View Full Version : Too many gun deaths going on.........
Besides all the criminals using guns in this area almost every day, now a 3 year old found the father's gun on the kitchen counter and shot himself and died and a teenager was playing with guns, insisting that a girl in the room hold it. She refused, and he removed the .....I'm forgetting the word...."magazine"? and must have thought it was empty, forgetting the bullet in the chamber, and pointed it at her and shot her. She died. All you gun owners probably would never be in these irresponsible positions.. But how do we stop the irresponsible ones?
IshbelRobertson
12-9-13, 6:19pm
You move to a country where guns are strictly controlled, like mine, for instance.
It is my experience that you can rarely "stop" irresponsible people.
What you can do is educate most of the people, and punish the irresponsible ones.
I'm not even sure punishment accomplishes much though, unless it is severe enough punishment to keep people locked up away from society so they can't re-offend, but we seem unwilling to do that even for murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and drunk drivers.
If your concern is accidental gun deaths, well, take a look at the statistics, the numbers are pretty darned low, you'd be better off focusing your efforts on ladder control and swimming pool restrictions.
bae, you've mentioned looking at the numbers before. But if shooting and death is going on a fair amount around you, I don't really give a rip about the "numbers".
I'm saying these 2 "accidental" shootings happened just 2 days apart here............and that is in addition to all the all-to-common shootings during drive-bys, robberies and murders here.
I don't really care about the numbers if reality tells me bad things are happening way too often close to me.
Well, you sort of need real data to make intelligent public policy decisions.
Simpler at Fifty
12-9-13, 8:07pm
My 2 nieces and nephew were raised around guns. My nieces hunted once they went through Hunter's safety. None of them shot at each other or another human being. DBIL comes from a family of 13 and every one of them had at least one gun growing up. His Dad has several. None of them or now their children and grandchildren shot at each other or another human being. My Dad had a rifle in the closet that we knew about as kids because he took it out once a year to clean it. We were taught like the other 50 or more of DBILs family to respect a gun. They weren't left lying around.
I agree with Bae, you cannot stop the irresponsible people.
It is like the people that leave their kid in the car when it is below zero or 100 degrees and they die. You just cannot change that. It makes people more aware after it happens and the borderline irresponsible may think about it for a while but it will happen again. How do you stop college kids from drinking til they pass out and/or die? There is always going to be a group of people that are just irresponsible.
From what I have read,
a) bae, you are correct that in the United States, your child is much more likely to die from an accidental drowning in the backyard pool than shot accidentally by a firearm
b) Cathy, you are correct in that per capita, the US has a much higher rate of death by firearm than a lot of other countries, including all European countries and Asian countries such as India, China and Japan. We're down there with countries like Mexico and Argentina and Colombia (well, Colombia's a little higher).
Maybe we just have a lot more irresponsible people.
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-13, 9:40pm
You move to a country where guns are strictly controlled, like mine, for instance.Good answer as far as I am concerned! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-9-13, 9:46pm
From what I have read,
a) bae, you are correct that in the United States, your child is much more likely to die from an accidental drowning in the backyard pool than shot accidentally by a firearm
b) Cathy, you are correct in that per capita, the US has a much higher rate of death by firearm than a lot of other countries, including all European countries and Asian countries such as India, China and Japan. We're down there with countries like Mexico and Argentina and Colombia (well, Colombia's a little higher).
Maybe we just have a lot more irresponsible people.My thoughts are too that we have a culture in the US that tolerates violence - even pays money to sit in movie theaters and watch movies that have a high degree of violence and considers this entertaining. Couple that with the expectations of material and financial success in a society bleeding good paying jobs to countries with lower wages and regulations, add the resulting anger and the availability of weapons and walah (sp?) - there's a recipe for senseless deaths/gun violence. To me it is very easy to understand the whys - What is sticky for me is the how to fix it? Given the amendment to the constitution that allows citizens to bear arms and given what US society has become today, I don't see a fix. Ishbel's advice a few posts up makes a lot of sense to me - but not everyone can or even wants to leave. Rob
Besides all the criminals using guns in this area almost every day, now a 3 year old found the father's gun on the kitchen counter and shot himself and died and a teenager was playing with guns, insisting that a girl in the room hold it. She refused, and he removed the .....I'm forgetting the word...."magazine"? and must have thought it was empty, forgetting the bullet in the chamber, and pointed it at her and shot her. She died. All you gun owners probably would never be in these irresponsible positions.. But how do we stop the irresponsible ones?
This is not a new problem. Kids getting their hands on guns they shouldn't have access to and shooting themselves/sibling/friend did not start yesterday.
A gun forum I frequent has a long thread going currently about the least safe people you run into at the range. The consensus is that it's the old guys. I saw this recently myself with a friend's husband. 65, grew up with guns, and extremely casual. His muzzle discipline, to say nothing of his trigger discipline, made me cringe constantly.
My pistol actually has a mag disconnect. It can't be fired if there's not a mag inserted in the gun. Made in Argentina, of all places.
You can't stop stupid, irresponsible people. Just look at all the drunk drivers. DUI has a pretty stiff penalty here in the US, yet people still do it. MADD has been around since the early 80s. DUIs have decreased, but I don't think they'll ever go away unless you outlaw alcohol. And look how that worked out with Prohibition.
