun control

234. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 8:16:08 AM

...the majority of people in the city of Detroit and in most of its surrounding suburbs support stricter and more effective gun control. They are tired of reading about or witnessing drug-related drive-by shootings, children shooting children, criminals killing police officers making routine traffic stops, stick-ups of 7-ll and liquor stores, etc.


Ah yes. The 100s of gun control laws already on the books in this country aren't enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So the solution is to add more laws. Uh huh.

235. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 8:37:58 AM

Yes, and the handguns these police officers were carrying did nothing to protect them!

236. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 8:39:25 AM

And the handgun laws currently on the books are leaky sieves.

237. alistairconnor - 1/6/2005 8:39:32 AM

This business about arms manufacturers who supply dealers whom they know perfectly well supply criminals (and are backed up by the NRA, apparently) reminds me of something :

Cigarette smuggling.

In Europe, tobacco taxes are very high, they multiply the cost of cigarettes several times, so the black market is a very lucrative business. The European Union is attempting to shut it down, by cutting a deal with cigarette makers. It has been proven that they produce huge volumes of cigarettes specifically for smugglers. They have been fined and signed up to a charter of good conduct, which imposes traceability.

If there is serious interest in reducing the flow of guns to criminals, this ought to be worth a try.

238. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 8:42:23 AM

Amen!

239. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 9:34:45 AM

So go after creepy gun dealers... prosecute... we've already agreed this would be a fine place to start.

240. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 9:42:45 AM

Message # 4314

Of course some cops are going to prefer that we all be disarmed. Do you think that they're going to lower their guard down after a ban? Do cops in WashingtonDC feel safer knowing guns are banned there? I bet they go into each situation just as primed for action?.

The analogy is sitting on a side street getting ready to pull into traffic. You see a car coming with their turn signal on that they're going to turn onto your street... do you pull out, or wait for them to start their turn? You wait because you know there is a small proportion of idiots who don't turn and will hit you.

Same with a perpetrator... it may be as Wonker's says... that most don't want to hurt us. The problem is, there's no way to tell the difference between the ones who will and won't.

241. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 9:43:15 AM

Speaking of cops in DC how many violations of the 10 basic rules of gun safety can you find in this article?

242. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 9:48:15 AM

4314. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 2:40:19 PM

Here's why police support handgun control

Tell me how handgun control would prevent this crime? The guy sounds like a cretin... but I'm sure he didn't really want to hurt anyone... criminals don't really want to hurt anyone.

All this shows is why cops should carry guns (in spite of the fact they apparently can't be safe with them as shown in Message # 4293)

243. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 9:53:51 AM

Home Invasion

The cherubic-faced, 12-year-old trembled and shook his head in disbelief, recalling the frightening ordeal he and his grandfather had survived the night before.

"I was watching TV and heard this banging on the front door. A man was yelling, `Open the door or I'll blow your brains out.' I took my cellphone and ran to my room," the boy said Wednesday.

Seconds later, two men barged through the door of the Friendship Street house and confronted the grandfather. The boy, unseen by the men, quietly hid behind his locked bedroom door and dialed 911.

Whispering to dispatchers, the boy begged for help.

"I thought we were both going to die," he said later.

As five officers raced to the house about 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, the boy waited in his upstairs room, unaware that his grandfather had already been shot in the back, wrapped in duct tape and left for dead in the basement.

244. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 9:55:54 AM

Cops put guns into the hands of criminals.

245. Macnas - 1/6/2005 10:11:48 AM

I've just read that article on accidental shootings involving the police.

Christ on a bike, who are these morons? Leaving loaded guns around the house, having a round in the chamber while in friend’s houses, locker rooms and other places where they had no business having a pistol loaded at all?

But some of the information makes very little sense to me. A trigger pull of 5 to 6 pounds is dangerous? That kind of pull actually requires you to PULL THE TRIGGER!! It's not a 2 pound hair trigger that might go off if you look at it hard enough.

What about keeping your damn finger off the trigger for a start? How about not pointing the pistol at someone unless you intent is to shoot them? Why can't these people, of all people, have a bit more respect for firearms?

I'd disarm the whole lot of them until they had re-trained. And make range practise a monthly occurrence with TOET as part of every range session.

246. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 10:28:00 AM

My favorite was the cop who shot the guy after being repeatedly told (over days) not to point it at him.


I have a Glock. It's not 'sophisticated', it just demands trigger discipline which is actually one of the reasons I like it... there is no excuse to be complacent. That's why I distrust 'smart guns'; it takes the responsibility away from the handler, and it fools people into thinking there are times when the gun is 'safe'.

With a Glock there no question.

As far as trigger pulls go. Most other semi-autos start off with a long hard double-action pull (which makes it hard to aim strait), followed by hair-trigger single-action pulls. Another advantage of a Glock is every pull is exactly the same... nothing that happens is unexpected (at least to me).

Granted, they don't have a manual safety... but the safety is just to prevent discharges when dropped... A Glock's 'manual' safety is keeping it in the holster.


As with all firearms... just follow the 10 rules.

247. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 10:29:39 AM

That's why I distrust 'smart guns'; it takes the responsibility away from the handler, and it fools people into thinking there are times when the gun is 'safe'.

It also makes people think that technology is a substitute for training.

248. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 11:12:31 AM

I'm not an expert on gun control, but my impression is that one of the objectives is, by regulating handgun sales and requiring effective background checks, keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. iiibbb, please don't put words in my mouth or if you do, please quote me accurately. I am not advocating banning all handgun sales. I am in favor of allowing the sale of long guns and hand guns designed for hunting, target shooting and personal protection. This would not include automatic weapons with big magazines and heavy weapons designed for military use, eg the .50 caliber rifle.

249. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 11:24:55 AM

Wonkers... this discussion has developed into one with several fronts.

I think you and I have reached a consensus on 'stricter enforcement' 'go after shady gun dealers'.

I don't think we have consensus on 'registration and licensing', but there are scenarios that I myself would probably copromise on (unfortunately, I am probably an outlier on this one... but I know I'm not alone).

The .50 cal... I'm on the fence. On one hand I agree with you... but on the other hand it seems like it's a problem looking for a solution. It's not an issue I'm strongly vested in... however, my nature is to resist because our rights are being eroded. So both you and, I think are caught in the middle on this one... because I don't see you as being with the 'ban everything' crowd who propose bans on .50 cals... just as I am not an 2nd ammendment absolutist.

So I appologize if it seems like I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm just trying to manage arguments coming from many different angles.

250. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 11:27:53 AM

I should rephrase this part

I don't see you as being with the 'ban everything' crowd who propose bans on .50 cals...

I don't see you as being the type who put .50 cals and semi-automatic handguns on the same plane.

251. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 11:29:40 AM

But those people do exist...

And sometimes, when you write something in here... I hear the voices of gun ban extremists behind you. Just as you seem to have heard the militia types behind me.

252. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 11:37:31 AM

A short on 'crooked' gun dealers

I would emplore those who want to go after crooked gun dealers though to be sure to do it with caution... because I do worry that some dealers would be harassed.

Lowering violent crime

I actually had not seen this site before.... These two articles seem alright. It'll be a while until I read the others.

253. Macnas - 1/6/2005 11:41:23 AM

I never did like pistols. Too easy to point at someone by mistake and inaccurate beyond 25 ft.

254. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 11:49:24 AM

Fair enough. Thankfully, we haven't allowed our discussion to degenerate to the level of the debates in the Religion thread! I prefer to keep it on a friendly basis. My career negotiating labor agreements was spent in searching for workable accommodations.

By the way, I got my first gun at age 12, a .20 gauge single shot and I currently own an old Remington .22 bolt action repeater and a Model 12 Winchester 12 gauge shotgun. I took all three of my kids to a local indoor shooting range and taught them to shoot the .22. I fired Expert with the Cal .30 M1 with the 2nd highest score in my company in basic training. I support the right for non-criminals to own guns which are APPROPIATE for hunting, target shooting and self-protection. I do not believe military type assault weapons, mortars, machine guns, hand grenades, .50 caliber rifles and the like are necessary or appropriate for any civilian purpose. I recognize there are problems defining and enforcing what is permitted and what is prohibited and enforcing. Moreover, I don't see the necessity for anyone other than a law enforcement person carrying a concealed weapon. (There may be exceptions to this, but I can't think of any at the moment.) Let them strap 'em on like in the wild west! Likewise, employers, schools, court houses, sporting events, bars and other public places should be able to prohibit the possession of weapons of any type on their property.

255. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 11:50:15 AM

25 ft? That's low.

I am very accurate (from a self defense standpoint) to at least 25 yrds with my semi-auto pistol. With some of my friends' hunting pistols I'm accurate out to 100 yrds easy.

Pistols have their place.
- Defending yourself in your home may require action in very close quarters.
- Pistol rounds are lower power and less likely to over-penetrate.
- Smaller people, older people, and handicap people may not be able to handle rifles.
- Pistols are more convenient (which is why cops carry them)


I guarantee it's just as easy to point a rifle at something you're not supposed to... and that bullet is going to go a lot further and pass through more things.

The point is... if you follow the basic firearms safety rules, pistols are not dangerous.

256. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:04:39 PM

Well... I'll make one pitch for concealed carry.

1) In my mind it is far more polite... I can sympathize with those people who are uncomfortable around guns.
2) Self defense is most effective when your attacker doesn't know what you've got... so it's safer for the carrier.
3) A gun taken from an ambushed open carrier is instantly in a criminal's hands.
4) Cops conceal weapons. Criminals conceal weapons. I've always said I should be on the same playing field.
5) People who obtain permits go through more extensive background checks, and take the time to aquire the training required by their state. CCW permit holders are among the most law-abiding and have among the lowest crime rates.
6) It removes the subjectivity on the part of police as to how a weapon is in your possession (This is why I have the permit)... the rules for transport are not clear and not consistant from state to state. A permit pretty much keeps you from getting harassed by a cop who is not sympathetic to civilians owning guns.


So we disagree about concealed carry... although most states think it has its place. The increase in shall-issue states has not resulted in the wild-west shootouts everyone predicted.

I think landowners can decide who can/can't carry on their property. I think businesses open to the public should have a means for checking weapons and are responsible for the security of those weapons and the patrons safety while in their care.

Banning from schools... I dunno, if they have passed all the background checks... why do you assume they're going to then go shoot up a school?

257. jayackroyd - 1/6/2005 12:14:57 PM

In my favorite novel, there are characters who carry around rifles and shotguns, in part to make the point of how silly it is to not allow concealed carry when open carry is legal. However, I take that joke differently. Why not carry around a rifle, if your concern is to scare off bad guys? Isn't better to deter, rather than surprise an adversary?

I also don't buy any of this because I've never been anywhere where I felt at the kind of risk that would require being armed--and that includes riding subways through the South Bronx and Bedford-Stuyvesant.

258. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:20:11 PM

Carrying open is considered brandishing in some places.

How do you carry a rifle securely? You can't put them in holsters... people would be moving them from one shoulder to the other.

Plus the capability of a rifle far exceeds a legitimate range for legitimate self defense. Those kinds of proposals are made by people who either don't know anything or haven't really thought about it.

259. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:23:59 PM

Also about 'assault style' weapons. I'm not sure what the gripe is about these. There are semi-automatic hunting rifles that are far more deadly than any assault style rifle.

It's just cosmetics... and price.

I know a lot of low-income people that use guns such as the SKS for hunting. Not my first choice, but if it's all you can afford... they are plenty accurate and will kill a deer.

260. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 12:27:16 PM

Why not carry around a rifle, if your concern is to scare off bad guys?

Reminds me of the time my husband and I went to a mall in a seedy area to buy a new axe. We had no problem walking around the mall with the axe over his shoulder, and I felt particularly safe. Skip the gun. Get an axe!

261. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 12:28:25 PM

It's just cosmetics... and price.

and ammo.

262. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 12:30:38 PM

"Banning from schools--I dunno." ??? My instincts tell me that guns have no place in grade schools, high schools or university campuses in the hands of students, teachers or other employees.

Moreover, your assumption regarding the background checks is not foolproof. As I mentioned in a previous post, Massachusetts recently became the first state to establish a quick method of checking and providing information on changes (personal protective orders, arrests, convictions, etc) that have occurred since a permit was originally issued. Apparently other states allow some of these situations fall through the cracks. ????? [I do not claim to be familiar with these procedures as I have never applied for a gun permit not studied the matter.]

263. Ms. No - 1/6/2005 12:39:10 PM

I don't think guns belong in schools for the same reason that I don't believe children should drive --- children in general lack sufficient judgement in high-stress situation to prevent doing harm to themselves and others.

Minors should be allowed to use guns as they are allowed to drive underage --- in the presence of an authorized adult under supervision.

264. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:41:28 PM

My instincts tell me that guns have no place in grade schools, high schools or university campuses in the hands of students, teachers or other employees.

Columbine?

One example of a school shooting stopped by law-abiding people... unfortunately, the press isn't very interested in stories like these.

I don't understand making a school a place where a terrorist knows that no one is armed. I mean... if you're worried about terrorists shooting a plane down... why aren't you worried that they'd take over a school? It would give them a lot of shock value.

265. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:42:34 PM

I certainly am not saying arm teenagers... but why insist that adults be disarmed.

266. PelleNilsson - 1/6/2005 12:46:25 PM

If carrying a gun is such a good thing for the individual and for society at large why not make it mandatory that all adults carry at all times?

267. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 12:48:02 PM

Well, my career was with a large company whose policy was that even it's security guards not be armed out of a fear that they might shoot someone unnecessarily and a decision that the cost of the training that would be required before turning them loose with firearms would not be worth the money. We certainly would not have considered for a moment allowing any employee, with a permit or not, to bring a firearm into the workplace.

268. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:48:54 PM

The same benefit can be had without arming everyone... some people don't want to be bothered with the responsibility.


Why is it always about the government making things 'mandatory'. What is your obsession with making people act certain ways Pelle?

269. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 12:49:21 PM

The same was true of possession of drugs or alcohol in the workplace.

270. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 12:51:42 PM

Well, my career was with a large company whose policy was that even it's security guards not be armed out of a fear that they might shoot someone unnecessarily and a decision that the cost of the training that would be required before turning them loose with firearms would not be worth the money. We certainly would not have considered for a moment allowing any employee, with a permit or not, to bring a firearm into the workplace.

And there are many examples of people going on shooting sprees in places like this... so you rule prohibiting it... really hasn't solved the problem. If someone becomes unhinged, how is that policy going to keep them from doing it anyway? Especially since you have unarmed guards... what are they going to do about it?

271. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 12:55:17 PM

Re the school shooting, just more evidence that a gun is only as good or as bad as the person weilding it. At Columbine there was an armed guard, but he was too scared/incompetent/whatever to react.

272. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 12:57:23 PM

The other famous case where the armed citizens helped was the gunman on top of the tower in the Texas university. Armed citizens shot back at him every time he tried to get a shot off, preventing even more deaths.

273. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 1:02:47 PM

Are you suggesting that allowing anyone with or without a permit bring his gun into the workplace would be a wise policy? I doubt that many employers, if any, would agree.

274. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 1:07:11 PM

Sounds to me like thoughtful has been subjected to a bit too much NRA propaganda (re the Texas incident). At least I don't recall that conclusion about the role of "armed citizens." No doubt there are plenty of actual incidents where armed citizens have saved the day. But it seems to me that there are many more where mischief has resulted from too many armed citizens.

275. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 1:08:43 PM

The object of public policy should be fewer citizens walking around with guns, not more.

276. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:09:30 PM

Not, without a permit... if I implied that then it was a mistake.

I'm saying there is no benefit banning permitted holders from most public locations. I think it is a false assumption that banning-all-guns-no-matter-what makes your workplace any safer... especially if the policy is to prevent shooting sprees.

I've always said there are few 'accidents' with firearms... in almost all cases its 'negligence'.

277. wabbit - 1/6/2005 1:17:42 PM

iiibbb, would you be willing to host a thread on gun control? This is a good discussion that looks like it will continue for a bit. I can set up a thread and move the posts from this thread to the new one.

278. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:18:06 PM

However... that's in a perfect world... in todays litigeous society... you probably have no choice but to make a policy like that.

279. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 1:19:43 PM

Can't vouch for the accuracy as it is from a pro gunowner site...of course. Still, if true, interesting.

Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a similar law in 1982 requiring every household to own a firearm, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Opponents argued the law would result in serious accidents and that angry residents would settle their differences with gunfire. Happily, those predictions never materialized.

The residential burglary rate in Kennesaw fell immediately -- almost 90 percent in the months directly following the law's enactment. That drop far outpaced the more modest 10.4 percent drop in the entire state of Georgia during the same period.

In the ensuing years, Kennesaw's crime rate has remained at basement levels. In 2001, there was not one murder in the town. No one was gunned down, even though the entire town is armed! The law has continued to work well for 20 years.

And their burglary rate? Well, it seems that thieves are still scared to enter the premises of the average Kennesaw home. Burglaries are still down more than 80 percent.

280. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 1:23:34 PM

There are consultants who make a good living putting on seminars for employers on how to deal with the postal worker syndrome. I've never attended one, but I seriously doubt that their recommendations include allowing employees with gun permits to carry in the workplace. From what I've read they suggest better ways of identifying and dealing with troubled employees.

281. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:30:27 PM

I am allowed to carry at my current place of employment... because it's a state university and there are preimption laws.

We've not had any problems.

Restrict them at work... don't restrict them at work... I think it doesn't make a bit of difference.

282. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 1:31:53 PM

What are preemption laws?

283. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:38:00 PM

The state legislature passed laws that rendered all rules-laws-resctrictions of having guns on the premises to not supercede a state carry permit.

Such as when a city posts a 'no firearms' sign in a park. It does not apply to someone who is permitted by the state. Basically the legislature reserves the right to say what's off limits.

You can not carry in primary and secondary schools, bars, resturants with alcohol, court houses, other places.

284. judithathome - 1/6/2005 1:38:54 PM

So what about Wabbit's suggestion, 3i3b?

285. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:40:06 PM

Packing.org
is a site that summarizes the laws for each state. It's been called a gun lobby site, but it's main purpose is as a resource to permit holders since the laws are so inconsistant from state to state.

286. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:42:36 PM

Message # 4360 If you want I could... is it not winding down?

287. judithathome - 1/6/2005 1:46:17 PM

It shows very few signs of doing so, in my opinion.

288. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:47:09 PM

Our preemption law

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

289. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:51:12 PM

It feels like it's slowing down to me...

290. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 1:52:29 PM

.. but whatever The Mote wants to do to organize itself. I am willing to look over a thread.

291. wabbit - 1/6/2005 1:53:53 PM

Thanks, iiibbb. It looks like it still has legs to me. I'll have the posts moved in about 10 minutes, if everyone can hold off that long.

292. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 2:18:03 PM

Jeepers Creepers... we made 300 posts about that?!

293. wabbit - 1/6/2005 2:22:14 PM

Yep. If you want to change the thread description, go here and log in with your usual id and password.

294. robertjayb - 1/6/2005 2:26:23 PM

Guns in South Africa (Economist.com)

Same old, same old...

295. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 2:34:09 PM

We should try the Saudi approach--confiscation and amputation.

296. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 3:21:05 PM

If anyone has any suggested butter bar links please feel free to let me know.

I'm looking for either general information sites... organization home pages... and well stated possition papers.

I will try to avoid heavy rhetoric... recognizing that's hard to do with some of these sites. I haven't figured out how to order them yet... so you'll just have to deal with that for the moment.

297. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 3:24:45 PM

you're not going to add the nra???

298. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 3:34:40 PM

I put it in... but man... the ads disgust me.

299. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 3:39:03 PM

thx...certainly they are radical, but it usually takes radicals to move the needle on the dial...or to keep it from moving too far in the other direction

interesting parallels can be drawn between gun rights and abortion rights...arguments about slippery slope...arguments about not outlawing all (guns/abortions) but only the most abhorrent aspects...arguments about rights implicit if not explicit in the constitution, etc.

300. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 3:39:28 PM

Check out the lobbying expenditures...

One of these days... gun owners are going to catch on to the overhead-laden NRA... as big as that organization is it's odd how they are being dwarfed by GOA.

The NRA does perform a valuable role with hunter and shooter education in the country however.

301. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 3:44:27 PM

These two graphs sure illustrate the polarization of the issue.

Gun Control Campaign Donations

Gun Rights Campaign Donations... look how even split it was in the early 90's. The dems sure made their own nest, didn't they?

302. Wombat - 1/6/2005 3:48:07 PM

Since one of the problems with gun control as it currently exists is each state has its own set of laws, procedures and enforcement priorities; wouldn't it be better if the Federal Government designed the laws and procedures and applied them across the board? For example, one of the reasons Washington DC's gun laws are ineffective is that it is easy to obtain them in Virginia.

303. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 3:59:10 PM

I guess because the stand the Courts seem to be taking is that it's a tenth ammendment issue... i.e. the purview of the states.

I think it would be hard given that the supreme court (even in its conservative form) has even refused to hear even recent cases.

I think both sides aren't pushing the matter because they're scared they'd lose something big.

304. Wombat - 1/6/2005 4:08:40 PM

It would be interesting to test the constitutionality of laws in relation to the 2nd Amendment. The last time it was done, I believe, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protections did not extend to sawed-off shotguns.

305. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 4:17:37 PM

Well... that case is old... in the 30's or 40's? I'm not a scholar by any stretch... but I beleive that same case also represented one of the most significant curtailments of the 2nd ammendment in history.

Read the DOJ opinion on the butter bar... it discusses prior supreme court cases fairly thoroughly.

306. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 4:20:46 PM

I don't think the DOJ paper is as well written as the Emerson case discussion, but I think it covers a broader scope.

The Gun-Cite page has a series of smaller write ups, but I think it has the best overall presentation of all of them.

307. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 4:24:38 PM

I would really appreciate a link to a scholarly write up of the opposing viewpoint. Unfortunately most of the stuff I've ever found are just semantical arguments, which are just matters of opinion.

What matters is what did the framers of the constitution mean.

I'm going to look in that DOJ thing, I remember a reference that had a recent court case that took a different position from Emerson (although I got the impression it was a political rebuttal).

308. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 4:28:36 PM

Silviera vs Lockyer on butter bar took a collective rights viewpoint.

Emerson vs. US on butter bar took a n individual rights viewpoint.

309. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 4:39:57 PM

oh yes...another parallel with the abortion argument...states rights vs federal control.

310. Wombat - 1/6/2005 4:52:46 PM

A couple of problems with the historical background of Emerson. The statement that the militia was responsible for defeating the British in the Revolutionary War sticks to the traditional historiography of the Revolution, but not to the facts. It was only when the Continental Army was trained as a regular, standing army, that it was able to fight it out with the British on even terms.

The secound thought, which I am not sure is addressed, is the dichotomy between states and territories (parts of the United States that were not yet admitted to the Union). Clearly, on the frontier, where there was little formal legal and military infrastructure, individuals carried arms out of necessity, and militia units--or posses--where formed on an ad hoc, local basis to defend themselves from attack by indians or to chase bandits.

By the mid 19th Century, states were expected to supply arms for their militias, rather than have individuals be responsible for their own armament.

311. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 4:56:16 PM

When I read this guy's response to the Supreme Court refusing to hear the Silviera case if gives me a certain pause in light of other things going on in this country right now

Patriot Act.
Going to war.
Ohio voting discrepancies.

Just makes you wonder... are we a free state, a nanny state, or are we a tyranical state.

If #3... how do we get the power back once it's gone?

312. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:02:13 PM

Message # 310

In light of this... why did they still include the "militia" in the actual constitution... if it were such an ineffectual thing?

Note in Article 2 section 2 of the constitution, the army and milita are listed seperately. The militia is actually comprised of an organized part (national guard), and unorganized part (everyone else).

313. Wombat - 1/6/2005 5:02:44 PM

Rebellion against the Federal Government has been--rightly--discouraged since the 1860s.

314. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:03:38 PM

The constitution was written after the revolution... but they still emphasize the importance of the militia.

315. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:06:24 PM

Of course it's discouraged... but what happens when there's no way to resist?

Presently, we still have a version of MAD working.



----I'm playing around with ideas here.

316. thoughtful - 1/6/2005 5:12:01 PM

I remember PE years ago asking why original intent even matters...true when you consider the likes of slavery and such.

But I suggest that back in colonial times, a gun was equivalent to survival and the colonialists didn't even address the personal gun ownership issue as depriving one of one's firearm was the equivalent of sentencing that person to death...think hunting, criminals, indians, etc. Remember, there was no phone, no 911, little security, and the main street in most towns were only a few hundred yards long. The majority of the populace were rural agrarian and the gun was as essential a tool as the shovel. All security was in the hands of the individual.

317. wonkers2 - 1/6/2005 5:15:43 PM

All very true, but now we are not an agrarian society, the remaining Indians are not dangerous, and the law has to change to meet society's changed conditions.

318. Wombat - 1/6/2005 5:18:04 PM

iiibbb:

The writers of the Constitution had a bee in their bonnets about standing armies, based on the revolutionary experience (which also explains the amemdment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private homes) and chose to rely on state militias and state naval forces as their primary means of defense. This lasted into the Adams administration, when a conflict with France led to the founding of the US Navy. As a means of defense against low-level threats on the frontier, militias were appropriate. The War of 1812 demonstrated the inadequacy of militias in a war with a major military power, which was confirmed in the Mexican and Civil Wars.

319. Wombat - 1/6/2005 5:22:03 PM

As to the language in the Federal Code...beats the crap out of me.

As to the "Red Dawn" scenario, please. A look at armed resistance to oppressive regimes in modern times is uniformly discouraging, you and your Glock notwithstanding.

320. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:35:21 PM

Well... I'm not particularly worthy of taking the hard-line 2nd ammendment is for rebelion stance. I've never stated this was my primary purpose for owning a gun.

1) Recreation
2) Self Defense

Everything else really is secondary to me...

However... I think the intent of the framers that the government not impede citizens from self defense still very much applies today. Particularly when our standing army, and police are not, or cannot be there for us.

Alistar teased me about being an island... but at these momments you most certain are.

321. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:37:07 PM

One gets forced into by the arguments against the 2nd ammendment because of the 'militia' clause... and you're right, the rebelion was still very much on the fore-front of the framers' minds.

322. Wombat - 1/6/2005 5:46:09 PM

I am concerned by 2nd Amendment defenders' downplaying of reference to militias. If the founding fathers didn't place much value on it, why did they write it in the first place?

A number of the amendments are anachronistic, and even the 1st Amendment as legally interpreted is not unconditional (Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater...)

323. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 5:57:59 PM

Well... I think the framers intend the militia to be everyone... we contribute to the security of the state by making it more difficult for criminals to operate.

324. Ms. No - 1/6/2005 7:14:01 PM

I could be wrong about this, but don't underestimate the idea that criminals were forbidden by the government to own guns, as were slaves. We were nowhere near the penal colony that Australia was, but the idea that a hostile, armed populace is a populace for the government to be cautious of is not outdated, nor will it ever be.

325. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 7:38:29 PM

I've added a collection of essays to the butter bar.

326. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 7:41:24 PM

And I took it off as it was a sneaky pay site.... grr. Oh well the intro is ok... but sneaky.

327. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 10:28:42 PM

Man attacked by wolf.

328. iiibbb - 1/6/2005 10:58:32 PM

This is some gun control

Seems to only run in DIVX.

329. Macnas - 1/7/2005 3:23:44 AM

iiibbb

It's a bit sweeping for me to say pistils are inaccurate beyond 25ft. I've only used a pistol maybe a dozen times ever, and it was always shot out BAP's, or Browing Hi-Powers as you might have called them.

Also, these were not DA guns, hence my confusion about trigger pressure. That's not to say I still dont think stiff triggers are a good thing, I think they are detrimental to accuracy and by extension, especially in a pistol, a safety hazard.
By way of explanation, if you have to pull hard on a trigger the chance of the pistol moving off the intended target and on to somewhere/someone else are greatly increased.

330. Macnas - 1/7/2005 3:36:38 AM

Wombat

I liked that Red Dawn comment.

Anyhoo...

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The above definition, when looked at in light of the time the US consitution was written, makes sense.

The key words in my opinion are "organised" and "military service". Not one man and his guns against the black helicopters.

331. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 8:43:57 AM

By way of explanation, if you have to pull hard on a trigger the chance of the pistol moving off the intended target and on to somewhere/someone else are greatly increased.

In my experience, trigger pressures generally run from 2lbs (which is hair trigger) to 12 lbs. On the one hand the light pulls are dangerous because any unintentional pressure on the trigger will have unintentional effects... or unintentional (read unaimed) second shots of course most self defense training has you at least do a double tap(2 aimed shots).

The problem with heavy triggers is it makes them difficult for people to operate. You can compensate for a heavy trigger with practice... in the heat of the moment you are probably not going to notice the difference in trigger pressures between 5-8 lbs.

Pistols are more likely to be declared unsafe due to light triggers. Although I'm sure handguns are in a no-win situation... if their pulls were heavy, then they'd come up with your reasoning. See how many violations of gun safety you can find in that article too.

The guns design rarely comes up in justified homicide cases as far as I've seen... but it could be very important in civil cases that frequently follow.

332. Macnas - 1/7/2005 8:54:40 AM

Tell me this iiibbb, why do so many police officers go about with a round in the chamber of thier sidearm?

Inso far as I was trained, you only cocked/charged a weapon when you intended to use it. These peolpe are shooting themselves and others accidentaly in restrooms and cars and the like.

Is it procedure to have your sidearm charged? i.e. round in chamber?

333. Wombat - 1/7/2005 8:58:31 AM

iiibbb:

If one is to accept your interpretation of "militia" as stated in #323 (which I find dubious), would you also agree that the "well-regulated" part of it means a level of government control above and beyond what we currently have?

Incidentally, I want to compliment you on how you are running this thread, and responding to the pointed and skeptical questions on your beliefs concerning the 2nd Amendment issues we are discussing.

334. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 9:07:35 AM

Message # 332 Cops carry them chambered because things go bad fast... it really shouldn't matter as long as you keep it in the holster. All quality semiautomatics will not go off accidentally (dropped or jostled)... they only go off if you pull the trigger. Most 'accidental discharges' are actually 'negligent discharges'.

I've heard of one case in Canada where there was a true accidental discharge. A Glock went off in some cop's holster because of a combination of the pistol, holster, and being struck exactly the right way. I remember reading it, but I can't find that article at the moment

In Isreal (I don't know if this is police or just civilians), you may not carry one chambered.

The few times I've carried (mostly just to see what it was like) I did not carry with one in the chamber.

But we come back to quality holsters and being responsible.

335. Macnas - 1/7/2005 9:16:58 AM

Holsters? Why not stick 'em into the waist band of your pants like those coppers did?

336. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 9:20:14 AM

Thank you Wombat... I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person.

The only thing I can say in response to the word "regulate" It has several defintiions

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

The governance of the militia is covered elsewhere in the constitution. Indeed the bill of rights was meant to acknowlege (note: not "grant") the rights of "the people". The bill of rights is meant to protect individual rights.

2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.

This definition makes more sense... to put into order or bring up to some specification. Regulated in a military sense supposivly means "well-equiped"... or consisitant.

3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

Not sure this applies.

4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Similar to definition 2.


There is a more involved discussion of the semantics on the "gun cite" link on the butter bar. It includes excerpts from the federalist papers for context of the language used in the ammendment.

I'll let you chew on that... I have some more points but I need to go for a bit.

337. Macnas - 1/7/2005 9:27:02 AM

re Definition 2.

In that sense, regulation means control.

338. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 9:48:50 AM

Not exactly... bring up to a standard...

Besides... it is a subordinate clause to "the right of the people"

And "the people" means the individuals citizens.... per the other ammendmetns that use it. The preamble even begins with "We the people"

We grant power to the government... the government doesn't grant us rights (particularly those rights listed in the ammendments). That is the whole point of the American system.

339. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 10:03:11 AM

Indeed the bill of rights was meant to acknowlege (note: not "grant") the rights of "the people". The bill of rights is meant to protect individual rights.

This is not true, in general. The bill of rights was designed to protect the states from federal intrusion. See the first amendment, for example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The states can perfectly well regulate speech or religion under this provision. The Civil War and the 14th amendment turned this around--the federal government became the enforcer of individual rights against infringment by the states.

