View Full Version : Here's where the gun debate should go!
Originally posted by Bae.
It has to do with all those pesky sporting/hunting regulations you claim we don't have.My claims are based solely on what Canadians, as myself, know and hear.
As for the rifle argument, makes sense.
My claims are based solely on what Canadians, as myself, know and hear.
You perhaps need to find some different information sources. Find a Canadian sportsman who has come down to the USA for hunting or competitive shooting events, and ask them what the story is.
As for the rifle argument, makes sense.
Also consider that modern handguns typically have multiple internal safety devices that keep them from going off if struck or dropped.
Many rifles, even quite modern ones, are *not* drop-safe, and so are a bit dangerous to carry with a round in the chamber, and typically require a bit of fuss to load when in the not-in-chamber state, and so aren't perhaps the ideal weapon to carry around as an item to be used in reactive personal self-defense.
but to allow someone the given-right to open fire on someone/anyone, aside from ones very own home, is asinine.
Why would you want to limit personal safety to the confines of your house?
I raised my kids to, first) be aware and avoid trouble, and second) know how to get away if you get caught in it, and third) know how to defend yourself if need be. You may consider that shameful, I consider it my obligation. They are some of the most well adjusted people I know and some of the least likely to be involved in a violent situation because they know violence is only acceptable when other options have been exhausted.
Your kids carry guns? Really?
OK, this argument is going in circles. Gregg, you never answered as to the sensible registration process I proposed a few pages ago. Every gun sale, professional, and private is officially registered, checked, so on, so if that gun ends up in a crime, it can be traced back to the last guy who owned it, who would be held accountable unless he/she can produce a police report on the lost/stolen gun. It would, I think, help to keep guns out of criminals hands while protecting the seller. It wouldn't infringe on any one's right to buy, sell or own a gun. It would just keep the process in the open and legal and safe, for everyone. And of course this standard would be nationwide.
Originally posted by Yossarian.
Why would you want to limit personal safety to the confines of your house? Wow, just wow...
Here's some data on the state of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in the USA, from the GAO:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf
Gregg. If and when you answer Peggy's question, it would be great to hear back from you regarding the question I asked you (some pages ago) Re: gun-related deaths and violence in Japan, compared to that in the US, and how the second amendment has improved overall safety in your country.
Every gun sale, professional, and private is officially registered, checked, so on, so if that gun ends up in a crime, it can be traced back to the last guy who owned it, who would be held accountable unless he/she can produce a police report on the lost/stolen gun.
The Canadians just abandoned their longgun registry, as it was costing them a lot of money, not solving any crimes, and not preventing any crimes, to a first approximation. New Zealand went through the same experience in the 1980s.
Adding the element of blaming the victim of a crime for having their gun stolen and not doing proper paperwork is just mean-spirited. And considering that at the moment we have trouble bothering to charge actual criminals for actual violations of firearms laws, it seems just another "well-intentioned" law that will clutter up the books, entrap innocent parties, and cost us all a lot of money.
How about we simply tack on 20 years mandatory sentencing ehnancement for crimes of violence committed with a firearm?
Gregg. If and when you answer Peggy's question, it would be great to hear back from you regarding the question I asked you (some pages ago) Re: gun-related deaths and violence in Japan, compared to that in the US, and how the second amendment has improved overall safety in your country.
Cross-cultural comparisons are not a simple black-and-white matter.
If interested in data, you could check out Kopel's book "The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?"
The Canadians just abandoned their longgun registry, as it was costing them a lot of money, not solving any crimes, and not preventing any crimes, to a first approximation. New Zealand went through the same experience in the 1980s.
Adding the element of blaming the victim of a crime for having their gun stolen and not doing proper paperwork is just mean-spirited. And considering that at the moment we have trouble bothering to charge actual criminals for actual violations of firearms laws, it seems just another "well-intentioned" law that will clutter up the books, entrap innocent parties, and cost us all a lot of money.
How about we simply tack on 20 years mandatory sentencing ehnancement for crimes of violence committed with a firearm?
How is expecting someone who has their gun stolen to report it to the authorities mean spirited? Is it mean spirited to expect people to report a car accident? Is it mean spirited for insurance companies to expect you to report your stolen gold watch and furs if you want to make a claim? You know, if your house is robbed, I'm guessing you are reporting it anyways, aren't you. That argument is totally bogus. And if there were national registrations on all sales, you bet your butt someone who had his gun stolen would report it, unless he was the one who sold it to a criminal, which is the point. If all guns used in crimes could be traced back to the last owner, I'm guessing fewer people with lily white records would be buying legally then selling to criminals.
Long guns? Now you're jumping back to rifles and shotguns? i thought you wanted to talk about handguns.
Sure, it would cost more to set up and run this registry, but probably not as much as 20 extra years in prison for the criminal who used a firearm. Besides, I'm thinking of stopping the glut of guns in criminal hands in the first place.
Maybe Canada has stopped their hunting gun registry, but as you said, cross-cultural comparisons are not simple black and white. Besides, Canada doesn't enjoy the level of gun violence we do.
Have you had much interaction with police, police reporting, police record keeping, and personal record keeping, Peggy?
I've had firearms for decades now. If I'd had one stolen 30 years ago, requiring me to have a piece of paper in my records now, or 20 more years from now, or be "responsible" for the actions of someone who stole it ages ago is absurd.
Any scheme requiring permanent record-keeping is absurd, for most people, and is a complication and additional burden for them.
There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the USA, with > 10 million more new ones sold to civilians each year. The overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, and not involved in crime.
Restrict and penalize the criminals, not the rest of us.
What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly. Heck, what is wrong with sentence enhancements for violent crimes in general, to keep the bad actors off the streets in the first place?
My father first took me out shooting when I was maybe 10 and as a young man was qualified at a certain level of marksmanship by NRA standards. I've been through hunter safety and hunt several times each year in the fall. So guns have been part of my upbringing. My guns were purchased for hunting and one has had an easy modification for home protection.
They don't leave my house except for hunting or maybe repair. If I lived in an area of high crime or was being stalked it might be different. Maybe my statistics would prove me wrong, but I don't worry any more about wanting a gun for protection outside them that I do about being hit by a car while crossing the street, or being hit by lightning when I'm hiking. If I were a single female living or traveling alone I'd have to reconsider. And I really have no problem with normal properly trained people carrying guns. However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.
However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.
Perhaps you simply don't understand their personal reasoning, concerns, and situation?
By "goes beyond rational thinking to something else" presumably you mean that they are irrational in their course of action? But they well may not be.
I'll give you some specifics, which I've mentioned on the forums before:
- My wife, in her past, used to work with a federal law enforcement agency making the lives of Very Bad People very inconvenient. People with great resources, and a history of violence, and a habit of intimidating those inconveniencing them. She, and some of her family members, received anonymous threats for years as the result of this work. So she, and I, chose to be trained, aware, and armed.
- I have had several people from my professional life threatening me with violence and stalking me, sometimes years after the incident that set them off.
- My wife and I used to spend a great deal of time aiding domestic violence victims evade their partners. This now-and-then resulted in the partner deciding we were part of the problem as well. We still get contacts made from some of these Bad Folks, years later. I still am involved in these efforts, as is one of my close family members, and we still make new "friends" all the time.
- I have had relatives offer to commit violence upon myself and my family, serious enough threats that restraining orders were issued and armed guards were used to accompany some of the family.
Law enforcement response time where I live is perhaps 30 minutes on a good day, and can be several hours. And often times a single officer, with less training and experience than I or my wife have, is the only responder.
So, is it irrational to be ready for circumstance, given that the effort to do so is at this point little more than attaching my holster to my belt in the morning, along with putting my comb, pocketknife, and wallet in my pants pockets?
Bae, In my book, your level of concern definitely justifies special precautions. I do not consider you irrational. However, at least among my associates, that is not a normal set of circumstances and I didn't intend the comment at the personal level.
The lack of rationality to me can delve into emotional, which may or may not be bad.
Perhaps you simply don't understand their personal reasoning, concerns, and situation?
By "goes beyond rational thinking to something else" presumably you mean that they are irrational in their course of action? But they well may not be.
I'll give you some specifics, which I've mentioned on the forums before:
- My wife, in her past, used to work with a federal law enforcement agency making the lives of Very Bad People very inconvenient. People with great resources, and a history of violence, and a habit of intimidating those inconveniencing them. She, and some of her family members, received anonymous threats for years as the result of this work. So she, and I, chose to be trained, aware, and armed.
- I have had several people from my professional life threatening me with violence and stalking me, sometimes years after the incident that set them off.
- My wife and I used to spend a great deal of time aiding domestic violence victims evade their partners. This now-and-then resulted in the partner deciding we were part of the problem as well. We still get contacts made from some of these Bad Folks, years later. I still am involved in these efforts, as is one of my close family members, and we still make new "friends" all the time.
- I have had relatives offer to commit violence upon myself and my family, serious enough threats that restraining orders were issued and armed guards were used to accompany some of the family.
Law enforcement response time where I live is perhaps 30 minutes on a good day, and can be several hours. And often times a single officer, with less training and experience than I or my wife have, is the only responder.
So, is it irrational to be ready for circumstance, given that the effort to do so is at this point little more than attaching my holster to my belt in the morning, along with putting my comb, pocketknife, and wallet in my pants pockets?
I think what you don't realize bae is that your situation is far and away and above and completely surreal to the average American life. Maybe you don't realize this, isolated on your island, but your situation is so abnormal to the existence of 99% of American people. Truthfully. You are out of touch dude, and you need to reacquaint yourself to the American life before you give proclamations as to 'realities' cause yours isn't normal, if what you say is true.
Maybe you need to turn off the TV or something, but American life isn't shoot outs on every street corner every week. Do you watch British TV? Do you really think there are 3 or 4 murders in Oxford every week? It's the same thing in the US. This isn't a CSI, Hawaii 5-0, kind of country. Really it isn't. Maybe you have 50 people gunning for you but most Americans don't. The vast, vast majority don't. The majority of those who stockpile guns and ammo don't. Only in their minds.