Ignorance can be educated (most of the time), but you can't fix stupid. And some people are so stupid they're beyond fixing. Your only hope is that they won't reproduce or that the stupid doesn't get passed on. And hope if they do something fatally stupid that it only takes them out, not anyone else.
sweetana3
12-10-13, 6:10am
Tradd +++1
My thoughts are too that we have a culture in the US that tolerates violence - even pays money to sit in movie theaters and watch movies that have a high degree of violence and considers this entertaining.
I agree with the notion that our cultural media, our entertainment, seems disturbingly centered on violence. We pay big bucks for it. Movies, sports, games, music, "news" & other TV... Any outlet I can think of provides ready access to help quench our insatiable thirst for violence. Look at the latest youtube viral video of the teenage girl who gets sucker punched. Millions of views. Why would any of us want to see a kid get hurt? How #!%^ing sick are we? No my friends, the guns are not the real problem. A breakdown of the societal conscience that kept us from using them (or any other tool) to hurt someone else is the problem. Regarding the media exposure its kind of a chicken and egg paradox. Is the violent media barrage a result of an increasingly violent culture or a cause of it?
Besides all the criminals using guns in this area almost every day, now a 3 year old found the father's gun on the kitchen counter and shot himself and died and a teenager was playing with guns, insisting that a girl in the room hold it. She refused, and he removed the .....I'm forgetting the word...."magazine"? and must have thought it was empty, forgetting the bullet in the chamber, and pointed it at her and shot her. She died. All you gun owners probably would never be in these irresponsible positions.. But how do we stop the irresponsible ones?
I can just about guarantee you every one of those families thought THEY WERE responsible gun owners. Just as all these families thought THEY were responsible gun owners.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary
Remember, there are still plenty of people out there who consider George Zimmerman to be a responsible gun owner. Because, of course, anyone who swaggers around with a gun 'protecting' their community MUST be above reproach.
catherine
12-10-13, 4:55pm
Interesting chart here. Shows a correlation between the number of guns in each state and the rate of gun deaths.
http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun_ownership_deaths_500px.jpg
Analysis by the source (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/):
The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000). The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as G goes up, D goes up (r=+0.63). These data suggest that whether or not our society finds it desirable, gun safety/control is a plausible means of reducing gun deaths.
A striking aspect of this graph is that the rate of gun ownership varies by almost tenfold across states. Residents of different states are in very different environments, gunwise. When opponents of regulation, who are usually in gun-rich states, say that a sufficiently-determined evildoer could get a gun even under a heavy regulatory regime, that could be correct. Think of this measure as an index of “gun culture.”
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-13, 5:06pm
Does gun deaths include suicide? If there are no guns around do people just find other ways to end their lives? (guns are more effective than many other methods)
catherine
12-10-13, 5:09pm
Just to add my own personal perspective, and I'd be interested in hearing thought of others, since I know we have gun owners (male and female) as well as non-gun owners (male and female) on this board.
I have never, ever considered getting a gun. One reason is, I am not into hunting. But mainly because I simply would feel less safe if I had a gun in my home as opposed to feeling safer.
DH feels the same way, even though he was trained to shoot in the Marines and is a good sharpshooter. We would feel more uneasy about having a firearm in our house--purely on an emotional basis.
If I were alone, and wanted to feel safer in my home, I'd be much more inclined to get ADT or something like that than to get a gun. To me, if I have a gun, it can be used against me, either accidentally or intentionally. Just the thought of that scares me.
However, plenty of people feel the opposite--they feel safer in their homes with a gun. No right or wrong about it--it's just how people feel. I think this whole gun thing is like food--you can debate rationally about it, but it's really about the feelings attached to it.
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-13, 5:19pm
I think this whole gun thing is like food--you can debate rationally about it, but it's really about the feelings attached to it.
worse than that, probably like religion. I don't want to ban all guns, and I mostly certainly do not feel safer with a gun around. But it's like debating religion.
DocHolliday
12-10-13, 8:34pm
Does gun deaths include suicide? If there are no guns around do people just find other ways to end their lives? (guns are more effective than many other methods)
Yes, it does. This is a typical tactic of supporters of gun control in the "studies" they conduct. The "study" found that Alaska has a "gun death rate" of 17.8 per 100,000. Alaska's native populations have very high suicide rates and that skews their actual numbers way higher than would otherwise be normal. Alaska's population is 733K and they had 19 murders via firearm in 2010.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
I am not a neuroscientist from Princeton as was the guy who did the "study" cited. You really have to question the intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills of people who spin numbers and leave out relevant details like that in the "studies" they create.
Does gun deaths include suicide? If there are no guns around do people just find other ways to end their lives? (guns are more effective than many other methods)Yes, as well as accidental deaths by firearm and homicides by firearm. And most statistics includes deaths by ALL types of firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) publish a really good set of statistics that breaks down gun related deaths into their various catagories (as well as death by all causes), the victims age, etc.. I'll see if I can find a link. All firearm-related deaths, or maybe it was just accidental firearm-related deaths ranked 5th and I believe suicides by firearm was 4 th. Suicide by poisoning was number 3, illness was number 2 and motor vehicles related deaths was number one. The highest population of fire-arm related deaths was in the male 65 plus category and they were almost all suicides.
These are the 2011 death by firearm in United States/100,000 population stats.
Total: 10.3 (2011)
Homicide: 3.60 (2011)
Suicide: 6.30 (2011)
Unintentional: 0.30 (2011)
Undetermined: 0.10 (2011)
You move to a country where guns are strictly controlled, like mine, for instance I found an article from a Huffington Post from 2012 which was pretty interesting - here's a bit: "Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held. Obviously there's no way of telling how many illegal guns are in circulation." Then it went on to compare it to the USA - both it's larger population, much larger number of legal gun ownership (300 million guns in legal ownership or something like that) as well as our much higher rates of all gun related deaths.
