View Full Version : Campus carry?
Have you all heard much about this?
http://patch.com/texas/downtownaustin/campus-carry-law-controversy-heating-ut-austin-emerging-ground-zero-debate
Apparently students at UT-Austin can concealed-carry guns on campus according to a new law going into effect.
I work at a university and there seem to be tons of crimes going on. This week there were several robberies. A dude just walked up to some people and demanded their cell phones and wallets. When they hesitated he pulled out a gun. Then they gave the phones and wallets. At that point he pistol-whipped one of the women across the back of the head and ran away.
This is totally normalized at the university I work for... happens very often.
Would concealed carry prevent this? Or would it turn a wallet-stealing/pistol-whipping into a massive Old West-style shoot out?
Teacher Terry
8-5-16, 1:33pm
Some professors in TX quit when this was allowed. I would feel less safe with a bunch of unskilled people shooting it out. I guess it was confusing when in TX a guy was shooting students from a tower I think in the 1980's and then students got guns from their trucks and tried to get him. When law enforcement arrived it was confusing as to who was the bad guy, etc although I think I read in the end a cop and a regular guy with a gun made it up to the tower and got the guy.
I'd be perfectly fine with it.
Some professors in TX quit when this was allowed. I would feel less safe with a bunch of unskilled people shooting it out. I guess it was confusing when in TX a guy was shooting students from a tower I think in the 1980's and then students got guns from their trucks and tried to get him. When law enforcement arrived it was confusing as to who was the bad guy, etc although I think I read in the end a cop and a regular guy with a gun made it up to the tower and got the guy.
I just recently read a story that a person was shot - for videoing the police from across the street in his garage with his cellphone. The officers stated that they saw someone waving an object and felt threatened.
I also remember some of the shoot outs in Iraq with trained soldiers - basically someone shot at them and they responded by shooting anything that was moving.
Just saying while a gun could make you safer in some situations, it could make you less safe in others.
This year is whacky enough to keep this issue mostly off my radar. Pick your battles...
If ownership of guns was more tightly restricted, there would probably be fewer gun-related deaths. If ownership of automobiles was more tightly restricted, there would probably be fewer automobile-related deaths. It's probably safe to say we pay a price in blood for many of our freedoms. If we as a society decide it's worth paying, I don't see that a special case should be made for public universities. Is life any cheaper off-campus?
Miss Cellane
8-5-16, 3:31pm
If there are multiple robberies on a university campus, I'd be wondering exactly what the university security force/local police were up to. Aren't they supposed to work to prevent such things?
But mostly, I think more weapons in the hands of those not trained to use them and not trained on how to respond in crisis situations is a bad idea.
If there are multiple robberies on a university campus, I'd be wondering exactly what the university security force/local police were up to. Aren't they supposed to work to prevent such things?
Typically, police in this nation don't *prevent* crime - they aren't staffed for that, and they don't have a duty to do so. (*)
They do often *reduce* crime (or at least shift it to neighboring communities) by their presence and patrolling, but the overall model is very response-to-citizen-call oriented.
(*)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Here at the university they announce crimes when they happen so that if it is a rash of crimes by one person or group you can get out of the way and not be the next victim.
Does that count as crime prevention?
OK, help me understand. There is no one that carries a gun here; some drug dealing does go on but I have not seen any nor have any of my neighbours, friends or family. I don't feel threatened.
What makes the US resident feel so afraid that one needs to carry a gun everywhere even into classrooms? Right now, the whole situation makes no sense to me; so what is different?
Is it a state of thought or are people really that vulnerable? How many on this site feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
Razz:
I think it comes down to this: In Canada, you all have this ethos of social cohesion. You feel safer because your government does a better job of looking out for you.
In the US we have an ethos of hostility swirled with a mythology of rugged individualism. Most Americans -- liberals and conservatives -- would say that the government is not there to benefit them.
So, as Barry once said, Americans cling to religion and guns. They make people feel righteous and powerful in ways that don't really upset the status quo or the power elite. Often, the populace clinging to religion and guns really serves the interests of the status quo and the power elite.
How many on this site feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
I don't feel particularly afraid of most anything in life.
I do carry a firearm almost always. Then again, I carry a tourniquet, gauze, EMT shears/rescue tool, pocket knife, a radio transceiver capable of communicating with fire/ems/law/parks/DNR/airlift/..., and a few other odds-and-ends always as well. And have life/fire/auto/medical insurance. And some fire extinguishers around the house, as well as tested smoke/CO detectors. Etc. Etc.
Razz:
30 second video worth watching about Americans and their gun obsession. Here is a quote:
"A man can't feel safe unless he knows his gun is pointed at every other man's temple."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2ZbX4i4
I don't feel particularly afraid of most anything in life.
I do carry a firearm almost always. Then again, I carry a tourniquet, gauze, EMT shears/rescue tool, pocket knife, a radio transceiver capable of communicating with fire/ems/law/parks/DNR/airlift/..., and a few other odds-and-ends always as well. And have life/fire/auto/medical insurance. And some fire extinguishers around the house, as well as tested smoke/CO detectors. Etc. Etc.
Cargo shorts!
Cargo shorts!
Cargo kilts work fine too.
Seriously though folks - get some good first aid/CPR training, and carry 1-2 useful items, or learn how to make them quickly from items you have on-hand. My main firefighting partner was running the Boston Marathon when the bombs went off, and managed to help quite a few people just with his skills and items he commandeered from bystanders. And I've had several civilians here in our small community save lives with CPR they learned at a very simple course.
Cargo kilts work fine too.
Seriously though folks - get some good first aid/CPR training, and carry 1-2 useful items, or learn how to make them quickly from items you have on-hand. My main firefighting partner was running the Boston Marathon when the bombs went off, and managed to help quite a few people just with his skills and items he commandeered from bystanders. And I've had several civilians here in our small community save lives with CPR they learned at a very simple course.
Support this!
iris lilies
8-5-16, 5:36pm
OK, help me understand. There is no one that carries a gun here; some drug dealing does go on but I have not seen any nor have any of my neighbours, friends or family. I don't feel threatened.
What makes the US resident feel so afraid that one needs to carry a gun everywhere even into classrooms? Right now, the whole situation makes no sense to me; so what is different?
Is it a state of thought or are people really that vulnerable? How many on this site feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
Razz, many many in my zip code carry guns. illegally.
DH was on the grand jury for 3 months, that mean 2-3 days per week for that period.
Of the hundreds of cases they heard, 7out of 10 their cases were drugs or illegally held guns. I dont feel " threatened" but I recognize that many people do not live the life
I live. They go into the the areas with lots of those illegal guns, often at night, to do business, to go into their homes, to visit friends and relatives, etc. who am I to tell them they shouod not feel threatened?
I don't feel particularly afraid of most anything in life.
I do carry a firearm almost always. Then again, I carry a tourniquet, gauze, EMT shears/rescue tool, pocket knife, a radio transceiver capable of communicating with fire/ems/law/parks/DNR/airlift/..., and a few other odds-and-ends always as well.
The pockets of your cargo shorts must be bulging out quite a bit... :-)
The pockets of your cargo shorts must be bulging out quite a bit... :-)
Actually, I usually don't keep anything in the cargo pockets but the tourniquet and the gauze, everything else clips on/inside the belt or pockets. I mostly like having the many pockets so things can be filed in the right spot and not tangle into each other. Bulging pockets is bad news, hangs up on things.
Miss Cellane
8-6-16, 8:53am
OK, help me understand. There is no one that carries a gun here; some drug dealing does go on but I have not seen any nor have any of my neighbours, friends or family. I don't feel threatened.
What makes the US resident feel so afraid that one needs to carry a gun everywhere even into classrooms? Right now, the whole situation makes no sense to me; so what is different?
Is it a state of thought or are people really that vulnerable? How many on this site feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
I have never felt the need to own or carry a gun. And I don't feel that afraid living my day to day life. I am as puzzled as you by the need some people feel to carry guns with them constantly. My life simply has not included the need for a weapon in the 56 years I've lived--and I've lived in Boston for many years and a small city in Connecticut where drug dealing was rife, both places where crime is a lot more common than it is in the small city where I currently live.
Now, I was mugged once. A gun would not have helped in that situation--someone grabbed my handbag from behind while I was walking up a flight of stairs. I fell, he ran off with the bag. No time to react at all before he was gone. After that, I did take, and continue to take, self-defense lessons, because the lessons at first helped me to regain a bit of a sense of control. Now I just like them because they make me feel strong. And as I like to say, I may not be able to fight off an attacker because he is stronger/faster/just plain bigger than me, but I can make him regret choosing me as a target.
And for the record, I come from a military family where 80% of my family have carried weapons for a living. Still never seen the need for one in my life. The only guns I have ever seen were the weapons carried by military on the Army bases we lived on. No one in my family owns a gun.
That's pretty much my take on it, Miss Cellane. No one in my small circle of friends and relatives has ever armed themselves (outside of military members, for the duration) and I, for one, feel no less safe for it. The chances of successfully using (or needing) a gun to defend oneself seem vanishingly small to me.
Maybe it's just the way it is presented, but it seems like many gun advocates present guns as the be all and end all for self defense and protection. I would think if one was that concerned about personal safety, one would learn how to do more than what it takes to own a gun. Stay fit, learn self defense techniques that do not involve a gun, etc. And practice, practice, practice. I know people do this, but it seems like many (most?) don't.
All I can picture is all these teens with guns getting drunk....on top of their raging testosterone..........
I don't feel particularly afraid of most anything in life.
I do carry a firearm almost always. Then again, I carry a tourniquet, gauze, EMT shears/rescue tool, pocket knife, a radio transceiver capable of communicating with fire/ems/law/parks/DNR/airlift/..., and a few other odds-and-ends always as well. And have life/fire/auto/medical insurance. And some fire extinguishers around the house, as well as tested smoke/CO detectors. Etc. Etc.