Peggy - please spare us the insults and assumptions.
...
They don't leave my house except for hunting or maybe repair. If I lived in an area of high crime or was being stalked it might be different. Maybe my statistics would prove me wrong, but I don't worry any more about wanting a gun for protection outside them that I do about being hit by a car while crossing the street, or being hit by lightning when I'm hiking. If I were a single female living or traveling alone I'd have to reconsider. And I really have no problem with normal properly trained people carrying guns. However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.
I've lived alone all my adult life. I've been stalked. I've worked a variety of shifts that required me to drive or take public transportation. For a year or so, I walked to and from work late at night through downtown city streets in Portland and Seattle. I've worked alone in offices on night shifts. I've driven hundreds of miles by myself. I've never considered buying a firearm. I can dream up scenarios where doing so might be appropriate, but none that seem likely to happen at this stage of my life.
Have you had much interaction with police, police reporting, police record keeping, and personal record keeping, Peggy?
I've had firearms for decades now. If I'd had one stolen 30 years ago, requiring me to have a piece of paper in my records now, or 20 more years from now, or be "responsible" for the actions of someone who stole it ages ago is absurd.
Any scheme requiring permanent record-keeping is absurd, for most people, and is a complication and additional burden for them.
There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the USA, with > 10 million more new ones sold to civilians each year. The overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, and not involved in crime.
Restrict and penalize the criminals, not the rest of us.
What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly. Heck, what is wrong with sentence enhancements for violent crimes in general, to keep the bad actors off the streets in the first place?
Bullsh-t! I'll bet you have records of all your business transactions dating back as far as you made them. I know I do. And the point of making gun registrations official is that there is AN OFFICIAL RECORD of the transaction. Go to your county office of records and I'll bet you can find records of your home,. who built it, who bought it, every time. Your car also has a paper trail, independent of you. How about your voting records. I'll bet you there is record of where and when you voted in the past. Keeping records of guns bought and sold is only onerous to those who wish to do it under the table. This added small task to the average gun owner/seller is a very small requirement indeed if it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you sell several guns a day? Then you aren't a private gun owner/seller. You are a dealer and should be licensed anyway.
Why would you resist this? What do you have to hide anyway? Saying people can't be expected to keep records when we certainly expect them to keep records of other transactions is bogus. Quite the straw man. Really, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue to how responsible and serious and well trained gun owners are, yet, they aren't responsible enough to register a gun sale or keep records? Really? Gee, if they can't be relied upon to simply register a gun sale, and/or keep a simple paper proving that fact, why are we expecting them to be responsible with a firearm? Pretty much makes my point, doesn't it.
All those strict gun laws in Chicago are working well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
No, Peggy, I don't maintain extensive historical archives. I purge my records as soon as I reasonably can, to keep clutter down.
There is simply no point in attempting to converse with you when you behave as you do, however.
Peggy - please spare us the insults and assumptions.
bae- please spare us your sanctimonious declarations and pathetic attempts at deflecting straw men.
No, Peggy, I don't maintain extensive historical archives. I purge my records as soon as I reasonably can, to keep clutter down.
There is simply no point in attempting to converse with you when you behave as you do, however.
Because you don't have anything. You don't have a reasonable reason why such a registry should not exist except, you don't want anyone to know when you sell a gun, or buy one.
And bae, I keep the records I need to. And the state keeps the records it needs to. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
Gregg. If and when you answer Peggy's question, it would be great to hear back from you regarding the question I asked you (some pages ago) Re: gun-related deaths and violence in Japan, compared to that in the US, and how the second amendment has improved overall safety in your country.
As I understand it, the Second Amendment was written to assure that we have a "well-regulated militia" similar to Switzerland's, where the citizenry is the defense, or like our National Guard.
A factual tidbit:
With a relatively inexpensive machine like the one sitting on my workbench here, and a basic high-school shop class understanding of machining, a Bad Actor could trivially remove all identifying marks from a firearm, machine new firing pins/extractors/barrels, and "sterilize" the firearm, making it difficult in the extreme to trace.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5TsyhweR4D0/UBNxt3fQXDI/AAAAAAAAGAw/hpDLnaUlqV4/s640/Awesomized.jpg
Or a fellow could make his own firearm with this from scratch, as I do now and then.
Realize also that Afghani tribesmen living in caves manage to make perfectly serviceable copies of a wide variety of modern weapons using basic human-powered hand tools.
Understood, Jane, but I do think the amendment has been allowed to spate "too freely".
Originally posted by DMC.
All those strict gun laws in Chicago are working well.Wrong. It has nothing to do with gun-laws (at all). For much too long now, the US, has allowed the citizens of the country to enjoy way too much freedom Re: guns. All the deaths and carnage you are seeing in your country, is a direct result of such. Allow most everyone a gun, that is what happens. Allow most anyone to carry a gun (concealed or otherwise), that is what happens. America, IMO, has promoted and encouraged every single ounce of gun-related problems that continues to fall on their lap.
To add, I couldn't help but read many of the comments (bottom of article), and my only thought is, wow, just wow.
Originally posted by Bae.
Cross-cultural comparisons are not a simple black-and-white matter.Maybe, but the results truly speak for themselves if we look at countries such as England and Japan.
Your kids carry guns? Really?
DS has a concealed carry permit, I don't think he uses it on a regular basis, but is licensed to if he so chooses. Two DDs have also been trained to safely handle guns and are both pretty good shots. DD1 does not particularly enjoy shooting and doesn't give much thought to guns one way or the other. DD2 isn’t old enough to get a permit so doesn't factor into the question yet. My guess is that she will get the permit when she is old enough, but probably won't carry a gun on a regular basis. What is important to me is that they have a very clear understanding of what a gun can do if it is misused and they all have enough respect and maturity to handle guns so there is not a risk to themselves or to others. Giving them that training was something I was obligated to do if there were going to be guns in the house when they were growing up. From that point on they are completely capable of making their own decisions (or will be in the case of my youngest).
OK, this argument is going in circles. Gregg, you never answered as to the sensible registration process I proposed a few pages ago. Every gun sale, professional, and private is officially registered, checked, so on, so if that gun ends up in a crime, it can be traced back to the last guy who owned it, who would be held accountable unless he/she can produce a police report on the lost/stolen gun. It would, I think, help to keep guns out of criminals hands while protecting the seller. It wouldn't infringe on any one's right to buy, sell or own a gun. It would just keep the process in the open and legal and safe, for everyone. And of course this standard would be nationwide.
Guess I missed the earlier question peggy, sorry. All gun sales through dealers already are traceable. You have to fill out a Federal Firearms Transaction Record. It's called a Form 4473 in the gun business. Buyer details along with information about the gun purchased (make, model, serial number, caliber, etc.) are all recorded in the dealer's records. I worked in a sporting goods store in the 1970s and it was the same way then. I do not know exactly when that record keeping started, but I know for sure the records go back 40 years.
I wouldn't have any real problem with that information being put into a national data base, especially considering it is already available to law enforcement. I think most of us can agree that a guy buying a gun to go hunting isn't really where the problem with guns in our society lies. I do know that it would be expensive and cumbersome to build a data base with 40 years of records. I'm not sure we would gain a lot from it. Right now, if someone breaks into my house and steals a gun I will report it to the police who will go to the store where I purchased it, pull all the information from the 4473 and enter that into their existing data base as a stolen gun. I don't see any benefit from that same information being on line, so to speak, if that same gun isn't stolen, isn't used in a crime and only sits in the cabinet at my house collecting dust. As bae mentioned, Canada and New Zealand both dropped their version of what I think you're proposing because it was too cumbersome and didn't provide the intended benefit. Of course it would allow government entities to track who owns what and how many. I won't spew any big brother conspiracy theories because I don't really have any, but governments doing things like that do tend to bother me a little more than they bother you.
Private sales are a little different matter in just a practical sense. How would you get the forms to buyers and sellers, would they have to be notarized, where would they send the completed forms, how would you even let people know that it was required, etc. Again, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I do think it would be difficult to successfully implement. It would add some level of confusion and liability for law abiding citizens and I'm not sure that criminals buying and selling illegal guns to one another would take the time to fill out the form.
What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly.
I really like, and would support, that idea bae. For exactly the reason you gave. +1
DS has a concealed carry permit, I don't think he uses it on a regular basis, but is licensed to if he so chooses. Two DDs have also been trained to safely handle guns and are both pretty good shots. DD1 does not particularly enjoy shooting and doesn't give much thought to guns one way or the other. DD2 isn’t old enough to get a permit so doesn't factor into the question yet. My guess is that she will get the permit when she is old enough, but probably won't carry a gun on a regular basis. What is important to me is that they have a very clear understanding of what a gun can do if it is misused and they all have enough respect and maturity to handle guns so there is not a risk to themselves or to others. Giving them that training was something I was obligated to do if there were going to be guns in the house when they were growing up. From that point on they are completely capable of making their own decisions (or will be in the case of my youngest).
Guess I missed the earlier question peggy, sorry. All gun sales through dealers already are traceable. You have to fill out a Federal Firearms Transaction Record. It's called a Form 4473 in the gun business. Buyer details along with information about the gun purchased (make, model, serial number, caliber, etc.) are all recorded in the dealer's records. I worked in a sporting goods store in the 1970s and it was the same way then. I do not know exactly when that record keeping started, but I know for sure the records go back 40 years.
I wouldn't have any real problem with that information being put into a national data base, especially considering it is already available to law enforcement. I think most of us can agree that a guy buying a gun to go hunting isn't really where the problem with guns in our society lies. I do know that it would be expensive and cumbersome to build a data base with 40 years of records. I'm not sure we would gain a lot from it. Right now, if someone breaks into my house and steals a gun I will report it to the police who will go to the store where I purchased it, pull all the information from the 4473 and enter that into their existing data base as a stolen gun. I don't see any benefit from that same information being on line, so to speak, if that same gun isn't stolen, isn't used in a crime and only sits in the cabinet at my house collecting dust. As bae mentioned, Canada and New Zealand both dropped their version of what I think you're proposing because it was too cumbersome and didn't provide the intended benefit. Of course it would allow government entities to track who owns what and how many. I won't spew any big brother conspiracy theories because I don't really have any, but governments doing things like that do tend to bother me a little more than they bother you.