I happen to think the gun nuts are right on substance-- that the militia reference is not sufficient to justify, say, banning handguns. However, I think the Court screwed up by permitting the regulation of sawed of shotguns--which how this regulation stuff got started. The Court should have said the constitution does not restrict bearing any kind of arms, and forced a constitutional amendment to prevent individuals from owning weapons of war.

340. thoughtful - 1/7/2005 10:19:58 AM

I'm a regular subscriber to the scout report and this is what was in the one for today:

3. Two from the National Academies
Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review [pdf]
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/
News Conference on Firearms Report [RealPlayer]
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/news/isbn/0309091241.rm

The National Academy of Sciences has never been known to shy away from
important and controversial public policy debates, and this recent report on
the relationship on the role of guns in U.S. society is no exception.
Released in December 2004, this 328-page report from the National Academies'
National Research Council contains some rather important observations,
including the fact that there is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry"
laws either decrease or increase the incidence of violent crime. It should
be noted that the study committee responsible for the report was not asked
to address any issues of policy, but rather just to offer a critical and
methodical assessment of the research base on firearms violence and on
prevention, intervention, and control strategies. That being said, the
committee did recommend that the federal government should support a robust
research program in this area. The first site mentioned here will lead
visitors to a full-text version of the report which may be viewed online,
complete with a rather compelling dissent section offered by the noted
social scientist James Q. Wilson. The second link leads to a news conference
that complemented the recent release of this valuable report. [KMG]

341. thoughtful - 1/7/2005 10:20:07 AM

Copyright Susan Calcari and the University of Wisconsin Board of
Regents, 1994-2004. The Internet Scout Project (http://scout.wisc.edu/),
located in the Computer Sciences Department of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, provides information about the Internet to the U.S.
research and education community under a grant from the National Science
Foundation, number NCR-9712163. The Government has certain rights in
this material. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim
copies of the entire Scout Report provided this paragraph, including the
copyright notice, are preserved on all copies.

342. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 10:23:22 AM

I'm not a scholar... apparently neither are any of the social studies teachers I've ever had.

I've always been taught that the purpose of the bill of rights was to protect individuals from gov't.

Are you saying that the federal government can't illegally search your home... but the states can?

343. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 10:31:26 AM

That view cannot be true--else there would have been no slaves. I'm saying that the bill of rights regulated the federal government, not state government. Some of the provisions are clearly directed at citizens--no double jeopardy, no housing soldiers. But states retained up until the Civil War a great deal of authority to abridge rights we take for granted because of the 14th amendment.

Look at the 10th, for instance.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What are the States doing there?

344. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 10:35:21 AM

Ok... how do you reconcile the use of the words "the people" in the second ammendment.

If they ment for it to be a states right, they would have used "the states" instead.

If they meant the army, they would have used "the army".

If they meant the militia, they would have used the words "the militia".


They used "the people"... Everywhere else "the people" is used, it's about a right of citizens.

345. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 10:36:59 AM

They used "the people"... Everywhere else "the people" is used in the bill of rights, it's about a right of citizens. Everywhere "the people" is used in the constitution it is in reference to citzenry.

346. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 10:59:07 AM

Organized the butter bar a little.

347. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 11:12:44 AM

This is a short piece written by someone who apparently at one time felt it didn't mean individual rights. He concludes that it most definitely is an individual right... but that the entire debate circles around the scope of the right.

Again... I obviously feel that some regulation is warranted (at least in the modern sense of 'regulation', but I'm not implying that that this modern sense is necessarily the same as used in the constitution as considerable evidence points otherwise... i.e. the federalist papers)

... and my line falls somewhere around the weapons the size of the .50 cal BMG.

348. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 11:24:30 AM

I'm truly looking for a scholarly discussion paper or work discussing gun rights not as an individual right. Unfortunately they have been thus-far hard to find... the most well-known work until recently was Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael Bellesiles but that has been widely refuted.

349. Wombat - 1/7/2005 11:39:57 AM

Discredited is a more accurate term.

350. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 11:50:17 AM

That's the better word thanks... it was on the tip of my tongue.

351. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 11:50:22 AM

Well, your trouble is that the militias that are referred to were regulated by the states. If the idea was that individual citizens should have an untrammeled right to carry, why mention the militias at all? It would have been simpler to say that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the leading clause mean, in your view? Nothing?

352. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 12:08:58 PM

It would be simpler to have said that... but as stated by others earlier in this thread... the framers were a bit pre-occupied with the revolution and war.

I don't think it means nothing... it's a declaration of purpose... but those clauses are still subordinate, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We are all in the militia, as defined by the US code, and this was the intent of the framers for it to be a pretty informal, egalitarian, or libertarian operation.

Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #29
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. "

353. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 12:10:05 PM

still subordinate to "the right of the people."

354. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 12:35:34 PM

Federalist paper 29:

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union ``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

355. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 12:48:17 PM

My view is not a minority view, by the way:

First, most federal courts and some commentators adopt a "state's right view" of the Second Amendment. [11] Many of these courts and commentators take the position that the Amendment guarantees nothing [Page 1410] more than the right of states to arm and maintain organized military units. [12] According to proponents of this view, gun control legislation does not threaten any individual right of the people. [13]

356. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 12:48:39 PM

Footnote 11:

[11]. See, e.g., Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th. Cir. 1971) (interpreting Second Amendment as protecting right of states to arm organized military units). For a discussion of federal case law supporting the state's right view, see infra notes 32-39 and accompanying text. See also Kates, supra note 8, at 206; Levinson, supra note 8, at 640-45. Mr. Kates and Professor Levinson both cite the position of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as an example of the state's right view. Kates, supra note 8, at 207-08 & n. 15; Levinson, supra note 8, at 644. The ACLU's view is that "the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia" and that "[e]xcept for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." Levinson, supra note 8, at 644 (quoting ACLU, POLICY GUIDE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Policy No. 47 (rev. ed. 1992)). Therefore, according to the ACLU, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms. See Kates, supra note 8, at 207-08 & n.15 (citing summary of ACLU meeting of June 14-15, 1980).

In addition, Professor Levinson cites Professor Laurence Tribe's position that "the history of the [Second] Amendment 'indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy."' Levinson, supra note 8, at 640 & n.19 (quoting LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 299 n.6 (2d ed. 1988)).

Villanova law review

FWIW, I first learned about this notion of the constitution protecting states rather than individuals from a book by Tribe.

357. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 12:51:43 PM

Now I think you can argue that if the Civil War created individual citizen rights that the Federal government enforces, that among those rights is the right to bear arms. That is, the 14th amendment takes out any restrictions reserved to the states wrt arms. And, as an attempt to prevent the formation of a standing Federal army, the amendment has been a pretty stunning failure. Right now we're watching state militias being ordered by the federal government to serve past their agreed term of service.

358. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 12:58:15 PM

Message # 354

So... that says it's a state's rights issue. So tell me how this will justify federal gun control legislation?


And you still have reconciled the use of "the people to keep and bear arms"... rather than "the state to keep and bear arms".

As you say... wouldn't it "have been simpler to say that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, I return the same logic... wouldn't it have been simpler to say the right of the states(militia) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?

359. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 1:11:02 PM

Sure you can. But the point is that there is certainly some ambiguity floating around. And when I read through the stuff in the federalist papers, it is clear that the central concern is not permitting the federal government to command a national, standing army. That would argue against a view that they intended the amendment as a means of individual self-defense.

In some ways, this is all incredibly silly. Nobody believes that the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed. I can't carry a loaded gun on an airplane; I can't even carry a butter knife onto a plane. Nobody is allowed to own privately nukes or f16s. That is, the plain English is completely at variance with contemporary common sense. When you're talking about muskets and bayonets, it's one thing. When you're talking about AK47s, grenades and mortar launchers, it's a different story. And the plain English would permit ownership of everything.

360. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 1:14:35 PM

And who said anything about Federal gun control legislation?

361. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 1:39:46 PM

The people who try to pass gun control legislation ... usually try to do so through federal legislation... such as the assault weapons ban etc...

This thread started with a paper that discussed whether gun-control had an effect on crime. Prevention of crime seems to be the motivation of gun-control advocates... not straightening out the confusion over what the militia really means.

And let's just go ahead and take the grenades, mortar, nuke thing off the table... you're the 3rd person to bring it up and it is not a interpretation I have advocated even once.

362. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 1:46:50 PM

Again... my basic position.

1) I have a god-given right to defend myself.
2) I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions.
3) The general public has nothing to fear from people like me.
4) Criminals will always have guns.
5) These guns are usually obtained illegally.
6) The government (police etc.) are not always there to protect my well being.
6) As a law abiding adult, I have a god-given right to defend myself, and I should be at least as well armed as the criminals.
7) There are ample legitimate uses of guns... namely sport (hunting and shooting sports) and self defense.

Any interpretation of the 2nd ammendment that violates my basic stand... I feel violates important principles held by the framers and their intent.

363. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 2:06:54 PM

Prevention of crime seems to be the motivation of gun-control advocates..

I don't think that's true. Can you back that up?

364. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:20:45 PM

From the conclusions of the Villanova Paper provided by Jay.

VII. CONCLUSION

Federal courts have avoided constitutional review of gun control legislation by adopting the fiction that the Second Amendment only grants to the states the right to arm their militia. [269] A historical analysis of the debates surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment, [Page 1458] however, proves that the Framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. [270] The intended purposes of Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are twofold. [271] First, an armed population could provide for civil defense of the nation, thus avoiding the necessity of a standing army. [272] Second, the people in possession of arms could defend themselves against oppression by an organized military, if one were ever formed. [273]

Ok...

365. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:20:59 PM

The first purpose for the Second Amendment is now moot because the United States maintains an organized military to defend the nation. The second purpose still retains its vitality as a last line of defense against military oppression; it is not, however, necessarily a blanket guarantee to possess all types of weapons. Today, the Second Amendment simply ensures that any attempt of the federal government to regulate the possession of firearms will be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. [274]

I think the framers would balk at this one. In WWII I've read that one reason the Japanese never attacked our west coast was the fear of our armed citizenry.

366. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:21:22 PM

Under modern principals of constitutional review, legislation that serves the government's compelling interest in protecting human life will be upheld as long as that interest outweighs the legislation's impact on Second Amendment rights, and the means chosen to further the government's interest are narrowly tailored to further that interest. [275] Using this balancing test one can argue that the government's interest in preventing violent crimes involving firearms is so compelling that the government can regulate the possession of all firearms, except to the extent that such regulation would leave the people completely defenseless against the military. This approach leaves ample room for legislation requiring waiting periods and criminal background checks before a handgun can be purchased, legislation regulating the possession of firearms by felons, and legislation banning possession of all firearms that would pose a threat to the national security.

This paragraph relies on the false assumption that gun-control prevents crime... and completely devalues the number of times that someone uses a gun to prevent a violent crime. Earlier in the thread I showed that guns are used to prevent a violent crime far more often than a murder with a gun is committed.

I see no value in disarming civilians in the manner proposed by leading gun control advocates (see: HCI and Million Moms).

367. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:21:27 PM

The Supreme Court should take the next opportunity that arises to [Page 1459] reverse the long line of cases denying any individual right to keep and bear arms. As soon as this is done, a line of case law should develop that will set the parameters for permissible gun control regulation, as has been the case with all other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Such parameters must be based in strict scrutiny jurisprudence, and not in the judicial fiction of the absence of an individual right to keep and bear arms that has little support in the history of the Second Amendment.

I agree... Congress and the Courts have really done the citizens of the US a disservice by not rectifying the issue, either by ammendment or by taking a case in the supreme court.

However... if the goal is to prevent crime... start with the criminals, not with the 100,000,000 gun owners who are not the problem. Attack those who supply criminals with guns...
drop the war on drugs in favor of a war on violence.

368. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:21:44 PM

toys

369. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:21:55 PM

toys

370. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:29:32 PM

363. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 9:06:54 PM

Prevention of crime seems to be the motivation of gun-control advocates..

I don't think that's true. Can you back that up?

These are the three major gun control lobby groups (based on contributions in butter bar).

Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Million mom March
As the nation's largest grassroots, non-partisan, chapter-based organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Million Mom March united with the Brady Campaign is dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities.


You can paroose their webpages yourself... but it seems that settling the issue of how states organize their militias doesn't seem to be a major issue.

371. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:31:10 PM

The ACLU is "neutral" but advocates the collective rights... but they don't seem to be actively pursuing any kind of legislation.

372. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 2:34:35 PM

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Organizing for progressive gun laws since 1971.

373. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 3:23:54 PM

I think the notion that the bill of rights is not the rights of the people is a at best a revisionist concept.

374. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 3:26:49 PM

The constitution is established by the sovereign "People" of the United States, not by the states themselves (though the states were responsible for ratifying the constitution). The constitution is acknowledged to be the supreme law, and any federal or state law contravening it is invalid. The principle contradicts the practice in many other countries, wherein the judgment of the legislature, the representatives of the people, is supreme under the doctrine of "parliamentary supremacy" or "parliamentary sovereignty." In the United States, however, the Constitution, established by the People, is deemed superior to laws established by their agents

375. Wombat - 1/7/2005 3:43:58 PM

The comment that the Japanese were afraid to invade the West Coast of the United States because armed citizenry is one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.

376. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 4:15:07 PM

Best I can do

Hitler failed to subdue Great Britain in 1940 (in good part due to the moral strength of the Brits, a great deal of US aid, and because conquering Britain was not part of the Fuehrer’s eastern living space plan), so he would have had little chance of succeeding against the much more distant, much larger, more populous, and better-armed USA. Even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (the chief planner of the Pearl Harbor attack) spoke warningly of "a rifle behind every blade of grass" when discussions of invading the USA came up.

377. thoughtful - 1/7/2005 4:26:41 PM

Well it seemed to work for the Swiss during WWII as well as hitler never invaded. I've heard this story before, but don't know how true it is:

During World War Two, there was this Nazi general who was talking to one of his Swiss counterparts sometime after the fall of France. The Swiss had told the Nazis that they had six hundred thousand men under arms waiting for a German invasion, and the Nazi general wanted to know what the Swiss general thought he would do with his men considering that the Nazis had an army of one point two million men ready to send across the border. They say the Swiss general thought about it for a second, then told the German, "Obviously we will have to shoot twice."

378. Wombat - 1/7/2005 4:56:47 PM

iiibbb's source confirms the idiocy of the statement. The rifles would be in the hands of an increasingly large US Army. The idea of invading an a country with the size and population of the United States (across 3,000 miles of ocean) by a country that was barely industrialized is beyond a joke, which even the Japanese at their most deluded realized. The writer, about whose intellectual attainments the less said the better, doesn't provide a cite; and since the rest of his paper is a miscellany of nonsense, should not be taken seriously.

The version of the Swiss Army anecdote I know of is that the Swiss general told his German counterpart that the invading Germans would be greeted by the sound of every bridge in the country blowing up. The Swiss plan was to cede the lowlands around Berne to the Germans, and hold out in the mountains forever.

Since the Germans were getting everything they needed from the Swiss anyway, they thought the better of it, even after such provocations as when the Swiss Air Force shot down a dozen German bombers that strayed over the border accidentally.

Switzerland is--of course--the prime example of a country that has a compulsory militia, which is everything that the US founding fathers may have envisioned, but which also has no relationship to the peculiar arguments made using the 2nd Amendment to justify the individual right to bear arms.

379. Wombat - 1/7/2005 5:02:03 PM

Swiss society is also much less "free" than the United States, despite its citizens' militia. I think they finally got around to granting female suffrage in the last two decades or so.

380. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 5:12:39 PM

You are focusing on what was/is a minor facet compared to most of the other points that have been made today.

I made the statement about Japan off the top of my head based on information that's randomly stored in my brain... you questioned it... I tried to provide a cite...I said it was the best I can do.

The more important point is whether the primary purpose of the bill of rights is to preserve individual rights... or states rights.

I just can't bring myself to agree with Jay about the purpose of the bill of rights... even if his view is not "a minority view"...

I feel like Phil Hartman's Caveman Lawyer... "I do not understand your modern ways of thinking... I am but a caveman". Simple folk understand that the bill of rights is for them. You can play around with semantics all you want.

1) I have a god-given right to defend myself.
2) I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions.
3) The general public has nothing to fear from people like me.
4) Criminals will always have guns.
5) These guns are usually obtained illegally.
6) The government (police etc.) are not always there to protect my well being.
7) As a law abiding adult, I have a god-given right to defend myself, and I should be at least as well armed as the criminals.
8) There are ample legitimate uses of guns... namely sport (hunting and shooting sports) and self defense.

381. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 5:37:20 PM

Added Glenn Reynolds to the butter bar... seems to be a more middle of the road discussion. Supports the individual right, but with many caveats.

382. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 5:41:15 PM

Jay's "not the minority viewpoint" is not equal to "the academic viewpoint" according to Reynolds.

Standard Model scholars dominate the academic literature on the Second Amendment almost completely. But their views are much less represented in the more popular media, where the "states' rights" view seems still to be dominant.

The entire conclusions and addendum are a good read... about 2 pages.

383. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 5:47:08 PM

From the pink pistols site.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Philadelphia, PA (PP National) January 3, 2005. According to the Associated Press, Superior Court Judge Jack Sabatino in Trenton, NJ has made the ground-breaking decision that "once a felon has paid his or her debt to society and has fully resumed civilian life, the state's right to maintain that person's DNA sample withers." The ruling was made in response to two convicts , one adult, one juvenile, who challenged the constitutionality of a 2003 law that requires everyone convicted of a crime submit a DNA sample.

While the Pink Pistols believes firmly in the returning of individual rights after the serving of a full sentence, we question the States double standard that allows a decision to destroy a database pertaining to convicted criminals, while insisting on maintaining detailed records on law-abiding citizens who own legal firearms. Over 99% of the firearms owned in the United States are never involved in any criminal act, yet states justify the maintenance of such databases of firearm owners on the supposition that such owners might someday perform bad acts, even though repeated studies show this assumption to be mistaken.

384. iiibbb - 1/7/2005 6:09:18 PM

Yet another semantic analysis by a linguist.

Should have interviewed several linguists though....

385. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 11:56:56 PM

Couple of comments.

First, I don't think you've backed up the view that people who support gun control do so in order to reduce crime. People, who like, say Nicholas Kristof, support restrictions on gun availablility to reduce death by accident, by suicide and by crimes of passion. Crimes of passion would happen anyway, regardless of weapon. Without guns, they would be less deadly.

On the eight item manifesto, gun control folks, and myself, would point out that the whole agenda represents a misappprehension. You aren't safer because you have a gun in your pocket and the idea that you are is a scary one. I'm minded to recall one of Macnas's comments--that if you feel like you need a gun to be safe, you should think about moving, and, in the meantime, call the police. I've never carried a gun (never fired one, actually) and don't think I've been any less safe because of it. The idea that having one makes you safer seems both shortsighted and misguided to me. It's not like the self-defense situation arises often enough for you to deal with it effectively, armed or no.

That said, I don't think one can make an effective case for gun control under the constitution. But I don't think you should misstate the positions of those who support control. Kristof pointed out, in the article I mentioned, that controls were pretty much out of the question, and that if people who are concerned about guns are serious, they should focus on issues of safety, like gun locks and biometrics to not allow people other than the gun owner from using the gun.

386. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:41:08 AM

On your response to my 'manifesto'. A gun may help... a gun may fail to help... but I reserve the right to decide when/if I have access to one.

It's my decision though. I've been on the receiving end of enough close calls to want to reserve have a gun as an option... not something the government decides. There is a certain amount of time where if you call the police, they are not there... you are on your own. I know this because I have been in these situations. I work outside, far from 'help'. I do recreation outside, far from help. It's not for you or the government to discount these things. It's my decision.

I have friends who I am certain avoided certain harm if it had not been for their firearms.

Read the news items on the butter bar... people use guns for defense frequently. So there are situations where a gun can make the difference. These incidences apparently greatly outnumber accidents, actual murders.

But it's my decision.

I used to live in an area where I feel it was far more warranted. Not everyone has the luxury of moving away from places like these... sometimes trouble comes looking for you.

Be that as it may. Where I live now, I am not inclined to carry a firearm with me. I only feel the need when I'm out in the woods (where I am far from help), where dangers are more likely to entail a feral dog, or wild hog... and at home (where I have no where to retreat to).

Why do I need your validation as to how I respond to these risks? And far be it from me to tell someone else how they respond to their own personal circumstances.

387. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:44:12 AM

As long as the handle firearms in a responsible manner... and given that there are over 100,000,000 gun owners in this country... it is obvious that the vast... vast preponderance of them are no threat to themselves or anyone else.

388. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:48:31 AM

But I don't think you should misstate the positions of those who support control.

I'm not sure how I misstate the postions of the most vocal, and most significant lobby groups. Any time a gun control measure is brought forward, it's about "getting the guns out of the hands of criminals".

You show me something that states otherwise.

389. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:53:08 AM

and that if people who are concerned about guns are serious, they should focus on issues of safety, like gun locks and biometrics to not allow people other than the gun owner from using the gun.

I will counter by saing that gun owners are pretty concerned about safety... accidents are relatively rare compared to other types of accidents caused by things that are under far less scrutiny.

I will also counter that people who are concerned about gun violence should concentrate on the perpetrators who cause gun violence, rather than trying to pass laws that only affect the law-abiding citizens who are not the problem.

Much of this has been addressed up-thread... I am now uncertain how far back you've read.

390. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:56:02 AM

Most major proposals for gun control will not affect crime or accidents. If they do... please tell me the mechanism.

391. wabbit - 1/8/2005 1:08:23 AM

From the NYTimes Technology section: The computer circuits that control hand-held music players, cellphones and organizers may soon be in a new location: inside electronically controlled guns...

392. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:30:48 AM

I think so-called "smart" guns give people another option if the choose to arm themselves. I am personally wary of them. There is no substitute for training and safe handling... my worry is that smart guns trick people into thinking they're 'safe'.

If that makes someone feel better, then fine for them... but I would be against requiring that this be the only option out there. If you follow the basic rules, any quality firearm is safe.

393. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:38:32 AM

New Jersy & Smart Guns

It's a little disconcerting that 1) the police lobbied to be exempt from 'smart gun' requirements and 2) the state is exempt from lawsuits for forcing you to use a technology that is less reliable.

394. angel-five - 1/8/2005 2:34:50 AM

Most major proposals for gun control will not affect crime or accidents. If they do... please tell me the mechanism.

For every intruder shot and killed by a handgun, 43 innocent people will die as a result of gunshot wounds sustained in the home. People who have handguns in the house are three times more likely to be the victim of gun homicide, and six times more likely to die as the result of a gunshot, than people who don't. You are eight times more likely to be shot if you use a handgun in self defense in a robbery than if you do not resist. We spend more than four billion dollars a year treating gunshot victims, and an astonishing percentage of that tab is picked up by the public. Completed suicide attempts are five times more likely to occur in a house with guns.

I say this as a gun owner and a strong advocate for the second amendment. The arguments for gun control do NOT founder on safety issues. The math is straightforward and simple.

395. angel-five - 1/8/2005 2:38:29 AM

If you want to feel safer in the house and make yourself a whole lot less likely to be killed by an intruder, there is something you can buy that will drastically improve your odds.


(That'd be a dog).

396. wonkers2 - 1/8/2005 9:05:53 AM

AK-47 assault rifle for mass killings from a distance; handgun for up close work. Here

397. jayackroyd - 1/8/2005 10:31:39 AM

Any time a gun control measure is brought forward, it's about "getting the guns out of the hands of criminals".

All I've asked is for you to provide such a quote from an actual person. The people I've read who oppose the widespread availability of guns are concerned about safety, not crime. I've already offered kristof.

In that same piece, he pointed out that 2 kids, on average, died annually because they got locked into trunks of cars. Now cars are required to have a way to get out of the trunk from inside. Over 29,000 people died from the use of firearms in 2002. That would seem to be an issue that should raise public health concerns. And it argues against your 100 million gun owner position; there are many more auto owners, and two kids a year was considered an unacceptable fatality rate.

398. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 10:41:10 AM

Message # 394

If you look strictly at gun deaths... 3 times more likely... but that 'simple math' includes suicideds, which according to my 'complicated math' represent over 85% of those deaths.

It's not fair to include suicides when talking about defensive gun use.

How does registration, the assault weapons ban, or the Brady law prevent suicide?

399. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 10:42:07 AM

Message # 395

The best protection is a dog... and a gun.

400. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 10:51:31 AM

Wvidence... just listen to the rhetoric

They Are Back In Your Neighborhood Criminals With Assault Weapons (Barf Alert)

The 1994 assault-weapons ban has expired, and our nation is again vulnerable to guns known to most in the law enforcement community as "the weapons of choice for criminals."

401. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 10:52:37 AM

That is the language consistantly used when promoting a new 'common sense' gun control law. This rhetoric is pervasive.

402. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:05:13 AM

I'd prefer if you take any popular notion of gun control... and tell me how it makes me or anyone else safer.

"Gun locks" - Responsible people use these... people without kids don't need these... how are you going to enforce it anyway?

Assault Weapons Bans - A ban which is based soley on cosmetic features... not how lethal it is. About the only thing that might have something to do with anything is the high-capacity magazines... but even then... how does the capacity of the magaizne promote safety or prevent crime?

Registration/Licensing - "Treat guns like cars"... except we don't... my permit is only good in some states that have reciprocity with this state. We certainly don't treat guns like cars, and I don't think we're really willing to. Besides, what item do you keep in your house that you have to register? Nothing... and this is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. You really want authorities going into 100,000,000 homes to check for proper registration and storage? 400,000,000 guns in this country...

And how do these promote safety?

403. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:10:26 AM

You're right though... as I read the selected gun control groups on the butter bar... they're focusing on litigation right now.

Sueing manufacturers for criminal use of their products.

You will remember that during the last Congress the gun lobby pushed legislation that would have thrown gun violence victims out of court and created special legal rules that would prevent even the most reckless and irresponsible gun sellers from being held accountable.

But what are these irresponsible gun sellers doing? They're supplying criminals...

404. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:13:11 AM

When the government starts taking seriously punishing criminals then they can talk to me about 'common sense gun laws'

And if they know who these crooked suppliers are... they should prosecute them... not sue manufacturers.

405. Wombat - 1/8/2005 11:15:59 AM

I'd like to see gun owners have to hold insurance policies (as with cars). If gun owners are made responsible for the effects of their misuse--or failing to report a stolen gun--more gun owners would be as responsible as iiibbb claims to be. I am coming around to the idea of portablitiy of permits; but that will probably founder on state's rights issues.

I note that iiibbb is prone to think rather idealistically of his fellow gun owners in terms of how carefully they store and handle their firearms; when there are many examples of this not being the case.

406. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:17:08 AM

CITIES STRIKING BACK
AGAINST GUN SELLERS WHO ARM CRIMINALS Brady Campaign press release. - Focus on criminals.. not safety.

But I have no problem going after crooked sellers.

407. Wombat - 1/8/2005 11:18:37 AM

I might add that due to pressure from groups like the NRA, the state and federal legislators are not inclined to fund gun regulation enforcement, which--of course--makes it easier to violate gun regulations.

408. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:21:10 AM

NOW, WITH SIX HUNTERS DEAD,
WILL THE NRA TELL THE TRUTH
ABOUT MILITARY-STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS? Brady Press Release

But we quickly follow up with a bizzare assertion that it was the SKS that caused this crime. You do realize that it doesn't matter what kind of gun he was carrying... you can still shoot people with a hunting rifle.

The AWB might prevent the Wisconsin hunters from getting shot by an SKS... but certainly would not prevent them from getting murdered by a psychotic, yet it's because the AWB expired.

These people are full of it. How does an issolated event involving a psychotic have anything to do with anything.

409. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:24:55 AM

SKS costs ~ $170
Cheap hunting rifle costs ~ $350
Good hunting rifle costs ~$700

There are low-income hunters out there. A SKS can serve the purpose. A semi auto .270 is going to kill those Wisconsin hunters just as dead... a bolt action would've killed them just as dead. The Hmong guy was psychotic.

410. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:30:16 AM

407. Wombat - 1/8/2005 12:18:37 PM

I might add that due to pressure from groups like the NRA, the state and federal legislators are not inclined to fund gun regulation enforcement, which--of course--makes it easier to violate gun regulations.

The NRA funds a huge gun safety programs and hunter safety programs. They fund the Eddie the Eagle kid safety program. The spearheaded "project exile" which increases criminal penalties for commiting crimes with guns.

The Brady campaign sues gun manufactures... blaming them for gun violence.

Who's closer to reality here?

411. Wombat - 1/8/2005 11:34:52 AM

Is project exile ongoing? Is/was it carried out in more than a few pilot sites? Has it been funded on a nationwide level? If not is is window dressing, and does not address the chronic underfunding of gun regulation enforcement, which 2nd Amendment advocates then claim is ineffective.

412. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:42:06 AM

I am an idealist about my fellow gun owners... but I am trying to say that gun owners like me represent the VAST preponderance of gun owners. At least that they will store them in a manner appropriate for their homes.

There are under 1000 "accidental" deaths caused by firearms (the yr 2000 number was 600)

Compare tht to other accidents

Message # 214.

16,000/yr people die from falls per year in the US.
19,000/yr people die from accidental poisonings
43,000/yr people die from automobile accidents.

Relative to these other accidents it just doesn't justify the level of attention guns seem to get.

400,000/yr from smoking
480,000/yr from heart disease

There is no parity. Throw into the mix that this gun rights are constituionally guaranteed and I just can't figure it out.

413. Wombat - 1/8/2005 11:43:04 AM

I might add that such claims are as intellectually dishonest as anything put out by gun control organizations, and am sorry that you fail to recognize that.

414. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:54:23 AM

Message # 411

The NRA is at least trying to address target criminal behavior. The NRA trains firearms instructors. The NRA recognizes there are other ways to lower your personal risk.

Gun control's focus is on suing gun manufacturers. Does it make sense to sue Lowes when an axe is used in a murder or crime? Do we sue Ford because of drunk drivers. Yet people who think this is wrong are called "extremist".

415. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 11:58:19 AM

Message # 413

How is it intelectually dishonest? No more dihonest than people who talk about gun deaths, but ignore suicides. Emphsize the number of gun deaths, while ignoring the number of defensive gun uses, and ignoring the risks that present a far greater risk.

416. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 12:01:54 PM

I'm not trying to be dishonest... I'm just trying to put things in perspective.

For this country to say "All these gun deaths are horrible... therefore we will enact X Y Z", which represent dispropotionate burdens on law-abiding gun owners.

Yet not respond in kind to drunk driving... smoking... etc.

Even worse ignoring the fact that guns do prevent crime.

Perspective please.

417. jayackroyd - 1/8/2005 1:16:28 PM

Actually there has been an intensive and pretty effective anti smoking campaign going on, and drunk driving has also been markedly reduced by government and nonprofit efforts. Banning smoking essentially everywhere indoors (and sometimes outdoors) in New York has had a marked effect. Drunk driving seems to be down to as low a level as can be attained by minimizing drunken driving by social drinkers.

But so what? 29,000 people were killed by guns in 2002. That's not a number we should be concerned about? Suicides don't count? We shouldn't be concerned about suicides?

Ladders have warnings about standing on their top step. Coffee containers have warnings about the dangers of hot liquids. Aspirin bottles have caps that keep kids from opening them. And guns can be left loaded, round in the chamber in night tables. Perspective, please, indeed.

418. jayackroyd - 1/8/2005 1:19:18 PM

but I am trying to say that gun owners like me represent the VAST preponderance of gun owners. At least that they will store them in a manner appropriate for their homes.

I've never understood how you can square that claim with the claim that guns prevent crime. I know a guy who owns a few guns--in his garage in locked cases, ammo inside in a safe. I agree that his gun ownership represents safe, responsible practice. But it means that he can't get to the gun to protect his homestead. He uses an alarm that rings at the police station equipped with motion detectors for that purpose. How can you use a weapon safely, and use it for self defense?

419. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:21:00 PM

The method of suicide is irrelevant. Address the causes of suicide... address the causes of crime.

But please tell me how the most common propposed gun control legilation prevents crime or prevents suicides. How's the number of rounds the magazine going to hold prevent someone from mugging me, or prevent someone from killing themselves?

420. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:25:58 PM

as far as how are guns used in self defense... see Message # 67

Follow the butter bar DGU link.

The estimates are that guns are used in self defense between 100,000 and 2 million times a year in this country. Most of these gun owners also apparently recognize that you aren't required to pull the trigger.

421. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:27:40 PM

It's nice that your friend can afford an alarm system.