ToomuchStuff
12-10-13, 9:27pm
Well, you sort of need real data to make intelligent public policy decisions.
Emphasis on REAL. Data has been skewed before by bias, as well as corruption, or political agenda. Politician's push for a upgrading of crimes/charges, or a downgrading on what people get charged with, so the statistics and budget can get adjusted as they see fit.
iris lilies
12-10-13, 11:04pm
...But mainly because I simply would feel less safe if I had a gun in my home as opposed to feeling safer.
DH feels the same way, even though he was trained to shoot in the Marines and is a good sharpshooter. We would feel more uneasy about having a firearm in our house--purely on an emotional basis...
You wouldn't like living in Switzerland, then. They make you have a gun.
This article talks more about Swiss gun culture.
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
I'm not sure what a discussion that centers on feelings about and emotions surrounding guns accomplishes, but whatever. Have at it.
I am not a neuroscientist from Princeton as was the guy who did the "study" cited.
I am, however, a statistician from Princeton :-)
Yes, we know bae, you are everything there is to be..........
IL.......maybe it might do some of you good to have a little more feeling. I was responding mostly to a child and a young woman locally being "accidentally" killed by a gun.
How about a little compassion and concern, without worrying about your own rights being taken away?
There's just no compromise with some people.
catherine
12-11-13, 6:22am
These are the 2011 death by firearm in United States/100,000 population stats.
Total: 10.3 (2011)
Homicide: 3.60 (2011)
Suicide: 6.30 (2011)
Unintentional: 0.30 (2011)
Undetermined: 0.10 (2011)
By comparison, the UK, with whom we might culturally compare ourselves to some extent had these stats (2010):
Total: .25
Homicide: .04
Suicide: .18
Unintentional: .01
Undetermined: .02
Our neighbor to the north, Canada:
Total: 2.38 (mixed years)
Homicide: .5 (2009)
Suicide: 1.79 (2006)
Unintentional: .08 (2001)
Undetermined: .01 (2006)
When some people live in areas of higher crime, the over-all statistics are sort of irrelevant.
If several areas of the U.S. had an infectious disease and people died every day from it, it would perhaps be easy to ignore in the other areas that didn't have the disease (yet).
So in that sense, numbers can be deceiving. Like I said earlier.......I don't give a rip about numbers, if my area is going down the toilet because of gun crime.
sweetana3
12-11-13, 8:37am
Yup. Yesterday we were walking to the library and turned the corner from our house. Saw a tow truck trying to get a truck on the flat bed. Turns out someone had come and stolen every wheel earlier that night and left the truck on blocks right in the major neighborhood street. Townhouses right against the sidewalk on both sides.
Da*n criminals. They would have been gone by the time police could have gotten there and I would not have confronted them without a big gun and even then.........not worth it for tires.
There's just no compromise with some people.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
rodeosweetheart
12-11-13, 10:26am
Spartana writes,
These are the 2011 death by firearm in United States/100,000 population stats.
Total: 10.3 (2011)
Homicide: 3.60 (2011)
Suicide: 6.30 (2011)
Unintentional: 0.30 (2011)
Undetermined: 0.10 (2011)
Wow! Is this statistically correct? This really amazes me.
Seems like the discussion should not be about national gun control so much as it is about battling depression and mental health crisis in our country.
RS, that's the thing - even after Newtown and Aurora and the Navy Yard shooting, it's much more convenient to go after guns than address.the complicated mental health issue.
All the background checks in the world won't help much when it comes to crazy people getting their hands on guns if the gov't agencies don't report people who are adjudicated to be mentally unstable. My state is currently having this issue. The courts aren't submitting the proper reports to the state police, who oversee firearms permits.
pinkytoe
12-11-13, 10:51am
If people want to shoot/carry/love guns, well alright. Since I live in Texas, it would be considered the ultimate weirdness to not love firearms. On the other hand, there are a few of us from some other planet who don't get it and would prefer to live in a non-violent culture. As a child, I was allowed to watch the slaughter of cattle (with guns) and that image of killing stayed with me. Even DH laments the few times as a youth that he went deer-hunting and killed to be manly (his words). Now, his 6'2", 250 pound self won't even kill a bug.
sweetana3
12-11-13, 12:14pm
None of the poeple I know who had some serious mental illness issues and a gun problem were ever in court or "adjudicated". When and how would such a list be created unless it is the few who make it thru the judicial system and are not pled out on lesser nongun related issues? Who would make the decision on "mental illness" and how long would you remain on such a list (such as a sexual offender list)?
.
Would everyone ever diagnosed with mental illness or anger issues be on such a list?
To me an unworkable solution except for a limited number of individuals. Heck, felons who are already restricted are caught all the time with firearms.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
No, I honestly feel that those with guns compromise less. They feel that ANY compromise at all, would remove their rights.
I'm willing to do some compromising, just by having the total number of guns out there limited.
I believe there has been considerable compromise by the gun owning community over the past hundred years. Look at the thousands of gun laws on the books already. Many of which were supported, or indeed written, by the firearms community.
And yet there is always a push by folks like CathyA to impose even more restrictions under the banner of "compromise", even though they do not understand current law. I don't think they understand what "compromise" means either.