Private sales are a little different matter in just a practical sense. How would you get the forms to buyers and sellers, would they have to be notarized, where would they send the completed forms, how would you even let people know that it was required, etc. Again, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I do think it would be difficult to successfully implement. It would add some level of confusion and liability for law abiding citizens and I'm not sure that criminals buying and selling illegal guns to one another would take the time to fill out the form.
No, criminals wouldn't register each other as they sell guns to each other, but that's the point. Despite bae assertion that it's super easy to make your own gun, 99.9% of guns used in crimes aren't homemade. They originate at the factory and unless they go straight from the factory to the back alley, they can be traced. Sure, some might tool them to remove ID, but most criminals just aren't that bright.
The forms could be available at the local gun shop or city hall or the sheriff's. Where do you get your other forms? Even on line to download, and yes, you could submit this paperwork to the sheriff or city hall, etc...it could be done just like the dealers do it. Here's the point. Now we know how many criminals get their guns. some are stolen in burglaries, others, many, are bought from a 'mule' or whatever they are called, a person with a lily white record who goes to gun shows or even walmart, wherever, buys guns then resells them to the criminal as a private sale, not subject to all the paperwork. With a registry, it wouldn't take long to trace the guns used in crimes back to this mule.
And it wouldn't add confusion or liability to private citizens. First of all, if they are incapable of filling out simple forms and submitting them, then perhaps they are too stupid to own and properly use guns in the first place. (remember, your original and on going argument is how wonderfully smart and trained and organized and reliable gun owners are!) Second, it would in fact protect the casual gun seller instead of increasing his liability. If that gun is used in a crime, if the seller has done his paperwork like he should, then the gun wouldn't even trace back to him. It would trace to the guy he sold it to, who maybe sold it to a criminal.
It would not be difficult to implement. It would however add a level of transparency to the transaction that maybe some would rather not have a light on. Too bad for them. They are the problem, not the solution.
For heavens sakes gregg, you have to legally transfer title when you sell a car! Why not do the same for a gun.
You know gregg, I'm beginning to believe you don't want solutions. You don't want to do anything about the gun problems. You are just fine with the level of gun violence and crime, and think we should all just arm ourselves to protect ourselves from all those others who are armed who armed themselves against those others who are armed. Oh I know you've made a lot of sympathetic sounds and virtual hand wringing in this thread, but you don't really want anything to change. You want to throw up your hands, dust them off and say, 'well, nothing we can do. Move along!'
For every reasonable suggestion in this thread, you've hemmed and hawed and found some reason (and not really very good ones) to shoot it down (Pun intended). You don't want a single thing to change, except to get more people armed, so we can all be George Zimmerman.
I guess sometimes I'm a bit slow in the uptake, but I do eventually get it. I'm done with this phony 'search' for solutions.
What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly. Heck, what is wrong with sentence enhancements for violent crimes in general, to keep the bad actors off the streets in the first place?
This could turn into a catch 22 as we might have to let some drug dealers out of overcrowded prison to make room for firearms crimes.
I'm not getting the hub-bub about registering and reporting private sales or lost and stolen firearm as being some sort of logistics debacle. I'm saying smoke and mirrors. How many routine permits do people have that are maintained on some sort of computer database with little difficulty. Hunting licenses, vehicle registrations, driver's licenses, dog tags, etc. Heck, I imagine the warranty on my tires is in a computer database somewhere.
Peggy, are guns stolen from homes and businesses then used in a crime a problem? Yes. Does our current data base help in the tracking and recovery of those guns? Yes. Are US manufacturers already required to record every indentifying detail about every gun they make? Yes. Can any new gun be sold without the already required Federal paperwork? No. The only thing your proposal would do that is not already done, and if it worked at all, is track the movement of old guns between private citizens. I'm not against trying it, I just don't have very high expectations that it would work any better here than it did for other countries (like Canada) that tried it.
The problem is that you are completely ignoring the elephant in the room. Our real gun problems come from criminals who use illegal guns. The top ten guns favored by drug cartels who supply their distribution network - read: gangs - are here (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/hearst-survey-top-10-guns/#102-1). To save you some time, here is the list by manufacturer and country of origin:
#1 - Century Arms - Romania
#2 - Bushmaster - USA
#3 - Beretta - Italy
#4 - Romarm - Romania
#5 - FN Herstal - Belgium
#6 - Colt - USA
#7 - American Tactical - Turkey
#8 - Century Arms - Romania
#9 - Century Arms - Romania
#10 - FM Herstal - Belgium
Only TWO of the top ten are manufactured in the USA. The rest are mostly made in Eastern Europe. Yes, your "mules" can go into Wal-Mart down in El Paso and buy 6 or 8 guns over a couple months without raising too much suspicion. These cartels can go to Romania with millions of dollars in cash and buy thousands and thousands of guns at one time. They will never be legally imported into the US and so will never show up in your proposed data base. They will come into the country illegally, right along with the illegal drugs they were purchased to protect. For all I know they can probably be ordered without any serial numbers to begin with so there would be no way to track the individual guns anyway. We all know how the government's little "gun walking" experiment turned out (they lost track of just about everything) so I'm just not conviced that expanding the program by a factor of a million is going to work.
The lone wolf kind of guy, like a James Holmes or Timothy McVeigh, can be capable of inflicting horrendous levels of harm, but they represent a threat so small overall that they will fly under any government radar. The only radar that will as often as not catch someone like that is a network of vigilant citizens. The cartels are so big and so powerful that it will take a government level response to start shutting them down. They have unlimited cash, are organized, subsidize several corrupt Central American countries and are ruthless purveyors of violence aimed at anyone who stands in their way.
Look, guys like me will never use a gun in a crime so no problem there. The guy who would steal my shotgun out of my house is a lot more likely to pawn it than risk taking a burglary rap up to armed robbery so there isn't realistically a great threat of violence there. The gang leader who gets 50 WASR-10s and 100,000 rounds of ammo isn't going to shoot you because you might be a customer, BUT he probably is willing to shoot anyone from a rival gang, cops, narcs, FBI agents and anyone who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a pretty big problem.
Seems to me the simplest way to sneak a fully-automatic weapon into the USA, along with a case of grenades and a few RPG launchers, would be to hide them inside large bales of marijuana that are crossing the border. Nobody ever looks inside those.
FWIW, I think gun laws do/would cut down on problems due to the following issues:
-accidental shootings: requiring a permit to purchase a gun with attendant education requirements, similar to requiring a driver's license, increases the chances that someone who would like to own and operate a firearm to be at least somewhat well-versed in its uses and dangers. This happens in the state of Colorado, when one chooses to get a hunting license and must take a hunter safety course and also when one chooses to get a conceal/carry permit. It's neither expensive nor particularly onerous (about a 12-14 hr course with both hands-on and written test that a 12-yo is capable of completing). Not every state has such a requirement.
-crime of passion shootings: requiring a waiting period so that a person who becomes aware of his/her partner "engaged" with someone else cannot immediately purchase a firearm. I am not sure what the state/federal laws on this are, and whether it varies depending on purchase at gun shows or retail.
-selling to potential criminals: there could be various ways of implementing this, from educating potential "straw men" about the legal ramifications of buying firearms for a criminal to some of the registration ideas that have been debated about. I personally don't think this would be any more onerous than selling ones' car, and possibly be the most effective at decreasing gun violence.
What none of these things would do is help when you have a very intelligent guy, well-versed in what is considered "abnormal" behavior, with no criminal record who is hell-bent on committing a mass shooting. To do that, you would need extreme gun control or some sort of mind-reading ability, either of which are beyond most Americans' idea of the type of power the government should have. In some of the other shooting cases there were mental health cracks that the shooters fell through, but this (latest) CO shooting was obviously difficult to predict even for mental health professionals. Until he left his studies, he must have had to interact daily with people well-versed in psychology and he himself must have studied various aspects of psychological function. As well, he was availing himself of the mental health services offered. I really have no idea how this particular case could have been prevented via law enforcement or mental health avenues.
I would have to agree with having a less-fragmented patchwork of laws between states. For one thing, it makes things difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally transport guns. I suspect we violated one or more state laws when moving between AZ and CO but did not get pulled over, thankfully. For another, someone with criminal intent who has laws in his/her state that would prevent gun purchase can simply drive to another state. Even though CO is a largish state, from somewhere like Aurora it would take about 3 hrs to Wyoming, roughly 5 hours to New Mexico, Nebraska, or Kansas and around 7-8 to Utah or Arizona.
Seems to me the simplest way to sneak a fully-automatic weapon into the USA, along with a case of grenades and a few RPG launchers, would be to hide them inside large bales of marijuana that are crossing the border. Nobody ever looks inside those.
Oh but that pesky Coast Guard ALWAYS looks inside the bales (as well as inside the dead fish & other cargo) - you never know what kind of goodies you may find :-)! Here's a little cartoon for Lizii showing the terrorists infiltrating Canada. I guess the coast guard would look inside that too :-)!
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=852&d=1343755212
As Rosie and others have pointed out, even with strict gun laws in one state (even in one country like Canada) people can get guns and ammo from just about anywhere else - both legally and illegally.
I read a thought-provoking article on gun ownership in Switzerland yesterday. Its male citizens are armed by law with an amazing range of weaponry, yet their death by firearms statistics-- while high by European standards--are about 40% lower than ours. I understand Switzerland's armed neutrality stance, but really don't get the passion for firearms here. Unlike Gregg, I don't know many gun owners and wasn't raised in a gun culture. I'd like to see loopholes closed and licensing with competency testing like we have for drivers put in place, but in the end this issue isn't the hill I'm keen to make my last stand on.
Well since the Swiss women were not legally allowed to vote in federal elections until 1971 (can you imagine!!), I guess the male populace would be smart to be heavily armed against the disgruntled females :-)!