I like to think that a reasonable amount of rational fear is the mark of a mature mind; and in any given situation will ask myself “What would George Costanza do?”. Over most of the scenarios I am likely to encounter, carrying a firearm would serve to reduce my overall safety rather than enhance it. I have the word of experienced military professionals on that (one suggested the only way I could hope to be a serious threat to the USSR would be to defect). I believe that applies for most people, and that no amount of range time is likely to change it. I therefore believe that outside of a few extreme cases, carrying a weapon on one’s person is a poor form of insurance.
However, just because I have made that risk assessment for myself it doesn’t follow that I feel a need to legally impose my views on others. If people want to face life’s real or perceived threats with a handgun in their handbag or a KA-BAR in their kilt, I see that as their business. But as a rational coward, I will face them with a cell phone, my lawyer’s business card and a well-informed pusillanimity.
All I can picture is all these teens with guns getting drunk....on top of their raging testosterone..........
I believe you have to be 21 to get a permit. It's against the law for teens to drink, and carry, so why would this law make a difference to them?
Teacher Terry
8-6-16, 3:57pm
I would not want to be somewhere a bunch of people are packing and have an incident. I could see innocent people getting shot by people trying to help. If you are going to own a gun it makes more sense to keep it at home for break-ins, etc. The cops aren't even that accurate let alone someone else.
I believe you have to be 21 to get a permit. It's against the law for teens to drink, and carry, so why would this law make a difference to them?
True, we all know that once everyone hits the age of 21 instant maturity sets in.
And on a side note, the first USA gold medal of the Rio olympics is for shooting! U S A! U S A! U S A!
OK, help me understand. There is no one that carries a gun here; some drug dealing does go on but I have not seen any nor have any of my neighbours, friends or family. I don't feel threatened.
What makes the US resident feel so afraid that one needs to carry a gun everywhere even into classrooms? Right now, the whole situation makes no sense to me; so what is different?
Is it a state of thought or are people really that vulnerable? How many on this site feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
Great question. I, personally, would feel MORE threatened if I had a gun in my home. I feel safe in my home, with no security system, and I can't imagine routinely grabbing my phone and my gun before I left the house. I live in NJ--the most densely populated state in the US, and I would be more fearful of having my own gun used against me than not being able to protect myself unless I had a gun. Maybe because I am not trained to use them, but I think it's more because I think guns are strange things.
ETA: My daughter moved into a questionable neighborhood in DC her senior year of college and I sent her a care package of mace products, but it would never have occurred to me to get her a gun.
Teacher Terry
8-6-16, 6:48pm
When I was a SW and went into people's homes I carried mace which was illegal in our state but i ordered it from out of state. All the SW's did a group order:)) Then I went back to grad school for a new profession after one of them was killed in her own home by 2 men that one of her clients knew from prison. It took them 20 years to solve the crime. Who knows-she might have survived if she had a gun and could get to it. She was a tiny 50 yo woman that fought really hard. They could tell this by how trashed her home was due to the struggle. It was really sad.
iris lilies
8-6-16, 7:39pm
Catherine is not required to have a gun in her home, unlike in Switzerland. All able bodied men serve in the army and have guns on their property. Dont move to Switzerland!
And TT carried illegally. (Mace) Why is anyone surprised that people will do what they feel necessary to protect themselves? so odd. It is a personal choice depending on a variety of factors. One size does not fit all.
Great question. I, personally, would feel MORE threatened if I had a gun in my home.
And apparently the scientific literature finds that the risks outweigh the benefits, so your concern is actually quite rational. Suicide, accidents and domestic violence are all more likely to occur in homes with guns than without.
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294
And from a simple living perspective, all the training, storing, cleaning, and constant vigilance is something to consider, as well. Gun ownership starts sounding like another hobby, or--worse yet--obligation.
iris lilies
8-6-16, 11:43pm
And from a simple living perspective, all the training, storing, cleaning, and constant vigilance is something to consider, as well. Gun ownership starts sounding like another hobby, or--worse yet--obligation.
Thats why I don't have one, I don't even like carryong a billfold and often do not.
Teacher Terry
8-7-16, 4:17pm
None of us bought the mace until our co-worker was killed. Also the town was not that big-80k so should not have been a dangerous town to work in. Most of my co-workers eventually found new professions. We were all moms of small children and felt the risk was too great.
And from a simple living perspective, all the training, storing, cleaning, and constant vigilance is something to consider, as well. Gun ownership starts sounding like another hobby, or--worse yet--obligation.
Very few gun-owners put in the time and effort to do the training, cleaning, and vigilance. I have known tons of gun owners -- from ex-military to law enforcement to rednecks to libertarian intellectuals, etc.
And most barely dabble in training or cleaning. Few are vigilant.
I know plenty who keep most of their guns in storage because they are so expensive to shoot regularly. They just get some mental comfort from having the guns in their possession.
But I know plenty of other gun nuts who go shooting a lot but do not go through all the stuff you listed, Jane.
Apparently students at UT-Austin can concealed-carry guns on campus according to a new law going into effect.
I see this a little differently, the law doesn't permit them to do something they previously couldn't, it removes a restriction preventing them from doing something they can do everywhere else. That's a good thing!
Oh yes, more guns! Now of course all the students will have to carry to protect themselves from all the students who will be armed. Kind of like all these (idiots) who feel they must carry everywhere because the country is sooo dangerous because of all those who are walking around with guns. And the NRA gun lobby knows these rubes are too spun up with fear and paranoia to understand the irony.
I just love how the answer to gun violence is more guns...very much the same way more alcohol is the answer to drunk driving.
Razz, many many in my zip code carry guns. illegally.
DH was on the grand jury for 3 months, that mean 2-3 days per week for that period.
Of the hundreds of cases they heard, 7out of 10 their cases were drugs or illegally held guns. I dont feel " threatened" but I recognize that many people do not live the life
I live. They go into the the areas with lots of those illegal guns, often at night, to do business, to go into their homes, to visit friends and relatives, etc. who am I to tell them they shouod not feel threatened?
Wow! Could there be a better argument for gun registration? I don't think so. All those illegal guns came from somewhere (and no, they didn't just nip out back and knock them off in their machine shop...before some try to suggest that).
If we had a national registry detailing the owner of that gun, and it's history, then that would reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. How? Glad you asked. (you did ask, right?)
Guns should be treated like cars, another potential weapon to cause death, although to be fair cars aren't designed to kill and guns are. But people like to compare the lethal ability of them, so, whatever.
Every time a gun is bought/sold, the owner should register it, just like we do cars. If it is stolen or lost (how exactly do you 'lose' a gun?) it should be reported to the police, just like you would if your car was stolen...or 'lost'. That way you have a paper trail of the theft when that gun shows up at a crime scene. Same if you sell it and it ends up in Mr. ner-do-well's pocket.
Cause, that gun came from somewhere. And I'm just betting there are a relatively few folks out there who seem to 'lose' their guns a lot. A whole lot. Stem the flow of illegal guns and you will make a difference.
Then all the paranoid people can run around legally armed and shooting at each other...or whipping out their guns to compare length, or whatever these gun nuts do. And all those illegal gun punks in IL's neighborhood would be hard pressed to arm themselves so easily. No, it wouldn't get rid of illegal guns 100%, but it would go a long way towards reducing them.
Now for this to work the laws need to be standard across the whole country. Every state needs to be on the same page with this. Having these laws in one city while the state next to it is a free for all doesn't work, as many have pointed out in Chicago (although to be truthful those dweebs who like to point to this 'example' are too dense to realize they are in fact making a case for universal, standard gun laws)
And I guess while we are making the car/gun connection, lets require training, license and insurance for gun owners as well.
See, win win. Gun nuts get to keep their arsenal for parade purposes and the rest of us get to breath just a little bit easier knowing the guns committed in crimes will be traced back to the unfortunate individual who keeps 'losing' his guns.
Peggy:
There will be no new gun laws. Mark my words. There will be no new gun laws.
And I'm just betting there are a relatively few folks out there who seem to 'lose' their guns a lot. You'd be surprised at how many guns fall into lakes, rivers and oceans, I think it has something to do with magnetism. When the brown shirts come to my house after initiating a registry, they'll find that I haven't seen mine since I went plinking down by the river a few months earlier and the water's attraction was too much for them to resist, but they're welcome to dredge if it means that much to them.
'
All I can picture is all these teens with guns getting drunk....on top of their raging testosterone..........
When I turned 19 I lived in a state where that was the legal drinking age and we took full advantage of that. My friends and I all had guns, note the plural. We never had any issue with unsafe conduct or threats to one another that included firearms. While anecdotal, that suggests (to me) that there doesn't need to be any increase in incidents due to campus carry. If there is then there must be something other than the guns that have changed since I was a teen. Just food for thought as we all look for a logical starting point...
Wow! Could there be a better argument for gun registration?
I get what you're saying Peggy, but the problem, as I see it, is that the registered owner is often not the person who would use a gun to commit a crime. Once a gun is sold through private parties, lost and found, stolen or otherwise changes hands the register becomes useless. Unless the new owner decides to drop a note to the BATF, but that seems unlikely in most cases.
I get what you're saying Peggy, but the problem, as I see it, is that the registered owner is often not the person who would use a gun to commit a crime. Once a gun is sold through private parties, lost and found, stolen or otherwise changes hands the register becomes useless.
Well, a way to fix this is to be able to charge the original owner (or whomever the gun is registered under) with a crime punishable with prison time.
Well, a way to fix this is to be able to charge the original owner (or whomever the gun is registered under) with a crime punishable with prison time.
Why not just put the ones using the guns illegally in prison. Why not stop and frisk some of those young gang members and lock them up if they have a gun.
iris lilies
8-8-16, 10:28pm
Well, a way to fix this is to be able to charge the original owner (or whomever the gun is registered under) with a crime punishable with prison time.
I guess that is what peggy is driving at, but it is unthinkable.