I'm also sure that he'll be fine in the 5 to 30 minutes it takes for the cops to get there.

I know the cops follow me everywhere to make sure no one hurts me.

422. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:29:24 PM

I willing to defer to the cops once they get here... but I've had my close calls... cops were nowhere.

423. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:30:11 PM

Cops respond to crimes... they investigate after the fact... how often to they actually stop a crime in progress?

424. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:33:58 PM

A gun is no different than a first aid kit, or a fire extinguisher.

And if you think that your neightbor having a gun doesn't enhance your safety... put a sign on your house saying "proud to be a gun-free home"

425. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:38:08 PM

Message # 418

For those who choose to have them, there are safes that provide open quickly with a code and provide instant access to a firearm.

There are so many variables from home to home that it doesn't make sense for the government to legislate how firearms are stored. It's up to the adults living in the house to decide what the appropriate method is.

I've got no kids in my home... My guns are not secured like your friend's.

426. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:45:30 PM

An example where even a locked up and secured gun can provide for your security... the aftermath of Huricane Andrew

In fact, it seems clear that the last thing Americans want these days is to be caught unprepared to defend themselves in a crisis. Compare the Los Angeles riots, where only armed Korean grocers were able to defend themselves, with the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, where looting was virtually nonexistent because South Floridians were armed to the teeth. In both cases, the police were powerless to protect people. Americans seem to have learned an important lesson from these events that gun controllers refuse to face: in times of crisis, you are on your own.

And before you say so-what... I've been in one of these situations where the gov't wasn't in control. I lived in a bad neighborhood... and while all hell didn't break lose... the police were busy handling a hurricane evacuation. It's pretty easy for you to sit wherever you are and tell me what I should consider a real risk or not... but you simply are not in a position to make that decision for me... and neither is the government.

427. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:50:14 PM

Message # 172

Violent crimes have happen 1.2 to 1.9 million times a year in this country. How are you in a position to evaluate my partular risk from day to day.

I'm the only one who can evaluate this.

428. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 1:59:16 PM

Poisoning the Well
The creators of new gun control laws often admit that they will not have a significant impact on crime, yet they are always lauded as "a step in the right direction." Which direction would that be? Here's a clue: The anti-gun lobby stridently proclaims that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights. Since even the NRA says the amendment allows reasonable regulation, the only reason to attack it is if the eventual goal is complete firearms prohibition.

Advocates of civilian gun ownership have learned the hard way that bargaining with an adversary whose goal is your extinction is called appeasement. Giving up something of value to satisfy your enemy just encourages him to come back for more.
--------------
It has never been proven that restrictive gun laws of any kind have ever reduced crime, suicides or accidents. Crime, in fact, often increases as gun laws are tightened. By pursuing more laws while ignoring the glaring failure of similar laws, the gun controllers appear to have a sinister motive beyond simple public safety.
------------------------
The gun control lobby also has a serious penchant for ad hominem attacks. They have attempted to portray gun owners as sociopaths who don't care about human life. Scholars whose research contradicted anti-gun assumptions were subjected to name-calling and character assassination.

One result of these dishonorable tactics was the founding of several new gun rights groups that are much more radical than the NRA. They are well positioned to fight any attempt at compromise.

This poisoned well is the sad legacy of an intense effort to win an ideological struggle at all costs. Until something happens to soften decades of ill will, the chances of the two sides sitting down together and agreeing to anything are nil.

429. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 2:09:02 PM

Jay... I find that I am confused about where you actually stand.

What is your vision?... I don't mean a "world peace" Miss universe answer. If you don't beleive that gun rights are individual rights... how do you explain the 200 year legacy of individual firearms ownership? We had it wrong for 200 years?

430. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 2:22:40 PM

Canadian Defensive Gun Use

Between 60,000 and 80,000 per year against dangerous animals or persons.

"Policy makers in both the United States and in Canada should be aware that the private ownership of firearms has both benefits as well as costs for society. Firearms bans may cost more lives than they save."

And it's not just about saving lives... victims should not have to suffer physical harm such as rape.

431. judithathome - 1/8/2005 2:37:55 PM

So who was it just the other day saying this discussion was winding down? ;-)

432. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 2:45:37 PM

I realize that my viewpoint doesn't necessarily lead to a perfect society... I am not striving for perfection because it's not attainable...

but I'm uncertain ... unconvinced... that gun control would do what its proponents advertise and make society any better.

I certainly beleive that the guns I own have a purpose in my life. Primarily recreation... but also defense.

I don't think that everyone needs to be carrying a gun. I only maintain that it's a personal choice as to whether you carry one and what is an acceptable risk... assuming you are responsible, I have no problem with people making these decisions for themselves.

Will a gun help you?... The answer to this question is of course ... "maybe, maybe not".

Which is why I'm not comfortable with the government dictating the terms. Adults should decide for themselves if they want something like that or not.

Where I live now, I don't see the need around my town, and frankly it's a bit of a liability (see, a gun owner making a responsible decision). I do carry pepper spray. If I were back in some of my old cities... I think I would carry sometimes (I wasn't a gun owner back then, and did find myself walking around the city at night)

I'm only an advocate of choice. Guns can save you, or they can fail to help you. It's a choice I feel belongs at the personal level... not with government... especially when government can't guarantee our protection... espcially when government doesn't take the laws it already has seriously.

Do a search on how many prosecutions have been made for violations of the Brady Bill (background checks). It may be easiest to ban guns (recognizing that only the law-abiding would comply), just like it's easiest for the government to tap our phones without a warrant to stop terrorism... but both are at the cost of civil liberty. Cures that are potentially more dangerous than the disease.

433. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 2:49:15 PM

Message # 431

You were right :)

Of course.... I've been very bad at work because of this :)

Ever since I graduated I've been suffering a big let-down in motivation. I don't know if it's normal for most PhDs or not. It does seem that the let-down has gone on a little too long now.

434. judithathome - 1/8/2005 3:10:27 PM

We're having dinner with a friend who just got his Master's in linguistics...he is in all sorts of moods lately. Manic AND depressive.

435. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:17:23 PM

If you look strictly at gun deaths... 3 times more likely... but that 'simple math' includes suicideds, which according to my 'complicated math' represent over 85% of those deaths.

No, iiibbb, that 'simple math' does not include suicides. The three times more likely figure is by gun homicide. The six times more likely figure reflects accidents. The figure including suicides is not 3 or 6. It's 43.

You can say anything you like, but what owning a handgun does to your survival statistics is unequivocal and easy to read. Having one around makes you a whole lot more likely to die from a gunshot wound.

436. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:35:00 PM

"Gun locks" - Responsible people use these... people without kids don't need these... how are you going to enforce it anyway?

Oh, bullshit. I'm sorry, iiibbb, but there are a whole lot of responsible gun owners who don't use the locks. If 'responsible' gun owners already used the damn things then they wouldn't be so upset about the legislation. The facts are otherwise. And as far as enforcement -- well, how do you enforce the prohibition on sawed off shotguns? When you encounter one, you make the arrest. That's pretty damned simple. Similarly, if someone encounters a non-locked handgun in a circumstance where the gun should be locked, that's when the cite is issued. But according to you responsible people use them anyway, right? So it shouldn't be a problem?

Assault Weapons Bans - A ban which is based soley on cosmetic features... not how lethal it is.

Well, I agree so far as to say that a hunting rifle is potentially a lot more dangerous than a typical 'assault weapon' and that the definition of an assault weapon can be pretty loose. But these aren't 'cosmetic' features. Having a flash suppressor isn't 'cosmetic'. The capacity for dual fire modes isn't 'cosmetic'. Fire rate isn't 'cosmetic' and neither is clip capacity and neither is concealability. I have posted the legal definitions in the Mote of an assault weapon and I think it's silly to focus in on them, but statements like the one you made above are not just silly, but they're pernicious as well.

437. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 3:37:27 PM

Encorporate into your statistics the likelyhood that I also will not get knifed, mugged, robbed, or beaten.

actual kill:kill ratio you might be right... but then again, maybe home-owners are slightly less willing to kill someone and hold off pulling the trigger... instead opting to let the criminal escape.

Defensive gun uses between 100,000 and 2 million times per year.

438. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:38:04 PM

The fact of the matter is that there are a whole host of things which fall into the language of the second amendment which we nevertheless see the need to regulate. You don't get to have Rolands or cyclic-rate weapons.

Besides, what item do you keep in your house that you have to register? Nothing... and this is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

Registration does not constitute an infringement. You cannot be deprived of your right to keep and bear a firearm by a registration law.

Having said that -- there are a whole host of items that people have in their houses that must be legally obtained and/or registered through a governmental agency. Prescription drugs are illegal to possess without the writ of a prescription. Broadcast equipment is regulated. Access to the telecommunications and power grid is regulated. Automobiles are regulated. Heating and cooling equipment must be certified. Hell, your entire abode can be condemned if it isn't up to codes. Do you wish more examples?

439. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 3:40:29 PM

When you encounter one, you make the arrest. That's pretty damned simple. Similarly, if someone encounters a non-locked handgun in a circumstance where the gun should be locked, that's when the cite is issued. But according to you responsible people use them anyway, right? So it shouldn't be a problem?

That's a subjective decision... when should a gun be locked?

According to me, responsible people use them when necessary... not that they use them. There are times, places, and homes where a locked gun isn't required for safety.

440. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:45:33 PM

Encorporate into your statistics the likelyhood that I also will not get knifed, mugged, robbed, or beaten.

Okay, this is the point where I tell you to go back and read the post I made in the first place, iiibbb, because I did incorporate that likelihood. People who use violent means to 'defend' themselves from robbery are... well, you can go and read it. How many more times likely are they to end up dead than someone who does not resist? Get back to me on that.

There is a very good reason why so many people, so many agencies, from the police, to the NRA, to self-defense instructors, will tell you that self-defense is the absolute last resort and only to be used in immediate defense of your safety against someone who is clearly and obviously intent on causing you bodily harm. People with your mindset are actually the reason why having a gun makes you three times more likely to be the victim of homicide.

441. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 3:46:14 PM

The capacity for dual fire modes isn't 'cosmetic'.

Duel fire modes? Fully automatic weapons are already controlled under other laws. The AWB was useless.

Concelability has nothing to do with the AWB. I've already stated that pistols are the best tool for the ranges where defensive gun uses are used and lethal force is justified. A DGU doesn't mean picking off the mugger from 100 yrds.

442. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:50:10 PM

That's a subjective decision... when should a gun be locked?


They're all subjective decisions, iiibbb. But that wasn't what you asked. You asked how it'd be enforced. I answered. Now suddenly you have a different question?


Well, it's answered just as easily. You arbitrarily choose the parameters based on an analysis of when most gun accidents occur, comparing it to how much of an infringement it would be in each of those circumstances, and arrive at something like 'trigger locks are on when the gun is in the home or in transit to a recreational location, unless they are CC registered'.

443. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:52:10 PM

Duel fire modes? Fully automatic weapons are already controlled under other laws. The AWB was useless.

Concelability has nothing to do with the AWB.

This is the point where I go and tell you to actually read the regulation. Dual fire capability and concealability issues like folding stock, break-barrel, pistol-grip handle mods absolutely are included in the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon under federal law.

444. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:55:15 PM

By the way, if you think 'dual fire mode' means the weapon can go 'fully automatic' then you really should just flat out do a whole lot more reading, not just of the bill itself.

Fully automatic weapons are indeed kept out of the hands of civilians. But dual fire doesn't mean you can choose between full auto and single shot. It usually means you can choose between burst fire and full auto, or burst fire and single shot. A weapon which can go to all three modes isn't known as 'dual fire mode'. The assault weapons ban focuses on weapons which have a selective fire mode between single shot and burst fire, as any weapon with full auto fire mode is already covered by federal law.

445. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 3:55:59 PM

Transit laws already exist. Locked in the trunk, ammo seperate. Unless you have a handgun permit for your state. Some states are more stringent for their citizens, some have allowances for putting them in a glovebox.

However, the US Code also covers this.

from the US Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926A Prev | Next

§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Release date: 2004-08-06

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

446. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 3:57:59 PM

Fully automatic weapons are indeed kept out of the hands of civilians. But dual fire doesn't mean you can choose between full auto and single shot. It usually means you can choose between burst fire and full auto, or burst fire and single shot. A weapon which can go to all three modes isn't known as 'dual fire mode'. The assault weapons ban focuses on weapons which have a selective fire mode between single shot and burst fire, as any weapon with full auto fire mode is already covered by federal law.

These weapons are goverend under different laws. You can get a class III license to own them.

Civilians can only own single shot or semi-automatic without special licenses.

447. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:58:17 PM

I've already stated that pistols are the best tool for the ranges where defensive gun uses are used and lethal force is justified.

I don't know what makes you say such a thing and how you decide what's 'best'. I would certainly rather rely upon a twelve gauge for home defense than a handgun, and I know a lot of people think the same as I do, but perhaps it's just another 'subjective' thing.

448. angel-five - 1/8/2005 3:59:52 PM

You do get that there's a difference between 'interstate transit' and 'transit', right? And not just in the physicalities -- it's also very important in determining what bodies of government have authority to issue such rules.

449. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 4:04:00 PM

Message # 447

I know the value of the shotgun, but I'm not just talking about home defense... I'm talking about going out into the world as well.

Not everyone can control a shotgun. I think if someone is going to use a weapon, they should use something they can control, and they feel comfortable having/using.

450. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 4:06:57 PM

Message # 443

The AWB was useless. It didn't reduce crime it didn't do anything it was advertised to do. Laws should be mechanistic... not because someone thinks folding stocks should be outlawed. People backpack into the wilderness, and may decide that something with a folding stock best suits their purpose.

You might as well ban fast cars because they can do 150 MPH.

451. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 4:07:50 PM

Ban red cars... ban cars with spoilers... ban cars with turbo.

452. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 4:17:31 PM

Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban).

The 1994 ban expired at 12:01am on Monday, September 13, 2004. Regardless of whether you oppose or support gun control, it was mostly symbolic in nature.

Be sure and take the Assault Weapons Challenge

453. judithathome - 1/8/2005 4:54:25 PM

Where the heck do you live that it is so dangerous to go out? My god, I live in Texas, where people can carry concealed weapons, and I am not nearly as pessimistic about my fellow man as you seem to be!

454. iiibbb - 1/8/2005 5:06:06 PM

Easier to be pessimistic based on experiences I guess. I'm not paranoid though... I merely prefer being the one who decides for myself. I'm unfortunately not in Jay's freind position where I can unload a lot of money on an alarm system with direct connection to the police. I don't live in a place where I can really have a dog either. Soon I hope.. I do think a dog is a good thing.

As I said... there only specific situations that I personally would even want to carry. But far be it from me to tell someone else who or what they should worry about. It's not my place to tell them.

But I've been on the receiving end of violence... and based on that I easily visualize greater violence.

I practice, I just try to be aware of my surroundings... in the town I live in, the risk is very low... although a woman was dragged into a alley, beaten, and raped. They caught the guy... but didn't help her at the time.

455. angel-five - 1/9/2005 2:49:54 AM

As I said... there only specific situations that I personally would even want to carry. But far be it from me to tell someone else who or what they should worry about. It's not my place to tell them.

I don't care about what people worry about, merely what they do. And I think it is very easy to demonstrate that someone's right to haul around a semiautomatic pistol in their waistband has a definite effect on my safety. Society has a compelling interest where guns are involved -- this doesn't mean society's needs must always trump personal freedom, but it's foolish to pretend that your 'right' to carry a concealed weapon has no effect on me whatsoever.

This is to say that no one can regulate your thoughts or what you think you need to feel safe, but they certainly can regulate your actions. And they do, every day, many, many times. It's how society works.

456. angel-five - 1/9/2005 2:50:17 AM

I am supremely uninterested in hearing someone defend concealed carry laws based on 'my right to defend myself' for two reasons. The first is that all our statistics show that just having that handgun just makes it much more likely that you'll be the victim of a homicide, much more likely to accidently injure yourself, and much more likely to provoke someone to use lethal force against you first. The second is that there is zero evidence that concealed carry laws do deter violent crime. All they do is let scared people feel like they're safer, at the cost of making everyone less safe.

I'm with Macnas on this one. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't believe you have the right to haul around a pistol because you can envision someone being violent to you. There are much saner ways to be safe. I can hear you right now -- 'You can't tell me that I'm not safer if someone comes to beat me up or rob me and I have a handgun'. Well, yes, I can. You might think you're safer, envisioning that the presence of the handgun is going to deter someone from messing with you. But the numbers say that you're just a lot more likely to get shot where you would have just gotten robbed, and for every person that successfully defends themselves with a handgun, several die or injure themselves or another innocent person.

The bottom line, though, is that I don't care whether you're safer or feel you are. If your means of making yourself feel safe makes my life more dangerous, you had best believe I expect a say in what you're trying to do.

457. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:12:00 AM

Apparently the majority of states (31) agree with me on concealed carry laws and are shall issue. Besides... why should someone who is a law-abiding citizen have to justify it? The state should justify why you cannot.

Concealed is more polite, it's more likely to make the gun effective for self defense... and you are continuing to ignore the successful use of weapons for self defense... chosing to instead fixate on the number of deaths.

458. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:21:16 AM

concealed carry essay.

459. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:28:23 AM

34 states "shall issue"
10 states "may issue"
6 states "no issue"

460. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:31:13 AM

Concealed Carry Statistics

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).


The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000). Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

461. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:31:19 AM

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

462. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:34:28 AM

Note the last one Angle-5... defensive gun uses are less likely to result in a fatality. This explains your 'more likely to harm you than the criminal' fixation. We don't actually want to hurt anyone... can't say the same for the criminal.

463. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 11:18:58 AM

concealed carry essay

464. PelleNilsson - 1/9/2005 11:53:39 AM

"This information is presented as a service to the Internet community by the NRA/ILA."

465. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 12:09:40 PM

Added Violence Policy Center link to butter bar.

Some interesting stuff on the .50 cal Wonkers... you're probably right that it should be regulated under the fereral firearms act.

466. wonkers2 - 1/9/2005 12:19:19 PM

Scary report on the .50 caliber sniper rifle. I'm glad we can agree on that one.

467. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 6:04:14 PM

60 minutes is doing the 50 cal tonight... 7pm after the game I guess.

468. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 7:39:56 PM

Saw the segment... 60 minutes was surprisingly even handed about it. Each side had its points.

I dunno... my limit lies somewhere around this rifle.

The airplane risk is apparently a little overblown, although there are other risks they didn't bring up. The 'bad' ammo is apparently already under a strong ban. The guy also wouldn't be able to support his business without civilian sales.

469. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 7:49:43 PM

An assortment of data


* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for: Murder 10.0 years, Rape 7.6 years, Aggravated Assault 3.4 years.

* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (3)

* When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (3)

470. wonkers2 - 1/9/2005 9:32:54 PM

I wonder if the 11% who used their weapons for protection means that they actually encountered criminals or simply means that they kept it in thier home or car or on their person for protection from criminals? I find it very hard to believe that 11 % of all gun owners actually encountered a criminal and protected themself with their gun. I could qualify under a loose definition (I have two unloaded guns stored in the basement).

471. wonkers2 - 1/9/2005 9:36:15 PM

The fact that the source of the statistic was a 1999 National Rifle Association "fact card" inclines me toward the looser interpretation!

472. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 9:54:37 PM

I suspect it's based on on the 800,000 defensive gun uses per year that guy quoted... over some period of 10-15 years that will come out to be around 10-15% of the 100,000,000 total gun owners.

What counts as a DGU under Kleck's 2 million number is pretty loose, and pretty much relies on survey data, not police reports. I'm not sure where this guy got the 800,000. If you assume the low estimate of 200,000 DGU's/yr then maybe the 11% is high...

but it appears to be in the ballpark overall.

473. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 10:44:25 PM

Something else 60 minutes had wrong... or distorted. They were talking about the background check data being destroyed after 24 hrs (instead of 90 days). This does not irradicate all records of the sale. The transfer is still recorded in the dealers books that they are required to keep for the ATF. they are very strict about these books and record-keeping.

474. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 10:45:13 PM

So, if they want to investigate someone... there are records that have all the info that the forms did.

475. iiibbb - 1/9/2005 10:46:39 PM

50 cal article.

476. angel-five - 1/10/2005 12:00:11 AM

Concealed is more polite, it's more likely to make the gun effective for self defense... and you are continuing to ignore the successful use of weapons for self defense... chosing to instead fixate on the number of deaths.

I haven't ignored the successful use of weapons for self defense. It is the main point of several of the statistics -- a direct comparison between people with a successful outcome and people with an unsuccessful outcome when they try to defend themselves with a handgun. There is also the direct comparison between people who have shot an intruder, compared to the number of people who get shot, accidently or intentionally, by a handgun they own, or a weapon in the hands of an intruder.

I don't want to descend into obloquy because this is an interesting discussion, but you really do need to start reading and comprehending the posts to which you're replying. People do take some care to accurately frame and ground their statements. Have a little respect for their efforts; read the damn things right.

477. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 12:28:08 AM

respectfully trying to...

I see it to be more than just the casualty and body count. Someone doesn't have to die for it to be a "success"... that's the only thing I'm trying to get accross.

478. angel-five - 1/10/2005 12:30:32 AM

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

For starters. The rates haven't dropped 21%. They have dropped 2.2%. The 21% piece of crap comes from the NRA -- Florida's murder rate in that time went from 10.5 to 8.3 per 100000 citizens.

The second thing worth mentioning is that Florida is one example. As you mention, 31 states have concealed carry laws. Most of them have seen increasing murder rates despite this fact. The statistics from Dade County in that time record three instances in which a permit holder used his weapon successfully to ward off a crime. (And three other attempts which were unsuccessful). You can cite someone else's cite of someone else's cite of a correlative stat all you want, but showing causation is another matter.

Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

Please. Not this again. The source for this number was one study done about ten years ago that queried five thousand gun owners. It had vague language and a political bias.

Note the last one Angle-5... defensive gun uses are less likely to result in a fatality. This explains your 'more likely to harm you than the criminal' fixation.

You have no basis in reality to say that, as you have no real number of self defense uses nationwide, and you're conflating harm and fatality in a pretty addled way anyway. BTW, if it's a fixation it's one that's reflected in the facts and has been since we first started compiling them. Your fixations, OTOH, reflect the NRA website (verbatim, in most cases) but unfortunately don't have such a factual reflection.

479. angel-five - 1/10/2005 12:41:24 AM

Let me say once more that I believe in the second amendment; I own firearms, I come from a long line of people who do, I was trained in their use at a very young age. There is (or at least used to be) a big stack of used targets in the house I grew up in, with v-rings full of holes. I don't believe that we should make it harder to own a gun. I could go on and on. I'm just saying all this to frame the debate, especially when you're going on about 'fixations' -- I believe in all these things but I think most of the concealed carry laws are crap and the justifications for them are even worse. I think they are driven by fear, and the idea people have that they can overcome it by walking around strapped. I think they make society more dangerous. I think the act of pulling a gun in self defense makes you a whole lot more likely to die in the next few seconds than if you act sensibly. And I think the episodes where people are set upon by someone who is just intending to do them in are, despite our fear-mongering culture, very rare. If there was a rash of people getting shot up by roving gangs of thugs for no reason all across America, senseless random murders where uninvolved people are just getting capped for no reason, I could see the need to walk around armed. But, fuck, I mean, Detroit ain't even like that anymore.

480. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 1:15:14 AM

ok... enough to say the benefit or cost of gun control laws and carry laws are convoluded to say the least. At least that's what the NSF report that started this thread concluded.

Then it becomes a gun-control approach vs. a civil libertarian approach... given that there is conflicting data... I beleive it's up to the individual to evaluate how this data affects their life and their situation... and you live with your decision.

481. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 1:15:20 AM

I can think of scenarios in my life where a gun does make me safe... I've noted them. I don't carry in general. My main reason for having a permit is to protect me from harassment by a police officer who might decide my method of transport isn't kosher. Cops don't always know the law.

I just have a hard time taking gun control seriously while the government doesn't take violent crime seriously (* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for: Murder 10.0 years, Rape 7.6 years, Aggravated Assault 3.4 years.) and treats the law abiding like this Message # 383.

Especially if the assumption is that I'm going to go out and do horrible things, or behaive in an illegal manner, I'm going to resist.

Registration sounds reasonable... but the AWB shows that gun control advocates aren't always interested in what's reasonable. I personally don't blame gun owners for their distrust. Who's to say that after you register a weapon that's legal today, won't be declared illegal tomorrow for nothing other than cosmetic features. This change in outlook by gun owners is reflected in the lobbying expenditures link on the butter bar.

I hate resorting to the stats because it's so hard to get numbers anyone agrees on. My fallback is to my 'manifesto' and my stong civil libertarian attitudes.

Gotta go for tonight... have a good one.

482. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 1:22:30 AM

One last thought... one thing the government could do to help would standardize when lethal force is justified. It isn't consistant from state to state. The lack of consistancy about when a citizen can defend themsleves and the confusion this leads to probably lowers safety as the guns themselves.

483. angel-five - 1/10/2005 1:57:13 AM

Then it becomes a gun-control approach vs. a civil libertarian approach... given that there is conflicting data... I beleive it's up to the individual to evaluate how this data affects their life and their situation... and you live with your decision.

Translated: 'Then it becomes a gun control approach versus a civil libertarian approach. Given that there is conflicting data, I believe we should take the civil libertarian approach'.

I can think of scenarios in my life where a gun does make me safe... I've noted them.

I can envision falling from an airplane without a parachute and surviving. I can envision living to 100 smoking two packs of Luckies a day. These things happen. Does that mean it's safer, on average, to jump out of an airplane sans parachute or smoke 40 unfiltered tar bombs every 24 hours, compared to not doing it?

Another way to say this is that what you can 'envision' doesn't impress me so much if you can't make it match facts. If I were envisioning how cocaine could make me unstoppable and bulletproof your riposte might well be 'but you aren't'. Well, the stats don't lie. You can envision yourself being safer in some narrow circumstance and in some narrow way, but at the end of the day, the stats say you're much less safe.

484. Macnas - 1/10/2005 3:57:46 AM

You know, I find it kind of disturbing that a court would deem guns as tools in the same light as hammers and screwdrivers.

A hammer is a tool specifically designed and manufactured for getting nails into wood. A screwdriver is a tool specifically designed and manufactured for getting screws into wood etc.

Both items, like most other handtools, could, if the will was there, be used to injure or kill someone. In that case it would be an unintended use being made possible by certain aspects of design.

A gun is specifically designed and manufactured for the killing of animals, humans, and hitting targets. If I had to live off the land for some reason, and had to hunt to feed myself and family, then I might consider a gun a tool. But I don't, so I won't. If you use a gun to injure or kill someone, then you are using it in the way it intended.

What about target shooting then? I may break some clays now and then. It's good practise. I may punch some paper when the mood takes me, that's good practise too. But I use my guns primarily for killing game animals, the clay and target shooting is just me practising for that.

Tools/shmools, if you carry a gun for self-defence, it is not a carpenters utility belt you are wearing.

485. angel-five - 1/10/2005 3:59:45 AM

Registration sounds reasonable... but the AWB shows that gun control advocates aren't always interested in what's reasonable. I personally don't blame gun owners for their distrust.

And you think the language of the assault weapons ban was something the 'gun control advocates' just strolled in and dropped on the desk, as-is?

The wording of that ban and the odd distinctions aren't there because gun control advocates thought pistol grips looked scary, dude. They're there because the NRA and the gun industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying, changing the language, opening loopholes, making case by case arguments about how exclusion X would force them to shut down plant Y and so on.

The fact that a bunch of post-ban guns hit the streets later with Rube Goldberged up 'cosmetic' changes that weren't very different at all from banned guns isn't the fault of gun control advocates. It happened because the gun industry sat down and designed the assault-weapon equivalents of 'designer drugs' that could squeak around the law, using loopholes they'd negotiated long and hard for, for precisely that purpose. Blaming gun control advocates for the post-ban guns is just flat out ridiculous.

I appreciate that you have strong convictions on the issue of the second amendment and the right to carry, but you're spouting boilerplate tripe. I mean, come on. Gun advocates don't fear gun control policies because the ban on assault weapons focused on unimportant facets of gun construction, for fuck's sake. They fear it, even when it's reasonable, for two very basic and simple reasons -- they think that any gun control measure is a thin edge of the wedge, and if they agree to it now they'll set up a precedent, and they're worried that registration lists will enable future governments to quickly and easily disarm its citizens.

486. angel-five - 1/10/2005 4:01:01 AM

People who rally around the second amendment's supposed inviolability do not grasp the fundamental nature of how the Constitution works today, anyway. The concept of free speech is much more central to the US paradigm than gun ownership, and it's certainly been more important to the maintenance of our freedoms over the last 200 years than a 'well-regulated militia' has.

Yet the USSC has recognized for hundreds of years that the supposed right to free speech in our country has sharply defined limits. Where it can be deemed that the potential cost to free speech outweighs the benefit of it, the USSC has consistently ruled against free speech, in dozens of different ways.

Well, the same is true of the second amendment, in practice, and it's been that way since it was first penned. Your right to keep and bear arms is very important, according to the Constitution, but the USSC and civil law have recognized for centuries that there are cases where it isn't the most important factor at hand. The state has a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens and its ability to maintain order. If you want to own a gun for the reasons made manifest in the Second Amendment, you can deal with those restrictions.

487. alistairconnor - 1/10/2005 7:07:15 AM

iii :
I just have a hard time taking gun control seriously while the government doesn't take violent crime seriously (* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for: Murder 10.0 years, Rape 7.6 years, Aggravated Assault 3.4 years.)

I wouldn't worry so much about that, I'd worry more about this:

(from uour "facts" site :)
As of 1992, for about every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison.

If that is accurate, it implies a less than 10% resolution rate for violent crimes. It certainly makes the desire to own a gun more understandable.

488. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 8:56:31 AM

Message # 483

Let me upgrade the word "envision" then. I've been in situations where I strongly feel would have been better off armed.

I have had firends who have been in situations where a gun has helped them.

And yes... given that the data is muddled, my default is the civil libertarian one. I don't think they should ban smoking either... even though I'm not stupid enough to do it.

489. Wombat - 1/10/2005 8:57:24 AM

Alistair:

The figure has nothing to do with cases resolved, but with cases ajudicated. By the time pleas are negotiated, first offenders are sentenced to probation or fined for less serious offences (which make up the bulk of these cases), or are sentenced to time served prior to the sentence, the 10% rate does not appear unreasonable. I would also point out that statistics published in 1992 do not reflect changes in crime rates and ajudication of crime that may have played a role in the large decreases in crime over the last decade-and-a-half.

490. alistairconnor - 1/10/2005 8:59:29 AM

Interesting parallel...


Smokers have lost a lot of freedom in recent years. It's hard to smoke in a public place.

There is no doubt at all that it's successful as a public health measure; lives will be saved by such restrictions, but there is a cost in freedom.

491. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:13:37 AM

Message # 485 If the AWB was worded poorly because of the lobbying and editing efforts of the NRA, why did the Democrats vote for it nearly exclusively, and the Republicans not? If the NRA was behind setting the AWB up for failure, you'd think the voting would've been the other way around.

The gun industry "got around" the laws because the laws weren't based on capability... they were based on BS. So-called assault weapons are used in a whopping 1% of crime... both before and after the AWB went into effect.

I do think that Gun Control advocates got greedy and sloppy with the AWB. Most people don't disagree with the Brady background checks (although the government still doesn't proscecute hardly anyone who violates it). Add to that people like Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Feinstein, or Geraldo, who publicly demonize gun owners, but use guns to protect themselves in private.

Gun-control has lost their credibility, and yes... now gun-rights people look at every proposal as a wedge... and yes, it probably contributed to why Democrats lost control congress mid-way through the 90's

Tough.

492. alistairconnor - 1/10/2005 9:15:33 AM

Message # 489 OK, that's much as I suspected : that "facts" site compiles numbers to support a particular narrative.


When I read the page through to the end, I understood : it's all about this "militia" business.

Here's something I don't understand : if the US Constitution confers the right to citizens to bear arms, as constituting a militia... then, since it explicitly refers to a "well-regulated militia", which doesn't seem to exist...

... then strictly speaking, those who claim the right to bear arms as part of this implicit "militia", which is manifestly anything but "well-regulated", ought to support the organisation of said militia, for example with compulsory drill sessions for all owners of firearms.