I don't think that I would say we have a "passion for firearms" but many people have an interest in them for many varied reasons. People are individuals, and their interests in owning firearms is probably just as individual as they are. I do have mine for purely self-defense reasons as I don't hunt (and am VERY anti-hunting) and no longer have them for hobby (competetive shooting) reasons (too expensive). I don't have a stockpile of weapons or ammo, and I wasn't raised in a gun culture or consider myself having a passion for guns - although I enjoy target shooting, training, and the craftmanship of weapons. But a passion? No.
The suicide rate in Switzerland is high. Don't know how that squares with a perception that The Swiss are happier.
You also have to look at Swiss population compared to a country like the USA. The population of switzerland is around 7 - 8 million where as the USA is over 300 million. So when comparing statistics - whether death by firearm or suicide, you need to consider overall population statistics as well as things like lifestyle, social welfasre, etc.. Los Angeles County alone has a higher population (approx. 10 million) as all of Switerland, yet it is a vastly different place - socially, culturally, economicly, etc...
This should also be a factor when comparing Canada to the USA. Canada population is less than 35 million compared to the USA's 313 million for approx. the same size land area. Heck Calif population (SoCals especially) is about (aboot) the same as all of Canada's.
ETA: accoeding to this the USA is # one in all types of gun-related deaths per 100,000 pop. Canada was pretty far down the list with approx. 4.5 gun related deaths per 100,000 people (varied by province see below). Although, according to Wikipedia, most gun related deaths in the USA are from suicides and during the commssion of a criminal activity:
"The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.
Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths."
From the RCMP website:
"Between 1989 and 1996, the average annual rate of firearm deaths in all of Canada is 4.5 per 100,000. The Northwest Territories (18.5 per 100,000) reported the highest rate while the Yukon (11.8 per 100,000) and New Brunswick (7.2 per 100,000) reported the second and third highest rate of firearm deaths overall, respectively. "
Hmmm... makes me wonder whats going on up therer in the NWT to make gun deaths so high. Long winer nights?
Here's a comparision for Calif only:
"There were 26,442 firearm deaths among California residents during the years 1977 through 1983. During this period firearms were the eighth leading cause of death for California as a whole, sixth for male Californians and first for black males aged 15 to 34 years and black females aged 15 to 24 years. A plurality of firearm deaths were suicides; unintentional deaths contributed only 3% of the total. Black men aged 25 to 34 years had the single highest firearm mortality rate; 80% of firearm deaths in that group were homicides. Men 75 years old and older had the highest firearm mortality rate when all races were considered together, however, and 93% of firearm deaths in that group were suicides. The discussion focuses on our current understanding of firearms as a medical and public health problem and suggests directions for future research and intervention"
Gregg. If and when you answer Peggy's question, it would be great to hear back from you regarding the question I asked you (some pages ago) Re: gun-related deaths and violence in Japan, compared to that in the US, and how the second amendment has improved overall safety in your country.
I think that statistic I mentioned above which stated that in Japan they can raid any home to search for weapons is something that no one in the USA would ever tolorate. It would be a huge infringement and personal violation to allow that level of governement intrusion into our lifes that the Japanese government seems to allow. I think there is a very different mindset in Japan then in the USA. One that you may like and that would make you feel safe, but thet most people here would fear greatly.
I suppose its all relative. Look at how the people acted after the Tsunami in Japan. No one fought in the food/water lines. Everyone seemed well behaved. There was NO looting.
Surely there's some sort of compromise somewhere? Maybe not. Maybe it has to be one way or other.
Our country (the U.S.) seems to be fixated on personal freedoms, even if it means harm to the whole.
Our country (the U.S.) seems to be fixated on personal freedoms, even if it means harm to the whole.
How many personal freedoms must you lose before the whole is harmed?
A few facts on this attack - The Colorado shooter purchased his weapons in a gun store legally. Not through a gun show loophole, not through a private party sale.
Although the ammunition was purchased over the internet, he could have gone into a sporting goods store and purchased the ammunition necessary for this attack.
The AR-15 used could have been purchased in a similar (and just as deadly) configuration during the assault weapons ban. The magazines (although more expensive during the ban), were readily available.
Given those facts, why are the politicians wasting time discussing an "assault weapons ban," additional registration requirements, and a de-facto ban on internet purchase of ammunition? Do we want to address the problem or pass further laws?
To those who want more registration and laws - Where does it stop? Do we register knives next?
Instead of passing more ineffective laws aimed at making guns more inaccessible to law abiding citizens, why don't we attempt to address the problem (ie how to prevent nuts like this from killing innocent people).
goldensmom
7-31-12, 8:43pm
Instead of passing more ineffective laws aimed at making guns more inaccessible to law abiding citizens, why don't we attempt to address the problem (ie how to prevent nuts like this from killing innocent people).
That is the root issue, wish I had a solution.
Originally posted by Midwest.
Instead of passing more ineffective laws aimed at making guns more inaccessible to law abiding citizens, why don't we attempt to address the problem (ie how to prevent nuts like this from killing innocent people).Simple, issue MORE GUNS. Sooner or later, if enough guns are issued, nuts won't stand a chance, because EVERYBODY will be packing one!
As everyone is well-aware of, the more people who have and carry guns, the safer society is!
iris lily
7-31-12, 10:07pm
You also have to look at Swiss population compared to a country like the USA. The population of switzerland is around 7 - 8 million where as the USA is over 300 million. So when comparing statistics - whether death by firearm or suicide, you need to consider overall population statistics as well as things like lifestyle, social welfasre, etc.. Los Angeles County alone has a higher population (approx. 10 million) as all of Switerland, yet it is a vastly different place - socially, culturally, economicly, etc...
She-rah the Swiss suicide rate IS a measure of apples to apples with the United States and we are lower. I wondered how much having handy guns around contributed to that suicide rate in Switzerland.
You need to normalize the data to account for the effects of Swedish cuisine though.
iris lily
7-31-12, 10:15pm
You need to normalize the data to account for the effects of Swedish cuisine though.
haha well ok. But hey, my MIL was Swiss and she was a good cook.
I wonder what the gun violence statistics for the US would look like if we took out the numbers in cities/states with the most restrictive gun control laws such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC., etc.
Maybe that would actually tell us if gun control laws have an effect on overall gun violence.
ApatheticNoMore
7-31-12, 10:46pm
Yes let's just remove all the major cities period, that will give us a very good measure of a useless statistic.
Yes let's just remove all the major cities period, that will give us a very good measure of a useless statistic.
I doubt that the statistic would be useless, it might be inconvenient, but certainly not useless.
While events like this get headlines they are statistic blips. Don't just look at numbers, look at distribution. There are plenty of places in the US where guns are common yet gun crime is low. The numbers are skewed by concentrations of certain types of violence in certain areas.
You need to normalize the data to account for the effects of Swedish cuisine though.
Are you saying its fondue's fault?
I doubt that the statistic would be useless, it might be inconvenient, but certainly not useless.
In Washington D.C., which has THE lowest percentage of gun owners in the country, there are approx. 16 murders committed with firearms per 100,000 people per year. In Wyoming, which has THE highest percentage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html)of gun owners in the country there is less than 1 murder involving a firearm per 100,000 people per year (.91 to be exact).
According to the Washington Post 3.8% of people in DC own guns. On the same chart it shows 59.7% of people in Wyoming do. The chart doesn't say it, but my guess is that the extremely low percentage of people who (legally) own guns in DC is due to them having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
The firearm homicide rate in DC is almost 18 times what it is in Wyoming. Gun ownership in Wyoming is almost 16 times what it is in DC. Hmmm. So what conclusion could you draw from that information...
1. The legal gun owners in DC shoot an awful lot of people.
2. We should all move to Wyoming because its a happy place.
3. People in DC are better shots than people in WY.
From a slightly different angle, the three states with the lowest homocide by firearm rates (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state)are Vermont (.32 deaths per 100,000), New Hampshire (.38) and North Dakota (.61). The percentage of gun onwers in those states are 42%, 30% and 50.7% respectively. Not exactly restrictive, aye? Allow me to add other choices...
4. There are a lot of illegal guns behind the mischief in DC.
5. Maybe its not the legal guns that are the problem at all...
I think you're right Alan, that would be inconvenient.
You might want to take a look at who it is who is actually committing crimes of violence, too:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested
Some subset of the demographic is more equal than others. Perhaps looking into that would be of benefit.
So what conclusion could you draw from that information...
1. The legal gun owners in DC shoot an awful lot of people.
2. There are a lot of illegal guns behind the mischief in DC.
3. We should all move to Wyoming.
4. Maybe its not the guns that are the problem at all...
I believe that #4 is the winner, and thank you for doing the legwork I was hoping a few of the other posters would do.
In the United States, those regions which have very strict gun control laws also generally have the highest incidences of gun related violence. I don't understand why anyone would advocate more of the same.
By the same token, virtually all incidents of mass murder involving some crazy with a gun occur in locations which have exercised their lawful right to ban weapons on their property. And why not? What better target than the defenseless?
ApatheticNoMore
8-1-12, 2:01pm
Because Washington DC and Wyoming are some how comparable in any way, shape, or form. They might as well be different countries. Talk about comparing apples and well ... ahi tuna?
Because Washington DC and Wyoming are some how comparable in any way, shape, or form. They might as well be different countries. Talk about comparing apples and well ... ahi tuna?
Maybe DC should try and figure out why they're not shooting each other in Wyoming.
Because Washington DC and Wyoming are some how comparable in any way, shape, or form. They might as well be different countries. Talk about comparing apples and well ... ahi tuna?
You miss the point AMN. The point is exactly that they ARE so different.
DC has THE most restrictive gun laws in the country and the smallest number of guns per capita. At the same time they have the highest gun homicide rate in the country.
Wyoming has among the least restrictive gun laws in the country and the largest number of guns per capita. At the same time they have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the country.
There was no attempt at apples to apples regarding anything except their respective gun laws and the end results of those laws. The approach to guns in the two places goes 180* from each other. Opposite. Polar opposite, in fact. That makes the comparison a custom made case study all in real life. You don't have to assume anything because there are decades of data to back up the conclusions. That is what should give you some insight.