So if we cant make inroads with the criminal element who have guns when the law says they should not, we prosecute law abiding citizens who somehow put the guns in the hands of the criminal element?
there are so many things wrong with this, I can 't even think. Just no. Hell no.
Maybe the thing to do is just all drop all laws about the buying, selling, registering and carrying of weapons?
iris lilies
8-8-16, 10:38pm
Maybe the thing to do is just all drop all laws about the buying, selling, registering and carrying of weapons?
U serious?
U serious?
There seems to be a lot of push against any form of further regulation of guns, maybe we should be talking about going the other way?
Well, a way to fix this is to be able to charge the original owner (or whomever the gun is registered under) with a crime punishable with prison time.
In some cases that is already possible, but it falls flat as a way to really accomplish much. In many cases the original owner is a victim of a crime when his/her gun was stolen. In other cases they might have sold/given it legally to someone else who is perfectly law abiding, but who became a crime victim when the gun was stolen from them. I'm all for throwing the book at someone convicted of supplying weapons to known criminals, but I think we need to do our best to avoid locking up folks who didn't do anything wrong.
You'd be surprised at how many guns fall into lakes, rivers and oceans, I think it has something to do with magnetism. When the brown shirts come to my house after initiating a registry, they'll find that I haven't seen mine since I went plinking down by the river a few months earlier and the water's attraction was too much for them to resist, but they're welcome to dredge if it means that much to them.
'
Ah, yes, the "boating accident" frequently referred to on my gun forums.
I don't think you all get it.
An "Original Owner" law solves so many problems.
Think about it.
A guy buys a gun legally. He sells it to someone legally, like for cash at a gun show or some such. Then that guy turns criminal with that gun and hurts someone. The guy who bought and criminally used the gun obviously gets prosecuted. But if you also prosecute and imprison the original owner for selling the gun to a potential criminal then what will happen?
People will be afraid to sell guns, so they will hold onto their guns. This will totally stop person-to-person gun sales. One big problem solved!
Now, let's say some lady legally buys a gun. Then when she is out working some criminal breaks into her house, steals then gun, then later commits a crime with it. By prosecuting both the gun thief and original owner another problem can be solved, perhaps the biggest problem -- people buying guns from gun stores.
If a person could be prosecuted for what happens with their stolen gun, then they will not buy a gun in the first place for fear that it could be stolen. So no more store-to-person gun sales and ultimately gun manufacturers go out of business.
How can you not see how this solves the problems?
I am sure you are all wondering "what about all the guns people already own?"
Well, under an Original Owner law they'd have to register the guns they already own. Thereby being subject to the risks of the Original Owner laws. If they fail to register these guns and are later discovered to possess them the guns would be considered stolen property of the government.
Sure, some people would prefer to offload their guns to avoid the risks associated with the Original Owner laws. So these folks could sell their guns to the government at a price determined by the government.
Again, an Original Owner law really solves all the problems.
I don't think you all get it.
No, I think we do. You'd like to make everyone criminals in order to pursue an agenda.
How would you reconcile this: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
No, I think we do. You'd like to make everyone criminals in order to pursue an agenda.
How would you reconcile this: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Under an Original Owner law people could still buy and own and sell and use guns. There would be no laws against these things.
Under an Original Owner law people could still buy and own and sell and use guns. There would be no laws against these things.But, you would criminalize victimization with the intent to infringe upon a citizens ability to peacefully enjoy a constitutional right.
It's arguments like this that show the wisdom of the founders in rejecting a pure Democracy in favor of a Republic, and make Franklin's warning of "If you can keep it" all the more relevant.
I don't think you all get it.
An "Original Owner" law solves so many problems.
Think about it.
A guy buys a gun legally. He sells it to someone legally, like for cash at a gun show or some such. Then that guy turns criminal with that gun and hurts someone. The guy who bought and criminally used the gun obviously gets prosecuted. But if you also prosecute and imprison the original owner for selling the gun to a potential criminal then what will happen?
People will be afraid to sell guns, so they will hold onto their guns. This will totally stop person-to-person gun sales. One big problem solved!
Now, let's say some lady legally buys a gun. Then when she is out working some criminal breaks into her house, steals then gun, then later commits a crime with it. By prosecuting both the gun thief and original owner another problem can be solved, perhaps the biggest problem -- people buying guns from gun stores.
If a person could be prosecuted for what happens with their stolen gun, then they will not buy a gun in the first place for fear that it could be stolen. So no more store-to-person gun sales and ultimately gun manufacturers go out of business.
How can you not see how this solves the problems?
I am sure you are all wondering "what about all the guns people already own?"
Well, under an Original Owner law they'd have to register the guns they already own. Thereby being subject to the risks of the Original Owner laws. If they fail to register these guns and are later discovered to possess them the guns would be considered stolen property of the government.
Sure, some people would prefer to offload their guns to avoid the risks associated with the Original Owner laws. So these folks could sell their guns to the government at a price determined by the government.
Again, an Original Owner law really solves all the problems.
Various tyrannies in various ages have resorted to similar hostage-taking, with mixed results. It has the benefit of making a whole population guilty, and then punishing whoever you prefer at your convenience.
I think a decent argument could be made that prosecuting people for crimes committed with their stolen property amounts to prosecuting them for the initial legal ownership of that property. That would probably be a violation of the ex post facto clause.
It would probably be no easier for you to force that on the public than an outright ban.
Probably should also lock up people who write things that cause unrest.
And hang preachers who say things that encourages any member of their congregation to break a law.
And anyone in a crowd that is "peaceably assembling" should be held responsible for any crimes committed by any member of the assembly.
And if someone speeds while delivering a petition, all the signers should get a ticket.
Probably should also lock up people who write things that cause unrest.
And hang preachers who say things that encourages any member of their congregation to break a law.
And anyone in a crowd that is "peaceably assembling" should be held responsible for any crimes committed by any member of the assembly.
And if someone speeds while delivering a petition, all the signers should get a ticket.
It would probably be simpler and more honest to apply the principle that "everything not forbidden is compulsory."
In some cases that is already possible, but it falls flat as a way to really accomplish much. In many cases the original owner is a victim of a crime when his/her gun was stolen. In other cases they might have sold/given it legally to someone else who is perfectly law abiding, but who became a crime victim when the gun was stolen from them. I'm all for throwing the book at someone convicted of supplying weapons to known criminals, but I think we need to do our best to avoid locking up folks who didn't do anything wrong.
But just as with a registered car, when I sell it I inform the DMV that I sold it and the purchaser informs the DMV that they bought it. That way if someone uses my former car to commit a crime the cops don't show up on my doorstep. And even if the purchaser doesn't report it bought the fact that I reported it sold absolves me of responsibility for what they do with it. Problem solved.
In some cases that is already possible, but it falls flat as a way to really accomplish much. In many cases the original owner is a victim of a crime when his/her gun was stolen. In other cases they might have sold/given it legally to someone else who is perfectly law abiding, but who became a crime victim when the gun was stolen from them. I'm all for throwing the book at someone convicted of supplying weapons to known criminals, but I think we need to do our best to avoid locking up folks who didn't do anything wrong.
OK, see, you all are confused.
The gun must be registered EVERY time it is sold, just as a sale/transfer of a car is registered. That's the whole point of the registry.
Every new owner of a car ( any car...new or used) has his own license plate/number. If that car is seen speeding away from the scene of a crime, it can be traced back to the present owner. Not to the original guy who bought it new. If the present owner is the criminal, great! got em! if it had been stolen, that certainly was reported to the police and again there is a record of this.
If you sell a gun, to anyone, it would certainly be in your best interest to register that sale. (same as if you sold a car) That way, down the line, you won't be held liable for the crime...unless of course you end up selling a lot of guns that just happen to end up in crimes.
When a gun is used to commit a crime, it would be traced back to the last legitimate owner. Who would have to come up with an explanation as to how his gun ended up robbing a gas station and shooting 3 people. See how it works.
If your gun is stolen Gregg, surely you would report it to the police. If your gun is stolen that would mean someone robbed you at gun point (ironic, huh?), broke into your car or broke into your house, all situations you would report to the police, right? OK, you have the police report. You are covered.
If you drop your gun in the ocean or river, Alan, you could choose to not report it lost (a simple filing of paperwork). However, if your gun ends up at a crime scene, you'd have some 'splaining to do. Legitimately so.
And yes, the registered owner of the gun should face some punishment if his/her gun is used to commit a crime and they don't have a police report or bill of sale. Even if they aren't the one who committed the crime, they are an accessory to the crime. it was their gun. it killed people. This isn't a video game..or hypothetical.
If we are truly serious about stemming the flow of illegal guns and crimes committed with them, we need to be serious about regulations.
Take note people. Anyone who blathers on about this excuse or that excuse to prevent reasonable gun regulations...regulations we already accept for cars or sky diving or a host of other things...they are not really wanting to stop gun violence. It's just lip service. In fact, I sometimes wonder if they in fact want more violence. Then they can justify in their own minds their paranoid need to carry everywhere in the hopes of maybe, just maybe THEY will be able to ride in on the white horse and save the day! yeah, right. THEY would do it differently. THEY would be able to take out the terrorist/lone shooter/nut job at the movies because, of course, they are them after all.
No, there aren't 'hundreds' of laws already on the books. There probably aren't tens of laws. When anyone can sling an assault weapon over their shoulder and go to the local Schnucks, there aren't laws...certainly not hundreds!
Gregg, you ask what is different than when you were a kid? Well, did you and your friends carry a revolver everywhere you went? Did you carry them into classrooms? Did you always have a gun in your pocket/hip/jacket? I'm guessing it was hunting rifles you spoke of and they were secured in the gun rack of your truck/car.
Seriously folks, it's reasonable laws now, or the second needs to be rewritten to address all the idiots who push and push until we all have had enough.
But of course that won't happen. We did after all accept 24 kindergartners as reasonable collateral damage in our pursuit of more guns more guns more guns!