493. Wombat - 1/10/2005 9:19:10 AM

My impression of the defensive gun use statistics is that they are dubious for a number of reasons: they are self-reported, and they are based on a perception of threat (person carrying is walking down a street at night, three blacks walk toward that person, person puts hand in pocket, three blacks walk on by) that exists only in the mind of the person carrying.

494. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:21:56 AM

"People who rally around the second amendment's supposed inviolability do not grasp the fundamental nature of how the Constitution works today,"

I think people fully grasp the nature of how the Constitution works today.

And just like there are types of speech that aren't allowed despite the 1st ammendment, there are also types of things you might do with a gun that are not allowed despite the 2nd ammendment.

You don't respond to inappropriate speech by banning books.

But yelling "fire" in a theater isn't analogous for banning handguns. Banning the word "fire" is analogous.

Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't illegal if there's actually a fire.

495. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:26:24 AM

Here's something I don't understand : if the US Constitution confers the right to citizens to bear arms, as constituting a militia... then, since it explicitly refers to a "well-regulated militia", which doesn't seem to exist...

Point of fact... the constitution does not "confer" rights... it acknowleges rights the citizens have in spite of them being written on paper.

I suggest you read the number of semantical arguments Message # 384 or there are several in the butter bar... the Emerson case or the DOJ paper.

496. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:32:42 AM

Message # 493

That's why I try to report the low number of 100K-600K. I don't really bring up the 2 million very much...certainly without pairing it with the lower limit.

You can't rely on the FBI statistics because some of those defensive gun uses were probably people who did not want to be harrassed by the police so never made a formal complaint...

i.e. guy trys to mug someone in Baltimore. Victim flashes gun, or draws gun but does not fire. Mugger flees. However, the victim can't report this to the authorities because they had a gun in a place they shouldn't have.

Or if they were in a state where it might be allowed, they could be charged with 'brandishing'.

497. alistairconnor - 1/10/2005 9:41:37 AM

Point of fact... the constitution does not "confer" rights...

If you're looking for a loophole to avoid discussing the actual issue, then stop squirming : just tell me you don't want to discuss it.

What's your personal, considered view on that particular constitutional issue? Do you claim the right to bear arms as part of that well-regulated militia mentioned in the constitution, or is it inapplicable/irrelevant ?

Or do you prefer to have it both ways?

498. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:42:38 AM

Even in states where concealed carry is allowed... there is heavy burden on the victim to justify a shooting.

Scroll to Deadly Force Summary"

499. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:43:11 AM

Deadly force summary

500. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 10:07:11 AM

Florida burden

501. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 10:09:10 AM

California leads in justifiable homicides

502. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 10:19:33 AM

Message # 497

I'm not dodging Alistar... you apparently missed the 75 odd posts on the subject starting somewhere around Message # 312... and then Message # 333... and ending around Message # 373.

The militia is all able-body citizens. As far as encorporating a regular drill... even the founding fathers dismissed it as too much of a burden.

Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #29
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

There are voluntary programs such as the Civilian Marksmenship Program that probably do count as formal training of the militia. You can even purchase a government issued weapon when you participate in this.

503. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 10:23:05 AM

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law.

504. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 11:07:51 AM

1. Hamilton was a fool.
   
   
2. Starting in the 1890s Sweden had something like the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It was abolished in 1936 (if I remember correctly) as not being in the national interest.
   
   
3. The US will need at leat another 50-100 years to ascend to the circle of truly civilised nations.

   505. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 11:11:05 AM

   Interestingly.... my concealled handgun training, my hunters' safety training, as well as the competitions I enter qualify as "training" under the CMP...and makes me eligible for the CHP firearms program.
   
   So I've even been trained for the militia.

   506. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 11:14:24 AM

   Starting in the 1890s Sweden had something like the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It was abolished in 1936 (if I remember correctly) as not being in the national interest.
   
   Just in time for Sweden to cooperate with Nazi Germany.
   
   Nice how you 'civilized nations' brough us 2 world wars, Napolean, and years of English imperialism.
   
   'civilized' my ass.

   507. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 11:15:21 AM

   How to fix the margins?

   508. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 11:20:15 AM

509. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 11:23:05 AM

No, just in time to disram groups who wanted to cooperate with Germany.

Your link is ridiculously biased. If you want a serious discussion about Sweden and WWII just say so.

510. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 11:24:11 AM

I'm just matching your comments tone for tone Pelle.

511. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 11:24:32 AM

You can be civil or not... your choice...

512. alistairconnor - 1/10/2005 11:37:26 AM

Message # 502 You're right, I did literally miss a hundred or so posts.

So you are in fact maintaining (you'll correct me if I misinterpret) that you, as a citizen bearing arms, are a member of a "well-regulated militia" as intended by the framers of the constitution...

I find that somewhat surrealist. Not even libertarian : literally anarchist.

But I suppose the same process is in operation in Iraq, really.

513. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 11:42:33 AM

I am civil That was my point in case you failed to notice. But now I'm going to be uncivil.

You are an academic, iiibbb, with a PhD under your belt. But the further this discussion proceeds the more, I find, you are giving up the academic virtues of independent and critical thought. You are becoming a funnel for unedited, unreflected NRA dubious statistics and propaganda.

Please take a moment to critically consider your performance so far before you respond.

514. Macnas - 1/10/2005 11:42:56 AM

Is this the "iiibbb baiting hour"?

515. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 12:00:06 PM

Whatever Pelle...

In debate one takes a side. There is no shortage of people taking the other side. I start from my basic 'manifesto' as someone so blithely put it. I can cite the information that supports my position. I am at least honest about my sources... methodology is open to debate... but my only obiligation as an academic is to provide a citation.

Are you going to make the same cricism of people bringing up data that favors gun control... do you question the agenda of their sources? You are entirely disingenous.

Now... I certainly recognize my sources, but I have generally tried to balance these citations with a more qualitative comment on them. For instance... I don't care if defensive gun uses are 100,000 or 2,000,000... the point is those numbers dwarf the 16,000 deaths by firearms in this country... and the 1,000 death by accidents.

516. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 12:06:08 PM

Message # 512

That is what I am maintaining. According to the framers of the constituion that I, as a citizen bearing arms, are a member of a "well-regulated militia" as intended by the framers of the constitution.

The framers of the constitution were indeed a bit anarchist.

But...what you need to remind yourself of... is that people like myself are not the problem.

517. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 12:14:55 PM

Are you going to make the same cricism of people bringing up data that favors gun control... do you question the agenda of their sources? You are entirely disingenous.

Please understand this iiibb. I feel entirely disconnected from the subject of this discussion. It has no connection at all to the reality I know. So what draws my interest is the anatomy of the discussion itself. I would certainly question dubious sources quoted by the other side if I could.

518. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 12:16:40 PM

Sorry about the tag.

And for what it's worth some of A-5's statistics looks dubious too.

519. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 12:16:57 PM

WTF?

520. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 12:17:12 PM

That fixed it.

521. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 12:18:50 PM

Please understand this iiibb. I feel entirely disconnected from the subject of this discussion. It has no connection at all to the reality I know. So what draws my interest is the anatomy of the discussion itself. I would certainly question dubious sources quoted by the other side if I could.

Then explain the need to make a crack like "The US will need at least another 50-100 years to ascend to the circle of truly civilised nations."

That doesn't seem like anatomy to me.

522. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 12:41:07 PM

Pelle has apparently anointed himself as judge, not only of contributors to the Mote but also of which countries are "truly civilized" as opposed to merely civilized. I wonder which countries he feels comprise the "circle of truly civilized nations" and what his criteria for inclusion are? What is the dividing line between truly civilized and merely civilized?

523. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 1:10:18 PM

Sweden's aid to Nazi Germany

524. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 1:17:59 PM

More

525. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 1:23:43 PM

Sweden, "truly civilized"

526. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 1:28:29 PM

Swedish aid to Jews in WWII

527. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 1:34:04 PM

Modern Swedish "Civility" and an art critic's response.

528. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 1:34:23 PM

But this is off topic of course.

529. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 2:26:14 PM

wonkers asks me:

I wonder which countries he feels comprise the "circle of truly civilized nations" and what his criteria for inclusion are? What is the dividing line between truly civilized and merely civilized?

I can answer that.

Inter alia, truly civilized nations

1. Do not allow their citizens to carry arms in public or keep them in a causual manner at home.
   
   
2. Take it for granted that women can decide weather to have an abortion or not.
   
   
3. Do not allow religious mumbo-jumbo to interfere with politics.
   
   
4. Do not impose the death penalty and do not extradite persons to uncivilzed countries where they may face it

530. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 2:34:23 PM

It was your claim to be so civilized... I've not made such a claim... but "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".

As a civil libertarian I belive with everything in your list except item 1.

531. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 2:34:51 PM

I agree with everything in your list that is ... except item #1.

532. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2005 3:06:40 PM

I really don't have a quarrel with you, iiibbb. I think you are an asset to this place. I just wish, that also in the heat of battle, you'd be a bit more careful about your sources.

533. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 4:22:15 PM

I believe one of the cites indicated that the record on helping Jews was mixed. That is, some who arrived in Sweden without proper visas or paperwork were sent back to Germany. Of course, the U.S. turned away a boat load of Jews, as I recall. I don't hold any particular brief against Sweden regarding WWII or for any other reason beyond Pelle!

534. Wombat - 1/10/2005 4:24:41 PM

In my opinion, the most egregious Swedish act favoring Germany during the war was to allow German troops to transit Sweden from Norway to Germany.

I suspect that the sources iiibbb uses are in part a product of his desire to give responses quickly, and in part symptomatic of the level of discourse that the 2nd Amendment supporters use. I don't beleive that his area of study is in the social sciences, either.

535. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 4:51:00 PM

No it's forestry...

but here's an analogy that happens alot. Someone is studying a forest somewhere and has certain objectives. Because of time/money constraints they may make an assumption about some process (e.g. nutrient mineralization rates) or some other number that they gleen from the literature. Usually the assumption has minimal affect on the overall conclusions of a particular study.

When presented, critics will often try to imply that the entire study is invalid because of the assumption based on a forest in a different region or whatever. This can be because they like actually do believe it matters (methodology), or they're fixated on their speciality (bias), or they're just jealous (bias). However... just because they're biased doesn't mean they may not be right as well.

But you know... no forest study is perfect. There is no way to measure or analyze ever feature relevant to a given study. I doubt every social study is perfect... but there are times where a number is better than no number at all.

I think in several of the arguments we've had here... it's less over the reported value, than it is over the interpretation or context.

All I can do is note my sources. I am honestly trying to put caveats on some of the data... it just doesn't matter if it's a few 100,000 or 2 million when all the reported values are that many orders of magnitude larger than the other numbers.

However... the real foundation of my position is based on the first principals of civil liberty... and baring an overwhelming case against it, I'm going to default to protecting rights over government control.

536. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 7:51:47 PM

holdinitdown

537. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 9:19:58 PM

Pelle, please note that the state of Michigan meets all of your criteria as do many of our blue states. You may be confusing the United States with Dumbfuckistan (our red states). Note also that Michigan's population is 10 million, 1.2 million greater than Sweden's; and it's area is 96,000 square miles, compared to Sweden's 173,800 square miles.

538. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:25:26 PM

Actually... it meets my criteria. It's a shall-issue state.

539. iiibbb - 1/10/2005 9:31:07 PM

540. wonkers2 - 1/10/2005 9:49:28 PM

Well, perhaps Michigan doesn't quite meet Pelle's criterion on guns. It doesn't meet mine either!

Two other comparisons: Michigan is bordered by five major lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, St Clair and Erie and has 3,288 miles of shoreline compared to Sweden's paltry 2000 miles. Also Michigan's per capita GDP per capita is slightly higher than Sweden's. I will give Sweden credit for having a more equal distribution of its income, health care and other social services, however, which are marks of mark of a higher order of civilization. (Overall Sweden's per capita GDP is less than 80 percent of that of the U.S. according to one source I found.)

541. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 12:10:46 PM

Message # 363
363. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 9:06:54 PM

"Prevention of crime seems to be the motivation of gun-control advocates.."

I don't think that's true. Can you back that up?

Just another example... even though the pistol is being marketed for hunting. They have all the classic catch phrases, such as "weapon of choice" for gangs. The gun retails for $1000, is over a foot long, and is a massive 82 ounces empty (that's over 5 lbs). Some even going so far as to call it an "assault weapon". The fact that they're basing opinions about it based on speculative assumptions and ignorance is plain.

This is why many gun-owners have no more tolerance for 'common-sense' gun laws... there's no evidence of common-sense being used. For years the gun-control(ban) advocates have been saying certain guns should be banned because they hold too many rounds of ammunition, fire too many shots too quickly, are too small and light, too easily concealed, or too inexpensive.

The S&W .500 holds only five rounds, cannot be fired rapidly by anyone (even an expert), weighs as much as seven police handguns, has the concealability of a bowling ball, and retails for over $1000.

542. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 12:37:45 PM

Speaking of Smith and Wesson back in March 2000, while under British ownership, they made an unprecedented agreement that was meant to protect them from all of these state sponsored lawsuits. There was some real bending of the usual government position on things like anti-trust laws etc., plus leaving a lot of gun owners high and dry as beta-testers for unproven technology. This led to one of the most successful boycott campaigns in history. Since then, Smith and Wesson is under new ownership, and the federal government has since backed off pursuing the orginal agreement.

543. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 12:54:42 PM

Makes it less of a mystery why gun-control has gotten so polarized. However, it's always been gun control that's led-off with strong-arm tactics. People rail on the NRA... but everybody's got their reasons.

544. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 3:31:29 PM

Self Defense Laws - Use of Force added to butter bar.

545. wonkers2 - 1/11/2005 3:48:14 PM

Jen, it works on my computer. You must have a finer filter. Some might consider the mini-videos soft porn. They are of the new Spanish star in Spanglish, Paz Vega.

546. wonkers2 - 1/11/2005 3:48:51 PM

Sorry, wrong thread!

547. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 7:30:46 PM

Message # 363
363. jayackroyd - 1/7/2005 9:06:54 PM

"Prevention of crime seems to be the motivation of gun-control advocates.."

I don't think that's true. Can you back that up?
----------------------------
Rosie ODonnel "I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail." - Rosie O'Donnell, April 21, 1999: Rosie is a classic limousine liberal. She doesn't want anyone to have guns, until it's her child she wants to protect, and then she expects to be able to hire an armed bodyguard to do for her exactly what she wants to deny the less well-off the ability to do.



At least 80 million law-abiding gun owners didn't shoot anyone today

548. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 10:52:19 PM

Added The Rutherford Institute to the butter bar. Unlike the ACLU, they're hard line civil libertarians. However, they're also anti death-penalty, pro-choice etc.

I'm glad I have an alternative to the ACLU.

549. iiibbb - 1/11/2005 11:32:31 PM

bother.. I thought they were pro-choice... thought I'd found my niche.

550. concerned - 1/12/2005 2:48:36 AM

AC's & Pelle's shallow, supercilious attitude regarding guns is not well justified since one of the most heavily armed societies in the world, Switzerland, exists on their continent.

551. concerned - 1/12/2005 2:58:39 AM

Given Europe's extensive history of mass murder in the name of religion and ideology, European countries in general will require at least another couple of centuries before they can be regarded as civilized nations.

552. concerned - 1/12/2005 3:18:00 AM

Besides, with Europe's burgeoning problem with crime prone unassimilable immigrants, I wouldn't think that Euro-types can justify much smugness regarding the quality of their societies.

553. Macnas - 1/12/2005 3:30:54 AM

But we haven't committed mass murder in, like, the longest time. Religion doesn't matter any more and we can hardly spell ideology.

We're really trying hard to be good.

554. concerned - 1/12/2005 3:36:15 AM

Macnas -

I suspect that European squirreliness about personal firearms has much to do with their prior abuse of same, much as a recovering alcoholic daren't take that first drink for fear he'll wind up in the gutter again.

555. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 3:50:07 AM

Wombat -- a post for you in Slow.

Switzerland is heavily armed because it actually has a "well regulated militia".

556. Macnas - 1/12/2005 4:41:47 AM

Con

Europeans have guns in much the same manner as people in the US. It's just that the police know what guns we have, how many of them we have and the serial numbers of them.

There are some regional variations of course, the UK does not allow full bore semi-auto rifles (due to the Hungerford shootings) or handguns of any calibre (due to the Dunblain shootings). The US has had its experience of these isolated incidents many times over, but has not put much in the way of regulation of firearms as a direct result of them.

France is pretty open wrt firearms, Germany has some of the most anal regulation (surprise surprise) where you have to undertake an extensive course of study with exams before you are qualified to shoot game. In fact most of Europe allows its citizens to own firearms.

In terms of being in the gutter due to firearms abuse, I'd say the US has more than one foot in it.

557. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 5:44:19 AM

I would add that at least here there are regulations for how you must store your gun at home in order to minimize the risk of theft. We also have a mandatory exam for hunters but I wouldn't call it extensive. I think it's about 20 hours if you want a license for all kinds of game and fowl.

558. Macnas - 1/12/2005 5:48:43 AM

Here, to own more than 2 guns, you must let a firearms security officer from the police inspect your storage arrangements. I think the gov. is going to bring legislation this year such that you must have a secure gun cabinet/locker before you can renew/apply for your firearms certification.

There is no exam for hunting game.

559. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 6:14:00 AM

I'm in favour of the exam, at least for those who hunt game like elk, deer and boar.

560. Macnas - 1/12/2005 6:27:55 AM

I agree. I've read about the Swedish game exam, and it seems a very practical affair, with emphasis on being able to kill the animal cleanly.

561. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 8:48:18 AM

Most states in the US require training to get a hunting license. I think the course in my state is 8 hrs or something.

Most people protect the guns they own from theft... they are frequently more expensive than a TV. Either locking them or hiding them. A determined thief, will get them if they want them.

The onus should be on the criminal/thief... not the gun-owner victim.

562. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 8:50:06 AM

"Well regulated" in the context of the constitution was more along the lines of "well supplied" for militaries at the time, rather than the modern sense of the term.

After the revolution, private persons were encouraged to own whatever they could afford, including warships (the most powerful weapon of the time), that could be drawn into the service of the country.

563. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 9:00:17 AM

"Well regulated" in the context of the constitution was more along the lines of "well supplied"

You keep asserting that, but it's naked sophistry. Whatever the word might be made to mean, it is self-evident that no-one would refer to a population of armed citizens, with no mechanism for mobilisation, or structure for organisation, command or logistics of any kind whatever, as a "militia". It's not even a "rabble", because that would at least be an identifiable constituted body.

Contrast that with Switzerland, and its well-regulated militia.

564. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:02:38 AM

This isn't Switzerland. I can't help that our founding fathers were fairly anarchist.

565. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:04:42 AM

None of the founding fathers ever wrote anything that implied the militia meant anything but the general populace.

http://www.faqfarm.com/History/Founding/21856

566. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:05:09 AM

link

567. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:07:54 AM

The statement doesn't even make sense in the context of the times because at that time the militia was defined to be the entire military age male population. Thus it was indistinguishable from the general populace. Militiamen were often required to provide their own weapons. In the congressional debates over the wording of the amendment the arguments were not over who should be excluded from having the right to bear arms, but whether anybody, such as doctors and ministers, should be excused from being compelled to bear arms.

568. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 9:08:50 AM

Was there never any sort of organisational model for that armed-populace-as-militia, or was there some sort of structure in the 18th century that didn't survive?

569. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 9:11:13 AM

... this is a rhetorical question, of course. All able-bodied citizens were mobilizable then. This is manifestly not true today. No form of useful militia could be formed out of the armed citizenry of the US today, as far as I can see. Therefore, talking about the intent of the founders in this respect is meaningless.

570. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:28:31 AM

Citizens are still in a position to fight terrorists on planes. We are still in a position to intervene in crimes. Although people do seem to become less and less likely to put themselves in harm's way, such as that recent kidnapping that was caught on camera in california... and even though the woman screamed for help, everyone just stood and watched.

Sad commentary on our society.

After Huricane Andrew, what effectively constituted the militia protected neighborhoods from looters>. During the LA riots, armed citizens protected some neighborhoods.

Although militant, the Black Panthers weren't completely unjustified in protecting their neighborhoods in the 60's. Remember... our army has fired on our own citzens peacefully demonstrating within the past 30 years... and hasn't exactly not been heavy-handed with peaceful demonstrations in the recent past.

571. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 9:31:54 AM

But this is all one facet of why law-abiding citizens can/should be armed... it isn't the only justification.

The onus should be on the criminals. As a country, we should be addressing the causes of crime, rather than restricting freedoms. Who here thinks the Patriot Act was the proper response to terrorism?

572. Macnas - 1/12/2005 9:54:07 AM

re 561

A gun cabinet is as much for protecting your family, wrt curious children, as it is for protection from theft.

You know how it goes, you can talk the good talk 'till you're blue in the face, and still a determined kid will want to get a better look at a firearm. Locking it away is a better protection than faith.

573. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:01:29 AM

I don't disagree... but I don't see the point in a government passing a law it can't enforce. Anyone can get into just about anything if they really want to... even kids. I was a little scientist.

There is also another route... education. A lot of gun-homes I know of have a rule something like this "You can look at(handle) the gun any time you wish, but if I ever catch you with it while I'm not around you'll never see it again until you're 18". They take the kid shooting, and teach them proper handling. Either the mystery goes away, or the kid doesn't want to lose their privilage.

Most of the hunters I know were raised in households like this and never had a problem, ever.

574. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:04:55 AM

My dad had an air rifle (Red Ryder). My neighbors had them too. We used to sit on his back porch shooting little green army men while his mom watched from the kitchen.

Apparently I learned enough gun safety from that that I used to berate my little brother from carrying toy guns around with his finger on the trigger.

575. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:07:19 AM

correction... those people will let the kid lookat handle the gun while under supervision....

576. Macnas - 1/12/2005 10:14:24 AM

iiibbb

Education eh? I was wondering what all that talking to my kids about guns was called.

I was an "educated" kid, I was given that talk too, and shown how to shoot from and relativly early age. I've never had a firearms related accident either.
But that didnt stop me from getting at the guns in my house when they were not locked away. I'm sure many children have been given the "educating" you speak of, and still managed to get access to a an unsecured firearm.

577. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 10:15:27 AM

I don't see the point in a government passing a law it can't enforce.

I think you are mistaken about the ultimate purpose of laws.

Laws express (should express) a society's concensus as to what is forbidden. Laws, however enforceable, should not be on the books if they don't represent that consensus; and the fact that a law is largely unenforceable does not make it a bad law.

For example : incest is against the law. It's analogous to gun safety, in that it generally happens behind closed doors, and is unenforceable in that sense. However, the fact that it's against the law (and outside the social concensus) is a powerful inhibitor on those who might be tempted to infringe it.

The question is : is there a social concensus about locking up guns? Clearly, there is in Europe. It seems a subject of debate in the US.

578. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:34:45 AM

I disagree that there isn't a concensus about locking them up when necessary.

I also disagree that the purpose of laws (at least in this country) are just to show that we all agree on something. A law in this country means that the authorities have some grounds to punish you for not complying.

We have a law in my state saying that the missionary position is the only legal position during sex. People have been actually been arrested because of this law. Is it more important to express our "social concensus" about sex, or protect the civil liberties of people in their private home?

579. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:40:25 AM

This story's got it all. Evil assault weapon with folding stock, killing a family-member with a gun in the home. Random violence. Police only there after the crime not there to protect you.

But back to my constant criticism of gun control... How would registration, licensing, etc prevent this crime. Ok... ban evil assault rifles... so he shoots her with a hunting rifle instead.

You either ban them all (and trust that everyone will turn them in), or ban none of them.

Would a concealed handgun on my person had helped me if I were one of the random people in this situation? Better chance than the cops obviously had.

580. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 10:44:33 AM

Same as with cars... if you want to end automobile deaths... you have to ban them all, or none of them.

DUI's are going to happen.

581. Macnas - 1/12/2005 10:45:41 AM

Whether or not you fuck your significant other upside down against the wall or not hardly matters, as do any such "laws".

A gun cabinet is the best way to keep firearms out of reach of your children. Granted, let them know all about guns, let them have a go if they want to under your supervision, warn them within an inch of their lives about misuse of firearms. But keep them under lock and key as well.

A gun locked in a cabinet is safer than a gun not locked in a cabinet. Are you concerned that you would not have time to access your pistols should you need them in a hurry?

582. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 10:50:19 AM

A law in this country means that the authorities have some grounds to punish you for not complying.

We have a law in my state saying that the missionary position is the only legal position during sex.

That is one of the most glorious non-sequiturs I have ever read...

583. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 10:55:02 AM

Same as with cars... if you want to end automobile deaths... you have to ban them all, or none of them.

That's damn stupid, and you know it.

Are you alleging that it's no use making seat belts compulsory, limiting the nature and features of automobiles for safety reasons ... ????

You'd be pretty isolated if that's really what you believe.

584. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:03:46 AM

How would registration, licensing, etc prevent this crime. Ok... ban evil assault rifles... so he shoots her with a hunting rifle instead.

Since you're commenting on that specific story, we would need to know a little bit more...

I'm guessing this guy is a law-abiding citizen, it looks like a crime of passion. Did he obtain his guns legally? Did he obtain them specifically to off his ex-wife, or was he a sport shooter?

It's quite possible that if he were subjected to the same arms control laws as, say, those in France, his ex-wife and those other two people would still be alive.

Or possibly, he would have gone to the trouble of obtaining the arms illegally (not necessarily easy for a law-abiding citizen, and certainly a major step into illegality that might have made him think again.)

(Or then again ... you might be right ... he could have offed two of them with the 12 gauge. Or all three, if he had enough time and lucidity to reload.)

585. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:08:57 AM

Or then again, he might have gone into his wife's place of work and killed her with a knife. If he's a real man.

But it's not likely he would have knifed the other two on the way out.

586. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:13:44 AM

Message # 581

I'm not arguing against locked cabinets. There is no disputing the benefit of locked cabinets.

But there's no point in a law saying so.

587. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:17:22 AM

Message # 583 I was refering more to deaths by people being struck by DUI drivers.

We have laws that make seatbelts compulsory. People still don't wear them. Either you're dead or you're fined. You can't be pulled over only for a seat belt violation. It's mostly just a funding source for local government.

588. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:23:07 AM

Message # 582

An example of a law that makes a criminal out of a non-criminal is not a non-sequitur.

589. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:24:13 AM

OK, so you're against laws for compulsory seatbelts, and you're against laws against incest. Got that.

590. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:24:58 AM

LOL...

591. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:27:10 AM

The non-sequitur is with the previous sentence : A law in this country means that the authorities have some grounds to punish you for not complying.
Your example
We have a law in my state saying that the missionary position is the only legal position during sex. is in radical contradiction with that, which is why I found it funny.

Or is the law against non-missionary sex somehow more enforceable than a gun-cabinet law?

592. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:27:35 AM

I don't think there's much of a point to seatbelt laws. Nothing an education campaign shouldn't be able to accomplish.

Didn't realize I'd implied being for incest... but if I must be clear... incest should be a crime... and there should be penalties involving jail time.

593. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:29:44 AM

But why, since it's an unenforceable law?

This is in contradiction with your stance on gun cabinets.

594. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:30:50 AM

Message # 585

If he'd gone with a knife, and she had a CHP and a gun... she could've just shot him.

595. alistairconnor - 1/12/2005 11:34:34 AM

594 : you make a fairly persuasive case for guns as self-defense. Certainly, in the context of a potentiall-violent ex-husband after her, the woman would have had a strong case for getting a gun to protect herself.

But it's still much better for her if her ex-husband doesn't have easy legal access to guns.

596. Macnas - 1/12/2005 11:41:26 AM

iiibbb

Your opinion on secure gun storage being uninforcible is based on a non-regulated gun ownership.

I know there is the fact that just because you have a cabinet does not mean you will use it, but the chances are considerably higher if you do. But I think it's a bit of a waste of time discussing this secure storage issue. If you feel the need to carry a loaded pistol on your person, you sure as hell are not going to keep said pistol locked in a cabinet.

597. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:45:00 AM

from Rutherford

A people are free when their government does not encroach on their inborn liberties and they can move without fear through their chosen environment. Personal security, which is to say the ability to protect oneself from harm, goes hand in hand with societal security, which is to say the collective knowledge that a given governmental agency will not infringe on inborn rights.

As sad as it may be, America is a crime-ridden place. Culturally speaking, we have softened greatly since the days of Jefferson. When copious quantities of food, entertainment, and information are available with little effort it’s only natural that a people will lose touch with the harder edges of existence. The appeal of the [anti-gun] argument against guns (and, whether they admit it or not, against self-defense) is an emotional one. Guns represent violence, and many people (particularly tree-huggers in the suburbs who view the purchase of organic bread as a political act) are all too ready to live as if violence is an abstraction that can be defeated with ideology.

598. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 11:47:46 AM

It seems iiibbb is getting lost among his multitude ofv arguments.

599. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:48:20 AM

Message # 596

Don't the cops have anything better to do than to go around harrassing the people that aren't the problem by monitoring their method of gun storage?

Shit... they barely enforce restraining orders.

Over 80,000,000 gun owners will not participate in a crime today. Over 300,000,000 guns will not be used in a crime.

The whole point of being innocent until proven guilty is so people won't be harrassed by the government.

600. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:49:28 AM

Criminals should be harrassed by the government.

601. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 11:51:19 AM

Cops do not go around harassing people about storage. But normal law-abiding persons, of which you claim to be one, adhere to the laws of the land.

602. Macnas - 1/12/2005 12:02:54 PM

The cops do not have better things to do actually, it's part of their job.

Trusting that gun owners are all law abiding folk who can be taken at their word in this strange faith-based system that the US has is very, utopian?
I don't consider regulation in the matter of firearms to be harrassment. The regulation is, as you say, for gun owners, not criminals.

I have to obey the law, and adhere to said regulations, because I own firearms which are rightly considered dangerous.
I get the impression that you simply do not want to see the words "gun" and "law" together.

603. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 12:08:10 PM

Message # 601

I think that the assumption that cops do not harrass people must be based in the same faith that passing laws will make murder go away.

I do more than just adhere to the law of the land. I follow the standard conventions of gun safety (note the butter bar)... which are not law... but are almost univerally followed (except by Darwin award winners).

Just because I don't beleive there needs to be a law, doesn't mean I don't beleive the stuff isn't important our shouldn't be adhered to.... but it's along the same lines as making a law that says people shouldn't drink bleech.

604. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 12:11:10 PM

Message # 602

I don't beleive in gun laws that make criminals out of what would otherwise be upstanding citizens for some specification that is not univerally appropriate.

605. PelleNilsson - 1/12/2005 12:13:35 PM

So there is no need for a law against murder because it won't eliminate murder? You are getting carried away beyond the realm of the reasonable.

606. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 12:26:05 PM

No... you are.

You are trying to equate Murder with owning a gun.

I am trying to equate Owning a gun with owning bleech.

Rape
Murder
Gun Ownership
Child Molestation

Remember The Electric Company?

*singing*
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong...
*/singing*

607. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 12:30:58 PM

There are many things the gov't does not regulate at the individual level which a determined person could easily use to cause death to a lot of people.

gasoline
diesel
N fertilizer
chainsaws
knives
swords
rat poison
drain cleaner
electricity
acids

608. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 12:33:14 PM

Message # 602

The types of gun laws that I am for are stiff penalties for using a gun to actually commit a crime or cause violence.

But simple ownership, shouldn't be a crime.

609. wonkers2 - 1/12/2005 12:38:58 PM

What about requiring registration of handguns and pre-purchase background investigations? Do you object?

And what about requiring gun manufacturers to incorporate reasonable safety features as we do on automobiles--seat belts, air bags, etc.?

610. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:05:38 PM

Message # 609

Obviously I don't object to background checks for firearms. I don't think felons should own them. I don't see the point in registration. Look at Canada. What other purpose does registration serve?

Define reasonable safety feature.

611. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:10:03 PM

The failure of firearms registration - Canada

The pro registration groups used two main arguments in lobbying for this Bill. The first argument that they used was that if all guns are registered, a police car can pull up to a location, the officer can check out his computer. If it says "NO WEAPONS", the the officer can walk right in. [YEAH RIGHT].

The second argument, was that if a gun is registered, it can be traced to it's original owner. This argument was parroted in the Edmonton Journal by a prominent member of the Alberta Council Of Woman's Shelters. The tracing event, of course would happen after the murder was committed. This is supposedly how the bill "prevents" the crime. Ownership shouldn't really matter. The responsibility should fall on the one, who commits the murder.