Maybe DC should try and figure out why they're not shooting each other in Wyoming.
Maybe the folks in DC should figure out that part first, before presuming to dictate terms to the people of Wyoming.
You need to normalize the data to account for the effects of Swedish cuisine though.
Yeah, lutefisk has been known to drive the Swedes into a frenzy of mass killings. Can't say I blame them - having a swedish-american Dad I had my fair fare share of the vile stuff. Now swiss food. Um... snitzel, sauerkraut, und wurst? While it won't make you homicidial, it still may kill you :-)!
That is the root issue, wish I had a solution.
I agree that is the root issue. Using my Calif example for instance. Here's a state with a population the size of a large country, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet probably the highest number of gun-related deaths in the country. A state where it is a illegal (felony with prison time) to carry a loaded or even unloaded weapon - concealed or in the open - be it a handgun or long rifle. Where NO ONE except law enforcement wears a weapon out in the open and a person can only carry a concealed weapon legally if they have an almost impossible to get permit. Where there are very strict requirerments to buy or own a gun that require registering the gun, background checks, waiting times, safety classes, etc... Where all weapons - again handguns or long guns (rifles and shotguns) - must be transported unloaded in a locked case with the ammo in a different location. Yet we still have one of the highest rates of death and injury associated with firearms usage in the country. Why is that? Why don't all the restrictions, etc... reduce that? One word - criminals. Most deaths and injuries are associated with criminal activity and ILLEGAL firearms. And while there is a high sucicide rate by firearm amongst elderly men, the majority of gun inflicted injuries are done during a crime or due to criminal activity. Something that, IMHO, will not go down or away by limiting or ending legal gun ownership.
Murders only (not all gun deaths with include suicides, accidents, law enforcement related, etc...) for 2010: The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year.
From Wikipedia: "The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases. Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union.
Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.
California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns. The willingness of issuing authorities in California ranges from No-Issue in most urban areas to Shall-Issue in rural counties. However, concealed carry permits are valid statewide, regardless of where they were issued. California does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and non-residents are generally forbidden from obtaining a California concealed carry permit.
California has state preemption for many, but not all, firearms laws.
"When being transported, handguns must be unloaded and in a locked fully enclosed container other than the glove box or any console attached to the vehicle. The trunk of a car is considered to be a locked container but a glove box or "utility box" is specifically forbidden. If one believes he or she is within a "gun-free school zone" (area surrounding 1,000 feet from the edge of school grounds which teaches any grade from kindergarten to 12th grade) then the handgun must be locked in a fully enclosed container. Failure to lock up a handgun while in a school zone is a violation of federal and state law.
Long guns (rifles, shotguns) must be unloaded when transported in a vehicle. There is no requirement for a locked container with the exception of long guns considered to be "assault weapons". Federal law requires locking containers when inside of a "gun-free school zone." The constitutionality of the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act is in question due to the U.S. v. Lopez ruling.
Assault weapons, as defined by California law, must always be transported in locked containers and may only be transported under certain circumstance"
ApatheticNoMore
8-1-12, 5:15pm
So if Wyoming was suddenly made tommorow to have Washington DCs gun laws and Washington DCs Wyomings gun laws and everything else was exactly as it is now you seriously want me to believe they would trade places in gun murders? Likely story (by which I mean it's not likely at all). As if such conjecture is even needed to suggest there might be many many things different between the two places besides just the gun laws. Wyoming is such an extreme example anyway, least populated state in the whole country, what next, it should now be the model for modern urban planning?
..., what next, it should now be the model for modern urban planning?
Well, maybe if you were interested in long-term sustainability of our species on this planet :-)
ApatheticNoMore
8-1-12, 6:10pm
I think New York city has lowest per capita carbon use in the country. But if you mean population control so that there were only that many people anywhere maybe. Wyoming is probably theoretically ammenable to sustainability, but at present I'm not sure it beats the purest extreme of urbanism we've got.
The Gun Free School Zone reference in the post above is the perfect example of why we need rationale firearms laws and not political pandering to various causes. If I read it correctly (subject to a few exceptions) driving on the interestate within a 1000 feet of a school could subject someone to felony charges if they have a loaded firearm (or unlocked) and are otherwise complying with the law. That's an accidental felony for many.
So if Wyoming was suddenly made tommorow to have Washington DCs gun laws and Washington DCs Wyomings gun laws and everything else was exactly as it is now you seriously want me to believe they would trade places in gun murders?
Now you're just skipping over points willy-nilly ANM. Is that intentional? If WY and DC traded gun laws tomorrow would they trade places in gun murders PER CAPITA? That is the actual question since that is how the information is presented: it takes total populations out of the equation. I think that once things had a chance to settle out it is HIGHLY likely (by which I mean it is highly likely) that yes, there would be a very significant shift upward in WY gun violence, including murder, and a very significant shift downward in DC gun violence. One reason it would take DC a while to balance out is simply that there are so many people living there now that take illegally carrying and using a gun against other people for granted. Once there were enough stories of people who were actually able to defend their homes coming to light a good number of those predators would flee to somewhere else that had an abundance of easy pray. Like Wyoming. That's when they would trade places.
DocHolliday
8-1-12, 7:32pm
why are the politicians wasting time discussing ... a de-facto ban on internet purchase of ammunition?
To me the simple answer is because they're blooming idiots without a clue about half the stuff they're proposing and voting on. I live in a very rural area with no gunstores within 30 miles. I can drive 100+ miles to BassPro but it's highly doubtful they will have the ammo I shoot in shooting matches. My best choice is to order online. I've done it before and had it delivered in less than a week vs. going to the gunstore, telling him what I want, then waiting for him to get enough orders to justify shipping costs, plus waiting however long it takes to get it in from his distributor, then another trip to the gunstore to pick it up. They want to make things difficult on everyone else because of the actions of one madman.
To me the simple answer is because they're blooming idiots without a clue about half the stuff they're proposing and voting on. I live in a very rural area with no gunstores within 30 miles. I can drive 100+ miles to BassPro but it's highly doubtful they will have the ammo I shoot in shooting matches. My best choice is to order online. I've done it before and had it delivered in less than a week vs. going to the gunstore, telling him what I want, then waiting for him to get enough orders to justify shipping costs, plus waiting however long it takes to get it in from his distributor, then another trip to the gunstore to pick it up. They want to make things difficult on everyone else because of the actions of one madman.
Actually they work very hard to waste time - USPS is going to default this week from inaction from Congress. However the House found the time to pass 60 bills renaming Post Offices this term.
Maybe DC should try and figure out why they're not shooting each other in Wyoming.
Because you can drive for a whole day without seeing another soul, so there's not actually anyone to shoot at in Wyoming? In actuality, the whole state of Wyoming has fewer people than DC. So it's entirely possible that the people in DC who have guns are a better shot than those in Wyoming, simply because by shooting a gun anywhere in DC, it's much more likely to hit someone than shooting a gun in most of Wyoming.
In any case, it's a correlative rather than causative argument. How gun laws influence the culture of gun use has not been defined well IMO. There seem to be states and countries with high gun ownership but low gun violence but also states and countries with high gun ownership and high gun violence. I am not a sociologist but if I had to guess, I would think there is an interaction between gun ownership rates, population density and cultural factors.
Actually they work very hard to waste time - USPS is going to default this week from inaction from Congress. However the House found the time to pass 60 bills renaming Post Offices this term.
Not to mention engaging in another round of demonizing contraception and women's health coverage.
Because you can drive for a whole day without seeing another soul, so there's not actually anyone to shoot at in Wyoming? In actuality, the whole state of Wyoming has fewer people than DC. So it's entirely possible that the people in DC who have guns are a better shot than those in Wyoming, simply because by shooting a gun anywhere in DC, it's much more likely to hit someone than shooting a gun in most of Wyoming.
In any case, it's a correlative rather than causative argument. How gun laws influence the culture of gun use has not been defined well IMO. There seem to be states and countries with high gun ownership but low gun violence but also states and countries with high gun ownership and high gun violence. I am not a sociologist but if I had to guess, I would think there is an interaction between gun ownership rates, population density and cultural factors.
There is no conclusion on my part. I think we can, however, conclude that 1) There is no major gun violence problem in Wyoming and 2) Gun laws in DC don't work.
In determining a solution, studying an environment with low levels of gun violence might be a place to start. Wyoming would be just such a place.
Because you can drive for a whole day without seeing another soul, so there's not actually anyone to shoot at in Wyoming? In actuality, the whole state of Wyoming has fewer people than DC. So it's entirely possible that the people in DC who have guns are a better shot than those in Wyoming, simply because by shooting a gun anywhere in DC, it's much more likely to hit someone than shooting a gun in most of Wyoming.
In any case, it's a correlative rather than causative argument. How gun laws influence the culture of gun use has not been defined well IMO. There seem to be states and countries with high gun ownership but low gun violence but also states and countries with high gun ownership and high gun violence. I am not a sociologist but if I had to guess, I would think there is an interaction between gun ownership rates, population density and cultural factors.
I agree. I think gun violence has much more to do with social issues brought on by things such as racial, cultural and economic disparity, drugs and criminal activity, lack of opportunity, crowded inner city environments, etc... Even here in Calif, gangs rule out in the smaller cities - places like Fresno and Bakersfield - even out in the country. Especially the big prison white supremacist gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood and biker gangs like the Hell's Angels. Lots of meth labs and drug and weapons trafficing, etc... And lots of related gun violence. That whole thing, coupled with the inner city gangs and general social breakdown, creates much more crime and gun violence then a place that may have a higher number of legal gun owners and very loose gun control laws. I think that is probably true for places like D.C. - and places with stricter gun laws - when compared to Wyoming, a place that not only has very little economic disparity or large inner city enviroments, but is pretty mono-cultural and mono-racial compared to most states and cities with high gun violence. This same mono-cultural, social, economic and racial environment in other countries, such as Japan, may also be a big reason for less gun violence (and overall violence or criminal activity) than theeir gun laws.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-12, 1:40pm
+1 Yea Spartana all that stuff is also what I think has much more to do with it than Wyomings gun laws.