But just as with a registered car, when I sell it I inform the DMV that I sold it and the purchaser informs the DMV that they bought it. That way if someone uses my former car to commit a crime the cops don't show up on my doorstep. And even if the purchaser doesn't report it bought the fact that I reported it sold absolves me of responsibility for what they do with it. Problem solved.
Yes, exactly. But some here would rather 'misunderstand' it to further their agenda. Or try to twist it to avoid replying to a common sense solution.
Trust me jp1, they understand perfectly how it would work. They just don't want to acknowledge it.
It's a case of they are either intentionally misleading, or they are truly dense and can't follow a simple plan.
and it's '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."
See Alan, I fixed it for you. it's really not a very long sentence. Not sure why you keep insisting on only posting part of it. Maybe because you only want to honor part of it.
See Alan, I fixed it for you. it's really not a very long sentence. Not sure why you keep insisting on only posting part of it. Maybe because you only want to honor part of it.
We've had this militia discussion before. You may recall that I swore a solemn oath to protect and defend way back in 1973 and have never been absolved of that responsibility. I am the militia.
Edited to add:
This is what makes me the militia the founders envisioned as surely as those who currently serve or are willing to assume the responsibilities of the office if called. Notice it has no expiration.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Yes, exactly. But some here would rather 'misunderstand' it to further their agenda. Or try to twist it to avoid replying to a common sense solution.
Trust me jp1, they understand perfectly how it would work. They just don't want to acknowledge it.
It's a case of they are either intentionally misleading, or they are truly dense and can't follow a simple plan.
and it's '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."
See Alan, I fixed it for you. it's really not a very long sentence. Not sure why you keep insisting on only posting part of it. Maybe because you only want to honor part of it.
What did the Supreme Court have to say about that "militia" canard in D.C. vs. Heller?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Starts at the bottom of page 2. Goes on for 20 pages on the militia bit. Says some quite interesting things about "the militia" and the 2nd Amendment.
Scalia's legacy lives on.
Scalia's legacy lives on.
Attack the man, not the text. Well played....
We've had this militia discussion before. You may recall that I swore a solemn oath to protect and defend way back in 1973 and have never been absolved of that responsibility. I am the militia.
Edited to add:
This is what makes me the militia the founders envisioned as surely as those who currently serve or are willing to assume the responsibilities of the office if called. Notice it has no expiration.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Mine was a little different:
I, (Full Name) having been appointed a (Rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD.
Attack the man, not the text. Well played....
Clearly, a court divided. I'd come down on the side of militia/arms/armory if it were up to me. But it wasn't. Argle Bargle and all that.
And where did I attack anyone?
By Alan and Ldahl's standard only about 7% of US citizens should be considered part of the militia. The vast majority of citizens have not been in the military.
Clearly, a court divided.
A "court divided". A meme that comes up a lot when there's a 5-4 decision. With presumably the implication that a 5-4 decision is less of a decision than a 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 decision. Which is nonsense.
Rule of law, and all.
By Alan and Ldahl's standard only about 7% of US citizens should be considered part of the militia. The vast majority of citizens have not been in the military.
I do not see Alan and Ldahl offering militia membership as the standard for citizens exercising 2nd Amendment rights.
Certainly the Supreme Court does not see it that way.
My two most recent oaths stated:
I, _____, do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to the law and the best of my ability.
and
I, _______, voluntarily take this oath with purpose and with pride. I hereby accept the District’s Mission, Values and Principles as my own in the presence of my family, my neighbors, my officers and my fellow Firefighters, EMTs and First Responders. I understand that all these lives will be in my hands and mine in theirs. I am committed to developing my knowledge and skills at training and at drills, knowing that a life may depend on my ability to learn and my dedication to train. I will never allow my personal feelings, nor danger to self, deter me from my responsibilities as a firefighter or first responder. I will at all times, respect the property and rights of all men and women, the laws of my country, and members I serve with. I make this oath knowing that my service will protect the lives and property of my family and my neighbors. Because this community and my fellow responders rely on me, I solemnly swear my dedication to the Fire Service as a member of XXX...
If your gun is stolen Gregg, surely you would report it to the police. If your gun is stolen that would mean someone robbed you at gun point (ironic, huh?), broke into your car or broke into your house, all situations you would report to the police, right? OK, you have the police report. You are covered.
With or without original owner laws I would report such a theft. One thing to keep in mind (that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion) is that there is already a de facto registry of sorts. If I buy a gun from a licensed dealer I am required to fill out a Form 4473 that, among other things, records what I am buying, who I am, where I live, etc. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has that information available. I won't argue that it would be a perfect substitute for the registry you're hoping for, but it might be comforting to know that we already have a tool that gets you 90% of the way there.
Maybe we could look at guns and gun violence in the same way we look at how to trim the deficit. If you had to trim $1 trillion out of the annual budget you probably wouldn't worry about trying to find ways to save $1,000 here and $1,000 there. You'd look for some way to cut $200 billion right off the top. The elephant in the room when it comes to guns are gangs and criminal organizations. If you take suicide off the table that type of crime is responsible for a large percentage of gun deaths. The issue regarding a registry is that those guns never were legal. Most of them weren't first sold to guys like me who had them stolen out of the bedroom closet. The guns came into the country illegally, were distributed illegally, are owned illegally... There just isn't any way to legislate those into compliance. I don't really have any problem with my gun(s) being on a registry given that it is only a redundancy anyway and that the likelihood of them ever being used in a crime is extremely low, but that is the same reason a registry won't really do anything beyond scratching a political itch.
Gregg, you ask what is different than when you were a kid? Well, did you and your friends carry a revolver everywhere you went? Did you carry them into classrooms? Did you always have a gun in your pocket/hip/jacket? I'm guessing it was hunting rifles you spoke of and they were secured in the gun rack of your truck/car.
I never carried a handgun into my high school and honestly can't tell you if it would have been against the rules or not. Several of us carried one in our vehicles along with various rifles and shotguns (as you said), but as far as I'm aware that's where they usually stayed. Part of my continual soapbox speech is that the attitudes toward the guns has changed far more than the guns themselves. Not that I have a plan on how to do it, but I can not get around the notion that if we truly want to solve this problem we need to address WHY people are shooting at each other so frequently with at least as much passion as we direct at the tools they choose to inflict harm.
I do not see Alan and Ldahl offering militia membership as the standard for citizens exercising 2nd Amendment rights.
Certainly the Supreme Court does not see it that way.
I guess then I'm confused why we're discussing oaths at all.
I never carried a handgun into my high school and honestly can't tell you if it would have been against the rules or not. Several of us carried one in our vehicles along with various rifles and shotguns (as you said), but as far as I'm aware that's where they usually stayed.
My high school had an armory. You could check your firearms out when you needed them. You couldn't keep them in your dorm rooms, and it was frowned upon to carry them around the populated part of campus unless you were on your way to somewhere else. You were allowed to have edged weapons in your room and on your person.
We didn't seem to have any problems with this.
I guess then I'm confused why we're discussing oaths at all.
Because people predictably went down the militia bunnytrail.
Which is now settled law.
A "court divided". A meme that comes up a lot when there's a 5-4 decision. With presumably the implication that a 5-4 decision is less of a decision than a 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 decision. Which is nonsense.
Rule of law, and all.
I think we are seeing two divergent views of the rule of law here.
The more antique version assigns legislatures the task of making law (subject to overideable veto by the executivre), the executive executes the law as written and the courts review the law for consistency with precedent and conformity with the Constitution. Process and the strict interpretation of written law tends to be paramount.
In a newer and increasingly popular version, "the law" can seep into use from additional sources. A chief executive can issue executive orders, write administrative rules or refuse to enforce certain laws. Legislatures can refuse to act in an advise and consent or administrative role. Courts can make decisions that essentially write new law with little regard to precedent or constitutional language. Arriving at a desired outcome is paramount, and we sometimes hear references to "the living constitution" in this context.
I prefer the older, duller, uncreative, slow-moving version. It seems less capricious to me.
I prefer the older, duller, uncreative, slow-moving version. It seems less capricious to me.
Tricky business:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/5/137.html
Tricky business:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/5/137.html
A case like that doesn't come along that frequently, and certainly doesn't sink to the "My pen and my phone" level.
I want this to be known before things go too far. I was very sarcastically suggesting an "Original Owner" law. I don't actually think that will fix the problems.
I want this to be known before things go too far. I was very sarcastically suggesting an "Original Owner" law. I don't actually think that will fix the problems.
What would? We have more guns circulating than ever, yet we're shooting one another less frequently than we used to. It doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved through supply and demand regulation. An outright ban doesn't promise any better results than what we attempted to do with drugs.
What would? We have more guns circulating than ever, yet we're shooting one another less frequently than we used to. It doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved through supply and demand regulation. An outright ban doesn't promise any better results than what we attempted to do with drugs.
I don't think bans or wacky laws like "original owner" would solve our gun violence problems.
The problems are more cultural, I think -- perhaps values-based.
What would?
Heavier investment in early childhood education, perhaps. And some productive attention paid to neighborhoods that lack economic opportunities and basic infrastructure.
Heavier investment in early childhood education, perhaps. And some productive attention paid to neighborhoods that lack economic opportunities and basic infrastructure.
Now I know you're joking!
With or without original owner laws I would report such a theft. One thing to keep in mind (that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion) is that there is already a de facto registry of sorts. If I buy a gun from a licensed dealer I am required to fill out a Form 4473 that, among other things, records what I am buying, who I am, where I live, etc. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has that information available. I won't argue that it would be a perfect substitute for the registry you're hoping for, but it might be comforting to know that we already have a tool that gets you 90% of the way there.