Simpler at Fifty
12-11-13, 1:03pm
"No, I honestly feel that those with guns compromise less. They feel that ANY compromise at all, would remove their rights."
@CathyA How would you propose guns be limited. I believe there is a 3 day waiting period now in many states. The honest people go through that and get their gun legally. The ones getting guns illegally- how would you limit that? How do you find out these bad guys have guns unless they commit a crime?
"No, I honestly feel that those with guns compromise less. They feel that ANY compromise at all, would remove their rights."
@CathyA How would you propose guns be limited. I believe there is a 3 day waiting period now in many states. The honest people go through that and get their gun legally. The ones getting guns illegally- how would you limit that? How do you find out these bad guys have guns unless they commit a crime?
The anti-gunners' ultimate goal is to see everyone disarmed, except military, law enforcement, and probably hunters. They never seem to really answer questions about criminals always seeming to get their paws on guns - illegally. The result would be to disarm citizens who abide by the firearms laws - and at the mercy of the thugs and crooks. The police have no duty to provide protection.to citizens (Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981). Are citizens supposed to just pray they aren't victims, use knives, what exactly? when crooks have guns. Period. It's a.fact of life in many places in the US.
Just this week a thug, paroled this summer after serving 13 years.for armed robbery, held up a store at gun point on the south side of Chicago. Thug died after being shot by the store clerk. Before the McDonald v. Chicago US Supreme Court decision in 2010 that extended the Second Amendment to the states, Chicago had a hand gun ban going back to the early 1980s. Had the Chicago gun ban done any good? No. All it did was disarm law abiding citizens who wanted to protect themselves.
In my concealed carry permit.class two weeks ago was a black.family from the south side of Chicago - dad, mom, 23 yo son. They work on the south side, too. They will be carrying to protect themselves. They all work in the same place. The mother begins her shift at 2 am. Due to continued muggings, etc. in the area that have happened to other employees, the company is.going to allow the mother and and others with their concealed carry permits to carry on the property and into the building. Guns will be locked up in a locker/desk during the work day.
By comparison, the UK, with whom we might culturally compare ourselves to some extent had these stats (2010):
Total: .25
Homicide: .04
Suicide: .18
Unintentional: .01
Undetermined: .02
Our neighbor to the north, Canada:
Total: 2.38 (mixed years)
Homicide: .5 (2009)
Suicide: 1.79 (2006)
Unintentional: .08 (2001)
Undetermined: .01 (2006)
Yeah I saw those stats (as well as the stats for every other country) when I looked up USA's. The UK is pretty impressive - especially since they only had 51 "deaths by firearm" in 2012. I think their population is around 63 mil (compared to the USA's of over 300 mil) and legal gun ownership is around 1.8 mil (compared to the USA's of about 200 mil - although many of those are probably owned by people who have multiple guns - like me - rather than just one) so those differences in numbers might make the stats a bit uncomparable though - sort of like comparing Vermont to California. I also think most gun ownership in the UK are rifles and shotguns rather than handguns - which are very heavily regulated there.
catherine
12-11-13, 4:21pm
The anti-gunners' ultimate goal is to see everyone disarmed, except military, law enforcement, and probably hunters.
Not sure I agree with that. I think people who are "anti-gunners" are really more about a certain degree of regulation along a continuum--so there may be some who want to ban guns completely--including military, police and hunters, but others just want to see them more closely regulated, or ban some guns (like assault weapons).
I believe there has been considerable compromise by the gun owning community over the past hundred years. Look at the thousands of gun laws on the books already. Many of which were supported, or indeed written, by the firearms community.
And yet there is always a push by folks like CathyA to impose ven more restrictions under the banner of "compromise", even though they do not understand current law. I don't think they understand what "compromise" means either.
What there are more firearms in the US then there ever have been! Assault weapons seem to be the weapon of choice. I live to see the day when the NRA really makes a compromise. I too at one time was a gun nut. That stopped when I shot a rabbit and watched it twist around before it died. I served in the army and qualified with an M16 and an M60 machine so I do know weapons. They are made for war and killing. I have chosen not to be apart of that class of people.
..... I too at one time was a gun nut......
......I have chosen not to be apart of that class of people.
So anyone who disagrees is a 'nut' and another 'class of people'?
That sounds less like a principled argument for a restriction of gun rights and more like a condemnation of the majority of US citizens. I think that's why these discussions never go anywhere.
I'll cling to both my guns AND my religion, thankyouverymuch.
rodeosweetheart
12-11-13, 6:51pm
The UK stats are also surprising since there must have been 50 deaths in Midsummer alone. . .
So anyone who disagrees is a 'nut' and another 'class of people'?