612. wonkers2 - 1/12/2005 1:11:47 PM

Seems to me registration would help solve crimes.

I don't have the knowledge to define what is reasonable. I hear a lot about Saturday night specials being cheap and not very safe? I suppose reasonable safety features could range from effective safety mechanisms to trigger locks to more exotic high tech features yet to be invented or perfected. What is reasonable would be determined by a cost-benefit ratio estimate.

613. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:15:23 PM

Registration designed for failure

This is kind-of funny. The gun control crowd demands registration, then when it fails to work you say that it was purposefully designed to fail? Please. Did the gun-control crowd pass a law and then let the people who opposed the law write it?

Talk about refusing to take responsibility. I guess they have to lest they be accused of not understanding the problem to begin with.

614. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:16:55 PM

Canada's big mess and the problem with reactive lawmaking

615. thoughtful - 1/12/2005 1:20:07 PM

Despite my bias in favor of iiibbb's point of view, I think he's doing an excellent job on this thread.

616. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:20:07 PM

Message # 612

How would registration help solve crimes? It only says who bought the firearm... not who it was stolen from or who pulled the trigger. Usually there is ample evidence already to tie someone to the crime.

Better yet... there are several states that have gun registration... just give me an example where the registration was the critical piece of information necessary to solve the crime.

617. thoughtful - 1/12/2005 1:22:41 PM

well, i guess it could help if the thing that was stolen was the gun itself...

618. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:33:14 PM

Saturday Night Special is a slang term. I can not respond to this.

I agree that there should be a minimum test that a gun not go off if dropped or struck.

Trigger locks - Not safe on all weapons. Some weapons can still be loaded and an round chambered while a trigger lock is installed. Weapons that are stored for the purpose of self defense could range from locked in a safe seperate from the ammo, to in the beside table drawer. The safety of these various methods of storage depends on too many conditions for you to be able to write a law that will counteract plain stupidity.

More exotic features - There is no substitute for training and following the basic firearms safety rules. Smart guns make people complacent. Let me emphasize there is no substitute for the basic rules of firearms safety.

619. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 1:34:28 PM

Message # 617 If the gun is stolen, the owner usually reports its serial number at that time (at least if they give a darn about recovering their property).

620. alistairConnor - 1/12/2005 5:43:09 PM

Message # 586 iii, I'd like to finish the discussion about good laws/pointless laws.

We've identified four laws which we can discuss :

1) any sex other than missionary is illegal
2) seatbelts are compulsory
3) guns must be kept locked up
4) incest is illegal.

I think we agree on 1 and 4 :
1 because it is an intolerable intrusion in the private domain, and a victimless crime
4 because incest is bad, and harmful to the victim (there is almost always a victim).

You claim that you are against 2 and 3 because they are unenforceable; however since you are against 4, and have not provided any argument in support of this equally unenforceable law, I must conclude that you have other reasons for opposing 2 and 3.

I suspect that it's because, for you, they represent an intolerable intrusion in the private domain. However, I assert that they are not victimless crimes.

As far as I am concerned, a driver with no passengers can wear a seatbelt or not. It's his life (ignoring, for the sake of argument, the cost imposed on society by the increased risk of injury or death he is running).

When I'm driving, passengers can wear seatbelts or walk. I would favour prison sentences for drivers whose passengers are not secured with seatbelts. Other people's lives are directly endangered by the driver's irresponsible behaviour.

Similarly with a gun owner who does not secure his weapons. Unless he is a hermit living in a fortress, he is endangering other people's lives.

621. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:17:45 PM

I guess my immediate response is that the distinction between incest and the others is that it is not a victimless crime. A gun not locked up may be stupid, but it isn't a crime until someone does something illegal with it... and then other laws come into effect. Not wearing your seatbelt is stupid, but it isn't a crime (if it's really a crime at all) until someone wrecks.

I suppose I see your point... but at best these laws could only enhance a penalty... but then again what good did they do? You think a $1000 fine for not using a trigger lock, after your 4 yr old shot your 3 yr old means much to the parent?

I dunno. My personal view is that the best way to address 2 and 3 are aggressive education campaigns rather than these laws. If we as a culture beleive in trigger locks (a cable lock through an action is the better way by the by), then give away free locks (we give away condoms and clean needles). A program like this would likely be much cheaper than the infrastructure for a lot of gun-control measures.

622. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:20:13 PM

There are also just certain social costs associated with preserving liberty. However, most civil libertarians consider the alternatives to be more costly on many levels.

623. wonkers2 - 1/12/2005 6:30:03 PM

Don't adults who don't secure their guns expose themselves to liability in the event that children get their hands on them and shoot themselves or a playmate?

624. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:40:56 PM

Probably... I'm not aware of any news items... Would your comprehensive home owners insurance cover it is another question.

Our civil courts make me queezy sometimes given the nature of what proof is needed. Although I wouldn't fault someone for sueing, and think they would be right to do so, I'm sure that in some places if a teen jimmied a lock and killed someone the gun-owner might lose.

But the state of our civil courts is a different matter altogher.

In principle, I'd think if you could show gross negligence, then sue the bastard.

625. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:41:18 PM

Makes more sense than suing the gun's manufacturer.

626. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:43:19 PM

Or suing Walmart (as much as I detest walmart).

627. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:53:34 PM

If this were happening where you lived.... would you want to wait 10 days for a gun in California?

628. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 6:54:01 PM

And would you keep the gun locked in a safe?

629. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 7:04:56 PM

This guy has another view on how to react (in the UK, but it truly makes me want to vomit. Luckily I think some clearer thinkers are coming around. I think if this woman had followed the first article's advice she'd be dead in a ditch somewhere after being raped.

630. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 7:50:33 PM

Granted, he's still in jail for the murder of the other people but this just shows the lack of commitment our country has toward violent crime. As long as things like this are happening, it makes it very hard to take gun control seriously.

631. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 8:44:45 PM

Pretty dumb response to robbers... no teeth.

632. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:12:18 PM

What the geeks think about the NJIT smart gun.

Of course... people "chip" cars, video games, and DVD encryption among other things. Just meaning that no technology is fool-proof.

Who's to say a criminal can't figure out a way to interfere with the gun's electronics. If your life (or your child) is on the line, would you want to have one more thing to potentially fail? If someone wants to voluntarily use one of these things, that's their business... but for the government to mandate their use... that's just wrong.

633. iiibbb - 1/12/2005 11:44:04 PM

Just reading the slash-dot stuff...

I sure like the mote... no trolls... people I may not agree with... but no trolls.

634. PelleNilsson - 1/13/2005 1:11:44 AM

Not wearing your seatbelt is stupid, but it isn't a crime (if it's really a crime at all) until someone wrecks.

That argument can easily be extended to DUI and a lot of other things.

635. alistairconnor - 1/13/2005 4:14:11 AM

When it comes to public health and safety, I'm a utilitarian. Maximising happiness is the goal; sometimes that infringes individual rights. There is a constant tension between the two, and that's vital : any measure that restricts freedoms has to be actually effective in increasing the some of happiness; and even then, it's a value judgement as to whether it's worth it.

Interesting discussion on the radio this morning : road deaths have decreased about 40% in the past couple of years in France (that's about 500 lives a year saved), and they were interviewing the principal expert who was behind the program. Education and repression -- mostly the latter -- which actually led to a change in the social concensus. I experienced that myself, I have noticed that people's driving behaviour has changed for the better; and mine too. Amazing.

But if the society isn't ripe for a change in the concensus, then it's pushing shit uphill.

636. Macnas - 1/13/2005 4:54:16 AM

You've listed some articles that are dangerous by nature and lethal if misused.

Most of these things carry warning labels on them, and most people know enough to store them out of the reach of children. It's not enforceable of course, and for the most part, wrt the household items you refer to, not illegal not to do so by law.

But if A child were to swallow bleach (bleech too maybe), and suffered serious injury or death, and we heard, say on the news or whatever, that it was due in most part to the stuff being left around, we'd all be tut-tutting and saying why didn't those ignorant people keep the goddamn bleach where the kid could not get at it.

It's sensible to put these things out of the reach of kids isn't it? Even if the kid has been "educated": "well officer, I felt I had no need to put the bleach/lye/rat poison away someplace safe, after all I spoke to that kid about how dangerous this stuff was"

It's elementary really, isn't it? dangerous things should be kept in a secure location. All over the world people do this as a matter of course.
But a fair proportion of the gun owning public feel that the need to protect themselves, or get at their guns quickly, overrides any such common sense. Guns are different, in some strange way, and what goes for other dangerous articles can be waived in the case of guns.

You know it does not make any sense.

637. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 9:39:19 AM

But a fair proportion of the gun owning public feel that the need to protect themselves, or get at their guns quickly, overrides any such common sense. Guns are different, in some strange way, and what goes for other dangerous articles can be waived in the case of guns.

But the deaths due to gun accidents are so much lower than deaths like poisonings.

How are guns being treated different? It seems to me gun-control is trying to treat them different by mandating things about their storage and handling that is disproportionate to the number of accidents they're involved in. Message # 412... especially given the number that are out there.

Just because it's accessible, doesn't mean it's accessible to small children. It's just wierd that whenever the subject the assumption is that gun owners are morons who don't know how to be safe with these things.

638. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 9:47:05 AM

Message # 634

That argument can easily be extended to DUI and a lot of other things.

This is true... it could be.

But I'm back to the point that gun-contol advocates rarely talk about it in this context... it's always sold on the fact that provision X is "going to cut down on crime" which it doesn't... and can't.

639. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 9:49:15 AM

It's elementary really, isn't it? dangerous things should be kept in a secure location.

I guess my point is what's a safe place for one home, may not be a safe place for another. In each home, it's the adults who decide where the appropriate location and manner is.

Why should guns be different than this paradigm?

640. Macnas - 1/13/2005 10:07:36 AM

Paradigm?

A secure locker/cabinet is the safest place for a gun, in any home, with any kids, with any adults.

And the ratio of gun deaths vs poisonings? come on now, that dog just does not hunt. Even going beyond the obvious fact that nearly every household has poisonous items in one shape form or fashion, and thereby giving a very simple explanation of the differential, the fact is that many of the accidental poisonings that take place are attributable to improper storage.

Kind of like the accidental gun deaths!
How many more such incidents would it take to change your mind? just as a matter of interest though, I'm not trying to convince you not to sleep with a gun on the bedside locker...

641. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 10:22:53 AM

It would take a lot of accidents. Accidents happen no matter what and I don't think you can(should) legislate for stupidity. I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy when stuff like this happens... but adults need to make their own decisions. Gun accidents certainly aren't a 'crisis'.

We have all kinds of dangerous things in our homes. The government is not mandating how we store any of these other things... why should they mandate something about guns?

642. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 10:24:41 AM

I just don't believe in the nanny state...

643. alistairconnor - 1/13/2005 10:36:44 AM

What about speed limits, iii? Just curious.

644. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 10:44:23 AM

Nanny state and other social issues. Where does it end? You can take the nanny state to any level and call it "reasonable"... except that it isn't.

645. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 10:50:39 AM

Message # 643

Speed limits? If I'm not allowed to compare poisoning to guns... you're not allowed to compare cars to guns anymore.

However... there used to be no speed limits. The state of Montana until very recently only had speed limits at night, and during the day it was posted "safe for conditions". What was funny was that everyone was driving about 74 on the interstate... just like everywhere else in the US.

Germany doesn't have speed limits on the Autobahn.

Then whe have speed traps in this country. Places marked as work zones ... a few cones, but no construction, and certainly no workers. I got zapped in one of these going with the flow of traffic.

Small towns love to bring you from a 55 mph zone, right down to a 25 mph zone with almost no warning. Locals usually have no issues, but a good way to bring in money from outsiders.

Just revenue gathering in a lot of places.

646. alistairconnor - 1/13/2005 11:08:53 AM

Well, there is the undisputed fact that road deaths, on a given section of road, is a function of average vehicle speed. It's an exponential function, of course. And it holds true anywhere on earth. The US hasn't been granted an exception.

Granted, speed limits are an excellent example of the necessity of concensus in order for constraints to be effective. Unreasonable speed limits are the prime offender in giving people the excuse to ignore speed limits altogether, and stick to their own judgement (which is very often an excuse to drive faster than is reasonable. Everyone knows this.)

Reasonable speed limits, which are respected by the majority of drivers, are absolutely indispensible in reducing road deaths. I dare you to find me an expert who thinks otherwise.

And yes, there is a sacrifice of individual "freedom" involved.

647. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 11:17:17 AM

We have been disqualified from using this analogy because I'm apparently not allowed to bring up poisoning, smoking, or heart disease.

648. Macnas - 1/13/2005 11:20:34 AM

Bring up whatever you like, my issue with you using poisoning vs gun deaths was the non-logical emphasis on the differential.

649. alistairconnor - 1/13/2005 11:34:41 AM

I just find the underlying issues of attitudes towards freedom and responsibility to be fascinating. It's clear that your attitudes about guns are consistent with your views about other issues, and that you would be happier if society had fewer controls, with the associated greater personal responsibility and risk.

650. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 11:38:59 AM

Then how about the differential against 400,000 deaths associated with smoking and 480,000 deaths from heart disease?

The government isn't exactly putting warning labels on cheese wiz or child locks on happy meals.

Gun accidents aren't a crisis compared to any other form of accidents. Education and simply following the basic rules of gun safety are sufficient. Most people follow the basic rules and make the right decision for their circumstances. Even though there are stupid people out there that don't, it 's not like passing the law is going to make them not stupid or violate whatever regulation you come up with. People speed in spite of speed limits... people will not store a gun 'correctly' in spite of a storage law.

If the government is so concerned about it... then let them start with an ad campaign instead... make gun-safety part of the school curriculum.... let them hand out free gun locks. Passing stupid nanny laws seems like skipping a lot of steps.

651. alistairconnor - 1/13/2005 11:55:15 AM

The government isn't exactly putting warning labels on cheese wiz or child locks on happy meals.

They should be. Poor nutrition is, or soon will be, the number one health problem in developed nations (tobacco deaths probably are declining, in particular due to educational and coercitive measures, coupled with a change in social attitudes.

What I'm trying to explore is this : you don't want a nanny state; so I guess you disapprove of anti-tobacco repression too, along with compulsory seat belts, speed limits etc ?

652. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 12:14:00 PM

I hate smokers... but whatever they want to do... just don't whine to me when you get cancer.

Seatbelt laws - the people that break the law, and then need one, get punishment worse than the gov't could ever divy out.

Speed limits - Less against these, but enforcement is arbitrary... perhaps if the gov't were to show themselves more consitant and responsible about enforcing this one... I'd beleive they could be responsible with enforcing some kind of gun-storage law.

But gun storage is much more subjective than speed limits... it is very situation-dependent.

653. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 12:58:13 PM

What I want to know is are we citizens or subjects? Are we free thinkers or livestock?

654. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 2:40:44 PM

Why should cops have all the rights? I guarantee I am more responsible than this guy.

655. wonkers2 - 1/13/2005 4:45:22 PM

Terrorism guru, Richard Clarke, was on Diane Rehm or some other interview show today touting his latest book. He came out strongly against allowing people to buy assault weapons and he specifically mentioned the .50 caliber rifle as a product which should be prohibited. It's an ideal weapon for terrorists trying to shoot down commercial aircraft as well as other long distance targets.

656. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 4:59:55 PM

I think saying the 50 cal can shoot down planes is pretty suspect. If it were possible our military would be training to do it.

I don't doubt it could be used for planes already on the ground. I also wonder about using it for long range against a refinery or something to that effect... but if these were major threats, the military would be deploying them much more extensively and Barrett wouldn't need a civilian market.

As far as the term "assault weapons" goes. Be careful about just throwing it around. A 50 cal is not an 'assault weapon' in the true sense of the term. Look at that link about the S&W revolver where someone tried to equate it to an assault weapon. Just makes the person look ignorant.

The mixing of terms is half of what gets the gun-control people in trouble.

657. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 5:00:24 PM

Not that I don't partially agree with you about the 50 cal.

658. wonkers2 - 1/13/2005 5:05:58 PM

Well, none of the above are useful or necessary for hunting or self-protection. And there are plenty of traditional target weapons, rifles and handguns. Prohibiting assault type weapons would be a minute curtailment of personal freedom, in my opinion.

659. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 5:30:56 PM

The thing is that most of the civilian versions of true assault weapons are no ore capable and not as lethal as hunting rifles. A lot of people like to shoot stuff that's similar to the military (or what they were trained on in the military).

Besides... for someone just getting into shooting some of those weapons are far more economical.

Banning those weapons serves no real purpose.

If we can support feces being put on art with Jesus, or if we feel so called "hate speech" should be protected on principle... then so called 'assault weapons' (which aren't) should also be protected.

660. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 5:44:33 PM

Based on some of the principles up thread we should regulate superglue, to make sure this doesn't happenn again.

661. iiibbb - 1/13/2005 5:56:26 PM

Should speech like this be protected?

662. wonkers2 - 1/13/2005 6:18:31 PM

Yes, the lawyer was thin skinned and the court wasted the taxpayer's money by bringing a frivolous charge against someone for telling a joke. There is nothing in the news article indicating they caused a disturbance. I assume the charges will be dismissed.

663. concerned - 1/13/2005 6:38:19 PM

What about speed limits....

I'm waiting for some safe and sane speed limits to be universally imposed on the Autobahn (a Hitler legacy) where Volkswagen (another Hitler legacy) drivers sublimate their Teutonic angst by putting the pedal to the metal.

664. concerned - 1/13/2005 6:41:01 PM

Btw, partly since I had already gotten into the habit of wearing seat belts before doing so was mandated by law, I don't believe that such laws are necessary.

665. concerned - 1/13/2005 6:44:15 PM

Who's going to wear the mark of the devil?


Muwahahahaha!

666. angel-five - 1/14/2005 1:13:02 AM

I think saying the 50 cal can shoot down planes is pretty suspect. If it were possible our military would be training to do it.

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone can shoot down a plane with a .50 caliber long range rifle. Small arms fire can bring a plane down. I think your reasoning is as solid as a screen door on this one, for two reasons.

The first is that I'm pretty sure you don't know if our special ops troops do that kind of training, or not. Correct me if I'm wrong and you have direct knowledge of how our special ops people are trained with heavy sniper rifles. The second is that -- well. I'm sure you can down a plane a ton of different ways that our military doesn't bother to teach soldiers, because for one reason or another they're not suited to the style of warfare (i.e. a hunk of semtex and an alarm clock), not practicable with current armaments (shooting down a plane with a cannonball) or simply not an efficient way to get the job done (i.e. trying to shoot down a jet with a tank-fired sabot).

FWIW I think it'd be extremely, extremely hard for someone to do that to a plane that wasn't about to land or take off (or a hovering craft) and probably still pretty damned hard to do even then.

667. angel-five - 1/14/2005 1:14:52 AM

Did you really have to ask that, Concerned?

668. angel-five - 1/14/2005 1:22:38 AM

The problem with equating overeating with handguns et al is that there have to be some pretty fucking outre circumstances for your Big Mac to do me in.

I think in a perfect world we could do weapons safety training and personal responsibility training, either privately or publicly, and all our problems would be solved. This isn't that world. This is a world where your five year old can accidently kill mine and where your crackheaded cousin can shoot up the 7-11 I'm trying to buy a Coke in. It is also a world where your drunk ass brother with little-man syndrome can get pissed off at me in a bar because he's drunk and stupid and start waving his piece at me in the parking lot.

People make bad decisions all the time and when they make them with lethal objects the stakes are raised. Does this mean there's an iron-clad case for the government to step in and ban it all? Of course not. But it does mean that it's disingenuous to slippery slope this thing out to cover fucking Super Glue and pretend you've made a valid point about regulating street sweepers.

669. alistairconnor - 1/14/2005 6:28:51 AM

I don't believe that such laws are necessary... for you, personally Con.

Where I differ from you and (I think) from iii is the question of passengers. I could live with a law that made seat belts optional for drivers (question of individual responsibility and judgement; arguably "victimless crime",) but passengers are clearly under the driver's responsibility.

Obviously, children should always be seat-belted, no exceptions, with penalties for the driver. Because nobody can argue that the child's individual responsibility and judgement can prevail.

For passengers, I would countenance exceptions; the driver would be required to have in his possession a waiver of responsibility signed by any passenger who chose not to wear a seat belt.

How's about that, libertarians?

670. Macnas - 1/14/2005 8:00:03 AM

Belts are mandatory, and by law (here at any rate) you and your passengers have to wear them.

The risk of being fined and having penalty points added to your licence if caught is the deterrent, if common sense is not enough. I can't see what the argument is to be honest.

671. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 8:50:25 AM

Underwear laws.

672. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 8:52:39 AM

Message # 666

Look, I'm on the fence on 50 cal... but I'm telling you overstating it's capability is only hurting your case with those on the other side.

673. Macnas - 1/14/2005 8:56:42 AM

I don't see the point in it, not in a place like California. I mean, it's not like they are going to be stopping people on the interstate and searching cars for illegal .5" calibre guns. So you cannot buy them in CA. Big deal, buy it somewhere else and bring it home.

674. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 9:05:35 AM

Message # 667

Look angel... either I'm allowed to compare things or I'm not. You seem to want to allow comparisons between things when it favors your argument, but you don't allow it when it doesn't.

That isn't fair.

I admit that handguns present a risk to society, the problem is that they also benefit society (unlike hamburgers and cigarettes). In an even more perfect world than yours we wouldn't have have crackheads who break into houses to commit violence. But we do... so allowing law-abiding people people to make a decision to arm themselves if they wish is all I'm for.

I don't know how you can tell me not to worry about the rare act of being a victim of a violent crime, yet turn around and say that the several orders of magnitude more rare act of two 5 yr old being involved in a negligent shooting requires all kinds of action on the governments part.

You trash my statistics supporting this, but want to take action on how people store weapons without any statistics about how they presently store these weapons. You act like every house with a gun just has it out with the toddler toys.

It's baseless.

675. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 9:10:35 AM

Message # 673

Taking a post-ban 50 cal into California would be illegal. You'd also be violating federal law because you can only transport a weapon when you can legally possess it in both your destination and point of departure.

676. Macnas - 1/14/2005 9:30:22 AM

Post-ban eh?..hmm.

So if you own a 50 purchased before the ban, you can shoot it anyway? Also, can post-ban 50's be sold, as in second-hand through dealers/private sale?

And if post-ban 50's are legal, can you still buy ammunition for them in CA?

677. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 9:48:44 AM

I don't know the specifics of the CA law, but if they worked it like how I understand their other laws worked.

- The people that already owned them probably had to register them... unless they can't have them at all, and then they just have to sell them or the state has to buy them.
- If they do have grandfathered owners... assuming it works like other bans in CA as I understand them, it's not transferable.
- I don't know about ammunition.

Again, I'm not very familiar with California's way of doing things. I'm never moving there. If I have time I might find the specific answers for you.

678. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 9:51:25 AM

This article describes it... I think I had the gist.

679. Macnas - 1/14/2005 9:55:39 AM

Thanks for that.

680. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 10:00:10 AM

Gee... there's a lot of stuff on that site... 31 states got a D or F from the Brady Campaign... let me guess... it's the ones with CCW.

You talk about how the NRA distorts things... this guy calls the Brady campaign out on their own distortions.

681. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 10:03:58 AM

Added Gun Control Policy to butter bar.

682. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 10:07:53 AM

Even "minute curtailments" don't accomplish anything, and the gun control leaders know it.

683. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 10:39:25 AM

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. As it turns out, no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns, could be found.

Conclusion: We need more studies [to get the answer we want].

684. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 1:16:19 PM

I went the the web site of The National Academy of Sciences and did a search on "gun control". No result.

685. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 1:17:26 PM

I wouldn't want to be in a plane being shot at with a .50 caliber rifle.

686. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 1:24:58 PM

Try here Pelle

687. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 1:28:20 PM

It's in the news

688. Marc-Albert - 1/14/2005 2:44:33 PM

I find the Chicago Sun-Time's assertion that "Mountains of evidence shows gun control doesn't work" a bit risqué.

Population:
Canada: 30.2 m
United States: 270 m
US/CAN: 8.9x

Number of all firearms – Number of handguns - Guns per capita

Canada: 7.4 m – 1.2 m - 0.25
United States: 222 m – 76 m – 0.82
US/CAN: 30x – 63.3x – 3.3x

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 – with firearms – with handguns

Canada: 1.83 – 27.3% - 46%
United States: 6.62 – 66% - 75%
US/CAN: 3.6x - 2.4x – 1.6x

Crime statistics - 1998 (rate per 100,000)

Murder with firearms – with handguns

Canada: 0.5 – 0.23
United States: 4.4 – 3.3
US/CAN: 7.9x – 14.5x


Statistics compiled from Centre for Justice Statistics; FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada Homicide Survey; Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice (Kwing Hung) June 2001

689. Marc-Albert - 1/14/2005 3:06:39 PM

Custom-made pistols for a sophisticated clientele

690. Marc-Albert - 1/14/2005 3:07:24 PM

for a sophisticated clientele in dire need of self-protection...

691. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 3:07:35 PM

What does that show?

You need some sort of pre-Canadian-gun-control, post-Canadian-gun-control comparison for that to mean anything other than the US has a more gun violence relative to Canada...

Which I don't dispute.

So then the question is what to do about it that will actually work?

692. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 3:08:33 PM

Follow up question... that's gun violence. How does all violent crime (contact crime) compare?

693. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 3:14:46 PM

Thanks, iiibbb.

The NAS news item is headed "Data on Firearms and Violence Too Weak to Settle Policy Debates". In the text it states that"Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says".

This would seem to indicate that much of the data you have cited to support you view is without value.

The critical review of the NAS report in the Chicago Sun-Times is written by John R. Lott Jr. In academia, he and Gary Klick, who maintains the site you linked to in #683, appear to be the most outspoken supporters of the right to carry.

694. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 3:27:24 PM

My position is justified whether there is weak or strong evidence that guns are effective in self defense. My position does not mandate that people carry, simply that law-abiding citizens should be able to evaluate the risks and decide for themselves.

I have evaluated my risks, and determined I don't need to carry... the firearm is only for situations where I know I will be in a exposed situation far from help, or in my home where help is many minutes away. It may be that I don't have time to get to the gun, but if I have time I can... it's there. Why should I be denied that option; particularly for arbitrary and unsubstantiated reasons?

Gun control can only be justified with strong evidience... which it lacks.

695. Marc-Albert - 1/14/2005 3:30:04 PM

Tiens..tiens..

A third man has died from wounds he received during a shooting at North Side nightclub last weekend.

The Cook County medical examiner's office said Friday Eugene Walker, 24, died Thursday night at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

The a man opened fire at Cafe Allure last Saturday when he was told he could not return to the club he'd left earlier, police said. (Chicago Sun-Times, January 14)

696. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 3:44:42 PM

One of many examples of havoc causeed by an angry man with a gun. You don't have to be a criminal to start with do do something like this.

697. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 3:49:05 PM

Just like the many examples where angry man with gun is stopped by armed citizens.

Again... my position is valid given either strong or weak evidence. Law abiding citizens are not a threat to anyone.

Gun control requires strong evidence to be valid.

698. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 3:52:59 PM

Law abiding citizens "lose it" or "go postal" every day with their cars, their guns, or their fists. But they do more damage with guns.

699. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 4:03:03 PM

On what do you base this statement? You don't think that people who drown their problems in alchol do more damage or take more lives?

700. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 4:04:30 PM

You completely ignore the benefits of guns in society... this is the rub... there are costs associated with guns... but there are also benefits. You can't ignore one for the other.

701. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 4:09:43 PM

And what are those benefits? Undisputed data please.

702. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 4:10:47 PM

698. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 10:52:59 PM

Law abiding citizens "lose it" or "go postal" every day with their cars, their guns, or their fists. But they do more damage with guns.

I just don't know how to respond to this.... it's completely unsubstantiated... for every story you have of these... there are 10 of people who use a gun to defend themselves.

There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country that you want to penalize becuase of some whack-o... Using laws that have been shown to have no discernable effect on reducing these events.

703. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 4:12:15 PM

701. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 11:09:43 PM

And what are those benefits? Undisputed data please.

- Hunting
- Recreation
- Self-Defense

If they didn't benefit people 100,000,000 people wouldn't own them.

704. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 4:14:52 PM

The burden is upon the gun-control front to show why gun-control is warranted. The burden is not on law-abiding citizens to justify what has been a right in this nation for 200+ years.

705. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 4:19:04 PM

The general value of guns for self defense is certainly not undisputed. Clearly, they can be valuable under certain assumptions and in certain situations. Just as in certain situations and assumptions they create hazards.

706. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 4:51:52 PM

That millions of people own a certain gadget, say a $500 espresso machine, does not prove that it is beneficial for society as a whole. And guns are not espresso machines. They are gadgets that are designed to kill.

I think you'd better give up your quasi-logical, and therefore unconvincing arguments, iiibbb, and tell it as it is: your opposition to gun control is nothing but rationalized gut feeling that you personally is safer for owning a gun. But would you really feel safer if you knew that virtually all adults you encounter in the streets, in bars, in underground parking lots, are likely to carry?

707. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 5:04:10 PM

think you'd better give up your quasi-logical, and therefore unconvincing arguments, iiibbb, and tell it as it is: your opposition to gun control is nothing but rationalized gut feeling that you personally is safer for owning a gun.

You feeling that gun control does anything is a rationalized gut feeling Pelle. The NSF study says so.

The direct benefit to me (and society)...

I killed 2 deer and they will keep me in protein for the next 6 months while reducing an over-population problem. Thus reducing deer/car fatalities.

But would you really feel safer if you knew that virtually all adults you encounter in the streets, in bars, in underground parking lots, are likely to carry?

I don't care if these adults are armed if they're law-abiding. If they're criminals, they're armed anyway... so what's the difference... oh... except that I could fight back if I had to.

Quasi-logical... you are very disingenuous Pelle. You criticize me for my basis of my arguments or my evidence, but then you turn around and provide arguments that are no different than mine.

The burden is for you to prove gun-control benefits society. You haven't and you can't...

708. Marc-Albert - 1/14/2005 5:18:49 PM

You haven't and you can't...

Many things I haven't and I can't prove. I haven't and I can't prove for instance that the allegation Pope John Paul II has poisonned his predecessor is untrue.

709. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2005 5:22:32 PM

Why is the burden on me to prove that society benefits if it tries to prevent its citizens from going around carrying deadly weapons? Very strange.

710. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 9:31:33 PM

Precisely Pelle... strange as it may seem to you uber-civilized whatever you are... It's a constitutionally guaranteed right with a 200+ year tradition.

The burden is yours...

711. wonkers2 - 1/14/2005 9:56:31 PM

There is considerable disagreement over what, if anything, is guaranteed by the Constitution.

712. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:21:21 PM

That's one hell of a statement.

713. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:22:39 PM

Pelle... you don't beleive in self defense or are you just being purposefully obtuse?

714. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:26:45 PM

Actually... don't bother to answer...

715. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:30:29 PM

Added Randy Barnett to the butter bar.

716. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:32:14 PM

The right to liberty in a good society

717. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:35:57 PM

Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment

Until the early 1980s the Second Amendment had received little attention or interest from legal scholars. [FN1] In 1981 Northwestern University law professor Daniel D. Polsby ridiculed the individual rights view of the Amendment as "a lot of horsedung." [FN2] But as of 1994, having acquainted himself with the rather substantial literature of the intervening years, Polsby commented:


(A)lmost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject (concur). The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard. It goes without saying that like all constitutional rights, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation consistent with its purposes. [FN3]


Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view of the Second Amendment. [FN4]

718. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:37:14 PM

So the considerable disagreement is with people who are ignoring the context, history, implication, and fundamental importance of the 2nd amendment.

719. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:39:11 PM

*1142 According to the broad individual right view, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be treated the same as the other rights of the people specified in the Constitution--no more and no less. Like the other rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it is a right to be asserted by individuals against infringement by government. Like other rights in the Bill of Rights, it is not absolute, but neither is it a hollow shell which legislatures can ignore with impunity. Nor does it merely refer to the right of a state to have a militia, as many, perhaps most, law professors assumed before there was serious scholarship on the Second Amendment.