Maybe we could look at guns and gun violence in the same way we look at how to trim the deficit. If you had to trim $1 trillion out of the annual budget you probably wouldn't worry about trying to find ways to save $1,000 here and $1,000 there. You'd look for some way to cut $200 billion right off the top. The elephant in the room when it comes to guns are gangs and criminal organizations. If you take suicide off the table that type of crime is responsible for a large percentage of gun deaths. The issue regarding a registry is that those guns never were legal. Most of them weren't first sold to guys like me who had them stolen out of the bedroom closet. The guns came into the country illegally, were distributed illegally, are owned illegally... There just isn't any way to legislate those into compliance. I don't really have any problem with my gun(s) being on a registry given that it is only a redundancy anyway and that the likelihood of them ever being used in a crime is extremely low, but that is the same reason a registry won't really do anything beyond scratching a political itch.
I never carried a handgun into my high school and honestly can't tell you if it would have been against the rules or not. Several of us carried one in our vehicles along with various rifles and shotguns (as you said), but as far as I'm aware that's where they usually stayed. Part of my continual soapbox speech is that the attitudes toward the guns has changed far more than the guns themselves. Not that I have a plan on how to do it, but I can not get around the notion that if we truly want to solve this problem we need to address WHY people are shooting at each other so frequently with at least as much passion as we direct at the tools they choose to inflict harm.
Ah yes. the old 'we can't solve it 100% so why bother" excuse. Sure, whatever. I get it. You're not interested in actually finding solutions. Just excuses as to why we 'can't' do anything about all the gun violence.
And I'm pretty sure most illegal guns in IL's neighborhood aren't imported, or knocked off in someones metal shop, or whatever. I know these types of punks...they're not so bright. Or connected. Most of their guns come from someone who bought from someone else who bought from someone else who bought from you...cause every private sale after you bought from the dealer and were 'registered', weren't registered.
I know you aren't interested but there it is. That's the problem. People buy and sell guns every day. And unfortunately they aren't all great and glorious patriots, standing up to the face of tyranny...or whatever... They are people in the business of buying and selling, no questions asked. And whew! lucky for them, you're not asking!
Hey, long live the second amendment. I mean, this is what it's for, right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/9/1558390/-Trump-floats-Second-Amendment-remedy-against-Hillary-Clinton
Now I know you're joking!
Why is that joking? It seems very sensible to me. Help people to help themselves and they will succeed. Education and investment in infrastructure is doable and logical.
By Alan and Ldahl's standard only about 7% of US citizens should be considered part of the militia. The vast majority of citizens have not been in the military.
I guess then I'm confused why we're discussing oaths at all.
Because of the "well regulated militia" argument, which is usually used to imply that only active duty military qualify, and is not the case. The oath negates the active duty portion of the usual argument in that it implies a life long commitment.
Using the oath as a counter-argument is not meant to say that only veterans should be included in the incorrect understanding of what constitutes a militia. The founders envisioned a country without a standing army and considered all able bodied citizens as a potential militia and understood from English Common Law that every citizen had the right to the means of self defense from aggressors as well as the right of offense against tyrants, therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Ah yes. the old 'we can't solve it 100% so why bother" excuse. Sure, whatever. I get it. You're not interested in actually finding solutions. Just excuses as to why we 'can't' do anything about all the gun violence.
And I'm pretty sure most illegal guns in IL's neighborhood aren't imported, or knocked off in someones metal shop, or whatever. I know these types of punks...they're not so bright. Or connected. Most of their guns come from someone who bought from someone else who bought from someone else who bought from you...cause every private sale after you bought from the dealer and were 'registered', weren't registered.
I know you aren't interested but there it is. That's the problem. People buy and sell guns every day. And unfortunately they aren't all great and glorious patriots, standing up to the face of tyranny...or whatever... They are people in the business of buying and selling, no questions asked. And whew! lucky for them, you're not asking!
Hey, long live the second amendment. I mean, this is what it's for, right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/9/1558390/-Trump-floats-Second-Amendment-remedy-against-Hillary-Clinton
This might be a good time to take a breath. I'm interested in finding solutions that work, not just throwing lots of money and civil liberties at solutions that will make constituents feel warm and fuzzy, but not actually accomplish anything. A registry just doesn't offer any bang for the buck. Its also worth noting that there is no such thing as a 100% solution. I know you want one peggy. We would all love to see that. But it doesn't exist because there will always be those few bad apples who just won't play by the rules.
Illegal guns come from lots of sources. The BATF has several articles available regarding gun crime patterns. According to them guns stolen from guys like me make up
10% to 15% (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) of guns used in crimes. If you really start to follow the thread almost all of those end up being used in "low level" street crimes. Not that we don't want to stop that kind of crime as well, but its a problem that needs to be dealt with on a local, not a constitutional, level.
Most of the guns actually come from what is known as a "straw purchase". If I'm a felon who can't legally buy a gun I can slip you a few bucks to go to the store and buy one for me. The registry idea won't change that at all because the guys completing the purchase are already committing a crime (its illegal to do that in every state) and already have their info logged at the time of purchase. That is most common in places that don't have waiting periods and background checks. If you live in Chicago, which as very restrictive gun laws, its easy to drive up to the Wisconsin state line where there are almost no restrictions. Why don't we do more background checks? Why don't we implement a mandatory 90 day waiting period? If you have some kind of gun emergency where you can't wait 90 days maybe you shouldn't be buying a gun anyway. In the end I don't have any problem with a registry that completes the loop of what we've already started with the 4473, I just think it isn't the highest and best use of our resources.
Miss Cellane
8-10-16, 10:03am
You know, getting back to the original point of this post, I'm not sure it is a good idea for students to be carrying guns.
I was a teaching assistant for about 5 years. Sometimes I had to give kids bad grades. Sometimes I had to flunk them. A couple of times, I had to meet face to face with a student and inform them that they had been caught plagiarizing and were going to face university sanctions.
Sometimes the kids took it well. But a couple of them didn't. There was shouting, yelling, swearing, slamming of doors, death threats, stalking, and once, a book was thrown in my face. Some of this behavior went on for days or weeks. The level of rage, the level of violence, was a threat in and of itself.
It was unsettling, to say the least. Trying to imagine those conversations, knowing that the student might be carrying a gun--that is simply not a good thing.
Frankly, knowing that many people feel the need to carry a gun in their day to day lives, after witnessing incidents of road rage and the like, scares me. I don't want to be shot, injured or killed because someone gets mad at my driving or teaching or because they did something stupid (like copy the world's best known expert for a college paper) and can't control their emotions in the moment. Or because someone gets mad at another person and tries to shot them, and misses, and hits me.
You know, getting back to the original point of this post, I'm not sure it is a good idea for students to be carrying guns.
I was a teaching assistant for about 5 years. Sometimes I had to give kids bad grades. Sometimes I had to flunk them. A couple of times, I had to meet face to face with a student and inform them that they had been caught plagiarizing and were going to face university sanctions.
Sometimes the kids took it well. But a couple of them didn't. There was shouting, yelling, swearing, slamming of doors, death threats, stalking, and once, a book was thrown in my face. Some of this behavior went on for days or weeks. The level of rage, the level of violence, was a threat in and of itself.
It was unsettling, to say the least. Trying to imagine those conversations, knowing that the student might be carrying a gun--that is simply not a good thing.
Frankly, knowing that many people feel the need to carry a gun in their day to day lives, after witnessing incidents of road rage and the like, scares me. I don't want to be shot, injured or killed because someone gets mad at my driving or teaching or because they did something stupid (like copy the world's best known expert for a college paper) and can't control their emotions in the moment. Or because someone gets mad at another person and tries to shot them, and misses, and hits me.
I can understand how you feel, but if I understand it the law in question just causes the UT campus to be treated like any other public space in Texas. It would be difficult to argue that college students and faculty should be accorded different treatment under the law than anyone else.
Miss Cellane
8-10-16, 8:36pm
I can understand how you feel, but if I understand it the law in question just causes the UT campus to be treated like any other public space in Texas. It would be difficult to argue that college students and faculty should be accorded different treatment under the law than anyone else.
I admit that I do not know all the gun laws in Texas. But here in New Hampshire, many workplaces ban guns. I would see the university as more of a workplace than a public space. It may be a public university, but that does not necessarily make it a public space like a park or beach or street. Most universities limit access to buildings in some manner, or they have at least the potential to do so--which is why all students, faculty and staff are issued ID cards and are supposed to have the cards with them at all times.
If I were an instructor there, I would want to feel safe. Allowing anyone*, not just students, to carry guns in my workplace does not make me feel safe.
(Authorized, trained security/police excepted, of course.)
This might be a good time to take a breath. I'm interested in finding solutions that work, not just throwing lots of money and civil liberties at solutions that will make constituents feel warm and fuzzy, but not actually accomplish anything. A registry just doesn't offer any bang for the buck. Its also worth noting that there is no such thing as a 100% solution. I know you want one peggy. We would all love to see that. But it doesn't exist because there will always be those few bad apples who just won't play by the rules.
Illegal guns come from lots of sources. The BATF has several articles available regarding gun crime patterns. According to them guns stolen from guys like me make up
10% to 15% (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) of guns used in crimes. If you really start to follow the thread almost all of those end up being used in "low level" street crimes. Not that we don't want to stop that kind of crime as well, but its a problem that needs to be dealt with on a local, not a constitutional, level.
Most of the guns actually come from what is known as a "straw purchase". If I'm a felon who can't legally buy a gun I can slip you a few bucks to go to the store and buy one for me. The registry idea won't change that at all because the guys completing the purchase are already committing a crime (its illegal to do that in every state) and already have their info logged at the time of purchase. That is most common in places that don't have waiting periods and background checks. If you live in Chicago, which as very restrictive gun laws, its easy to drive up to the Wisconsin state line where there are almost no restrictions. Why don't we do more background checks? Why don't we implement a mandatory 90 day waiting period? If you have some kind of gun emergency where you can't wait 90 days maybe you shouldn't be buying a gun anyway. In the end I don't have any problem with a registry that completes the loop of what we've already started with the 4473, I just think it isn't the highest and best use of our resources.
Oh Gregg. I don't want to think you are trying to misrepresent what I'm saying, but sometimes it seems like you are doing this on purpose.