That sounds less like a principled argument for a restriction of gun rights and more like a condemnation of the majority of US citizens. I think that's why these discussions never go anywhere.This is why I generally avoid these threads now - too much name calling and affixing of certain negative character traits to anyone who chooses to have firearms even if gun ownership is just a small part of who we are as humans. Free would call me a "gun nut" and of a "certain class of people" - which I'm a assuming he means that in a negative way. Pinky Toe would say I "love guns" and seek violence rather than peacefulness solely because I own guns without having ever been involved in any violent actions. I am neither a gun nut, nor do I love my guns any more than I love any other piece of machined metal. I am not in any "class of people" who are characterized by as gun nuts, gun lovers, or violent people. I am a non-violent person. Like Pinky Toe and Free, I also abhor violence and killing of animals. And that would be in all forms of slaughter from a hammer to the crush the head or neck or electrocution, not just by gun. That's why I choose to be a vegan and anti-hunting. But yet I own guns. Time for me to leave this thread alone.
catherine
12-11-13, 9:11pm
This is why I generally avoid these threads now - too much name calling and affixing of certain negative character traits to anyone who chooses to have firearms even if gun ownership is just a small part of who we are as humans. Free would call me a "gun nut" and of a "certain class of people" - which I'm a assuming he means that in a negative way. Pinky Toe would say I "love guns" and seek violence rather than peacefulness solely because I own guns without having ever been involved in any violent actions. I am neither a gun nut, nor do I love my guns any more than I love any other piece of machined metal. I am not in any "class of people" who are characterized by as gun nuts, gun lovers, or violent people. I am a non-violent person. Like Pinky Toe and Free, I also abhor violence and killing of animals. And that would be in all forms of slaughter from a hammer to the crush the head or neck or electrocution, not just by gun. That's why I choose to be a vegan and anti-hunting. But yet I own guns. Time for me to leave this thread alone.
I agree, Spartana--which is why I made the comment about the emotional element of gun issues. It's a real hot button and unfortunately triggers the negativity and proclivity to warp or abandon the rational elements of the debate.
I'm with ya on the outta here on this one!!
"No, I honestly feel that those with guns compromise less. They feel that ANY compromise at all, would remove their rights."
@CathyA How would you propose guns be limited. I believe there is a 3 day waiting period now in many states. The honest people go through that and get their gun legally. The ones getting guns illegally- how would you limit that? How do you find out these bad guys have guns unless they commit a crime?
Now there's a good question. And a good place to start. First of all, I seriously doubt there are 'thousands' of gun laws on the books, unless you are going state by state, county by county and town by town counting each and every areas 'regulations'. But that's kind of disingenuous in a discussion about effective gun laws to curb violence.>8)
It's also kind of the problem. Each state, county, town has their own laws and regulations, and there is no continuity. You can site statistics for one city in a well regulated state, but it means nothing when the criminal element can simply drive 20 miles down the road to another 'free for all' state.
First, there needs to be simple, across the board regulations. Across the country, all states the same. There needs to be continuity. Traffic laws don't change state to state, and gun laws shouldn't either.
Second, all gun purchases should be registered. All of them, including private sales, and/or sales at gun shows. This can be done quite easily. Every car must be registered and licensed, and every gun should be too. People should have to jump through at least as many hoops to buy a gun as they do to vote! lol
What this registration does is curb so much of the illegal guns on the street.
Here is an example. Now, a gun 'mule' goes to a gun show and buys tons of guns, then resells them to criminals on the street. No trace to the gun show or the mule. But with registration, we have a record of so and so buying the gun. We have the name of the last 'legal' owner of the gun.
"But it was stolen", you say. Ok, where is the paper trail of that? When your gun is stolen, you make a police report, like you do when anything else is stolen. There. There is your record, and your alibi. If your gun is used in a crime, you better have proof that you weren't the last owner, and/or it was stolen, because the history of that gun is right there. And with this system, it will also be there if you have an unusual number of 'stolen' guns, or conduct a heck of a lot of private sales to criminals.
This registration serves to protect the honest, responsible gun owner/collector in that HE/SHE now has a record of who THEY sold the gun to. I'm sure honest gun owners don't want to think their gun has been used in a crime and would be glad to help the police zero in on who is responsible.
These two simple steps would go a long way, I think, in curbing violence with guns. Or certainly curb the number of guns on the streets. Would criminals still get guns? Of course they would. And people will still run red lights. But that isn't an excuse to just do away with traffic lights.
But guns would be harder to get, and it would be easier to trace the source of the guns. And isn't that what everyone bemoans, and declares to be the problem? The SOURCE of the guns?
These two things, too, WOULD be a compromise between the gun community and those of us against 'free for all' gun ownership.
Simply waving your hand dismissively and declaring we want to 'ban' all guns is easy...and wrong.
Actually working for a solution that curbs violence and protects gun rights is a bit more difficult.
Very logical and reasonable argument Peggy, and one I completely agree with. See even us "nuts" are occasionally sane :-)!
First, there needs to be simple, across the board regulations. Across the country, all states the same. There needs to be continuity. Traffic laws don't change state to state, and gun laws shouldn't either.
Second, all gun purchases should be registered. All of them, including private sales, and/or sales at gun shows. This can be done quite easily. Every car must be registered and licensed, and every gun should be too. People should have to jump through at least as many hoops to buy a gun as they do to vote! lol
I don't agree with everything in your post peggy (surprised?), but I do appreciate the effort and thought that went into it. Looking at your two suggestions, which are both rational and sensible on the surface, I only really see one problem. The deal is that so many crimes are committed with guns that are not legally acquired and/or registered. I completely understand that the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" saying gets tiresome at best, but that doesn't make it false.
The black market for weapons is a huge enterprise that is inextricably intertwined with the global drug trade. Its primarily made up of gangs with thousands of members in hundreds of locations who have ties to the drug cartels. The cartels have ties to governments, eastern European manufacturers of weapons, international arms dealers, etc. Everything all those guys do is already illegal. In the end, eliminating the demand for their illicit products is the only thing that will make them go away, but for now the UN estimates illegal drugs are a $400 BILLION per year business that already operates completely outside the law. Out of 192 +/- countries in the world only 28 of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) have a GDP of $400B or more. That is the real opposition. Until the demand changes there just aren't any laws we can pass that will stop these guys. They ignore laws and shoot the cops who try to enforce the laws. Not the kind of guys who are going to bother with registrations.