You shoot a gun off randomly in Wyoming and ....
you kill a deer (as there are probably more deers than people there :) )
OT: I once many years age wanted to take off alone and drive to and through Wyoming. I'd read a bit about how few people it had, and lots of wilderness (Yellowstone of course), it appealed. My mom eventually talked me out of it with her momisms: "You are not driving Wyoming alone, what if your car dies (was an old raggety car too but I never imagined it dying), there won't be anyone there, why don't you drive up the CA coast instead, plenty of people on those roads". So I never got to Wyoming. I got to Montana instead ... by train.
+1 Yea Spartana all that stuff is also what I think has much more to do with it than Wyomings gun laws.
You shoot a gun off randomly in Wyoming and ....
you kill a deer (as there are probably more deers than people there :) )
Well there are only 2 people in all of Wyoming so I guess if one gets shot by the other then the gun statistic would make it that 50% of the population died by gun shot and the other 50% are all mass killers who killed off half the entire states population in one mass killing spree :-)! Ah statistics, gotta love 'em!
I think gun violence has much more to do with social issues brought on by things such as racial, cultural and economic disparity, drugs and criminal activity, lack of opportunity, crowded inner city environments, etc....
+1 Yea Spartana all that stuff is also what I think has much more to do with it than Wyomings gun laws.
I think we probably all agree with Spartana's assessment. If that is true it is further proof that gun laws have little or no effect on gun violence. People in Wyoming just don't have as many reasons to shoot each other, that is the core issue. Banning or limiting guns in an environment suffereing from the woes that Spratana listed will not change a thing. It's putting a band aid on a body part that isn't even bleeding while the patient dies of cancer. Gun violence will ONLY diminish when we, as a society, address the real causes of that larger disease. People who feel they have nothing to lose generally end up being right. Its not a very big step from that point to where you start acting those feelings out. In a society like ours that's tragic. Cure the hopelessness and the poverty that IS the disease and most of the symptoms will fade to black on their own.
I think we probably all agree with Spartana's assessment. If that is true it is further proof that gun laws have little or no effect on gun violence. People in Wyoming just don't have as many reasons to shoot each other, that is the core issue. Banning or limiting guns in an environment suffereing from the woes that Spratana listed will not change a thing. It's putting a band aid on a body part that isn't even bleeding while the patient dies of cancer. Gun violence will ONLY diminish when we, as a society, address the real causes of that larger disease. People who feel they have nothing to lose generally end up being right. Its not a very big step from that point to where you start acting those feelings out. In a society like ours that's tragic. Cure the hopelessness and the poverty that IS the disease and most of the symptoms will fade to black on their own.
Agreed!! And "deranged" behavior like the recent mass shooting can happen for any number of reasons - with or without guns. Thos just happened near my 'hood yesterday:
"A UC Irvine professor has been accused of plotting to sexually assult and kill as many as 200 students and administrators at his late son's former high school after the 14-year-old committed suicide.
Rainer Klaus Reinscheid, 48, is charged with setting five fires on the University High School campus in Mason Park Preserve and at a school administrator's home. The alleged arson attacks began in March after Reinscheid's son was disciplined at school following a "fairly minor offense with fairly minor discipline," Irvine Unified School District spokesman Ian Hanigan told KTLA.
The teen hung himself a short time after the disciplinary action. Toxicology tests showed no drugs or alcohol in his system, and some readers of The OC Register, who reported on the suicide, hinted that the teen had been a victim of bullying. Irvine police did not find evidence of bullying during their investigation.
Hanigan described Reinscheid as "extremely distraught" after his son's death, but school officials did not connect the blazing dots until after the father's first arrest on July 24. Officers spotted Reinscheid allegedly trying to light a newspaper on fire around 1am in the park where his son died."
And while I agree that if this guy had weapons he may have used them instead of arson, but he is an exception rather than the rule IMO. I would wager that 99.9% of those who legally own guns in the state of Calif have never, and will never, become deranged or have such a mental breakdown that they would ever use them in a violent way.
[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;93740 OT: I once many years age wanted to take off alone and drive to and through Wyoming. I'd read a bit about how few people it had, and lots of wilderness (Yellowstone of course), it appealed. My mom eventually talked me out of it with her momisms: "You are not driving Wyoming alone, what if your car dies (was an old raggety car too but I never imagined it dying), there won't be anyone there, why don't you drive up the CA coast instead, plenty of people on those roads". So I never got to Wyoming. I got to Montana instead ... by train.[/QUOTE]
Once on a drive with sis along the interstate in eastern Wyoming my sister had to go to the bathroom. No rest stops for many many miles, no trees or even bushes to "go" behind. But with not one single other car on the interstate, she just "went" right there out in the open. I remember thinking "hurry up someone is going to drive by" but no one ever did. Of course that was what got those pesky "Texas Chainsaw Massacure" kids into trouble - a roadside pit stop on a lonely highway :-)!
I drive through Wyoming several times a year, and sometimes stay with friends there along the way. Lovely place, friendly people, no mutant zombie chainsaw biker gangs encountered.
no mutant zombie chainsaw biker gangs encountered.
Oh well... no reason for me to go there then :-)! Wyoming IS great - especially the western, mountainous part.
Oh well... no reason for me to go there then :-)! Wyoming IS great - especially the western, mountainous part.
I lived in Wyo for 4 years when I was younger. I always said those people had the best developed social skills cause they have to spend so much time indoors in close quarters due to the weather! Some of my best party years were spent in Wyo.:D
I lived in Wyo for 4 years when I was younger. I always said those people had the best developed social skills cause they have to spend so much time indoors in close quarters due to the weather! Some of my best party years were spent in Wyo.:D
Doesn't "partying" in Wyoming mean "Cow Tipping" & "Bear 'raslin'?" Yep, good times!
Doesn't "partying" in Wyoming mean "Cow Tipping" & "Bear 'raslin'?" Yep, good times!
:laff::laff::laff:
Well, there are more cows than people in Wyo so it's hard to walk down the street without tripping (tipping) over a cow! ;)
And really, they can't hold their liquor either!
http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/clip_image003_thumb.jpg
I idled away a couple of hours doing some internet research on the effectiveness of gun laws and restrictions. Comparing California to Wyoming really isn't especially valid due to the different population demographics. The best they seem to have come up with is a before and after comparison of the same population. Not perfect since there could also be other trends in crime over time that are not gun related. I have to admit that the more respected of these indicated no big difference in gun crimes before and after restrictions. There were a few that said gun restrictions reduced crime and a few that said it made crime worse. And they did not, or were unable to, home in of the type of mass slayings like the recent Colorado tragedy, which is sort of what got this going in the first place. From my read there is still some room for discussion, but gun restrictions seemed to have a double edged blade. I will stubbornly hold that there is no real need for the common citizen to have semi-auto assault weapons, huge magazines and easy to get ammo in the thousands of rounds off the internet (except for zombie attacks). But that's been hashed out to no end already.
Many years ago I vaguely recall a Jimmy Buffet concert where, between songs, he was commenting on some international war overseas. His solution was to take cargo planes of the area and drop marijuana and Victoria Secrets catalogs over the area. I'm not sure about the catalogs, but I wonder how changing our drug laws might effect gun violence? It sure seems like a lot of gun related crimes are drug related. Maybe decriminalizing certain drugs and maybe legalizing marijuana. From my college day observations, most people on pot tend to eat chips on the couch and watch TV rather than getting irate and shooting people, which seems like a lot of effort.
My party days are over, but I consider alcohol the real gateway drug.
I shoot about 1000 rounds a week in practice. The nearest bricks-and-mortar gun store takes me an entire day (5am to 9pm) to get to and back, and about $50 in ferry fees. And when I get there, they have a very limited selection of pretty expensive product, and generally not the sort I require.
So eliminating my ability to mail-order ammunition would put a serious crimp in things...
Our competitive trap and sporting clays shooters here, some of whom are national-level competitors, have similar problems, and go through even more ammunition. They generally arrange for a truckload to be delivered a couple of times a year.
I keep several hundred thousand rounds on hand. This is not for zombie uprisings, rather it is a several year supply for my normal activities, as I buy in bulk when commodity prices are down and ammunition pricing and availability sensible. There is a huge year-to-year variation in the market.
I shoot about 1000 rounds a week in practice...
Bae, I have pretty much concluded that you are not the "common" citizen:-).
My point was more, would changes in drug laws be a more effective way of dealing with or reducing gun related crime and murder than gun restrictions?
And/or, if gun restrictions are not the answer, as many here have proposed, and the problem is more rooted in social or economic issues, are there other specific, workable, and realistic solutions. Or do we just go the same course.
I have no brilliant ideas on this, just wondering what others think.
My point was more, would changes in drug laws be a more effective way of dealing with or reducing gun related crime and murder than gun restrictions?
Well, for one thing, it would free up plenty of room in our prisons to keep violent offenders locked up for longer periods of time.
The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world. A lot of the folks locked up are non-violent drug war participants.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG/800px-Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG
DS took a series of classes during his (pre-law) undergrad that dealt with who was being incarcerated and for what. I do not have all their exact figures at hand, but I do distinctly remember that a surprisingly large percentage of people behind bars were non-violent drug offenders. Many of them were in that position because of third strike policies, but still with only relatively minor, non-violent offences. This was in California so the classes concentrated mostly on the problem there, but I believe similar situations play out in many states. Not surprisingly most of the people caught in this net were young men and most often either black or hispanic.
I am generally a supporter of marijuana legalization. As bae said above many, if not most, of the of the current prison population are non-violent participants in the drug war. They are the guys just trying to survive that make up the distribution network. Most educated folks I know feel that pot is less dangerous to both the user and to other members of society than alcohol. Some feel that it is less dangerous than TV, but that's another thread... Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, etc. and a significant source of cash flowing into the drug cartels dries up. The distribution network will fall apart when only a few spots are available for the distribution of 'harder' drugs. Of course someone could start to question why there is such a demand for drugs in the first place, but that too is another thread...