Despite this scholarship, on May 2, 1994, the broad individual right view was denounced as a gun-lobby "fraud on the American people" by twenty-six law professors in an advertisement sponsored by an anti-gun group which appeared in the American Lawyer and other publications. [FN5] The only authority they cited supporting their view was a quotation from an article by former Chief Justice Burger in Parade magazine. [FN6] Though a number of signatories are distinguished scholars, significantly, none had ever delved into the issues sufficiently to publish a scholarly article on the subject.


One of them has repaired that deficiency by writing (the all-too- appropriately named) Gun Crazy, [FN7] the first article to appear in an important law review in almost thirty years disputing this now-predominant individual right view of the Second Amendment. As Gun Crazy presents it, the near-unanimous consensus among historians and legal scholars who have researched the issues is an artifact of a sinister concerted effort by pro-gun professors and fellow travelers. Gun Crazy argues that the gullible legal and scholarly communities are falling victim to a gun-lobby-organized conspiracy "to flood the law reviews with friendly scholarship from sympathetic law professors." [FN8]

720. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:40:28 PM

Our aim in this Article is two-fold: First, we intend to put the academic discussion of the Second Amendment back on its constructive path by rebutting charges made in Gun Crazy against scholars who have contributed to the new consensus that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. To that end, in Part I, we discuss in detail the false charges of dishonesty and *1143 conspiracy that Gun Crazy levels against scholars whose views it finds uncongenial. In Part II, we examine the factual errors in Gun Crazy.


Second, we present the textual, structural, historical, and criminological evidence that supports this new consensus; evidence about which most academics, even those who write about other areas of constitutional law, are largely unaware. In Part III, we examine the merits of the interpretation proferred by opponents of an individual right to keep and bear arms: the militia-centric conception of the Second Amendment. We analyze how textual, historical, and structural considerations each argue against such an interpretation and in favor of an individual rights approach. Finally, in Part IV, we consider the issue that is really motivating those who reject an individual rights interpretation in favor of a militia-centric conception of the Second Amendment: the allegedly adverse effect of gun ownership on public safety. Here we present the latest findings of criminologists on the effects of guns and gun ownership on violence.

721. iiibbb - 1/14/2005 11:42:28 PM

Conclusion: Shooting the Messengers


It may reasonably be argued that the Second Amendment does not preclude such gun regulations as registration, licensing, background checks, prohibition of arms to the deranged, children, and people with felony or violence convictions. [FN540] What seems no longer open to dispute is that the Amendment guarantees every law-abiding, responsible adult a constitutional right to choose to possess arms.


In 1989, Sanford Levinson speculated that the then-comparative paucity of writing by law professors on the Amendment might reflect "a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even winning interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation (of firearms)." [FN541] Nonetheless, Akhil Amar, William Van Alstyne, and a host of other scholars have now considered the issue. Almost unanimously, scholars have concluded that the Amendment does indeed present real hurdles to the banning of guns. If there is an intellectually viable response, it has yet to be made. Certainly the resort to character assassination, guilt by association, and the other trappings of McCarthyism instead of legal reasoning is not an intellectually viable response. It amounts to shooting the messenger because one does not like the message.

722. angel-five - 1/15/2005 12:56:52 AM

Look angel... either I'm allowed to compare things or I'm not. You seem to want to allow comparisons between things when it favors your argument, but you don't allow it when it doesn't.

What I said had nothing to do with whether or not you have permission to compare things. You of course have it although it is not mine to give. What I said did have to do with whether or not it was a solid comparison. It was not, and I said so, and I demonstrated why. That's not only fair, but it's also self-evident enough that I shouldn't have to point it out to you.

I admit that handguns present a risk to society, the problem is that they also benefit society (unlike hamburgers and cigarettes).

Oh, these things benefit society too. For starters, hamburgers can feed people. And I invite you to take it up with the farmers of North Carolina and Virginia as to whether the tobacco market benefits society. The thing you need to understand, if you're going to do the comparison, is that all these things have benefits AND liabilities, and we're trying to find the net -- the result which yields the greatest good, in society and the individual.

723. angel-five - 1/15/2005 12:57:09 AM

I don't know how you can tell me not to worry about the rare act of being a victim of a violent crime, yet turn around and say that the several orders of magnitude more rare act of two 5 yr old being involved in a negligent shooting requires all kinds of action on the governments part.

The demonstration that innocents can be killed by your firearm was just that. A demonstration of how your 'individual rights' argument, and your comparison between owning a firearm and eating fatty foods, were inept. I do not believe that one compares to the other in terms of requiring intervention, but I, and I'd venture to say most people, DO understand how the liabilities and society's demonstrable compelling interest are different in each case.

As for the rest of the post, I think you might benefit from pouring yourself a quick shot of Get A Grip and follow it up with a nice, tall, frosty and smooth glass of Read my Damn Posts because if I trip over one more of your empty cans of 'I'm gonna make up what you're saying' I assure you that you won't like what happens next.

724. angel-five - 1/15/2005 2:15:59 AM

So the considerable disagreement is with people who are ignoring the context, history, implication, and fundamental importance of the 2nd amendment.

The considerable disagreement is with people who don't think the same way you do about the Second Amendment, which was a deliberately vaguely worded statement and hence deliberately open to wide interpretation. The robust nature of the Constitution's applicability depends on these qualities.

725. wonkers2 - 1/15/2005 10:33:09 AM

Personal Protection--Make My Day

726. wonkers2 - 1/15/2005 10:37:16 AM

Personal Protection

727. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 1:46:59 PM

Message # 723 Thanks for clearing that up Angel.

728. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 1:48:01 PM

Message # 724 I'm not sure what you're saying... and I'm scared to guess after 723.

729. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 2:39:48 PM

Message # 723

How about my comparison against other things. The fatty food comparison was taking other peoples' slightly off arguments to their full conclusion.

These things are in people's homes, are not regulated, and are as capable of killing one or many people.

gasoline
diesel fuel
N fertilizer
chainsaws
knives
swords
rat poison
drain cleaner
electricity
acids

It just takes a little creativity.

---Talk about not reading posts.

730. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 2:44:17 PM

GASOLINE-RELATED BURNS FACT SHEET

Ë Nationally, burns caused by gasoline are the third leading cause of hospital admission for burns.

Ë Nearly 70 children between the ages of 5 to 14 years are admitted to specialized burn centers each year in Oklahoma due to gasoline-related burns.

Ë Flammable liquids (gasoline, kerosene, lighter fluid) are the leading cause of burns for this age group.

Ë Gasoline-related burns are often caused by gasoline being thrown on a fire or ignited by a match; this is a serious problem especially with young boys.

731. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 2:47:26 PM

Accidents and children

732. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 2:51:46 PM

Electricity accidents

You Can Learn To Prevent Them
Most people think injuries happen by chance or "accident" - a word that implies something that can't be foreseen or avoided. But electrical injuries typically can be both foreseen and avoided. This brochure will show you how electricity works, why it can be dangerous, and how to avoid its hazards.

Did You Know?
Electricity is so easy to use that you probably take it for granted. But you might be surprised to learn that each year, electricity-related incidents in the home cause approximately:

* 300 electrocutions
* 12,000 shock and burn injuries
* 150,000 fires

733. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 3:00:56 PM

The point of these posts is that all of these dangerous items in the home provide a benefit to society, but there are still accidents and tragedies.

The government doesn't require a license to store gasoline in your home. It doesn't register your cleaning chemicals. It doesn't come by and check how many appliances you have in your outlets, or whether you've appropriately child-proofed your home.

Why are guns different?

-I've established that gun control laws don't have a measurable effect in preventing the things they are touted to prevent.
-I've established that the preponderance of scholarly interpretations of the 2nd amendment establish it as an individual right.
-I've established that a gun is a legitimate tool for self-defense, and is used for this purpose than they are used for crimes (even using the most conservative statistics)
-I've agreed that this is not a limitless right (and my line is somewhere around the .50 caliber rifle (although the case against it has issues).

Most of the arguments for gun gun control are based on what owners could do with them, rather than what the vast majority actually does (isn't this a little like profiling African Americans?). Most of the bad things that are done with guns are in fact already illegal.

734. wonkers2 - 1/15/2005 3:24:25 PM

Seems to me that practical, cost-effective measures should be taken in an effort to prevent all hazards. Otherwise the drug companies will be poisoning us, the car companies will be selling us vehicles unsafe at any speed and the gun manufacturers will be selling us unsafe crap guns.

735. angel-five - 1/15/2005 3:41:14 PM

I'm not sure what you're saying... and I'm scared to guess after 723.

No problem, I can tard it up for you. You were saying that the people who disagreed on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were doing so out of a position of ignorance -- specifically they were ignoring the "context, history, implication, and fundamental importance of the 2nd amendment" in your words.

My very-hard-to-understand response was that the 2nd Amendment was deliberately worded in an ambiguous way by the crafters, so as to afford the amendment maximum flexibility. They didn't want the letter of the law to be able to narrowly contradict its spirit. They didn't want an exact wording. They were creating a living document which expressed principles. All of them had read Coke and Bacon and Blackstone and most of them were competent to argue in a court of colonial law; they wanted a framework which allowed flexibility and robustness.

In simpler words, they intended that there could be more than one way to correctly interpret the principles of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

So when someone tells you that scholars are very much divided on the exact meaning of the 2nd Amendment and you start blustering and suggesting that these people just don't know what it's all about, it swiftly leads one to believe that you yourself are the one 'ignoring' the context and the history and the framing and the etc. And that might reduce your position to a caricature if you aren't careful.

gasoline
diesel fuel
N fertilizer
chainsaws
knives
swords
rat poison
drain cleaner
electricity
acids

It just takes a little creativity.

---Talk about not reading posts

Talk about not knowing what you're talking about!!!

736. angel-five - 1/15/2005 3:43:13 PM

Do you really think electricity, toxins and corrosives aren't regulated? Are you honestly of the opinion that there are no laws against carrying swords or large knives or switchblades or butterfly knives about in public? Are you also of the opinion that you can store gasoline, etc. any way you please, or that you can't be cited for dangerous uses of it? It is difficult to take you seriously when you say such things and you say a lot of them.

But leaving that aside for the moment -- let us pretend, for the minute, that the world we're really living in is yours, and all manner of dangerous things aren't regulated at all except for guns which are heavily regulated and that there are liberals wandering the streets who split their time between misunderstanding the crystal clear 2nd amendment, chowing down sticks of butter and smoking asphalt, gluing their eyes shut, and plotting to ban your firearms because of the scary way they look. And they're all just fine about every other potentially dangerous thing like fertilizer bombs and strychnine. Sure, let's pretend this is the case.

Examine your list and next to every item on it, put the body count down. Compare it to the number of shootings every year, the ease with which one person can kill another, the likelihood that an innocent will be injured by one person trying to exercise a right to own or use those items, etc, etc.

Moreover, add to your list the other things which might be on it -- like various types of explosive, various toxic chemicals, various poisons, various drugs. Examine asbestos. Examine non-code wiring. Examine dangerous animals. Examine, in short, all the other stuff which we do regulate and then get back to me about how guns are singled out. Because the fact of the matter is that there is a continuum of what society regulates and what it doesn't, and while it is not platonically perfect, it still is a much more apt picture than you are painting.

737. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:02:11 PM

Do you really think electricity, toxins and corrosives aren't regulated? Are you honestly of the opinion that there are no laws against carrying swords or large knives or switchblades or butterfly knives about in public? Are you also of the opinion that you can store gasoline, etc. any way you please, or that you can't be cited for dangerous uses of it? It is difficult to take you seriously when you say such things and you say a lot of them.

They are not regulated in the way that people are proposing guns be regulated. People make sensible decisions about storing gasoline without the aid of the government. The government does not require I have a special cabinet, keep it under lock and key, or some technology that makes it so that only the registered user can pour it.

You claim I distort your arguments.... sheesh! Look in the mirror.

738. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:02:19 PM

Examine your list and next to every item on it, put the body count down. Compare it to the number of shootings every year, the ease with which one person can kill another, the likelihood that an innocent will be injured by one person trying to exercise a right to own or use those items, etc, etc.

No.... you do it. Every time I bring up deaths by other unregulated things you jump on my case.

Moreover, add to your list the other things which might be on it -- like various types of explosive, various toxic chemicals, various poisons, various drugs. Examine asbestos. Examine non-code wiring. Examine dangerous animals. Examine, in short, all the other stuff which we do regulate and then get back to me about how guns are singled out. Because the fact of the matter is that there is a continuum of what society regulates and what it doesn't, and while it is not platonically perfect, it still is a much more apt picture than you are painting.

The point is that the all of the proposed methods of regulation, don't live up to their claims, they don't acomplish anything they say they'll do.

Add to that the fact it's a constitutiright for indivudals to own guns and your burden becomes that much greater. If you want to curtail that right, then you're going to have to show that your proposal works. Failing to do so, what is the purpose of pursuing them?

You can't just keep throwing laws at something just because you feel like it...

739. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:25:40 PM

Message # 734
Seems to me that practical, cost-effective measures should be taken in an effort to prevent all hazards. Otherwise the drug companies will be poisoning us, the car companies will be selling us vehicles unsafe at any speed and the gun manufacturers will be selling us unsafe crap guns.

Wonkers, I lost you in the shuffle. I agree with this in principle... but notice that most of that regulation is being done on the manufacturing, production-end... not on the user-end... which seems to be where most gun regulation wants to root itself.

What constitutes an 'unsafe' may be debatible. The main issue for me is a gun that isn't going to wear out, and one that won't go off if dropped. Smart-gun technology has major issues. Some technology is redundant... such as the requirement for chamber loaded indicators as all firearms should be assumed to be loaded at all times.

740. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:26:27 PM

Good manufacturing and materials... etc...

741. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:26:59 PM

i would never object to those kinds of standards.

742. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 4:28:32 PM

But... if it's good enough for the police... it ought to be good enough for me [barring the whole automatic weapon thing...which I've never advocated but I'm sure Angel would misinturpret the unbracketed statement].

743. angel-five - 1/15/2005 4:41:19 PM

They are not regulated in the way that people are proposing guns be regulated.

Which people would that be? And what proposal are you speaking of? Because a great many people are proposing simple laws like safe storage, which definitely is how, say, gasoline is regulated. Many other people are proposing registration regulations which do apply to other items on the list. You need to be specific.

The government does not require I have a special cabinet, keep it under lock and key, or some technology that makes it so that only the registered user can pour it.

The government does actually have requirements for the storage of gasoline. The government also has many similar regulations which apply to other things on the list (and lots of other substances and items which you chose to leave off the list although they fit squarely into the rubric.

No.... you do it. Every time I bring up deaths by other unregulated things you jump on my case.

Iiibbb, I actually am enjoying this discussion, but nuance matters. Another way to say that is that when I 'jump on your case' it usually has got to do with something specific, like your hamburgers versus guns arguments and whether or not they're the same thing in terms of collective interests. You're free, of course, to just think I'm roundly abusing you for no real reason, but there are qualitative differences between apples and oranges.

The point is that the all of the proposed methods of regulation, don't live up to their claims, they don't acomplish anything they say they'll do.


This is a bald assertion and I would absolutely dispute that gun regulations haven't accomplished anything proponents have said they'd do. Part of the problem in this discussion is that you speak in these sweeping generalities and draw conclusions from them, but the reality is a great deal more complex and merits examination.

744. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 5:15:58 PM

Which people would that be? And what proposal are you speaking of? Because a great many people are proposing simple laws like safe storage, which definitely is how, say, gasoline is regulated. Many other people are proposing registration regulations which do apply to other items on the list. You need to be specific.

I'm interested in these laws you speak of... could you cite something specifcally... I mean there are laws regulating the type of can that can be sold.... but what law regulates how it's kept in my garage?

This is a bald assertion and I would absolutely dispute that gun regulations haven't accomplished anything proponents have said they'd do.

Do I need to cite the NSF study again.

745. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 5:16:06 PM

Part of the problem in this discussion is that you speak in these sweeping generalities and draw conclusions from them, but the reality is a great deal more complex and merits examination

You are not the first to say it's complicated... However, I return to the point that if the intent is to curtail a constitutional right, there are some pretty strong burdens placed on gun control advocaes to prove (not assume) that regulation X is required. It's not enough to say that people might do this... or could do that... therefore we must regulate.

The best analogy is the hate-speech in Message # 659... it's a constitutional right... and there is speech that is out of line (yelling "fire" in a theater)... but there is a strong burden on society to prove that certain speech is not allowed. Even then, that speech may be appropriate at times, as when there's actually a fire. But that's not even the only speech.

Take the KKK... I'm sure that hate speech has led deaths in the past, yet the courts have consitantly put a very large burden on the government to suppress even this speech.

Guns represent a cost and benefit to society. Like any constitutional right... there is a very heavy burden on government to show why these rights should be limited.

These rights can't be curtailed just because of emotional responses to speech or to guns.

746. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 9:43:37 PM

How are they going to distinguish "Assault knives" from kitchen knives?"

The rampage has fuelled calls for a clampdown on Britain's worsening knife culture. A man was tonight being held by police in connection with the attacks.
--------------------------------
Families of stabbing victims joined the Victims of Crime Trust (VOCT) last week to launch the Knives Destroy Lives campaign. The group, which includes the parents of murdered schoolboy Luke Walmsley, are calling on the Government to introduce a five-year minimum jail term for carrying a blade longer than three inches.

They also want to see a six-month minimum jail term for carrying shorter blades, or three months for juveniles.
--------------
Some of the victims have been attacked in their own homes, including John Monckton, 49, a wealthy financier who was killed defending his home in Chelsea from two knife-wielding robbers earlier this month, and Jerry Dorrington, 45, a roofer, who was found stabbed in his home in Willesden Green, north London, last week.
-----------------------------
Michael Rye, the Enfield Council leader, said today's stabbings were the latest in a series of incidents in the borough which left residents "increasingly concerned".

He said: "I am shocked and appalled that this could happen in Enfield. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

"This is the latest in a series of unrelated violent incidents in the borough and I know residents are growing increasingly concerned about crime.

747. iiibbb - 1/15/2005 9:46:07 PM

They've banned handguns... they've restricted storage of other arms... they've put the onus on people that would defend their own homes... now they want to ban knives.

When are they going to be free of crime exactly? This is where people want us to follow?

748. concerned - 1/15/2005 11:34:15 PM

They'll pry my butter knife out of my cold dead fingers.

749. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 12:10:08 AM

Bleach not an equivalent threat, you say?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A woman angry with her 12-year-old daughter for having sex forced the girl to drink bleach and sat on her until the child died, a police detective said.

The girl's 9-year-old brother was forced to watch the attack, Detective Warren Cotton testified Thursday in a preliminary hearing for Tunisia Archie, 31.

Archie is charged with capital murder in the asphyxiation death of her daughter Jasmine. If convicted, she could be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole.

Cotton said Archie, who has been jailed without bond since shortly after her daughter's Nov. 26 death, told authorities she was disturbed because "her daughter told her that she was no longer a virgin."

She said she poured bleach into Jasmine's mouth and the child vomited, he said, then sat on her until she stopped breathing, Cotton testified.

Archie forced Jasmine's 9-year-old brother Jacorey to watch the attack and "told him that if he shed a tear that she was going to kill him, too," Cotton testified.

750. angel-five - 1/16/2005 1:03:22 AM

I mean there are laws regulating the type of can that can be sold.... but what law regulates how it's kept in my garage?

Well, for example, in New Jersey you can only store five gallons of gas at home. It can't be in the home. It has to be in an approved container in a separate building.

Local and state governments have different regulations. The federal laws I know of only govern large scale issues like fuel distribution networks and underground tanks, although EPA regulations prohibit the storage of fuel in anything leaky.

Do I need to cite the NSF study again.

You are going to have to do a whole lot more than that to prove that gun control never does anything its proponents say it will. Look at Europe.

You are not the first to say it's complicated... However, I return to the point that if the intent is to curtail a constitutional right, there are some pretty strong burdens placed on gun control advocaes to prove (not assume) that regulation X is required. It's not enough to say that people might do this... or could do that... therefore we must regulate.

I don't have much of a theoretical problem with the idea that curtailing a constitutional right should require a lot of effort. But how exactly do you intend gun control advocates to prove a negative?

751. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:23:02 AM

You are going to have to do a whole lot more than that to prove that gun control never does anything its proponents say it will. Look at Europe.

What about Europe? They still have gun crime there.

I don't have much of a theoretical problem with the idea that curtailing a constitutional right should require a lot of effort. But how exactly do you intend gun control advocates to prove a negative?

Seems to me they've had chances with nationwide laws such as the AWB and the Brady bill. The AWB was a flop. The worst parts of the Brady Bill (the waiting period) went away in most states with the advent of the instant check program was instated.

I don't know how they're going to prove it well enough to curtail the rights. My beleif is that they've not got anything to stand on except emotional reactions. I really beleive the 2nd amendment, under real scrutiny by a scholarly court, will be interpreted as an individual right. If you ask me their only bet is going to be change the constitutional amendment itself.

752. angel-five - 1/16/2005 1:37:24 AM

What about Europe? They still have gun crime there.

Pray tell what's the shooting and gun homicide rate in Europe as compared to the US?

Seems to me they've had chances with nationwide laws such as the AWB and the Brady bill. The AWB was a flop.

Iiibbb, it seems to you that they've had a chance to prove a negative?

753. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 9:50:42 AM

What was their murder rates before they implemented those laws?

You yourself said it's a complicated issue in this country... surely you're not now saying that guns are a driving factor?

What do you think is the real things driving violence in this country? Do you really think it's access that's the root cause of the problem here? How do you explain Finland... how do you explain Swizterland? How do you explain Canada? These places have lots of guns and low gun violence.
---------------------------------
I think the research that's been done on the matter pretty much shows that gun control isn't the answer. So if it's still desired... it will take changing the constitution to meet their goals.

754. RickNelson - 1/16/2005 11:04:14 AM

re: 748, you and me concerned. Butter knife wielders unite, save our way of life, we want laws, we want what we want and we want it now. When do we want it, Now!

But seriously folks,

No joke,

Minneapolis is the place to be for conceal and carry. We've got the law, it's on the books, just come on down with your three fiddy seven, don't hide your hollow points proudly display your missle defense.

I'm kidding about the hollow points, but not conceal and carry.

The signage business boomed bigtime for the "No Guns Allowed On This Premisis".

Unfortunately it's kinda weird here now. We're split. A lot of us against it have not ourlet because the attorney gen, Mike Hatch is for the law, even though a judge called it uncoonstitutional. The judge ruled that way because the law had an attached bill unrelated to it pass through. No news what that was, but the conceal is still here.

Something like 40,000 Minnesotans are registered now. Oh, and the likelyhood of having some ninny pop a cap in you for some inconsequential motor vehicle incident has increased accordingly.

It used to be that you only had to watch out for attornies who smashed little old ladies in the face (true story).

755. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 11:25:36 AM

Something like 40,000 Minnesotans are registered now. Oh, and the likelyhood of having some ninny pop a cap in you for some inconsequential motor vehicle incident has increased accordingly.

People have been saying stuff like that for years.

Most people who have a permit have it to prepare for a criminal trying to kill them or their loved ones.

These people are very much interested in not losing this privilage... so they're not going to 'pop a cap' in you for cutting them off in traffic. They type who would do this, would do it irregardless of the permitting laws (just look to LA).

756. arkymalarky - 1/16/2005 11:46:17 AM

Rick, if you're still around, what's the story on that little old man (85, WWII vet) who was manhandled by a cop on his way to visit his wife in the nursing home?

757. arkymalarky - 1/16/2005 11:48:16 AM

The man was black, btw, so it's being looked into as a racial incident and the cop had a prior incident in which he killed a man whose car had been carjacked. The man had managed to get a gun away from the carjacker and the policeman arrived on the scene and shot the man thinking he was the carjacker (he was black, also).

758. angel-five - 1/16/2005 11:56:41 AM

What was their murder rates before they implemented those laws?

You yourself said it's a complicated issue in this country... surely you're not now saying that guns are a driving factor?

Why wouldn't I say that? Good god, clear up your blind spot. Of COURSE guns and gun availability have got a whole lot to do with the fact that so many gun homicides have taken place in America! It's like you're saying 'You yourself said pollution is a complicated issue in this country, surely you're not now saying that factories and open sewers are a driving factor?' And pointing out that Switzerland and Sweden have sewers and factories and they aren't as polluted so therefore sewers and factories shouldn't be regulated.

The fact of the matter is that for whatever sets of reasons, there are more Americans killed by gun violence than in the rest of the West combined, by over an order of magnitude. when it comes to guns.

Any sane program designed to deal with our problem would start with education, responsibility, workshops and the like. But in the interim I think it is obvious beyond belief that we need other controls like Brady waiting and registration. You can sit there and fuckin' play at saying that gun owners are responsible, but the statistics of how many people are getting killed by them speak otherwise.

759. RickNelson - 1/16/2005 11:58:13 AM

I haven't heard any more about that arky. I know about it, but the news is pro police. It's really hard to follow up on anything unless there's a stink. This one isn't airing itself out yet.

760. angel-five - 1/16/2005 11:58:21 AM

There's a blown link in there. Clearly, this country has got some serious problems when it comes to guns.

761. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:11:31 PM

Ok... sice you've done your time crapping all over my stats...

5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.

What is their definition of children? Doesn't this include gang violence? Why should the activities of budding criminals dictate the terms of my owning a gun?

40% of American households with children have guns.

22 million children live in homes with at least one firearm.
34% of children in the United States (representing more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in homes with at least one firearm. In 69 percent of homes with firearms and children, more than one firearm is present.

There's about 100,000,000 households with guns. 1000 accidents per year... that's an accident rate of 1/1000th of 1 percent. Reestring it to just housholds with kids and guns, it rises to 9/1000ths of 1 percent. This is a crisis?

762. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:12:16 PM

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Again, I don't think it's fair to require that someone who uses a gun in self defense actually kill their attacker. Criminals are more likely to pull the trigger than the victims. There are between 100,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses per year. Compared to the ~30K violent deaths... throw out sucide... ~16K. So it makes a gun 3x more likely to be used for defense using the least favorable self defense numbers.

In 1997, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age.

Gangs?

In the U.S, children under 15 commit suicide with guns at a rate of eleven times the rate of other countries combined.

Guns in the home are the primary source for firearms that teenagers use to kill themselves in the United States.

As if someone can't figure out another way to accomplish a suicide. Or, maybe drowning their sorrows in drugs and alcohol and then taking a bunch of other people out in a car accident.

85% of Americans want mandatory handgun registration.

Luckily, most lawmakers realize this is a constitutional right.

85% of Americans want a background check and 5-day waiting period before a handgun is purchased.

No one argues background checks... as far as 5-day waiting period. What do you say to a woman who recieves a death threat by a stalker today?

763. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:13:06 PM

95% of Americans think that US made handguns should meet the same safety standards as imported guns.

I think 95% of americans don't know what safety standards an imported firearm even has. No one will argue that weapons should be made to certain standards.

51% of the guns used in crimes by juveniles and people 18 to 24 were acquired by "straw purchasers," people who buy several guns legally through licensed dealers, then sell them to criminals, violent offenders, and kids.

Straw purchases are already illegal. Go after these people for God's sake! Find them and prosecute them they are already breaking the law!!!

764. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:13:19 PM

More Americans were killed by guns than by war in the 20th Century.

And more americans were killed by cancer and by cars and by heart disease and by poisonings and by falls and by..... etc. etc.

A classroom is emptied every two days in America by gunfire

Gangs?

Toy guns and teddy bears have more federal manufacturing regulations than real guns.

Non-sequitur.

Every day 79 people are killed by firearms in America.

And more americans were killed by cancer and by cars and by heart disease and by poisonings and by falls and by..... etc. etc.

88% of the US population and 80% of US gun owners support childproofing all new handguns.

80% of US Gun owners probably already childproof their handguns... and the other 20% don't interact with kids. Giving a kid access to a firearm already violates numerous laws.

Kids in America are 12 times more likely to be killed by a gun than kids in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

Gangs?

Guns stored in the home are used 72% of the time when children are accidentally killed and injured, commit suicide with a firearm.

ok

Medical costs from gun injuries and deaths cost $19 billion. The US taxpayer will pay half of that cost.

Ok... I could talk about a lot of things the government spends money on that I'd just as soon pull the plug on caused by people who do dumb-shit things...

765. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:17:52 PM

This country has serious problems with violence. I want the government to address violence before they start addressing law-abiding people who aren't the problem.

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for: Murder 10.0 years, Rape 7.6 years, Aggravated Assault 3.4 years.

* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (3)

source.

766. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:22:58 PM

Your stats imply that there's all sorts of unbalanced teens running around. Could it not be argued that all the violent media we are saturated in by movies and TV don't contribute to this. Doesn't hate-speech affect them?

Shouldn't we limit this stuff too?

767. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:25:43 PM

No one is questioning the problem with violence. But I disagree that gun control does much if anything to stop it. If anything it disarms the victims.

We see in the links from England... gun crime goes down... knife crime goes up. Now... you can give them atta-boys for lowering gun crime, but they haven't solved the fundamental problem.

768. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 1:46:57 PM

Added Angel's faq to butter bar.

769. wonkers2 - 1/16/2005 1:47:51 PM

Effective gun control has yet to be tried in the United States. How can anyone know whether or not it could reduce violence?

770. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 2:02:50 PM

Whatever is tried it still has to pass constitutional muster. Whether what would be truely "effective" would actually pass is another story.

However... why not just go after violent crime? Why not enforce the myriad of gun laws we already have? People act like new gun control is the only means to this end. Which is just as misguided as someone thinking a gun is the only solution to a problem.

771. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 2:04:40 PM

Whatever is tried it still has to pass constitutional muster. Whether what would be truely "effective" would actually pass is another story.

Whether something that is truely effective can also pass muster is anothere story.

772. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2005 3:06:07 PM

I suggest we skip the constitutional baggage and discuss gun control on its own merits. The reason is that I have noticed that as soon as iiibbb feels pressed over his arguments or statistics he grabs at the 2nd amendment as a life-saver.

773. justears - 1/16/2005 3:20:07 PM

The following poem by Jorge Borges has something to say to the issue of gun control. Handguns participate in the evil intention for which they are designed, namely, killing people. They sit around dreaming of the day when some idiot pulls it out, points it at a person and kills them. The "truism" that it is not guns that kill people but people, is really a limited smokescreen to conceal the evil which dwells in the objects themselves. Evil objects should be first limited and then banned.



A dagger rests in a drawer.

It was forged in Toledo at the end of the last century. Luis Melian Lafinur gave it to my father, who brought it from Uruguay. Evaristo Carriego once held it in his hand.

Whoever lays eyes on it has to pick up the dagger and toy with it, as if he had always been looking out for it. The hand is quick to grab the waiting hilt, and the powerful obeying blade slides in and out of the sheath with a click. This is not what the dagger wants.

It is more than a structure of metal: men conceived it and shaped it with a single end in mind. The dagger that last night knifed a man in Tacuarembo and the daggers that rained on Caesar are in some eternal way the same dagger. The dagger wants to kill, it wants to shed sudden blood.

In a drawer of my writing table, among draft pages and old letters, the dagger dreams over and over its simple tiger’s dream. On wielding it the hand comes alive because the metal comes alive, sensing itself, each time handled, in touch with the killer for whom it was forged.

At times I am sorry for it. Such power and singlemindedness, so impassive or innocent its pride, and the years slip by, unheeding.

774. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 3:31:56 PM

Evil objects should be first limited and then banned.

Evil objects? What a cop-out. I'm sorry, but the onus is not on guns... the onus is on the people that do evil things.

A Nation of Cowards

Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant brake on criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more direct tack. George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars.

Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it.

775. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 3:39:24 PM

Message # 772 Wishing won't make the 2nd amendment go away Pelle.

We've had several discussions about the 'merits' of gun control... however, there's a big differnce between the advertised merits, and the realized merits.

776. justears - 1/16/2005 3:51:17 PM

Peacemakers have the only rational solution: beat swords into plowshares, that is, ban handguns from a civilized society and prosecute those who transgress.

Imagine how "safe" we would be if everyone was "armed" with their glock 9s. What a wonderful world it would be. Every sub-average bozo in need of anger management, every pissed off driver, every bitch, bastard and idiot. Handgun defenders have so many screws loose it is hard to count.

777. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:06:51 PM

Imagine how "safe" we would be if everyone was "armed" with their glock 9s. What a wonderful world it would be. Every sub-average bozo in need of anger management, every pissed off driver, every bitch, bastard and idiot. Handgun defenders have so many screws loose it is hard to count.