Other than those really bad guys we have a much smaller, but still critical, problem with everyday folks shooting each other. I think every single one of us here would love to see the day when no one was ever a victim of violence again. We probably can't get there, but we can work to limit it. I don't have a study to cite, but it seems like most of the violent perps on the evening news did something illegal on their way to committing acts of violence. What I'm saying is that it might make more sense to actually enforce the laws we already have on the books to see if that works rather than passing even more laws that probably won't be enforced any better than the current batch is.
I have to admit that I've never understood (or respected) the old "if we can't stop the criminals from getting guns, then we shouldn't bother with any measures that regulate the wrong non-criminals getting guns."
I own a gun. I know how to use it. I'm educated and skilled. I don't give a damn if it requires some sort of tracking. I'm fine with someone denying me the ownership of a deadly weapon if I have proven I'm not to be trusted with it.
I don't happen to see anything wrong with registering all firearms sold, everywhere, period. I don't see anything wrong with requiring basic education to own a device that can kill people easily just by its owner's ignorance, and I think that privilege should be able to be reconsidered if you prove yourself egregiously irresponsible with a weapon. I certainly don't see anything wrong with background checks, and restrictions on the purchase of guns by people with a history of mental illness, domestic violence, prior offenses with weapons, etc. All of these things might save lives and grow in our society a sane ethic around guns, yet the gun lobby not only fights against them with great vigor, but fights to relax laws, and make more and more deadly devices available to anyone, anywhere. I do not see this as a mark of a civilized society.
No, it's not going to solve the problem of black market guns. But to not do something about the things we CAN move toward fixing, just because we can't fix it all, is just......well.....criminal in my mind.
iris lilies
12-12-13, 7:52pm
I live near the ghetto and have property in the ghetto and I can assure you that when ch*t is stolen there, a police report does not follow. The Po'-lice are not involved. Whadaya think's gonna happen, homeowner's insurance will reimburse?
But it is a nice and tidy theoretical outline of what should happen. Theory is lovely. Carry on.
Meanwhile, peggy, do you ever watch Sons of Anarchy? :) That illustratess another entry point for guns into this country, SAMCO and The Irish and etc. :)
DocHolliday
12-12-13, 9:22pm
People should have to jump through at least as many hoops to buy a gun as they do to vote! lol
What a brilliant idea Peggy! As soon as people have to start going through background checks to vote...come back with your other gun control ideas. I mean there are people in some States that don't think people should have to show their IDs when they go to vote...
Have you ever bought a gun, Peggy?
ApatheticNoMore
12-12-13, 9:39pm
As soon as we have fully auditable paper trail voting then I'll be ok with a background check to vote. Not until then.
I don't agree with everything in your post peggy (surprised?), but I do appreciate the effort and thought that went into it. Looking at your two suggestions, which are both rational and sensible on the surface, I only really see one problem. The deal is that so many crimes are committed with guns that are not legally acquired and/or registered. I completely understand that the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" saying gets tiresome at best, but that doesn't make it false.
The black market for weapons is a huge enterprise that is inextricably intertwined with the global drug trade. Its primarily made up of gangs with thousands of members in hundreds of locations who have ties to the drug cartels. The cartels have ties to governments, eastern European manufacturers of weapons, international arms dealers, etc. Everything all those guys do is already illegal. In the end, eliminating the demand for their illicit products is the only thing that will make them go away, but for now the UN estimates illegal drugs are a $400 BILLION per year business that already operates completely outside the law. Out of 192 +/- countries in the world only 28 of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) have a GDP of $400B or more. That is the real opposition. Until the demand changes there just aren't any laws we can pass that will stop these guys. They ignore laws and shoot the cops who try to enforce the laws. Not the kind of guys who are going to bother with registrations.
Other than those really bad guys we have a much smaller, but still critical, problem with everyday folks shooting each other. I think every single one of us here would love to see the day when no one was ever a victim of violence again. We probably can't get there, but we can work to limit it. I don't have a study to cite, but it seems like most of the violent perps on the evening news did something illegal on their way to committing acts of violence. What I'm saying is that it might make more sense to actually enforce the laws we already have on the books to see if that works rather than passing even more laws that probably won't be enforced any better than the current batch is.
Gregg..really? You don't agree with me? Now there's a shocker!! :D
Do you really want to say that since we can't stop ALL guns we shouldn't even try? How many other laws can we apply this to? Just about all of them I'm thinking.
Yes, there are a lot of guns. And, I suppose there are a lot of laws/regulations, but they are such a mixed bag from fairly strict to non existent. We are still the United States of America. Folks have freedom of movement. Criminals know this. And despite the black market, etc...criminals aren't all 'TV' sophisticated. I don't know the percentages exactly, but i"m guessing a fair number of guns in day to day banger stuff are guns bought at the local walmart, or gun show, or stolen. Traceable.
And all your stuff about drugs...uh, ok, nice redirect, but totally out of context of this discussion. And, yeah, I do know that criminals, by the very nature of their description, work outside of the law. This really isn't news! >8) But, back to the guns...
Gun laws, on the books now, whether 10 or 1000, are ineffective. They do not work. Largely because of the reasons i outlined earlier. If one state is fairly strict, and the next state over is a free for all, which one do you think the criminal will go to for their weapons? Gun laws/regulations need to be THE SAME in all 50 states. Then you wouldn't need 1000 gun laws. You would only need a few, and every gun owner would know what the laws are where ever they are.