Even animals enjoy the occasional high--every Fall a variety of birds get drunk and silly on fermented madrona berries outside my window. I'd love to see psychedelics like psilocybin and mescaline made legal, but I doubt I'll live that long. Our drug policy has been an abject failure and national embarrassment.
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-12, 1:27pm
Considering de-facto legalization of marijuana (medical marijuana laws in CA - anyone and everyone can get a prescription), have done no real harm, I don't know why we can't have full legalization (instead they are cracking down again).
Although, I think a few non-violent drug crimes do definitely deserve jail sentences - mainly DUI. They may not count that as violent, but it can kill.
Although, I think a few non-violent drug crimes do definitely deserve jail sentences - mainly DUI. They may not count that as violent, but it can kill.
I place DUI in the same moral category as discharging a firearm randomly down a public street. You *probably* won't hit anybody, but you are endangering many, and the outcome if you do isn't good. I think our treatment of DUI offenders should be far harsher than it is. In my county, we have taken until recently a very overly-tolerant approach, and we have suffered for it. Some times of the year, my household simply won't be out on the roads during certain hours, it's too dangerous.
We have a new Sheriff now, and a new judge, and there's some promise of change.
Our DUI laws are similar. Actually their implementation is, the laws themselves would probably be just fine if they were upheld all the way through the system. We also have times when it's better to stay in. "Amature night out" is the joke, but it really isn't a joking matter at all. Isn't it interesting what we choose to accept and even glamorize and what we scorn?
I see legalizing marijuana as taking control away from gangs, cartels and other wise rough folks and putting it into the control of responsible authorities or agencies, which at least seems on the surface to imply a reduction in gun violence. It doesn't address meth and crack cocaine which may be the recreational drugs of choice on the street these days. It seems like it would free up law enforcement budgets to concentrate on more important issues.
Maybe there are things that could have a larger effect of gun violence that firearm restrictions by focusing on other core issues. Seems workable to me.
From an article on gangs, drugs and gun violence.
Participation in drug markets has also been linked to gun violence. Though many longitudinal studies of youth cited above implicate gangs as the primary catalyst responsible for increased levels of gun violence, drug market participation also seems to facilitate firearm involvement. That is, those who buy or sell drugs do experience higher levels of gun violence than non-drug participants.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/gun-vlnce-eng.aspx#s3
Maybe there are things that could have a larger effect of gun violence that firearm restrictions by focusing on other core issues. Seems workable to me.
Thanks Rogar. Not for agreeing or disagreeing, but just for being willing to help take a topic and break it down a little bit to try to figure out what all the parts mean before jumping to a conclusion. Nicely done.
Participation in drug markets has also been linked to gun violence. Though many longitudinal studies of youth cited above implicate gangs as the primary catalyst responsible for increased levels of gun violence...
My impression of gangs is that drug sales are their primary source of revenue. I know they probably have a hand in all the old mob favorites as well as auto theft and a host of other things, but I always thought drugs were (big picture) the primary income stream for most gangs. Does anyone know for sure or are there statistics available through something a little less time consuming to filter than the FBI data bases?
Yossarian
11-22-15, 8:55pm
http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/clip_image003_thumb.jpg
And in the latest policy twist, the police chief for Washington DC, home of very anti gun carry policies, gives the following advice to civilians in an active shooter situation, but I wonder what she thinks people will use to do this?
"Your options are run, hide, or fight," says Lanier. "If you're in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it's the best option for saving lives before police can get there," she tells Cooper.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-calling-911-isnt-enough/
Or here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/22/d-c-police-chief-has-counterintuitive-advice-for-those-confronted-with-active-shooter-its-the-best-option-for-saving-lives/
In an upcoming segment (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-calling-911-isnt-enough/) of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Lanier said she’s no longer preaching a passive message to people confronted with an active shooter. In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and threats from the Islamic State, Lanier said calling 911 for law enforcement’s help might not be enough because of response times.
“Your options are run, hide or fight,” Lanier told Anderson Cooper. “The facts of the matter is that most active shooters kill most of the victims in 10 minutes or less. The best police department in the country is going to be about a five minute to seven minute response.”
Yossarian, I saw that, too, and pretty much laughed my head off. Concealed carry was forced on DC by a federal court, but it's a very restrictive may issue law that was enacted.
This is one of the reasons why I almost never am without a firearm and some good tourniquets on my person. (The Cav Arms Slick-TKs are decently effective and stow well in pockets.)
Williamsmith
11-22-15, 10:11pm
I have a conceal carry permit and four handguns that I can carry on my person or in my car but in general you will find them locked in my safe and not on my person. Having carried one for 25 years because I had to.....carrying now causes me pain. I rely a lot on avoidance of dangerous environments. And ai don't make eye contact with anyone ai don't know. I constantly lok at hands and people coming and going.
I rely a lot on avoidance of dangerous environments.
I think situational awareness is 99%+ of the answer.
That makes me feel good cause it's my only real weapon - awareness
Williamsmith
11-23-15, 3:36am
This has taken me many years to discern but I believe rather than having a community full of gun carrying residents, a community with a core of trained, reliable, honest people who carry can allow the rest to be situationally aware and free of the responsibility of carrying......which is much greater than one knows until the crap hits the fan. This is what law enforcements role has been historically but it has fallen woefully short of its mission. As a result, with no confidence in your local law enforcement, people have adopted the self protection by carry method, which seems very unfortunate.
And in the latest policy twist, the police chief for Washington DC, home of very anti gun carry policies, gives the following advice to civilians in an active shooter situation, but I wonder what she thinks people will use to do this?
"Your options are run, hide, or fight," says Lanier. "If you're in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it's the best option for saving lives before police can get there," she tells Cooper.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-calling-911-isnt-enough/
And once the cops arrive how exactly are they going to figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? I can hardly wait until the first good guy gets shot by a cop and his family sues the police department.
Or here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/22/d-c-police-chief-has-counterintuitive-advice-for-those-confronted-with-active-shooter-its-the-best-option-for-saving-lives/
In an upcoming segment (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-calling-911-isnt-enough/) of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Lanier said she’s no longer preaching a passive message to people confronted with an active shooter. In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and threats from the Islamic State, Lanier said calling 911 for law enforcement’s help might not be enough because of response times.
“Your options are run, hide or fight,” Lanier told Anderson Cooper. “The facts of the matter is that most active shooters kill most of the victims in 10 minutes or less. The best police department in the country is going to be about a five minute to seven minute response.”
And when the cops arrive how do they figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? I can hardly wait for the first good guy to get shot and his family sue the police department.
And when the cops arrive how do they figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? I can hardly wait for the first good guy to get shot and his family sue the police department.
Statistically, it will all be over by the time the police arrive. They'll be able to identify the good guys as the victims without weapons to defend themselves.
iris lilies
11-23-15, 12:51pm
Statistically, it will all be over by the time the police arrive. They'll be able to identify the good guys as the victims without weapons to defend themselves.
Right. It's not that I don't have confidence in our policemen, it's that our police system will not respond to a threat to me in the few minutes required. Not their fault, they can't be everywhere.
thats why the cops we know say get a gun, learn how to use it even though the official,party line of the City, our Police Chief, and our Mayor,is "get guns off the street."
Statistically, it will all be over by the time the police arrive. They'll be able to identify the good guys as the victims without weapons to defend themselves.
In the statistically unlikely event that I'm around when a shooting incident happens I hope there's no 'good guy' like this around to 'help' me.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-carjacked-witness-opens-fire-at-gas-station-in-ne-houston/35510922
Ultralight
11-23-15, 1:17pm
Every gun nut out there thinks they will be the next Hollywood hero who shoots all the bad guys.
Williamsmith
11-23-15, 2:19pm
The true gun nut will run like a scared puppy and probably crap his pants before he thinks to draw his weapon and confront the shooter. Responsible gun owners.....of which there are many will have trained and practiced enough to actually make a difference.
both of these events will happen seemingly hours before any police arrive although it might only be a matter of minutes.
More than one police officer of my acquaintance has told me the same thing as Williamsmith. They always emphasize the "trained and practiced" aspect he mentioned. I tend to weigh their opinion on the subject pretty heavily for the same reason I take note of the percentage of public school teachers who send their kids to private school: they're the ones with the practical experience.
How will the responsible gun owners be able to figure out who are the other responsible gun owners and who are the bad guys? Considering that there are stories in the news from time to time where even police, presumably as well trained as any responsible gun owner, have misread shooting situations with terrible outcomes for unarmed innocent people.
How will the responsible gun owners be able to figure out who are the other responsible gun owners and who are the bad guys? Considering that there are stories in the news from time to time where even police, presumably as well trained as any responsible gun owner, have misread shooting situations with terrible outcomes for unarmed innocent people.
That's a fair question. I would think that a home invasion situation would generally be pretty clear-cut, but a street robbery could be less so.
Williamsmith
11-23-15, 4:22pm
The responsible gun owners will not be pointing their guns at police and shooting at them upon their arrival....for one thing.
For another, the responsible gun owners will probably be flooding the communications officer with information on who the bad guys are.
Responsible gun owners will be happy to see you when you arrive on scene and will assist you in identifying the bad guys.
The bad guys will be either going the other direction or taking a stand against you.
And finally, police officers are trained by some of the most realistic software programs on recognizing good guys and bad guys and making split second decisions on shoot or don't shoot based on their actions.
If I am caught in a situation such as this without a firearm, I would want as many responsible gun owners to be so armed as possible as it will give me more of a chance of survival. You see the bad guys shoot and kill first and they do so until they run out of ammunition or victims or until they face returning fire. Thus from the beginning, they identify themselves as ruthless evil vile worthless pukes that they are. The responsible gun owners and police then get to respond. And he funny thing is that as soon as the responsible gun owners and police respond with their firearms.......the bad guy stops killing people.
rock, paper, scissors, ...Spock.