Number 1, I never said I wanted a 100% solution. Heck, I'd be happy with a 10-15% solution, which is the number of guns used in crime (petty, as you pointed out but again, the punks in IL's neighborhood) committed with the guns they 'steal' from people like you. I say 'steal' cause chances are some were stolen and some were just sold, we have no way of knowing since nothing is recorded. Again, a registry would help with that. Now let me spell out for you how since you seem to continue to miss my point.
Criminals don't like to be registered/noted/observed/or otherwise accounted for. Not much we can do about those stolen, although ironically it kind of trivializes the whole point of keeping a gun at home to defend yourself and property if it's just, you know, stolen!
But for those that are sold, if registering it is required, all sales, public and private, coupled with a waiting period of course (duh!) then we have a record of this sale. Again, cockroaches don't like the light so they might just hesitate to buy from you. (making it 10-15% harder for them)
Now, that straw purchase...a registry would be designed for this. In fact, this is where a registry would come in most handy. Since every sale would need to be registered, EVERY SALE, then either that 'mule' must register every sale HE makes, or explain how come so many of HIS purchases end up at crime scenes. Actually, either way he would have a lot of explaining to do cause HIS purchases are committing crimes. So, most of the guns, by your admission, have a paper trail back to one (or more)guy who is the mule.
Do you understand now? This is the point of the registry. To get these guys and get the guns.
Now, if you happen to 'lose' a lot of guns or have the bad luck of having a lot of guns 'stolen', repeatedly, then it's a pretty good bet YOU are the mule. But without an across the board registry we don't know that and the streets are awash with guns.
Yes, we do need waiting periods. Standard, national waiting periods. And background checks, with every sale, required. A registry would help with that too.
11,184 people on average die every year from gun homicide. Another 20,511 are killed by suicide by gun every year. These are just the deaths. The numbers of shot-but-survived are staggering.
People, average people, don't need guns beyond hunting and sport. Not in this country. Not here.
The latest NRA meme is the 'I took an oath..." BS. fine, you took an oath. But you still aren't well regulated. And I'm guess if the government were to call all these paranoid armed cowboys to come fight to defend their country (the original reason for the second), they would refuse. I'm guessing these (children) who scream about their right to arm themselves to the teeth would rise up in protest at mandatory military service.
See, all these excuses as to why these 'patriots' should be able to sling an assault weapon over their shoulder and go pick up a loaf of bread at the store, or sit in a classroom facing a teacher who just might flunk them and ruin their scholarship...all these excuses vanish when you demand they honor the WHOLE of the 2nd.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...yeah, let these guys do a stint in a real army and it just might cure them of wanting to play solider.
Cause you see, Gregg, we know why they want to arm themselves. We know why they want to parade around with a rifle slung over their shoulder. And we know why they feel the need to arm themselves from their morning bowl of cereal to the library/grocery run at the end of the day. It's power. And intimidation. And yes, some paranoia thrown in to make the mix extra 'interesting'.
Ask IL. She sees this in her neighborhood. The swagger, the power/intimidation trip. Having a gun make you a big man. Someone to be feared, and dare I say respected (cause, of course, you're armed!)
Now, just because you're white and middle-class doesn't make the power trip any less real.
For the record Peggy I just meant we're already 90% of the way to a registry of legally purchased guns thanks to the Form 4473 requirement. I made the statistic up for conversational purposes, but the point is that everyone who legally purchases a gun from a licensed dealer is required to fill out that form so it works as a de facto registration. That accounts for 90% of gun purchases made by guys like me. ;) I would love to be able to say that we're 90% of the way to a solution to our violence problems, but sadly I think we agree that's not the case.
Only dealers need this form. Every other sale does not. Don't you think it's these other sales that supply the guns that commit the crimes?
40% of guns are obtained without a background check. Not 10%...40%.
It's a huge problem.
Oh, wait, I see what you did there. You said 90% of LEGALLY purchased guns. What's an illegal purchase? I mean, when 40% are bought and sold without any requirements, what makes a purchase illegal? That it is bought by a felon?
OK, AGAIN, a national registry would help stop that cause THE ONE WHO LEGALLY PURCHASED THE GUN, REGISTERED OR NOT, sold it to the felon without any record, or requirement of a record what so ever. If the police do show up at his door and say, hey, your gun was used to rob a bank, the LEGAL purchaser of the gun can simply say, hey, I sold that gun to some guy on craig's list. He seemed legit!
He could also say I lost it, dropped it in the river next to Alan's gun, or it was stolen. Without required paper to prove any of this, the cops have no choice but to say, "OK, fine. have a good day"
See how that works? it's a win-win for everyone. Including that guy who lost/sold/or dropped in a river his gun.:)
Peggy, what would you do with those shotguns, rifles and pistols which have been in peoples families for generations? In your perfect world, would there be a penalty if found to have an unregistered weapon in your home?
Ultralight
8-12-16, 4:59pm
...what would you do with those shotguns, rifles and pistols which have been in peoples families for generations?
Why not do a government buy-back on those for market-rate?
Why not do a government buy-back on those for market-rate?What of those who elect not to sell?
Ultralight
8-12-16, 6:25pm
What of those who elect not to sell?
There is no "elect not to sell."
There is no "elect not to sell."
Ironically, that's why there's a 2nd Amendment.
Ultralight
8-12-16, 6:56pm
Ironically, that's why there's a 2nd Amendment.
For now...
iris lilies
8-12-16, 8:29pm
You know, getting back to the original point of this post, I'm not sure it is a good idea for students to be carrying guns.
I was a teaching assistant for about 5 years. Sometimes I had to give kids bad grades. Sometimes I had to flunk them. A couple of times, I had to meet face to face with a student and inform them that they had been caught plagiarizing and were going to face university sanctions.
Sometimes the kids took it well. But a couple of them didn't. There was shouting, yelling, swearing, slamming of doors, death threats, stalking, and once, a book was thrown in my face. Some of this behavior went on for days or weeks. The level of rage, the level of violence, was a threat in and of itself.
It was unsettling, to say the least. Trying to imagine those conversations, knowing that the student might be carrying a gun--that is simply not a good thing.
Frankly, knowing that many people feel the need to carry a gun in their day to day lives, after witnessing incidents of road rage and the like, scares me. I don't want to be shot, injured or killed because someone gets mad at my driving or teaching or because they did something stupid (like copy the world's best known expert for a college paper) and can't control their emotions in the moment. Or because someone gets mad at another person and tries to shot them, and misses, and hits me.
I dont mean this in a belittling way, but your tale of student ire isnt unique to the world.
Many many peole face irate customers, irate employees, irate coworkers. College professors do not have a unique experience.
I dont know why you think the current "no guns on campus" rule keeps an irate student from bringing a gun if he decides to do harm. Perhaps "no guns" rule does keep some hothead from shooting in the heat of the moment, however. I can see that.
For now...
Good luck with that. Go down that road, I think you'll have bigger problems than firearms...
http://progressiverailroading.com/graphics/g45500.jpg
I dont mean this week in a belittling way, but your tale of student ire isnt unique to the world.
Many many peole face irate customers, irate employees, irate cowokers. College professors do not have a unique experience.
.
I took mediation training and I use it a lot in my work. I have had to stand between families on the verge of violence, once between a staff member and a parent in conflict. I have parents tell me they want to go talk directly to another family about a possible bullying situation. The response to that is that I will call safety and security to be present for the conversation. I rarely have it get that far once I talk to them awhile. I even had a time that I am very proud of that I got my work cell phone back from a drunk homeless guy, I was told next time to just order the replacement and let it go. The point being that I think we could use a lot of work training more people in mediation and de-escalation. I have had some people think that I am giving in by using mediation techniques or restorative justice practices with youth, but it really does not affect the actual consequences for them. One of my best this summer was a kid who ran off, serious problem, and mom tends to be volatile and my teacher was not great either. The way that I talked to the child and the mother made the difference, he was suspended for one day and came back much better. His story was actually full of lies and I didn't need to accept those lies or take away the suspension to have a better outcome. However this takes training and practice,
Miss Cellane
8-13-16, 8:19am
I dont mean this in a belittling way, but your tale of student ire isnt unique to the world.
Many many peole face irate customers, irate employees, irate coworkers. College professors do not have a unique experience.
I dont know why you think the current "no guns on campus" rule keeps an irate student from bringing a gun if he decides to do harm. Perhaps "no guns" rule does keep some hothead from shooting in the heat of the moment, however. I can see that.
I know that, iris lily.
I guess my real point is that I would feel a lot safer in general, no matter where I was, if I knew that no one, other than authorized security/police, was carrying a gun. Ever.
The main reason is that I do not think most people carrying guns around a) know how to use them and b) most importantly, know how to react in a crisis. I am more worried about getting hit by friendly fire in a crisis situation. Because I have seen how people react in crisis situations.
This is not something I think about a lot, as most of the people I know don't own guns. And most places around here don't allow guns--my workplace, for example. My feeling is that more people carrying guns, and the more places guns are allowed, the greater the chance of someone using the gun.
Stuff like this: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_trials/robinson-woman-indicted-in-wal-mart-purse-snatching-shooting/article_f79a3fb3-a6f5-5b60-bfb1-96a3df953fbc.html where a woman attempted to shot a guy who had snatched someone else's purse. The shooter did not have a concealed carry permit. I get that she was breaking the law just having the gun. But it is this sort of thing that concerns me--the more people hear about this sort of thing, the more it becomes commonplace, the greater the chance of killing someone by mistake.
If everyone carrying a concealed weapon had to pass tests in using the weapon, and shoot/don't shoot scenarios and had to re-certify regularly, like we do with driving and driver's licenses, or medical licenses, or the like, it would help.
Only dealers need this form. Every other sale does not. Don't you think it's these other sales that supply the guns that commit the crimes?
40% of guns are obtained without a background check. Not 10%...40%. It's a huge problem.
Oh, wait, I see what you did there. You said 90% of LEGALLY purchased guns. What's an illegal purchase? I mean, when 40% are bought and sold without any requirements, what makes a purchase illegal? That it is bought by a felon?