Why do you object to standardized laws? Wouldn't you want to simplify, yet strengthen the country's gun laws/regulations? It's really kind of a win win...unless you are a criminal, or want to buy weapons under the table for ?? Or a delusional tea bagger who has visions of facing down the g'ment someday with your six shooter! Yee Haw!:laff:
I live near the ghetto and have property in the ghetto and I can assure you that when ch*t is stolen there, a police report does not follow. The Po'-lice are not involved. Whadaya think's gonna happen, homeowner's insurance will reimburse?
But it is a nice and tidy theoretical outline of what should happen. Theory is lovely. Carry on.
Meanwhile, peggy, do you ever watch Sons of Anarchy? :) That illustratess another entry point for guns into this country, SAMCO and The Irish and etc. :)
Iris, I don't think you understand what I mean. If a gun is used in a crime, that gun is traced back to the LAST legal owner. If that person can not produce a sales receipt/registration paperwork or a police report of it being stolen, then THAT person should be held responsible for the crime. Or punished in some way if the criminal was caught. So, if your neighbors have their LEGITIMATE gun stolen, it would behove them to file a police report. If they, themselves obtained the gun illegally, they are punished too, then you go up the chain to the next person. Then the next and the next, until you find the SOURCE of that particular gun. That would be the beauty of registering all gun sales. All of them.
See, despite the redirection of the gun lobby trying to blow smoke with the '1000's of laws already on the books' talking point, or 'gun laws don't work' BS, the fact is, it is pretty dang easy to buy a handgun in this country. Without any background check or waiting 3 days or whatever. Private sales are completely unregulated, as are gun show sales. But they shouldn't be. Every gun should be traceable. Every one.
Seems to me most people proposing "reasonable" new laws are unfamiliar with the current laws, or have some other agenda...
And thus there is not much point in discussing things, as has been shown in the previous 37 threads on this topic on this board.
(I will however note that registration lists of firearms previously registered in good faith by law abiding gun owners are currently being used in California and New York state to drive a confiscation program, which is probably new since the last time we had this wee discussion.)
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-27-at-9.31.12-AM.png
Oh..Sons Of Anarchy..I've never seen it. But my son worked on an episode of that and he said that they were very nice and easy to work with. Very professional yet laid back. A bit of a funny thing though, he said they were in a bar and the director had talked to him about running into, or bumping one of the principal actors as they passed. I suppose to cause tension in the bar or something. Like I said i never saw it but I get there is a lot of fighting and killing and such on that show. Anyway, they had to take several takes, and each time he would roughly bump this guy. He said each time the guy would give him a surprised, but kind of pissed look. After several takes, this actor says to my son "What is your problem man?" Apparently the director failed to tell this guy what the direction was. LOL My son said once he found out, he apologised for getting pissy. Guess it's a good thing they really AREN'T Sons of Anarchy!
When he told me about working on that he said, "Mom, you probably wouldn't like it. Don't bother watching." :D
Seems to me most people proposing "reasonable" new laws are unfamiliar with the current laws, or have some other agenda...
And thus there is not much point in discussing things, as has been shown in the previous 37 threads on this topic on this board.
(I will however note that registration lists of firearms previously registered in good faith by law abiding gun owners are currently being used in California and New York state to drive a confiscation program, which is probably new since the last time we had this wee discussion.)
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-27-at-9.31.12-AM.png
And those who resist reasonable gun legislation certainly have an agenda.
so, you do not agree with the gun laws of NY. No surprise there, but I'd hardly call this 'confiscation' . These are the laws on those books, these guns don't comply, so the owners are given several options, one of which is get the gun within regulations and go on your merry, shootin' way.
Why then would you object to reasonable, consistent laws across the states? This is what I want. And should be what all honest, reasonable gun owners want. Why should NY and California have different laws from Wyo and Co whose laws are different from Florida and Ohio? It's confusing and unnecessary.
iris lilies
12-13-13, 3:30pm
Oh..Sons Of Anarchy..I've never seen it. But my son worked on an episode of that and he said that they were very nice and easy to work with. Very professional yet laid back. A bit of a funny thing though, he said they were in a bar and the director had talked to him about running into, or bumping one of the principal actors as they passed. I suppose to cause tension in the bar or something. Like I said i never saw it but I get there is a lot of fighting and killing and such on that show. Anyway, they had to take several takes, and each time he would roughly bump this guy. He said each time the guy would give him a surprised, but kind of pissed look. After several takes, this actor says to my son "What is your problem man?" Apparently the director failed to tell this guy what the direction was. LOL My son said once he found out, he apologised for getting pissy. Guess it's a good thing they really AREN'T Sons of Anarchy!
When he told me about working on that he said, "Mom, you probably wouldn't like it. Don't bother watching." :D
That is a great inside story of Sons. It is horrifically violent and I've taken some time off from watching it for that reason, but it s good soap opera.
Notice above that one of the evil firearms being confiscated by the fine people of New York with their "reasonable" laws is a Marlin bolt action .22 long rifle, a model that has been in production in similar form for ~100 years. I have a nearly identical rifle that dates from 1898. One of the other models on that list is a bolt-action .22 long rifle target rifle.
Why on earth would I have a problem with that...?