If I am caught in a situation such as this without a firearm, I would want as many responsible gun owners to be so armed as possible as it will give me more of a chance of survival. You see the bad guys shoot and kill first and they do so until they run out of ammunition or victims or until they face returning fire. Thus from the beginning, they identify themselves as ruthless evil vile worthless pukes that they are. The responsible gun owners and police then get to respond. And he funny thing is that as soon as the responsible gun owners and police respond with their firearms.......the bad guy stops killing people.
Yep, it ain't rocket science.
How will the responsible gun owners be able to figure out who are the other responsible gun owners and who are the bad guys?
For the most part, judging from examining actual incidents, as well as statistics from areas in the US where carrying weapons by law-abiding citizens is common practice, people seem to sort it out, because we don't have a huge number of blue-on-blue shootings going on.
That's all fine once the cops arrive. But as was pointed out up thread, the situation is somewhat likely to be over before they arrive. Prior to their arrival I expect that in an urban mass shooter environment where a sizable portion of the general public is armed and willing to draw their weapons it will be a chaos of bad guys, well intentioned but ill-trained good guys and well trained good guys, all firing guns. The likelihood that the bad guys will be killed will probably go up, but I suspect that the accidental shooting of random people by well intentioned good guys will also increase.
Of course, the reality is that I'm far more likely, by an order of magnitude, to be killed in an automobile accident than to be killed in some mass shooter incident. Just as I don't let that stop me from getting in cars I suppose I'll continue to go about my business and trust the law of averages will continue to work in my favor regarding mass shootings as they have for 48 years.
That's all fine once the cops arrive. But as was pointed out up thread, the situation is somewhat likely to be over before they arrive. Prior to their arrival I expect that in an urban mass shooter environment where a sizable portion of the general public is armed and willing to draw their weapons it will be a chaos of bad guys, well intentioned but ill-trained good guys and well trained good guys, all firing guns. The likelihood that the bad guys will be killed will probably go up, but I suspect that the accidental shooting of random people by well intentioned good guys will also increase.
And yet, that's not what we see.
Do you have examples of civilians using guns to stop mass shooters?
Yossarian
11-23-15, 5:59pm
Do you have examples of civilians using guns to stop mass shooters?
Draw your own conclusions about how gun-free zones affect things but yes there are some cases where larger shootings may have been stopped:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
I'll read the article when I have a moment later, but the way that the article title got truncated struck me as amusing, at least in a childlike humor sort of way...
Yossarian
11-23-15, 7:12pm
that the article title got truncated struck me as amusing
Those happen too :|(
Another list: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.ux0kY5AK2L
Ultralight
11-23-15, 8:28pm
Here is the thing: If you expect a regular Joe to respond to a shooting crime like a trained police officer then the training he needs is that of a police officer.
Too bad the guy is a plumber 50 hours a week or an office drone or computer programmer all day every day.
I have training with guns and took a bunch of classes and lessons at the gun club I was a member of. But I am in NO WAY trained to deal with an active shooter in the way cops are. I have not drilled and drilled and practiced and practiced. Why? For one thing, there ain't enough time in the day.
I spend a fair bit of time helping with law enforcement training. If you think average police officers are highly trained and skilled with their firearms, you are mistaken.
Ultralight
11-23-15, 9:00pm
I spend a fair bit of time helping with law enforcement training. If you think average police officers are highly trained and skilled with their firearms, you are mistaken.
That is a bit scary.
I'm not a pro. I can shoot my revolver well enough at "self-defense" distances. And I can shoot a bird on the wing with my 12 gauge from most angles.
Beyond that though, I would not trust myself to take out a shooter unless there was no option other than that. I don't even want to think about it.
I don't even want to think about it.Nobody does.
Ultralight
11-23-15, 9:03pm
Nobody does.
I dunno... the gun nuts in my neighborhood have lurid fantasies about shooting intruders or being heroes in some shoot out where they save the good people and take out the bad guys.
I dunno... the gun nuts in my neighborhood have lurid fantasies about shooting intruders or being heroes in some shoot out where they save the good people and take out the bad guys.Yeah, and my grandson spent several months thinking he was Spiderman. Your friends and their fantasies will be no help to anyone in an actual event. Sheepdogs don't fantasize about wolves, they care for the sheep.
Ultralight
11-23-15, 9:35pm
Yeah, and my grandson spent several months thinking he was Spiderman. Your friends and their fantasies will be no help to anyone in an actual event. Sheepdogs don't fantasize about wolves, they care for the sheep.
True. Sad but true.
Yossarian
11-23-15, 9:35pm
Here is the thing: If you expect a regular Joe to respond to a shooting crime like a trained police officer then the training he needs is that of a police officer.
I don't expect that. I merely suggested that shooting a bunch of unarmed people is easier than shooting a bunch of armed people. And that if you are the shootee you may prefer to have the tools to resist the shooter.
Do you also oppose the distribution of defribulators on the priniciple that you don't expect a bystander with limited training to be as effective a paramedic? Are there ever times when a quick response by people doing the best they can under the circumstances with the tools they have can be better than waiting for professionals who may be 10-15 minutes away?
The problem though with your comparison is that rarely do innocent bystanders get accidentally defibrilated. But it could certainly happen by the well-meaning but not trained for the situation gun owner, as it did for the car jacking victim in my article above.
The problem though with your comparison is that rarely do innocent bystanders get accidentally defibrilated.
My county has the highest per-capita concentration of AEDs in public spaces on the planet. As a result of that, and some other processes, we have the highest survival rate for cardiac events in the USA, more-or-less, even though we are in a remote spot.
"Innocent bystanders" get zapped all the time as a result. Doesn't cause too many problems.
My county has the highest per-capita concentration of AEDs in public spaces on the planet. As a result of that, and some other processes, we have the highest survival rate for cardiac events in the USA, more-or-less, even though we are in a remote spot.
"Innocent bystanders" get zapped all the time as a result. Doesn't cause too many problems.
Apparently I was lied to when asked if I could use the defibrillator at work on coworkers that annoy me...
Yossarian
11-24-15, 12:50am
I think it's all in how you evaluate the alternatives.
To me I think the odds are: no response < imperfect response < perfect response.
Others seem to think no response > imperfect response < perfect response.
I do not imagine many in the Bataclan theatre thought to themselves in the time of crisis "thank godness we are all unarmed."
Perhaps it's just a matter of how we percieve the risk of imperfection.
I think it's all in how you evaluate the alternatives.
I do not imagine many in the Bataclan theatre thought to themselves in the time of crisis "thank godness we are all unarmed."
You're probably correct. And if I'd been at the theatre and survived I would probably be saying "thank goodness there weren't more untrained yahoos with guns in this theatre shooting bullets all around"
Ultralight
11-24-15, 7:54am
I think it's all in how you evaluate the alternatives.
To me I think the odds are: no response < imperfect response < perfect response.
Others seem to think no response > imperfect response < perfect response.
I do not imagine many in the Bataclan theatre thought to themselves in the time of crisis "thank godness we are all unarmed."
Perhaps it's just a matter of how we percieve the risk of imperfection.
Maybe the firearms absolutists could get a "Good Samaritan Law" passed for citizens who fight fire with fire and accidentally shoot innocent bystanders in their hot pursuit of the active shooter.
Ultralight
11-24-15, 7:58am
You're probably correct. And if I'd been at the theatre and survived I would probably be saying "thank goodness there weren't more untrained yahoos with guns in this theatre shooting bullets all around"
Come on jp1! Be real!
If all the plumbers, computer programmers, desk jockies, and retail wage slaves busted out their .357 mags in a dark theatre with an active shooter amidst people running around and screaming you know darned well they'd only use one bullet each because they are all sharp-shooters (every one of them). The active shooter with military-style body armor would be brought down in a split-second!
Yossarian
11-24-15, 8:01am
You're probably correct. And if I'd been at the theatre and survived I would probably be saying "thank goodness there weren't more untrained yahoos with guns in this theatre shooting bullets all around"
You asked for evidence before, let's stick with that approach. How many times have mass shootings been made worse by untrained yahoos with guns? Can you provide a list? Maybe we can compare, however imperfectly, real life events.
A search didn't turn up a huge number of results. Other than the gas station situation I mentioned before I learned that one of the good samaritans at the Gabby Giffords shooting pulled his gun on another good samaritan but avoided shooting him because he was able to slam the guy against a wall to disable him. So for the time being it doesn't appear that good samaritans with guns are doing much good or harm. One thing I did learn in my search, though, which was a bit more troubling. Several instances of police shooting innocent bystanders in shooter situations. The worst involved two NYC cops who managed to shoot nine bystanders in the process of taking down a shooter.
Ultralight
11-25-15, 8:09am
A search didn't turn up a huge number of results. Other than the gas station situation I mentioned before I learned that one of the good samaritans at the Gabby Giffords shooting pulled his gun on another good samaritan but avoided shooting him because he was able to slam the guy against a wall to disable him. So for the time being it doesn't appear that good samaritans with guns are doing much good or harm. One thing I did learn in my search, though, which was a bit more troubling. Several instances of police shooting innocent bystanders in shooter situations. The worst involved two NYC cops who managed to shoot nine bystanders in the process of taking down a shooter.
The firearms absolutists will deny this adamantly.
The firearms absolutists will deny this adamantly.
You don't even know what you don't know.
Ultralight
11-25-15, 8:28am
You don't even know what you don't know.
There is a lot I don't know. haha
I know that much!
But I am pretty sure there will be/is a lot of denialism about what jp1 pointed out.
It's not surprising cops have such a bad hit rate. Departmental budgets have really been hit by cuts. That means hardly any extra money for ammo for practice on the range. I have several cops among my friends and they report that the only shooting they do on the job is their qualification once a year. These two guys are into guns and so they shoot on their own, for their own training and enjoyment. They tell me that only the cops who are into guns will actually shoot on their own.
I go to the range 2-4 times a month. I don't shoot nearly as many rounds as Bae, perhaps 100 at the most in one range session, but I'm still shooting more than the average cop, if the reports I've heard are accurate. Kinda scary. I think I've read somewhere that the average police hit rate is something around 17%.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.