We're going in circles here Peggy. Shock and awe, I know. You seem to think I'm against a registry, but I'm not. I agree it would help track guns and that it would create a data base of criminals that currently fly (mostly) under the radar, but in the end I'm not convinced it would have much effect on the crime rate. More and stiffer penalties for using a gun to carry out another act that is, in itself, already a crime hasn't proven to be a deterrent. But hey, I get what you're saying. I don't own that many guns anymore, but I'd probably fill out a form to put them in a data base just in case something happened that allowed them to fall into the wrong hands. There are millions of gun owners out there that pretty much feel the same way and pretty much live with an extremely low chance of their guns ever being used in a crime. It would probably keep a few guns off the street and help police solve a few more crimes so what the heck, but if you want to crackdown on someone I'd say making the Chuck's Guns (https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/the-violent-history-of-chicagos-most-notorious-gun-shop/) of the world a little more accountable would be more beneficial. In the end none of that does anything to address WHY people keep shooting each other. Until we make that leap its all lip stick on a pig.
Having gone through the long gun registry scenario now cancelled in Canada, I can advise that, IMO anyway, it is absolutely useless. The database was rarely updated so people who may have had guns at some point but none at present were singled out for having guns in situations completely unrelated today; robbers are not interested or concerned if one's registered gun is used illegally later; most guns used in crimes in Canada are handguns and illegally obtained; severe penalties were applied to law-abiding owners for legally acquired guns not paying renewal fees by certain dates; the fees were becoming ridiculous for owning guns so again penalizing those owning guns legally obtained; ...
iris lilies
8-15-16, 1:13pm
Having gone through the long gun registry scenario now cancelled in Canada, I can advise that, IMO anyway, it is absolutely useless. The database was rarely updated so people who may have had guns at some point but none at present were singled out for having guns in situations completely unrelated today; robbers are not interested or concerned if one's registered gun is used illegally later; most guns used in crimes in Canada are handguns and illegally obtained; severe penalties were applied to law-abiding owners for legally acquired guns not paying renewal fees by certain dates; the fees were becoming ridiculous for owning guns so again penalizing those owning guns legally obtained; ...
Of course it was useless, so many laws are. But peggy does not mind if I pay more taxes for a largely useless system that may affect a tiny percentage of serious crime.
Its not that the information would be useless, it could be valuable, but the cost and effort involved to build a data base of several hundred million items and their owners would be astronomical. At some point we have to ask ourselves a couple questions. Would it be effective in reducing crime in proportion with the cost/effort? Jury is certainly out, but from my seat I don't see any way that would be possible. Is there a way to spend the money and apply the effort that would more effectively reduce crime? Since a registry does nothing to address ANY of the multiple root causes of criminal or violent behavior, I'm forced to believe there are several options that would produce a more significant benefit for the same investment. Short answer, a registry would be better than doing nothing at all, but not as effective as several of the other options on the table. Since (contrary to some popular opinions) we don't have unlimited resources it just seems more logical to start with the option that has the best chance to reach the most people and work backward until we have nothing left except mediocre options. The real problem, IMO, is that we are still doing nothing.
Teacher Terry
8-15-16, 6:18pm
Why we let the ban on assault weapons expire I don't know. We have a right to bear arms but not have assault weapons.
Why we let the ban on assault weapons expire I don't know. We have a right to bear arms but not have assault weapons.
What's an "assault weapon"? How are they different from other arms? What arms *do* we have a right to?
I forgot to add one important concern with a registry of weapons. I am led to believe that the registry database was hacked and criminals knew exactly who had what. Some gun owners were definitely targeted in robberies.
I forgot to add one important concern with a registry of weapons. I am led to believe that the registry database was hacked and criminals knew exactly who had what. Some gun owners were definitely targeted in robberies.
We have had many examples here in the US of lists of firearms owners or weapons permit holders being published by helpful local newspapers, after they pulled the information from the registry...
Peggy, what would you do with those shotguns, rifles and pistols which have been in peoples families for generations? In your perfect world, would there be a penalty if found to have an unregistered weapon in your home?
Well, I suppose those folks could register their family guns. Not a big deal. They register their cars...they register to vote. We register our dogs, kinda sorta...
But really, how many of these crimes we are talking about are committed with a shotgun from the fifties? When punks steal guns from your home, they aren't looking for hunting rifles. Unless of course you have collectibles, and then the crime committed with them is more along the lines of fencing art, I'm guessing.
Look Alan, I realize you're trying to imply that this registry is REALLY REALLY a way to GET your guns. (Thanks UL, you really aren't helping, except for maybe that's your point). But what I propose is simply a registry, like for your car. And you still have a car, don't you?:)
Having gone through the long gun registry scenario now cancelled in Canada, I can advise that, IMO anyway, it is absolutely useless. The database was rarely updated so people who may have had guns at some point but none at present were singled out for having guns in situations completely unrelated today; robbers are not interested or concerned if one's registered gun is used illegally later; most guns used in crimes in Canada are handguns and illegally obtained; severe penalties were applied to law-abiding owners for legally acquired guns not paying renewal fees by certain dates; the fees were becoming ridiculous for owning guns so again penalizing those owning guns legally obtained; ...
Well that doesn't sound like what I propose. Actually, it sounds like a way for your government to make money. Renewal fees? I'm talking about a one time registry. When the gun is bought/sold. And each time it is bought/sold. simple. No renewal BS. How the registry would be 'updated' would simply be when the gun was bought/sold again. What you describe is more like a car type thing where you need to renew your license every year. That does sound like a hassle.
Of course it was useless, so many laws are. But peggy does not mind if I pay more taxes for a largely useless system that may affect a tiny percentage of serious crime.
A tiny percentage? 11 thousand from homicide, another 22 thousand from suicide? And what taxes are you talking about? Who said anything about taxes?
That's a pretty long stretch there IL to try to turn this into 'I gotta pay taxes for this..."
Actually, the only fees paid, to maintain the registry, would be the gun owners/buyers at the time of transaction. How many guns you looking to sell there IL?:D
Its not that the information would be useless, it could be valuable, but the cost and effort involved to build a data base of several hundred million items and their owners would be astronomical. At some point we have to ask ourselves a couple questions. Would it be effective in reducing crime in proportion with the cost/effort? Jury is certainly out, but from my seat I don't see any way that would be possible. Is there a way to spend the money and apply the effort that would more effectively reduce crime? Since a registry does nothing to address ANY of the multiple root causes of criminal or violent behavior, I'm forced to believe there are several options that would produce a more significant benefit for the same investment. Short answer, a registry would be better than doing nothing at all, but not as effective as several of the other options on the table. Since (contrary to some popular opinions) we don't have unlimited resources it just seems more logical to start with the option that has the best chance to reach the most people and work backward until we have nothing left except mediocre options. The real problem, IMO, is that we are still doing nothing.
Well, what option would you start with? Actual option I mean, not just some vague suggestion about 'strengthening' the family unit, or addressing mental health. First of all, most of these gun crimes aren't being committed by people with schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder. OK, maybe the suicides, but not the homicides. And second, Obama tried to address that with the ACA but the same folks who diss a registry or any restrictions on their guns are the same ones who actively try to repeal the ACA or even weaken it considerably.
We have had many examples here in the US of lists of firearms owners or weapons permit holders being published by helpful local newspapers, after they pulled the information from the registry...
Now would that be on the list before the abortion providers (name, phone, and address) or after the one of anti-gun activists and/or judges who deal harshly with gun nuts? Maybe it's near the lists of home sales (really expensive ones too) or any of the lists (registries) of gun clubs, antique car clubs, art dealers, or any other group registry of any kind, really.
Or maybe it's helpful to the thieves to simply look on facebook to see who is traveling out of town.
Trust me, if you have a large collection of guns, people know about it. Friends, acquaintances, the guy who fixes your dishwasher...or anyone you brag to, like us here on this forum. It's like the old joke goes....How do you know if someone is vegan? They'll tell you... I think this holds true for gun enthusiasts.;)
Well, what option would you start with? Actual option I mean, not just some vague suggestion about 'strengthening' the family unit, or addressing mental health. First of all, most of these gun crimes aren't being committed by people with schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder. OK, maybe the suicides, but not the homicides. And second, Obama tried to address that with the ACA but the same folks who diss a registry or any restrictions on their guns are the same ones who actively try to repeal the ACA or even weaken it considerably.
I would probably start with marijuana legalization if I were king. True, it would only address a single criminal activity, but that activity likely involves a lot more illegal guns and gun violence than you would find when you register a group of pheasant hunters from Iowa who want to buy a new gun.
ETA: As much as I wish there was a market solution for health care that really works, there's probably not. If I try to look through a lens that filters out all political white noise a single payer system is the only real alternative I can see. (The only one that would actually work, that is.) Thorough and compassionate care available to whoever needs it without screwing the people who spent so much and trained so hard to be able to provide it is a complicated issue. If you want to start a new thread to try to sort that one out so the answer isn't as vague, I'm in.
Perhaps in lieu of a registry of all guns there needs to be a law requiring that private sellers get verification from the purchaser that they are in fact legally able to buy a gun. Then when a gun gets used for a crime that gun gets traced back to the last sale from a dealer who did have to do a check, and the investigation follows all subsequent sales to make sure that the seller verified the legal purchasality of the purchaser. A seller who didn't do that (and can provide a copy of the paperwork) is held partially responsible for the crime committed with the gun. Set it up so that gun purchasers can get the same verification paperwork that gun dealers currently get. HOw that paperwork gets stored, I don't care. Whether they then file it with some government entity, keep it themselves, or some private company offers to store it for them for a few bucks. Whatever. But in this case guns used in crimes could get traced back to the original dealer sale and can then be tracked forward to the sale to a person who isn't legally allowed to own a gun.