Oh... we're going the marginalization route. People who might defend themselves are uncivilized or even criminal. Right.

778. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:11:28 PM

Your stereotyping is no better than any other form of bigotry.

779. justears - 1/16/2005 4:16:43 PM

Why can't you defend yourself with your fists, god forbid, should the need arise? Why can't you defend yourself with the law, god forbid, should the need arise. Why can't you defend yourself with your voice? Your love? Your intelligence? Your creativity? Your humor? Why is self-defense reduced to shooting people with handguns? Do you really think it adds one whit to human dignity to carry a handgun? Who are the cowards here?

780. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:23:02 PM

Perhaps because they've shown too often they don't want to listen?

No one is saying handguns are the be-all end-all of self defense... There are many other things that should be tried before resorting to them. However how does a 120 lb woman defend herself against three determined 200lb rapists? How would I defend myself against someone with a knife or gun?

I won't let you put the guilt on victims. It goes squarely on the people that initiate the violence.

781. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:25:48 PM

How does the law defend me when I am alone? Does the magical police fairy suddenly materialize when the criminal crawls out of the shadow or invades my home?

782. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:30:25 PM

Respectfully... if you should face a violent criminal and choose to deal with them by putting yourself at their mercy... that's your business.

But just as I wouldn't tell what to do with your life... I expect the same courtesy.

783. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:35:38 PM

Message # 67

What would you tell the people in the post above? Their lives were in mortal danger. What would you tell my frien Elain who was attacked by her ex-husband who meant to kill her (she didn't kill him, but the handgun she had was the only thing that saved her).

784. arkymalarky - 1/16/2005 4:39:19 PM

I don't take the idea of guns for defense outside my home very seriously against people. If they get the drop on you it's highly unlikely your carry permit will protect you. I actually think any carry permits should forbid concealed weapons. Inside the home is different, depending, but it's very hard to protect people from their own stupidity. I actually agree with 3i3b pretty much on what he says about that, except I think there should be heavy liability for people who cause damage from failure to follow regulations and safety instructions. If that was said somewhere along the line, I missed it.

It's not just a matter of seeing criminals around every corner. We shot a rabid skunk in our yard and burned it. I really wouldn't have wanted to get close enough to try any other way of dealing with it.

785. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:46:31 PM

except I think there should be heavy liability for people who cause damage from failure to follow regulations and safety instructions. If that was said somewhere along the line, I missed it.

There is a heavy burden. It was mentioned earlier... or at least one of my links... that if you kill someone in 'self defense' the burden of proof shifts from the state to the person who used lethal force.

The state also frowns heavily on so-called warning shots (of which there is no such thing). If you have time to fire a warning shot then you weren't really in mortal danger.

It has consistantly played out in the courts that way.

As I said, I don't personally carry except when I'm in the deep woods... where I have been robbed and where I'm furthest from help.

My basic position is that it's not for me to decide when, or how someone takes precautions. If they are law-abiding then they aren't a threat to you or me.

786. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 4:47:40 PM

Self Defense Laws and the Use of Force

This link has the information.

787. justears - 1/16/2005 4:52:00 PM

The issue is social policy. If handguns were banned, eventually no one would have them. Which world would you prefer to live in? One in which everyone carried them or one in which no one did? I am not arguing from marginality. Everyone is at times angry, stupid and cruel. It would be better if, when I am, I had no access to sudden death implements.

If I die facing some thug, at least I will have died with a decent set of values and hopes. If you think that is cowardly, I feel sorry for you.

788. arkymalarky - 1/16/2005 4:52:25 PM

I meant liability for accidents. My friend whose brother accidentally shot and killed the other one, for instance--their father (a local policeman at the time) should have been prosecuted.

My basic position is that it's not for me to decide when, or how someone takes precautions. If they are law-abiding then they aren't a threat to you or me.

I have a right to know who around me is carrying a gun.

789. arkymalarky - 1/16/2005 4:55:12 PM

If handguns were banned, eventually no one would have them.

When has that ever worked with anything?

790. justears - 1/16/2005 5:01:44 PM

All kinds of things are banned successfully for good reason: for example, cars without seatbelts. Bans tend to severely limit stuff unless there is some kind of addiction involved.

791. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 5:02:07 PM

If I die facing some thug, at least I will have died with a decent set of values and hopes. If you think that is cowardly, I feel sorry for you.

It's either brave or stupid... but you do what you've got to do . Personally, if I am graced with an opportunity to defend myself... my family... my children... then you can bet I'm going to take that opportunity. If you think that is cowardly (or evil), I feel sorry for you as well.

792. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 5:06:32 PM

Arky, I certainly see and understand where you're coming from, and I've talked about why I others prefer concealed... but I don't think there's a need for us to rehash it.

I appreciate the liability side of things. I don't know if/how a home-owners policy would cover this kind of thing. Seems to me if it were an accident it should... and if it was a criminal in the act their rights are void anyway.

793. justears - 1/16/2005 5:07:04 PM

"graced with the opportunity to defend" Listen to yourself talk. Sit around caressing your gun and fantasizing about an "opportunity to defend yourself" all you want. Perverted.

794. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 5:10:58 PM

"A gentleman very rarely needs a gun. But when he needs it, he needs it badly"

Winston Churchill

795. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 5:11:49 PM

Whatever Justears... I won't be marginalized by you.

796. justears - 1/16/2005 5:30:34 PM

iiibbb, And so, to protect the gentleman's rare need, we enable murder, mayhem, armed robbery: Columbines, accidents, etc. I don't mean to marginalize anyone, but I would love to ban handguns.

797. Ronski - 1/16/2005 5:38:13 PM

The need isn't rare at all, today.

798. justears - 1/16/2005 5:40:18 PM

Maybe because there are too many easily accessible handguns.

799. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 5:41:56 PM

well... your portrait of me and the 100,000,000 other gun owners in this country masturbating at home with our guns in a ring around us is degrading and instulting.

The need is not so rare in this country as studies have shown that guns are used in self defense between 100,000 and 2 million times a year in the US. Used does not mean discharged. Nothing forces a vicitim to pull the trigger... if a criminal elects to leave that's great.

I am with you that violence is a problem in our society, but I do not agree that banning handguns is going to do a thing. In fact, studies are showing that gun-control is not meeting this goal.

It would mkae my day if our gov't would drop the "war on drugs" for a "war on violence"

but for you to attack my mental state or my motives makes it really hard to discuss the issue with you.

800. justears - 1/16/2005 6:01:30 PM

iiibbb I have carefully used the term "handguns". I don't object to hunting for food and perhaps even sport. But handguns are not hunting tools but rather people-killing tools. Sure they(handguns) have also been turned into a target sport...but in which case, if they are allowed at all, they should be kept locked in gun clubs. I make the same distinction for assault weapons, sniper rifles etc. I think this country is simply insane for allowing ordinary traffic in such things.

Frankly, much of what I see in handgun enthusiasts is a kind of perversity imo. The fascination with guns is really just a mirror for one's inner cruelty. Cruelty,by the way, which I believe is a universal human capability, and one which should be limited rather than enhanced. Gun polishing is a kind of sharpening the tooth of the dog. Beware of gazing to long into the abyss because it in turn gazes into you.

801. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 6:16:58 PM

I just think that if it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me. Not everyone can handle a rifle or shotgun... those weapons are also not appropriate for a lot of self-defense situations because of their power and their range.

I don't agree that the fact I would pull the trigger on someone whom I thought was trying to kill me or my loved one indicates I have any special propensity for cruelty. I have no special desire to hurt anyone and never have. If I am given an opening to remove myself from the situation I will... but I've also been in situations where I wasn't able to remove myself... which changed my outlook.

You apparently have me all figured out, so I'm not going to try to convince you... but your analysis of me is wrong. I will say that the things you imply about myself and other gun owners are very insulting.

Gun polishing is a kind of sharpening the tooth of the dog. Beware of gazing to long into the abyss because it in turn gazes into you.

I have no idea what this means...

802. justears - 1/16/2005 6:55:00 PM

iiibbb, OK, I am really sorry if I have imputed something to you personally to which you have taken offense. If the shoe fits wear it, otherwise, by all means don't. I do tend to stereotype handgun owners. Aside from all of that, however, I do think my argument stands. I am deeply committed to handgun control, as I am to opposition to the death penalty. As Camus argued "we must struggle for a world in which all forms of killing people are illegitimate" (paraphrase). Maybe we will meet in the deep woods someday...but I would feel a lot more comfortable if we left the guns at home.

803. justears - 1/16/2005 6:55:49 PM

or better yet melted them down.

804. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 7:03:41 PM

I'm a social libertarian commited to law-abiding adults making their own decisions.

I am also anti-death penalty... for whatever it's worth.

805. wonkers2 - 1/16/2005 7:38:35 PM

It seems pretty obvious that the more handguns manufactured, sold and carried, the more people will be injured and killed. And, the fewer guns made, sold and carried, the fewer people will be injured or killed. Other countries have done a better job of achieving this goal than the United States. Perhaps we should take a look at what they are doing and give what they are doing a try.

806. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 10:27:56 PM

Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate and A Gun Control Compromise.

both are short reads.... but here are excerpts

The biggest objection gun rights advocates have to any gun control measures is--the slippery slope. (A slippery slope is the belief that if we allow one event to occur, other harmful events will follow.) It is not a logical fallacy, it is not a delusion, it exists. As a result, until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, the majority of gun rights advocates will oppose most or all gun control proposals. That is the key to understanding the so-called intransigence of gun rights activists.

Some sportsmen are naively or selfishly willing to accept the kind of arrangement Bradley speaks of. By sacrificing handguns in particular, they believe their shotguns and hunting rifles will be saved. Banning handguns would not necessarily result in a significant drop in the homicide rate, and even if it did, rifle and shotgun homicides would still occur. Under this scenario, why should anyone be allowed to own deadly weapons strictly for sport? The obvious next and prudent step, would require "sporting" weapons to be stored at bona fide gun clubs and shooting ranges.

Once self-defense and Second Amendment rationales are abandoned as justification for gun ownership, it is only a matter of time before civilian gun owners succumb to extinction. Regardless of whatever assurances the current crop of politicians gives, without legal or constitutional guarantees, it is easy for subsequent politicians to abolish civilian firearms ownership. After all, how many lives are saved, and injuries avoided, by weapons used solely for sport? How can ownership of "sporting" weapons be justified after just one is misused in a shooting rampage?

807. iiibbb - 1/16/2005 10:28:02 PM

Firearms regulations should be subject to the heightened scrutiny that courts reserve for impositions on other fundamental rights, which means that serious and skeptical consideration will be given to the claim that regulation is necessary, that the means chosen correspond to that claim of need, that the state interest is a very important one, and that the regulations are no more extensive than they have to be to address that interest. As with any civil right, the burden of persuasion should remain with the proponent of legislation that restricts or burdens the right to keep and bear arms, rather than, as with ordinary legislation, on the opponent. But a public policy of simply discouraging people from owning or using firearms is not, in and of itself, a constitutionally permissible objective, any more than discouraging people from religious observance would be permissible to some future, oh-so-progressive government that considered religion as hopelessly declasse progressives nowadays consider the right to keep and bear arms. Thus the Los Angeles Police Department has behaved unconstitutionally by refusing, over a period of many years, to exercise its statutory discretion to issue carry permits, because the department didn't think it a good idea for people (other than police officers) to carry guns around. And any statute or regulation that burdens the right to keep and bear arms on the ground that guns are a public health hazard should enjoy the same frosty reception in court that would be given to a statute or regulation that burdened the free exercise of religion as a mental health hazard.

808. angel-five - 1/17/2005 2:29:42 AM

What is their definition of children? Doesn't this include gang violence? Why should the activities of budding criminals dictate the terms of my owning a gun?

Where you're from, do gangs have lots of gun accidents and suicides, or are you just a moron? Read the fucking post. I don't mean to be rude but you can't read fucking English and since we're writing in that language it's kind of a critical problem and despite being asked to parse simple English several times in a row you're still ringing up winners like this one. Get on the stick or something, dude, maybe read the posts with someone there to help you with them.

Anyway, my guess is that children is the legal definition. If you want another look at it, look here. And then come back and start telling me more about these '1000' accidental shootings a year and who gets shot

There's about 100,000,000 households with guns. 1000 accidents per year... that's an accident rate of 1/1000th of 1 percent. Reestring it to just housholds with kids and guns, it rises to 9/1000ths of 1 percent. This is a crisis?

The crisis is in your math. There are about a thousand accidental killings a year.

Again, I don't think it's fair to require that someone who uses a gun in self defense actually kill their attacker.

Well then, include the non-shootings. And include all the other non-shooting outcomes, too, especially the ones where your having a gun didn't matter much at all. Include all the crimes that started out as simple robberies and ended up as homicides because some suburban hero pulled his piece and wound up dead.

809. angel-five - 1/17/2005 2:30:16 AM

Moreover, pay attention to the stats. In the US in 1998 there were 12,000 homicides. There are 295 million people in the US. That translates out to, using your own style here, 4/10000. You want to tell me again about this huge-ass crisis that requires you to go about armed? Bearing in mind that using lethal force to defend against nonlethal force is... Tell us how legal that is, iiibbb, again?

Gangs?

This idee fixee of yours is a tad bit telling.

As if someone can't figure out another way to accomplish a suicide. Or, maybe drowning their sorrows in drugs and alcohol and then taking a bunch of other people out in a car accident.

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you should be quiet whenever you find yourself in that situation, iiibbb. The lethality of the means used to attempt suicide is of grave importance to those of us who give a rat's ass whether people can easily kill themselves.

Luckily, most lawmakers realize this is a constitutional right.


There is no constitutional right about registration.

No one argues background checks... as far as 5-day waiting period. What do you say to a woman who recieves a death threat by a stalker today?

Something like 'call the police'?

Maybe your answer is to give her a firearm and hope she doesn't blow a hole in the mailman or herself instead? But I forget, in iiibbb-land, all gun users are responsible, smart, well-trained, law-abiding, and, er, responsible.

Pop quiz: what does the LAW say you should do?

And more americans were killed by cancer and by cars and by heart disease and by poisonings and by falls and by..... etc. etc.

If your answer here is that we should regulate guns equivalently to how we regulate carcinogens and automobiles and poison, dude, I agree. But of course you didn't think about all that.

810. angel-five - 1/17/2005 2:33:20 AM

Non-sequitur.

Only in iiibbbland is it not germane to the topic to note that plastic guns are more regulated than real ones when we're discussing the regulation of guns based on their use and misuse and lethality.



80% of US Gun owners probably already childproof their handguns...

Yes, is that why you are so up in arms about the idea that someone might make it mandatory?

In other words, no, I don't think so, iiibbb.



Now do yourself a favor and think long and hard before you post in response, because the last few days from you make it seem like you've wired your keyboard directly into your endocrine system. You aren't being coherent, and frankly it's boring and stupid. When you take longer to answer it's usually better.

811. angel-five - 1/17/2005 4:00:39 AM

For what it's worth:

I think the problems America has with gun violence are systemic and endemic and won't be solved by gun control alone. But the appeal to common responsibility argument won't work, any more than the argument 'we shouldn't have speed limits because responsible people drive safely anyway, why restrict them because of what irresponsible drivers do' moves me.

The Second Amendment lends itself to many interpretations, but it is nevertheless short and simple. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What are the second and third words there?

812. Macnas - 1/17/2005 5:18:04 AM

That particular bit of the US constitution is meant for other times and situations.

The idea that the gun owning American public will defend...what exactly? Does it mean having the ability to overthrow the government by force of arms? Or is it having the wherewithal to go "wolverine" and wage a freedom fighter type campaign against the, oh I don't know, Canadian invaders?

And the "arms" bit, keeping in mind that armaments at that time meant muzzleloaders, pikes and swords, what sense does it make to say that the second amendment allow the public any form of firearm they like?

Well, I'm a responsible adult, I've been around firearms all my life, why can't I have a machine gun? I'd like the FN-MAG, thanks very much. I'll mount it on a sustained fire tripod and set up fixed lines of fire around my home, perfect defence. As a matter of fact, that is the only kind of firearm that would give me snowballs chance in hell against a squad of Marine (or Canadian) riflemen. So I even have a justified need as warranted by the constitution!

You know I love my guns iiibbb, and I want you to be able to keep and use your guns. But dismissing all forms of regulation as being pointless because responsible, educated adults do not need it is nuts.

813. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 8:53:13 AM

Message # 809

So I misread some posts... I will ask you for the second time to refrain from giving me a lot of grief over it since your reading comprehension appears to be at least as deficient as mine.

What are the second and third words there?

This has been discussed at length already. Maybe you missed it. There are a number of links on the butter bar if you want to catch up.

814. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 8:58:07 AM

And the "arms" bit, keeping in mind that armaments at that time meant muzzleloaders, pikes and swords, what sense does it make to say that the second amendment allow the public any form of firearm they like?

That's actually not true. It meant whatever you could afford. There were people who owned ships (which was the most powerful weapon of the age) that were pulled into military service. If that standard were held today... not only could you have a machine gun you could mount it to a plane.

It is not unreasonable to be as well armed as your average police officer... if that's what they think it takes to handle most average criminals, then I don't see why I should be held to a lesser standard.

815. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:20:25 AM

So, do you carry mace and handcuffs as well? In order to subdue your would be attacker I mean. Or do you want just limit your self defence to shooting him/her?

The things you can wring out of those few lines iiibbb, is really astonishing. Whatever you could afford? Ships? That one in and of itself should indicate (if it holds any water whatsoever, whatcha think of that juxtapun?) that the amendment pertains to military needs, not the whim of the citizen.

816. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:21:24 AM

Part of the minimum concensus that holds a civilised society together is the renouncement of violence by private citizens, and the delegation of all legitimate violence to the state, via the police and the army.

Thus, your insistence that you should be as well-armed as a cop is intuitively incomprehensible to me. A major part of the problem for the police in the US, surely, is precisely that : hundreds of thousands of citizens, good and bad, are as well-armed as they are.

817. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:21:52 AM

The crisis is in your math. There are about a thousand accidental killings a year.

Either way these percentages are almost nothing compared to the number of violent crimes committed or other events that are just as bad.

Well then, include the non-shootings. And include all the other non-shooting outcomes, too, especially the ones where your having a gun didn't matter much at all. Include all the crimes that started out as simple robberies and ended up as homicides because some suburban hero pulled his piece and wound up dead.

You give me enough crap over my simple extensions of logic.... yet you have no problem doing it yourself on pure conjecture. Hypocrite.

818. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:23:38 AM

Moreover, pay attention to the stats. In the US in 1998 there were 12,000 homicides. There are 295 million people in the US. That translates out to, using your own style here, 4/10000. You want to tell me again about this huge-ass crisis that requires you to go about armed? Bearing in mind that using lethal force to defend against nonlethal force is... Tell us how legal that is, iiibbb, again?

Touche'... but oh wait... I don't go out armed.

Lethal force in response to non-lethal force is legal? Where did I say it was? No one said permit-holders are not subject the standards of self defense laws. You talk about reading comprehension. Please, I only want you to live to your own standards. Go read my posts and the butter bar link I provided several times.

819. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:23:44 AM

Re: Gangs

I bring them up because most of these guns and kids stats include them. I hate using these stupid stats anyway... all sources are biased and it's impossible to bring them up... it seems especially with you.

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you should be quiet whenever you find yourself in that situation, iiibbb. The lethality of the means used to attempt suicide is of grave importance to those of us who give a rat's ass whether people can easily kill themselves.

Yup... but you apparently don't give a rat's ass about those who might save their lives with a gun since you keep downplaying this particular use.


There is no constitutional right about registration.

Read history... try the Wikipedia links. There was a lot of controvercy over the Bill of Rights in the first place because they were worried that people might think these were the only rights guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution wasn't meant to go over every right... but these were selected as the most important.

Reading comprehension?

Something like 'call the police'?

That's step 1... should I go get all the examples of restraining orders that didn't work? Do I need to go get the examples of the 15 minutes to an hour people wait for the authorities to show up? I don't know how you plan to spend your time... but I know how I plan to spend mine.

If your answer here is that we should regulate guns equivalently to how we regulate carcinogens and automobiles and poison, dude, I agree. But of course you didn't think about all that.

I do think about this... most of those things are regulated at the production side... but whatever.

820. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:25:09 AM

good god man, toys!

821. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:25:21 AM

Message # 810

Now do yourself a favor and think long and hard before you post in response, because the last few days from you make it seem like you've wired your keyboard directly into your endocrine system. You aren't being coherent, and frankly it's boring and stupid. When you take longer to answer it's usually better.

Personally I'm tired of your abusive posts and double standards Angel.

822. wonkers2 - 1/17/2005 9:27:46 AM

Am I correct that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to affirm or define the meaning of the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" If not, we can argue forever without resolving the issue. However, it seems to me that, at the very least, reasonable regulations covering handguns and assault-type weapons adopted in the interest of reducing mayhem on our city streets would be permissible.

823. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:29:24 AM

An example of a country with a "well-regulated militia", in iii's terms :

Iraq.

And the result is clear : you certainly can't defeat an invading army, but you can certainly make a country ungovernable.

824. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:31:22 AM

815. Macnas - 1/17/2005 4:20:25 PM

So, do you carry mace and handcuffs as well? In order to subdue your would be attacker I mean. Or do you want just limit your self defence to shooting him/her?

The things you can wring out of those few lines iiibbb, is really astonishing. Whatever you could afford? Ships? That one in and of itself should indicate (if it holds any water whatsoever, whatcha think of that juxtapun?) that the amendment pertains to military needs, not the whim of the citizen.

I normally just carry mace. I don't normally even carry a gun.

As far as what people armed themselves with... I can't help history Mancas... you're thinking of the common person armed themselves with... I'm thinking about what the range of citizens did... It is not some queer interpretation... it's what people did.

And I don't even subscribe to the view that people should have nuclear weapons or whatever they want...

But the amendment covers both military and civil needs. Read the federalist papers... read the stuff I've provided in the butter bar... read my posts.

The amendment recognizes military needs for defense of the country, as well as the need for personal defense. These concepts and needs are not mutually exclusive.

825. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:32:02 AM

toys

826. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:32:15 AM

827. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:32:25 AM

toys

828. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:34:58 AM

Thank you!

The federalist papers? I'm sorry iiibbb, but if I were to put much store in out of date thinking I'd be busy knocking off Brits right now.

829. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:39:54 AM

... and the IRA certainly wouldn't be talking about surrendering their arms or rendering them inoperable, would they Mac?

830. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:40:18 AM

I mean, why should they be any less well-armed than the police.

831. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:41:15 AM

The amendment recognizes military needs for defense of the country, as well as the need for personal defense. These concepts and needs are not mutually exclusive.

They certainly weren't in the late 18th century.

They certainly are now.

832. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:42:15 AM

Change can be beautiful alistair.

833. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 9:42:21 AM

Logically, if national defense is the rationale behind an armed citizenry, then you, iii, and your other armed fellow-citizens ought to be automatically eligible for a tour of duty in Falluja.

834. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:44:34 AM

And I certainly don't advocate that people should own automatic weapons or grenades or anything like that.

But when the average cop carrys a side-arm... that isn't asking much... in fact in terms of lethal force, it's pretty much the minimum without getting into training (karate etc.) that I don't have the time or talent for.

835. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:45:02 AM

No no no alistair, it's for when the Iraqis mount the invasion of the north american mainland.

836. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:45:51 AM

Look.... If you want to argue that self defense isn't a legitimate endeavor, and if you feel I don't have a right to use lethal force if I am met with a threat that I think may cost me my life...

Then irregardless of the constitution or stats or anything, we have nothing to talk about.

837. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:51:07 AM

1) I have a god-given right to defend myself.
2) I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions.
3) The general public has nothing to fear from people like me.
4) Criminals will always have guns.
5) These guns are usually obtained illegally.
6) The government (police etc.) are not always there to protect my well being.
7) As a law abiding adult, I have a god-given right to defend myself, and I should be at least as well armed as the criminals.
8) There are ample legitimate uses of guns... namely sport (hunting and shooting sports) and self defense.

838. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:51:22 AM

Well, what about coppers who don't carry a gun? like our own gardai? Now, we do have armed detectives, and special armed response units, but for the very most part our coppers apply oder with fists and truncheons.

839. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:51:47 AM

Order, not oder, then again..

840. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:54:11 AM

The fact your cops don't have guns at least makes your government consistant...

841. Macnas - 1/17/2005 9:59:01 AM

Well, you know, when it boils down to it, I do not wish to deny you the use of your firearm to defend yourself.

But I'm not sold on carrying a gun all the time. Nor am I sold on shooting someone who is robbing me or my house. I honestly do not know what I would do if my life or familys life were at immediate risk, in an extreme situation I may have to use a gun to get me/us out of danger.

Now I don't believe you have a god-given right to anything. Just basic rights that have to be written down somewhere, like your constitution. I don't think god was one of the signaturees though.

842. Macnas - 1/17/2005 10:00:20 AM

re 840

What do you mean?

843. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 10:10:34 AM

But I'm not sold on carrying a gun all the time. Nor am I sold on shooting someone who is robbing me or my house. I honestly do not know what I would do if my life or familys life were at immediate risk, in an extreme situation I may have to use a gun to get me/us out of danger.

I'm not sold on carrying a gun myself (for my personal situation)... but I'm not going to tell someone else living in a place where it might be warranted whether they can or not. I don't absolve these people from making proper choices either... it's a responsibility and there are standards that have been thoroughtly outlined and are outlined when you take your permit class.

The fact that some people out are willing to defend themselves with a gun, makes it better for even the people who don't because just like I don't know which home invader will kill me, and which one won't, they don't know which of us is armed and who isn't. If all it accomplishes is robberies when people aren't home, all the better.

I don't fool myself about my chances... if I were confronted, my M.O. is to retreat (and I have retreated from potential altercations in public many times)... but I certainly would pull the trigger on a stranger in my house or if I were cornered if I thought they were there to hurt me.

Now I don't believe you have a god-given right to anything. Just basic rights that have to be written down somewhere, like your constitution. I don't think god was one of the signaturees though.

Whatever... I have a natural right then... the main point of that is that the right to self defense is inate and not granted by government.

844. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 10:12:59 AM

Message # 842 I thought you from England or something... you seem to say your average cop wherever you are is not armed.

I simply mean that if the Police feel they should be armed with handguns, then I shouldn't be disallowed from the same. If the Police aren't carrying, then the gov't is at least making an example of itself.

845. Macnas - 1/17/2005 10:17:30 AM

That is where we differ a lot. I know that the idiot breaking into my house is very, very unlikely to have a gun. If he had a gun he'd be robbing a postoffice, where its worth his while.

I'd prefer to try and change things such that nobody has to live in a place where carrying a gun is warranted. I don't mean go out on a crusade or anything, but if there is a part of town that is lawless to the degree where gunfights break out with the regularity that persuades ordinary people to carry a gun, then something is all the way wrong and needs to be corrected.

846. Macnas - 1/17/2005 10:20:02 AM

England?......fill your hands yankee!!

847. Macnas - 1/17/2005 10:22:06 AM

Well, actually, people are able to own handguns at the moment. The emergency provisions act that confiscated pistols in 1972 has been declared null and void by the courts. How long it will last I do not know.

848. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 10:59:00 AM

I'd prefer to try and change things such that nobody has to live in a place where carrying a gun is warranted. I don't mean go out on a crusade or anything, but if there is a part of town that is lawless to the degree where gunfights break out with the regularity that persuades ordinary people to carry a gun, then something is all the way wrong and needs to be corrected.

I agree with you there... but the first step isn't telling those people who feel threatened to give up a means to that protection. This isn't a license to shoot indescriminately either.

If I felt this government were taking violent crime more seriously I would be much more amiable... but as it is, murderers spend on average 10 yrs... rapists 7... etc. When compared to the sentences that all these 'war on drugs' casualties it just shows wrong priorites.

And Angel and thump and scream all he/she wants about gun tragedies... he/she's ignoring every person on the recieving end of violence that are just as important.

849. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:00:21 AM

Sorry about the England thing Mancas... where are you from then?

850. Macnas - 1/17/2005 11:05:32 AM

Just out of interest, I spent some time during the last week or so looking at local/regional news in the US via yahoo.

Most of the gun related incidents are domestic, that and arguments between non-relatives getting over heated, sometimes with drink/drugs being a factor. Yes in certain places gang wars and drug trade are a factor, but in many others it is not. This is just an observation mind, I don't know what to make of it myself.

851. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 11:05:43 AM

Message # 843 Whatever... I have a natural right then... the main point of that is that the right to self defense is inate and not granted by government.

I'm glad you've backed off on the "god-given" thing... those who claim that rights given by God supersede their obligations to government, pose a few problems in the modern world... e.g. Osama BL etc...

But even your notion of innate rights is a dangerous one, because it literally puts you outside of society. A written constitution is always preferable to an implicit consensus, because that concensus will change over time, and may differ greatly among contemporaries with different cultural values.

That is to say, your natural right to self-defense is undeniable in biological terms, but null and void in any constitutional sense. If you choose to exercise it without regard to law, then you become literally an outlaw.

[When I say "you", by the way, I mean "one", in the abstract. Not you personally.]

852. Macnas - 1/17/2005 11:08:28 AM

Ireland bucko.

853. arkymalarky - 1/17/2005 11:12:19 AM

People who live in poor areas have the highest crime rates and the slowest police response times. It always sort of bugs me when people who live in areas where the threat of something is relatively small try to dictate to others with the actual risks how they should function in their environments.

Not that anyone here is specifically doing that, but it's a tendency of people who want major restrictive gun control reform.

854. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:12:29 AM

I'm not talking about self defense absent of law... I subscribe to the use of force link in the butter bar. There is a heavy burden on those who would use lethal force... it's not a blank check. I have never taken any kind of heavy-handed position.

You have a right to meet force with equivalent force... that's what self defense means. If you think people that choose to carry a weapon think that the gun is the proper response to a slap in the face then you really have some strong prejudices to get over.

855. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 11:12:42 AM

Message # 850 In the FBI murder data I cited a long way back, drug-related murders were a mere 800 or so annually. I was astonished at such a low number.

Compared to well over 2000 for various types of "argument".

This all boils down to the fact that hand guns are very lethal things to have around. iii's surprisingly flippant remarks about youth suicide ignore that basic fact too -- if I remember correctly, non-gun suicides have a failure rate of 80% or so.

That adds up to thousands of people per year who die because guns are easily available. This is certainly way higher than the number of accidental gun deaths, but no less relevant to the debate. They are part of the cost of that right to self-defense that is so precious to some.

856. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:14:23 AM

and I mean the collective you... not necessarily you personally.

857. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:18:11 AM

They are part of the cost of that right to self-defense that is so precious to some.

Ok...admitted.

But there are 1000's... millions who are victims of violent crime. There is no way for a victim to read the intent of a violent criminal, and ignoring this ignores other perfectly relevant facts.

I don't mean to be flimpant about suicides... but gun control is not the be-all end-all about suicide prevention. I don't even think it is major... then when you consider all the legitimate gun-uses....

It seems there are other ways to address suicide issues.

858. Macnas - 1/17/2005 11:24:19 AM

Arky, I might be the guilty party wrt disadvantaged areas/crime rates et al. Maybe I am pontificating a bit.

The quickest response times here are in disadvantaged areas. Im Limerick, where we have the greatest occourance of gun crime, there are always coppers in the area. Now, the crime is mainly restricted to feuding familys involved in the drug trade, with little or no involvement of the public at large.

Just a different reality I suppose. There are also few to no crimes involving guns and arguments between non-family members. I've yet to hear of somebody getting shot for taking a parking space.

859. Macnas - 1/17/2005 11:28:39 AM

wrt suicide, I agree with iiibbb. I don't think it's true that not having a gun around will lessen the risk of it. Having access to a gun may facilitate it, on a purely practical level, but the urge to kill ones self is not generated by having a gun.

860. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 12:01:50 PM

You're missing my point Mac... The urge to suicide is common enough. But the ratio of suicide attempts to deaths is very important.

Suicide by pills, even by hanging, has a very high failure rate. How many people put a barrel in their mouth and miss?

861. alistairconnor - 1/17/2005 12:03:25 PM

A suicide attempt as a "cry for help" is very common, and many people get on with their lives afterwards... Difficult to pick up the pieces when bits of your skull are encrusted in your bedroom wall.

862. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 12:08:20 PM

Alistar... is the tragedy of suicide more important or relavent than the victims of violent crime... or more specifically, those victims that have defended themselves with a gun?

All by itself, suicide isn't a sufficient justification.

Storage laws that control access to prevent suicide, also hamper self defense.

There are other ways to address suicide. I can't even remember the last time I saw a crisis-line ad on TV.

863. Macnas - 1/17/2005 12:09:35 PM

No, I don't think eating a gun barrel is a cry for help. Self-poisoning, that is commonly used as such, hanging though? I've known two people who hung themslves, and they were alone with no chance of being cut down before it was too late.

864. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 3:39:44 PM

Angel scoffs at gang violence as a concern...

Gangs in the US

- The last quarter of the 20th century was marked by significant growth in youth gang problems across the United States. In the 1970's, less than half the States reported youth gang problems, but by the late 1990's, every State and the District of Columbia reported youth gang activity. In the same period, the number of cities reporting youth gang problems mushroomed nearly tenfold—from fewer than 300 in the 1970's to more than 2,500 in 1998, and the number of counties citing youth gang problems grew even more precipitously, from about 100 in the 1970's to nearly 1,200 in 1998—an increase of more than 1,000 percent.

- The number of cities reporting youth gang problems had risen from 6 to more than 25,000

more

- It is estimated that more than 24,500 gangs were active in the U.S. in 2000,

- It is estimated that 772,500 people in the U.S. were members of gangs in 2000,

865. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 3:40:19 PM

Gangs are a serious problem even as you scoff at my concerns about them.

- In all, twenty five percent of all serious violent crime involved a juvenile offender. Id. Of these crimes, more than one half involved a group of offenders. Id.

- Juvenile gang killings are the fastest growing type of homicide, increasing almost four hundred percent since 1980. Murder in America: Recommendations from the IACP Murder Summit, International Association of Chiefs of Police (May, 1995).

Juvenile arrests for weapon law violations more than doubled between 1983 and 1992. H. Snyder and M. Sickmund, supra. During this time period, adult arrests for weapons offenses increased by twenty one percent, while juvenile arrests climbed one hundred seventeen percent. Id.

- Chronic offenders make up less than ten percent of juvenile offenders, but are responsible for two thirds of all violent offenses.

- In 1994, gang members were suspects or victims in about forty percent of all homicides in Los Angeles County.

- A recent study of gang members showed that nine in ten members said their gang possessed a stash of guns members could use "whenever they wanted to", and an equal proportion described guns as plentiful "whenever the gang got together". Joseph F. Sheley and James D. Wright, Youth, Guns and Violence in Urban America Tulane University (April 1992). Nearly half described gun thefts as a regular gang activity, and two thirds said their gang regularly bought and sold guns. Id. Sixty one percent described "driving around shooting at people you didn't like" as a regular gang activity. Id.

866. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 3:41:59 PM

Angel... you said in Message # 394

" We spend more than four billion dollars a year treating gunshot victims, and an astonishing percentage of that tab is picked up by the public."

and in your link in Message # 760 states

"Medical costs from gun injuries and deaths cost $19 billion. The US taxpayer will pay half of that cost."

Well despite your rantings about my reading comprehension... my numbers are consistantly bigger than yours

Research shows that victimization costs $105 billion annually in property and productivity losses and for medical expenses. This amounts to an annual "crime tax" of roughly $425 for each United States citizen. From the business owner who must pay "protection" money to neighborhood gangs; to families who live like hostages within their own homes, afraid to venture out; to the residents of Indian Country - the harmful impact of violent crime on actual victims and on society collectively is both psychologically and physically debilitating.

867. angel-five - 1/17/2005 7:54:41 PM

It's not ranting. You can get as upset as you like, iiibbb, but if you want I can go back and compile a nice long list of things with which I could prove, in a court of law, that your reading comprehension is highly suspect. Or, at least, it is in this thread. So maybe you'd be better served by acknowledging that and moving on instead of getting all huffy.

As to the rest of what you've said:

You need to take a careful look at the dates on what you've posted about gangs. I've never said they're not a problem, but I did say I found your preoccupation with them to be telling.

And as for your 'numbers' being bigger than mine; you do realize that my numbers were for medical costs, and yours are factored into lost productivity and other estimations like 'the price of fear' and all that, right? No, you don't, apparently. And when you're called on things like this you fail to grasp that someone's correctly pointing out problems with your comparison -- you just whine about how unfair they are because they compare things but you can't.

If you want an outright comparison -- well, sure. Here. And then stop and realize that most of the 'victimization' cost you mention is a direct result of the use of guns. Think about it as long as is necessary.

868. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 8:18:36 PM

Whatever Angel... court of law blah blah. Your lack of patience and resorting to words like 'fuck'... it qualifies as a the ranter here.

If you want an outright comparison -- well, sure. Here. And then stop and realize that most of the 'victimization' cost you mention is a direct result of the use of guns. Think about it as long as is necessary.

The cost is a direct result of the criminal use of guns... take guns out of the hands of victims and those costs only go up... and not just from guns, but from all other modes of attack which a victim could prevent if they were armed.

So how do trigger locks prevent criminal use of guns?

How does registration prevent criminal use of guns?

How does the AWB prevent criminal use of guns?


We're going in circles. You don't seem to be able to put yourself in the place of a victim. Your fixated on a majority of people who aren't the problem is just plain off.

If you want to propose some sort of gun control, then you need to establish how it's going to accomplish everything you seem to think it will.

869. justears - 1/17/2005 8:57:37 PM

iiibbb, I sense a wistfulness here for the good old days at the OK corall at High Noon. God, for the chance to shoot one of those guys in black hats who was molesting my women folk. Americans seem to love the charles bronsonesque self-righteous revenge story. Justified brutality. Give me some more. Best of all: that holy day of the rapture, saving the few and burning the rest in hell. I have been a victim of various sorts of indignities in my life, and praise the lord I didn't have a gun with me or perhaps someone would be dead. As a boy I inherited a pellet gun from my older brother before I was really old enough to use it responsibility, and I left a trail of dead birds and little critters in my wake which I regret to this day some 40 years later. As a teenager I enjoyed watching the ducks, pheasants and grouse crumple in the sky. I blew the belly out of a deer from a quarter of a mile away and finally, it was enough. There is such a romance about it all. Grows hair on the belly. Thank god I matured or I too might be one of those idiots like ted nugent praising the splendors of the kill. Were I sitting at the last judgment, the first to be consigned to hell would be the NRA assholes who bray about the 2nd amendment as if it were the quintessential issue in life.

870. wonkers2 - 1/17/2005 9:18:02 PM

Well put JE!

871. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 9:59:45 PM

Message # 869

Your experience has not been my experience Justears... that's all I can tell you. If you feel like juging me based on my position on this one issue, I can live with that.

872. wonkers2 - 1/17/2005 10:31:44 PM

And your experience has not been mine. Despite having lived in a Detroit inner city neighborhood for three years (in the 1960s)I've never felt a need or desire to carry a handgun, and I have never, to my knowledge, have met anyone who carried a handgun or kept one loaded at his or her bedside. I guess that's why your feelings, and those of thoughtful, about needing a handgun for personal protection strike me as unusual.

873. angel-five - 1/17/2005 11:18:40 PM

Oh, I don't intend to apologize for my language or exasperation. You can dismiss it as a rant if you want. I'm sure that's a convenient way for you to avoid most of what I said, because you don't have any other means of avoiding it.

The cost is a direct result of the criminal use of guns...

No, your figure was that result. Mine also included misuse, accidents and various and sundry other things which you ignored.

So how do trigger locks prevent criminal use of guns?

How does registration prevent criminal use of guns?

How does the AWB prevent criminal use of guns?

Well, my sense is that if I answer, you aren't going to make any sense of it and you're going to repeat what you've been repeating all along. And you're going to stick with criminal use of guns and ignore the other ways in which guns can kill people, because they mess with your ability to rabbit on about responsible gun owners and foolish gun-control people who want you to get shot up by a roving gang of brutal children. But what the hell.

874. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:20:10 PM

I have serious reservations about abortion... and I can't relate to people who have them... but I'm still pro-choice.

I only partially relate to those who want to carry firearms... but again, I'm pro-choice.

Taking into consideration the lack of effectiveness of gun-control laws, the fact they are used in self defense frequently (and far more than accidents, suicides, murder). The fact it's guaranteed by the constitution.

I don't know what else to do. I'm unwilling to sacrifice a right just to 'try' things. Once the right is gone, it's unlikely to come back... so it isn't about trying something out.

I don't know what else to say.

875. angel-five - 1/17/2005 11:21:05 PM

The obvious aim of trigger locks is to prevent accidental shootings. But still, some crime is committed with firearms by people who don't own them -- they borrowed or stole them, or seized them in a fit of rage, or whatever. Trigger-locks will deter that sort of crime.

Registration does two things to prevent gun crime. The first is that it will keep some guns out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals. We know there are people who don't have access to black market guns, who do buy guns at a store and then commit crimes with them. (How many people reading this know exactly how to buy a gun off the black market? Be honest.)

The second is that registration lists give police a database to work with when they, say, find a victim with a particular sort of slug in their body. Even with very common types of firearm, this registration system can help police narrow their search for a killer, and the knowledge that a person can be linked to a specific type of weapon will deter some people from committing violent crime.

You also ask how the AWB prevents criminal use of guns. That one is straightforward and easy in one sense, and subtle in another. Stratifying a dangerous class of weapons as illegal means that you don't have to wait for a criminal to kill someone before you take it out of their hands. And although you've been a great one to insist that the prohibitions of the assault weapons bill are cosmetic and unimportant, the fact of the matter is that assault weapons usually combine firepower with portability and ease of use. They are better killing tools than a handgun or a shotgun in the round, and while some of us recognize that a long range hunting rifle is much more of a terrifying tool in the hands of someone who knows how to use it than an Uzi is, at short ranges the assault weapon is more lethal in the round in a combat situation.

876. angel-five - 1/17/2005 11:27:00 PM

I've lived in high crime areas. The city I live in now and the one I spend Saturday nights in have some of the highest murder rates in the nation, in fact. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms and I'd be given a concealed carry permit with little problem if I wanted one, given my training. But I think carrying a gun makes me less safe, as does your carrying a gun.

And I think the idea that a gun can make me safe from scary things like murderers and gangs is mentally weak and liable to yield other corrupted thoughts. And if my neighborhood is so frickin' scary to me that I feel the need to walk about strapped, a) it's time to move and b) if I don't move, I think doing other things to make the neighborhood safer, like participating in neighborhood watches and coughing up money for after school sports leagues and so on, is going to benefit myself and others a hell of a lot more than walking around all Ramboed up.

So, there. That's my thoughts on the matter.

877. iiibbb - 1/17/2005 11:42:49 PM

The obvious aim of trigger locks is to prevent accidental shootings...

Based on your description trigger locks are ineffective.

Registration does two things to prevent gun crime....

Find me any example where registration was the key factor in solving a crime. Tell me how the US avoids the financial fiasco of the Canadian system.

The second is that registration lists give police a database to work with when they, say, find a victim with a particular sort of slug in their body.

Over-rated technology that hasn't been tested for guns that have aged, and also guns can be changed (filing, changing firing pins etc). Maryland has this... show me a crime where this was the critical piece of the puzzle.

You also ask how the AWB prevents criminal use of guns...

Banning them just creates a vacuum that a black market will quickly and easily fill. How effective is this government keeping drugs out of the country? "Assault weapons" are used in 1% of all gun crimes and .2% of all violent crime. They are not the prefered weapon of criminals.

878. angel-five - 1/18/2005 2:28:09 AM

Based on your description trigger locks are ineffective.

It really does take chutzpah, I suppose, to argue vehemently against the implementation of these things and justify it by saying that they haven't been proven to work. They haven't been implemented yet! Do you really think this is a sound defense or are you just aping logic at this point?

Find me any example where registration was the key factor in solving a crime. Tell me how the US avoids the financial fiasco of the Canadian system.

I'm sure if I do you'll roll on by or offer up some nonsensical excuse. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.

Over-rated technology that hasn't been tested for guns that have aged, and also guns can be changed (filing, changing firing pins etc). Maryland has this... show me a crime where this was the critical piece of the puzzle.

See above.

I should also point out here that you started out asking how these measures would work and I answered that they'd help in the following ways. Now you're truculently demanding how it's 'critical' as if that bears on your original question. It doesn't. Grasp that.

Banning them just creates a vacuum that a black market will quickly and easily fill.

Like drugs? Is gun ownership addictive to you, there, iiibbb?

879. angel-five - 1/18/2005 2:31:39 AM

By the way:

If you want to propose some sort of gun control, then you need to establish how it's going to accomplish everything you seem to think it will.

Final exam time. What exactly do you think I think gun control will accomplish? You seem to have an idea, iiibbb. After all, you're feeling free enough to say things like this. And I've clearly mentioned it more than once, what I feel needs to be done. So, pony it up. Tell me.

880. angel-five - 1/18/2005 2:45:06 AM

When you're confronted with something in society that you hate and fear, you're faced with a choice. You can do something effective in changing it, or you can do something that isn't. And the degree to which you do those uneffective but brave sounding things, like buying a Glock and some pancake rounds in case the scary Crips bust ass into your house while you're trying to watch Friends and love America, represents energy that you could use to do something really useful and constructive, instead of insular and destructive and fearful.

If I sound scornful, iiibbb, it's because I am. It's not to be helped. You're part of the problem and part of the mindset that has led America to its vaunted status as murder king of the West. You think I don't care about the victim -- I care about them enough to want something better than a bravado-induced double-tap to their head for them. For you, the right to bear is more important than whether or not it actually works WRT crime. And when Pelle said America was fifty to one hundred years away from civilization, he was estimating how long it would take people like you to figure that out.

Freedom is not an end, it's a means.

881. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 4:12:33 AM

Message # 862, Message # 863 iii and mac :

"cry for help" is a metaphor. I suspect that most people who attempt suicide by pills actually really do intend to die at the moment when the suicidal impulse makes them swallow them -- I can think of at least three reasons why most of them don't actually die :

-- they get the dose wrong
-- someone finds them and takes appropriate action
-- they change their mind in the minutes or hours before it's too late.

Similar scenarios are common in cases of hanging.

None of these things are possible when the impulse makes you pull the trigger.

By analogy, suicide with firearms is like jumping off a very high bridge or building -- your chances of survival are virtually nil. Have you ever noticed that there are generally all sorts of barriers and security measures to prevent people doing that? Know why? Because it saves lives.

Nanny state eh?

Now for some numbers, from the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control


* Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001
* In 2002, 132,353 individuals were hospitalized following suicide attempts
* In 2001, 55% of suicides were committed with a firearm

Assign your own ratios.

882. angel-five - 1/18/2005 4:51:01 AM

Suicide attempts involving firearms have very high completion rates. As I mentioned earlier, the stats say people with access to a gun in their house are five times more likely to complete a suicide attempt than people who lack it. As suicide instruments go, firearms have a very high lethality rate and are commonly available, and the time it takes to go load a gun and stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger is very small, which means that it's a lethal method which can be used very quickly when the impulse strikes and before second thoughts come into play. This is very bad news in the round for people trying to prevent suicide, and since more people are killed in gun suicide than in gun homicide in the US, suicide is a more pressing factor on the decision for waiting periods and trigger locks than self-defense.

So what's more important, iiibbb? Your ability to feel safe from the Crips or your neighbor's son's ability to blow the back of his head off?

883. Macnas - 1/18/2005 5:18:39 AM

Yes the fatality odds are as close to perfect as possible when a gun is used to commit suicide.

However, I do not think it is something that can be prevented with security measures. Yes, there is the matter of not being able to use someone else’s gun, but if there is a will there is a way and some other method will be used.

I'm for security devices wrt firearms. But I do not see it being a real deterrent to suicide, more of an inconvenience.

884. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 6:00:35 AM

An inconvenience is very often all you need, Mac, that's what the statistics indicate. Suicide candidates are often very depressed, and therefore easily discouraged.

It's quite possible to commit suicide, I suppose, by stabbing yourself in the heart with a kitchen knife.

Given the choice between that and a gun in the mouth, I would expect 99% to choose the gun.

Absent the gun, I would expect 90% to be still alive the following day.

885. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 6:16:26 AM

My point is that overall gun availability actively promotes suicides.

The major problem with gun deaths in the US (being mostly suidides, followed by argument homicides, followed by crime homicides, followed by accidents) is simply the mass of weapons out there.

iii objects that disarming "people like him" will not help, and I'm inclined to agree.

It would be possible to radically diminish the huge number of arms out there, thereby greatly complicating the task of criminals obtaining them illegally, without reducing the availability of hunting weapons nor affecting the right of responsible, registered citizens to own an appropriate, registered firearm.

This would entail :
* some sort of very large-scale amnesty and buy-back to recover excess weapons, and identify and register those which are judged OK to remain in circulation
* a radical reduction in the number of arms produced, probably shutting down most of the US arms manufacturers -- a smaller market would necessarily be less profitable.

What do you think about that, iii?

886. Macnas - 1/18/2005 6:17:40 AM

Yes, I'm sure, but how do you actually measure such a thing?
I've not seen the "people who thought about suicide, but for want of something suitably lethal didn't bother" statistics.

Like I said, I'm in favour of secure storage devices for guns, but I disagree that it is an actual suicide deterrent.

887. Macnas - 1/18/2005 6:18:58 AM

I think you're going fishing alistair.

888. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 7:04:56 AM

You've not seen the statistics? Then look at the numbers. I gave the wrong link in Message # 881, this is the one I was quoting :

* Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001
* In 2002, 132,353 individuals were hospitalized following suicide attempts

That gives you a raw success rate of less than 20%, and that's only counting attempts that result in hospitalisation. What's so hard to understand about that?

Perhaps you're implying that people who attempt suicide with guns are much more "serious" about it than people who use all other means; but then you'd have to produce some evidence, or at least a plausible explanation for that hypothesis.

Barring that, then we could make the following calculation : of the 58% of US suicides which involve firearms -- that's about 16 000 -- about 80% would have survived their suicide attempt if they had chosen some other means than a firearm (e.g. if they had not had easy access to a firearm)

That would be about 12 800 people per year.

889. Macnas - 1/18/2005 9:13:18 AM

alistair, no I do not have "evidence", but putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger is, I would have thought, being pretty serious about topping yourself. Self evident even. As to "much more serious", well those are your words not mine, but I see every attempt at suicide as serious.

Whether or not such an attempt is a "cry for help" is subjective and, to my mind at least requires a certain amount of personal interpretation of those statistics.

And I didn't say it was hard to understand, (jaysus, who stole your sandwiches?), it's just my opinion. As for the statistics in and of themselves, well, yes it does show that when a gun is involved the chances of death by suicide go up. But I still maintain that anyone who seriously wants to kill themselves will do it whatever it takes. It would be interesting from this point of view to see the statistics of people who have gone on to kill themselves after one (or more) failed attempts.

Your reasoning as to preventing suicide deaths by the methods you state in post 885 is admirable, but total wishful thinking. What is the definition of excess firearms? and remember this is the US we're talking about here.
And what do you mean by judged to be ok? Are you talking about good guns/bad guns or good gunowners/bad gun owners?

As for a "radical reduction in the number of arms produced", you know the arms industry is based on supply and demand just like any other. At the very most it'll make people want to hold onto those "excess guns"....

890. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:23:18 AM

It really does take chutzpah, I suppose, to argue vehemently against the implementation of these things and justify it by saying that they haven't been proven to work.

The only thing I've said is that the people that need them, and would use them if they were a law... already use them. It's like making a law to tell people to wipe their ass after they take a crap.

I'm sure if I do you'll roll on by or offer up some nonsensical excuse. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.

The US is not Europe... find me a case. We have pilot programs in the US... find a case where registration has done anything.

I should also point out here that you started out asking how these measures would work and I answered that they'd help in the following ways. Now you're truculently demanding how it's 'critical' as if that bears on your original question. It doesn't. Grasp that.

It is perfectly fair to demand that it be critical evidence... there is ample evidence that the police are already solving the crimes with... you need to show that this stuff works. There are pilot programs in the US... let's see it work.

Like drugs? Is gun ownership addictive to you, there, iiibbb?

Like drugs... how has the US gov't done to keep drugs out of criminal's hands? How will they keep guns out of criminal hands?

Addictive? You are the master of hyperbole Angel.

891. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:26:47 AM

Message # 880

Your own, and others, portraits of me are inaccurate and unfair. Many of you continue to try to marginalize me, pretend that I am some paranoid person sitting in front of my door with a shotgun.

Get over it for Pete's sake.

892. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:29:31 AM

So what's more important, iiibbb? Your ability to feel safe from the Crips or your neighbor's son's ability to blow the back of his head off?

Guess. The onus isn't on me... the onus is not on the firearms in my house.

893. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:31:41 AM

This would entail :
* some sort of very large-scale amnesty and buy-back to recover excess weapons, and identify and register those which are judged OK to remain in circulation
* a radical reduction in the number of arms produced, probably shutting down most of the US arms manufacturers -- a smaller market would necessarily be less profitable.

What do you think about that, iii?

It's just dandy Alistar... now... how are you going to get the criminals to participate in the program exactly?

894. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:40:12 AM

I've lived in high crime areas. The city I live in now and the one I spend Saturday nights in have some of the highest murder rates in the nation, in fact. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms and I'd be given a concealed carry permit with little problem if I wanted one, given my training. But I think carrying a gun makes me less safe, as does your carrying a gun.

And I think the idea that a gun can make me safe from scary things like murderers and gangs is mentally weak and liable to yield other corrupted thoughts.

Yet you have no problems beleiving the police and gun locks will make you more safe? The fact that you see my guns as the most dangerous aspect of your world is very hard to understand.

895. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 9:42:11 AM

Oh, I don't intend to apologize for my language or exasperation. You can dismiss it as a rant if you want. I'm sure that's a convenient way for you to avoid most of what I said, because you don't have any other means of avoiding it.

I don't care if you appologize or not. Just understand, that your ranting, your unfair depections of what's going on in my mind, your superior attitude...

... just quit being surprised when people like Bush get elected... that's all I can say.

896. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 10:24:58 AM

how are you going to get the criminals to participate in the program exactly?

Answer me this :
* would you support an effort to reduce the overall volume of guns, as outlined, with the specific objective of reducing the availability of guns to criminals?

If the answer is yes, then there are numerous ways of doing this. Buy-back schemes have been tried in various places -- not very successfully in Iraq, but with better results in other places. If it's true that it's easy to buy a gun for $40 on the streets in many cities, then pushing up the price of an illegal weapon is surely a desireable outcome in itself.

After that, a determined police drive to crack down on illegal weapons could be fruitful. I understand it had a tangible effect in NYC.


All this is detail : I'm honestly trying to determine your honest opinion as to whether the goal I have outlined is desireable. Because that is not clear to me.

897. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 10:53:36 AM

If the answer is yes, then there are numerous ways of doing this. Buy-back schemes have been tried in various places -- not very successfully in Iraq, but with better results in other places. If it's true that it's easy to buy a gun for $40 on the streets in many cities, then pushing up the price of an illegal weapon is surely a desireable outcome in itself.

After that, a determined police drive to crack down on illegal weapons could be fruitful. I understand it had a tangible effect in NYC.

I have said repeatedly that cracking down on illegal weapons traffic would be something I'd fully support. I don't know much about the effectiveness of gun buybacks. I think they mayb be good for getting 'junk' guns and old guns out of circulation. My dad has a .25 revolver my grandfather owned. I wouldn't trust it myself, and I'm certain it's not worth anything as the blueing is all worn off and it's just not in good shape. I don't think people turn in their 9mm Glocks or Berettas. They turn in stuff they couldn't otherwise sell.

898. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 10:53:58 AM

All this is detail : I'm honestly trying to determine your honest opinion as to whether the goal I have outlined is desireable. Because that is not clear to me

My honest opinion is to start to get violence under control in this country.

1) End the useless "war on drugs" and begin a "war on violence". The more dangerous the weapon used, the longer your sentence. It's wrong that murderers in this country serve 10 years, and rapists 7... it's just wrong.

2) Go after people that traffic guns. If the people who are suing the manufacturers because they supply guns to shady dealers... and they claim that the manufactureres know who these dealers are... why the hell aren't we prosecuting these people criminally?

3) Enforce the laws we already have.

899. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 10:54:03 AM

Compromise issue.

4) Licensing - I would compromise on licensing and registration if we eliminated the inconsistancy of firearms possession for law-abiding citzens across state lines. If I took the time to get certified for a license... I would expect to be able to carry a gun I had registered to carry without fear of violating laws in states I'm not familiar with. My drivers license still lets me drive in CA... so should my firearms license would allow me to carry one.

Note: I don't carry... but if I had to go through the rigmarole of getting a license, I'd expect it to mean something. If it just was good in my state only, then there's nothing different than the current system.

Lastly... I don't have a problem with a gun control measures that accomplishes something... the problem is most propsed measures wouldn't accomplish what they propose they would. Angel can hop up and down, but you'll never get me to beleive that a gunlock law would make any more people lock their guns up than already do. You can't make me beleive that it will prevent any suicides. If someone proposes something, then show me the mechanism that will make it work (without relying on improbable events like criminals voluntarily registering their weapons, or gov't being able to control a black market that would develop in the vacuum left by gun bans).

That is my honest opinion.

900. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 10:57:17 AM

If the people who are suing the manufacturers because they supply guns to shady dealers... and they claim that the manufactureres know who these dealers are... why the hell aren't we prosecuting these people criminally?

Three letters for you, iii : N. R. A.

One of the most powerful lobbies in the USA, I understand, and totally dedicated to promoting the profits of arms manufacturers.

Am I wrong?

901. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 11:25:25 AM

The NRA is not in favor criminals getting guns. The main activity the NRA has participated in is fight the frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers. They're right doing so IMHO because it's no different than suing Ford over DUI's or knifemakers over stabbings.

As far as pursuing criminal or 'crooked' gun dealers... I have reservations about the definition of "crooked" given that similar people seem to have a penchant for labling me as a "kook" because of my beleifs. So you'll have to forgive me if I question their credibility WRT the portraits they paint of others.

However... I have no love of criminals, and if there's a case... go get them is what I say.

------------------------------------------
other reading:

The gun supply myth

Firearms trafficing enforcement.

902. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 11:41:48 AM

One of the most powerful lobbies in the USA, I understand, and totally dedicated to promoting the profits of arms manufacturers.

There is not necessarily an inverse correlation between the size of an organization and how right it is. You also discount their firearm education programs... hunter safety, etc, and they also train military and police...

Perhaps they're a powerful lobby because people actually beleive in the fundamental right for citizens to arm themselves.

Do you rip on the AARP... they are similarly large... what's their ulterior motive?

903. alistairconnor - 1/18/2005 11:58:09 AM

OK, so I take it that you are not actually in favour of reducing the volume of guns available to criminals.

Or rather, you would be in favour of it in some ideal world, but in practice you will fight tooth and nail to oppose any measure that might bring that about.

That's pretty much what I expected. Thanks for making that crystal clear.

As to whose interests the NRA is promoting...

I know you're an idealist, iii, but...

Follow the money.

904. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 12:02:55 PM

The NRA's tactics could be called no different than those of the Sierra Club... but do you challange the Sierra Club's message because of their methods?

Is Paul Watson any different than the evil Charleton Heston?

Look... criminal use of an Assault Weapon

Paul Watson is one of the fathers of environmental terrorism. The group he founded and leads, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), is a pirate organization that sails around the world, terrorizing fishermen. Wearing a long bowie knife and carrying AK-47s on board, he threatens to ram any ship that won’t give in to his demands. Watson was a founder of Greenpeace, but the group banished him in 1977 in disapproval of his violent tactics. He is a board member of the Sierra Club.

905. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 12:05:18 PM

OK, so I take it that you are not actually in favour of reducing the volume of guns available to criminals.

Or rather, you would be in favour of it in some ideal world, but in practice you will fight tooth and nail to oppose any measure that might bring that about.

That's pretty much what I expected. Thanks for making that crystal clear.

Whatever you say Alistar... if you've got a case against a criminal... prosecute. Just like any other crime, people are innocent until proven guilty... if you can prove it, then nothing impedes you.

906. angel-five - 1/18/2005 12:40:06 PM

Well, I note you have shied away from telling me exactly what I think gun control can accomplish. You fail. You don't know. And you know enough to know you don't know, even though I've said it more than once, even though you've ranted about what I think it will accomplish more than once.

Your posts are full of moving goalposts and straw men that I don't intend on dignifying with a response, because there is no way in hell that you will ever honestly engage on an issue of debate that might force you to acknowledge that in some minor way guns are bad. Still, I'll answer this.

Yet you have no problems beleiving the police and gun locks will make you more safe? The fact that you see my guns as the most dangerous aspect of your world is very hard to understand.

a), you don't apparently know what I think will make me safe. That of course doesn't stop you from saying retarded things like the above. And b) what gives you the idea that I see your guns as the most dangerous aspect of my world? Because they aren't.

How many times in a row must one ask you to stop acting brain-crippled and to read what's in posts instead of reading your subconscious into them? The world may never know.

907. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 12:50:00 PM

Well, I note you have shied away from telling me exactly what I think gun control can accomplish.

I can't figure out what you think it will accomplish... you seem to be sure it will solve the suicide problem. You seem to be sure that the AWB keeps guns out of the hands of criminals... you seem to be certain it will lower violent crime... you seem to be certain it will eliminate accidents.

The trouble I may be having with my reading comprehension has more to do with comprehending how you can have such selective vision.

How many times in a row must one ask you to stop acting brain-crippled and to read what's in posts instead of reading your subconscious into them? The world may never know.

Ask as many times as you feel necessary Angel. You claim I read stuff into your posts... well maybe so... but look in the mirror. But I'm tired of having to sift through your insults and shitty attitude.

908. Macnas - 1/18/2005 12:57:09 PM

You have to have a thick skin 313b, but I think you're doing a good job here. It's an excellent thread so far.

909. PelleNilsson - 1/18/2005 1:39:53 PM

Agreed.

910. Wombat - 1/18/2005 2:28:31 PM

iiibbb:

Your depiction of the role that the NRA plays is--putting it nicely--incomplete. The NRA is consistent in opposing any form of gun control, any limiting of types of firearms sold, any limiting of types of ammunition sold. NRA "rents" dozens if not hundreds of legislators, and can ramp up a vitriolic direct mail and fax campaign instantly. It is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country today; and its refusal to compromise on ANY kind of gun control and/or limitations on gun ownership is largely responsible for the pitch of the opposition to it.

The NRA talks big about going after criminals, but at the same time, its influence affects the Federal, state, and local enforcement funding decisions on enforcing existing gun laws.

Your failure to recognize the blatant dishonesty in NRA claims on the ineffectiveness of gun control, due in large part to its rent-a-pols refusal to fund existing programs, is distressing.

911. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 2:58:17 PM

If it were the Brady Campaign doing the same thing... would you be just as outraged?

I have no love for the NRA. I think they are just like the Sierra club in that they exist to increase membership, but toward their causes they have high overhead.

I view the NRA's (and GOA's) actions in the past decade largely reactionary to laws like the original Brady Bill and the AWB, states that have pushed smart gun legislation and other laws, and politicians who've openly stated their goal is to ban handguns. They get huge membership spikes when gun control comes to the forefront.

Look at the lobbying splits from the early 90's... gun rights funding went from about 33:66 dems:reps to 13:87 with the big swing after 1994.

Look at the history of the NRA. They weren't always like this. You don't think ramrodding gun control in the 90's isn't partly to blame for the reaction? Who really created the monster?

This is my opinion, but I think Dems (largely) mismanaged the issue and lost congress... and continue to lose. I think Republicans are on the same track touting this last election a 'mandate'... but then again the dems have been doing their part to provide the weakest candidates they can find.

It may be easier to blame the NRA... but it's not like they came out of nowhere.

912. thoughtful - 1/18/2005 3:09:57 PM

isbs, #897: I have said repeatedly that cracking down on illegal weapons traffic would be something I'd fully support.

ac, #903: OK, so I take it that you are not actually in favour of reducing the volume of guns available to criminals.

I thought they cancelled crossfire!

913. iiibbb - 1/18/2005 3:27:37 PM

isbs, #897: I have said repeatedly that cracking down on illegal weapons traffic would be something I'd fully support.

ac, #903: OK, so I take it that you are not actually in favour of reducing the volume of guns available to criminal