Perhaps in lieu of a registry of all guns there needs to be a law requiring that private sellers get verification from the purchaser that they are in fact legally able to buy a gun. Then when a gun gets used for a crime that gun gets traced back to the last sale from a dealer who did have to do a check, and the investigation follows all subsequent sales to make sure that the seller verified the legal purchasality of the purchaser. A seller who didn't do that (and can provide a copy of the paperwork) is held partially responsible for the crime committed with the gun. Set it up so that gun purchasers can get the same verification paperwork that gun dealers currently get. HOw that paperwork gets stored, I don't care. Whether they then file it with some government entity, keep it themselves, or some private company offers to store it for them for a few bucks. Whatever. But in this case guns used in crimes could get traced back to the original dealer sale and can then be tracked forward to the sale to a person who isn't legally allowed to own a gun.
Actually, we've had a buyer verification system in IL since early 2014. I've bought and sold several firearms privately. You run the buyer's FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card number on the Illinois State Police website. It tells you if the buyer's FOID is valid and gives you a reference number. The verification prints out as a form you can use as a bill of sale. Seller has to keep the paperwork for 10 years. IL has had the FOID card since the late 1960s - background checks run by the ISP in order to get one.
Actually, we've had a buyer verification system in IL since early 2014. I've bought and sold several firearms privately. You run the buyer's FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card number on the Illinois State Police website. It tells you if the buyer's FOID is valid and gives you a reference number. The verification prints out as a form you can use as a bill of sale. Seller has to keep the paperwork for 10 years. IL has had the FOID card since the late 1960s - background checks run by the ISP in order to get one.
If only there was a nationwide system like that. A statewide system, or a variety of them, is a good start but I see all too many opportunities for abuse by people selling or purchasing from/to someone who doesn't live in their state. After all, is there a system to trace a gun back to Indiana and punish the seller if that gun was used in Chicago for a crime, if that's where the purchaser bought it?
It's illegal to sell handguns to people who are residents of other states. Against federal law. But the crooks will do whatever they want. I could buy a long gun in another state, but only in an adjoining state.
But the crooks will do whatever they want.
No matter what we do I'm afraid that will always be the point where our best efforts stumble. Crime isn't a disease, its a symptom of a disease. Our politicians want us to view it as the whole beast because its pretty easy to come up with programs that are aimed only at the symptom because the disease is infinitely more complicated to treat. We seem to believe we can keep going through the drive-tyru as long as we don't forget to take our Lipitor. That's also why any solution that doesn't address the root causes of what drives people to commit violent crime won't be any more than a political band-aid.
It's illegal to sell handguns to people who are residents of other states. Against federal law. But the crooks will do whatever they want. I could buy a long gun in another state, but only in an adjoining state.
Then guns illegally purchased by people from other states should be tracked and the sellers punished if those guns get used in a crime.
But the crooks will do whatever they want.
We could say that about burglars and drunk drivers and every other criminal. Why do we only say this when it comes to guns. If it hadn't been for the efforts of MADD we'd probably still have the same levels of drunk driving we had in the 70's. But many years of effort paid off.
I would probably start with marijuana legalization if I were king. True, it would only address a single criminal activity, but that activity likely involves a lot more illegal guns and gun violence than you would find when you register a group of pheasant hunters from Iowa who want to buy a new gun.
ETA: As much as I wish there was a market solution for health care that really works, there's probably not. If I try to look through a lens that filters out all political white noise a single payer system is the only real alternative I can see. (The only one that would actually work, that is.) Thorough and compassionate care available to whoever needs it without screwing the people who spent so much and trained so hard to be able to provide it is a complicated issue. If you want to start a new thread to try to sort that one out so the answer isn't as vague, I'm in.
Agreed and agreed! Definitely legalize pot. That would cut crime I'm sure as well as free up courts and law enforcement for the real crimes/criminals. And it would help addicts as well I think. These people don't need to be in jail. They need help. I think the DOJ deciding to not use private prisons is a good step in the right direction for that.
And yes to single payer! Universal health care doesn't men doctors and nurses and all the other players in the medical/health field don't get paid. It's just health care by and for the people without shareholders to please. Everyone gets paid. They just don't get paid hand over fist. While we are at it, we need to fix the medical education problem as well. Actually, it isn't so much a problem as an artificially created 'shortage', like diamonds. And for the same reason really. We hold such a tight fist on medical schools, allowing just a select few to enter then rack up astronomical debt in the process. This is why so many doctors are from India and elsewhere. They get degrees elsewhere then come here to practice cause there is always a job somewhere. While some decry our outsourcing of jobs, they don't say anything about the 'outsourcing' we have to do to staff our own hospitals and clinics. Try that on a Trump trooper next time they talk about the brown skinned folks coming here to take our jobs.;)
Then guns illegally purchased by people from other states should be tracked and the sellers punished if those guns get used in a crime.
We could say that about burglars and drunk drivers and every other criminal. Why do we only say this when it comes to guns. If it hadn't been for the efforts of MADD we'd probably still have the same levels of drunk driving we had in the 70's. But many years of effort paid off.
+1
This is why so many doctors are from India and elsewhere. They get degrees elsewhere then come here to practice cause there is always a job somewhere. That's not quite true. If they are certified in India, they must complete a final level of education and residency in the US.
Agreed and agreed! Definitely legalize pot. That would cut crime I'm sure as well as free up courts and law enforcement for the real crimes/criminals.
A second order of business would probably be to figure out how to require that all new guns sold would be smart guns. The idea being that only the owner can fire them (kind of like the lock on your iphone). Should reduce accidental shootings and the suicide rate, would drastically lower the incentive to steal guns since they'd be almost worthless on the black market (like a stolen iphone), etc. Some type of incentive to develop technology to retrofit existing guns would seem to make sense as well. Implementing Yardarm (think LoJack for guns, some police forces use it) or some similar technology to track guns wouldn't be off the table, but the NRA would go absolutely ballistic at the thought so it would be a political anchor.
Unfortunately the technology simply doesn't exist for smart gun owner recognition at the moment. Think how many times your iphone doesn't recognize your fingerprint three times and you end up having to type your passcode. Now imagine being in a situation where you need your gun to work at that exact moment. The technology has to get significantly more reliable before anyone will ever even consider using it.
That's not quite true. If they are certified in India, they must complete a final level of education and residency in the US.
Still way easier than going (or trying to go through) the process here. In fact, many Americans go overseas to get their degrees. In this country, desire to be a doctor, even if you have the chops, just doesn't cut it. As I said, an artificially created 'problem'.
Unfortunately the technology simply doesn't exist for smart gun owner recognition at the moment. Think how many times your iphone doesn't recognize your fingerprint three times and you end up having to type your passcode. Now imagine being in a situation where you need your gun to work at that exact moment. The technology has to get significantly more reliable before anyone will ever even consider using it.
Actually it does exist. Jonathan Mossburg, of the gun manufacturing family, is one of the pioneers. The tech in iphone recognition is low budget, but there are far superior products already in the market place. What is needed is an investment/investor that will come in to help put the tech over the line for commercial viability. A lot of buyers will consider it when the cost of their gun goes from $600 to $800, but most will drop out if it went to $1200 (for example). As with any tech, once the process gets rolling the products will get better and significantly cheaper at a pretty rapid pace. I know New Jersey has some sort of smart gun bill in the works that hit Gov. Christie's desk at least once...so far. I'm guessing other states are at least talking about similar legislation by now. At least I hope they are.
Gregg -
I have ~300 firearms. Most of them are historically significant in one way or another. I will not be modifying them with some wacky new technology, any more than I'd put a SatNav system, airbags, and backup camera into a '66 Shelby Cobra.
The firearms I carry for self defense however - they must be highly reliable, under all sorts of environmental conditions. The ones I select I pick primarily for engineering reasons - they are the ones with the simplest designs, the fewest moving parts, the largest clearances, and so on. They must always work. I would not ever carry a firearm for defensive purposes that relied up batteries and software, and that introduced additional points of failure.
There's no upside for me.
Gregg -
I have ~300 firearms. Most of them are historically significant in one way or another. I will not be modifying them with some wacky new technology, any more than I'd put a SatNav system, airbags, and backup camera into a '66 Shelby Cobra.
The firearms I carry for self defense however - they must be highly reliable, under all sorts of environmental conditions. The ones I select I pick primarily for engineering reasons - they are the ones with the simplest designs, the fewest moving parts, the largest clearances, and so on. They must always work. I would not ever carry a firearm for defensive purposes that relied up batteries and software, and that introduced additional points of failure.
There's no upside for me.
Understood bae. Weapons of historic significance wouldn't show up on my personal radar when addressing issues of stolen guns being used in criminal activity. My thoughts move pretty quickly past even the Kalashnikov poster children to handguns just because that's what most criminals seem to buy/steal/use. Smart gun technology looks like a way to make them safer for the average (read: novice) owner, the owner's kids who find them in the nightstand, a person having a tough run acting on a suicidal impulse, etc.
One of the technologies talked about is simple RFID. The key fob for my 1997 GMC pickup has worked just fine for almost 20 years. I replaced the battery in that once that I can remember so, yes, a battery failure is a possibility if someone did not keep up with scheduled maintenance. Beyond that I've never experienced a failure no matter how many times I've dropped the keys on concrete. That's pretty reliable. Obviously a gun needs to be maintained to function correctly, but there is a definable failure rate associated with any mechanical device. Its rare, but I have seen guns jam. Your point about additional points of failure is valid, but I'm wondering if its really worth consideration in most home defense scenarios if the new, add-on technology is more reliable than the tech it is being added to? (Serious question, trying to see all sides.)
Your point about additional points of failure is valid, but I'm wondering if its really worth consideration in most home defense scenarios if the new, add-on technology is more reliable than the tech it is being added to?
Yes. Even assuming your assessment of the statistical reliability of the "new" technology is correct, which you may find it is not...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MK1XXUT7IHw/hqdefault.jpg
One year later....
http://www.dentonrc.com/news/news/2017/09/22/one-year-later-campus-carry-brings-apparent-change-unt
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.