So of course, I understand why you want to register everything. Because then, when you pass a law in the middle of the night with no debate, as happened in NY, you can confiscate things to your little heart's content. It seems pretty clear, it is what has happened almost every time, eventually.
You can see the tone in some of the postings on this thread "there are *too many* guns, surely it is *reasonable* to have *fewer*..." When in fact, the number of guns in this country has skyrocketed over the past few decades, and the violent crime rate has generally gone *down*.
There is no basis for trust here. The gun owners of this country have compromised time and time again, been "reasonable" over and over, and always there is someone asking for still more restrictions on us, in the name of "reason" that is simply emotion and ignorance.
No thanks.
Come and get them.
I only really see one problem. The deal is that so many crimes are committed with guns that are not legally acquired and/or registered. I completely understand that the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" saying gets tiresome at best, but that doesn't make it false.
The black market for weapons is a huge enterprise that is inextricably intertwined with the global drug trade. Its primarily made up of gangs with thousands of members in hundreds of locations who have ties to the drug cartels. The cartels have ties to governments, eastern European manufacturers of weapons, international arms dealers, etc. Everything all those guys do is already illegal. In the end, eliminating the demand for their illicit products is the only thing that will make them go away, but for now the UN estimates illegal drugs are a $400 BILLION per year business that already operates completely outside the law. Out of 192 +/- countries in the world only 28 of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) have a GDP of $400B or more. That is the real opposition. Until the demand changes there just aren't any laws we can pass that will stop these guys. They ignore laws and shoot the cops who try to enforce the laws. Not the kind of guys who are going to bother with registrations.
Other than those really bad guys we have a much smaller, but still critical, problem with everyday folks shooting each other. I think every single one of us here would love to see the day when no one was ever a victim of violence again. We probably can't get there, but we can work to limit it. I don't have a study to cite, but it seems like most of the violent perps on the evening news did something illegal on their way to committing acts of violence. What I'm saying is that it might make more sense to actually enforce the laws we already have on the books to see if that works rather than passing even more laws that probably won't be enforced any better than the current batch is.I agree Greg. I think that illegal guns will still be involved in most criminal activities and it's hard to stop that as well as the criminal gangs and organized crime that deal in illegal firearms. Of course my personal experience is that there are more illegal (stolen) guns going OUT of the country rather than coming IN. But lots are dealt on the street to be sure. However, I do feel that more nationwide legal requirement to buy and own all types of firearms - and especially requirement to have a high level of training for each gun owned (and re-training on occasion) before being allowed to own or buy a firearm - will go a long way to stopping those accidental shootings Cathy A brought up in the OP.
Registration leads to confiscation. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, yes.
No way, no how.
That is something I will not compromise on. Period. And if you (and you know who you are) think I'm a yahoo, f'ing idiot, whatever, I don't really give a flying fig.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon labe
DocHolliday
12-13-13, 9:08pm
the fact is, it is pretty dang easy to buy a handgun in this country. Without any background check or waiting 3 days or whatever. Private sales are completely unregulated, as are gun show sales. But they shouldn't be.
Where do you get your information from? All licensed dealers at gun shows must do a background check and have the buyer fill out form 4473 just like they would if they were at their place of business. As far as private sales, it depends on where you are at, some States you would have to go through an FFL holder, others you don't. So no, your claim that private sales are completely unregulated is as misinformed as your claim about gun show sales. It is also illegal to sell handguns across State lines without going through a FFL if you are a private seller.
DocHolliday
12-13-13, 9:17pm
And those who resist reasonable gun legislation certainly have an agenda.
so, you do not agree with the gun laws of NY. No surprise there, but I'd hardly call this 'confiscation' . These are the laws on those books, these guns don't comply, so the owners are given several options, one of which is get the gun within regulations and go on your merry, shootin' way.
Why then would you object to reasonable, consistent laws across the states? This is what I want. And should be what all honest, reasonable gun owners want. Why should NY and California have different laws from Wyo and Co whose laws are different from Florida and Ohio? It's confusing and unnecessary.
Any reasonable person would disagree with what's going on in NYC. The guns that are now illegal were legal when purchased and registered. They changed the magazine capacity law in 2010 to 5 rounds and are now going after the owners. There are rumors of court cases challenging what they're doing under ex post facto and bill of attainder Constitutional protections.
So you want consistent laws nationwide huh? Let me guess...you would want NY, CA, Mass, IL, style restrictions rather than laws in peaceful places like Vermont? Wyoming had 5 murders via firearm...NY 517...seems like Wyoming's laws are working fine just like they are.
Gun laws, on the books now, whether 10 or 1000, are ineffective. They do not work.
Well, at least in Cook County (Chicago), they appear to not work because the state's attorney does not enforce them. Gang bangers are regularly charged with firearms laws violations, yet those charges are pled away very commonly.
So bleating that gun laws on the books are ineffective in themselves is false. Enforcement of the current laws, as Bae has said before, would go a long way towards combating the problem of violent criminals. But you choose to conveniently ignore that fact and just charge that gun laws are ineffective.
And an addition to my "why aren't there laws about this" pondering:
If my high school kid takes my shotgun to school to kill his teacher, why aren't there repercussions? Every law-abiding gun owner knows that firearms should be kept safe from children. Give me one good reason why a kid's parents shouldn't be held responsible -- and their right to have said firearm rescinded or temporarily suspended until they go through further training -- ? Oh, right. Because they're gun owners, and we're in Amurrica, where the only people who have to exercise personal responsibility are the poor.
My kid shot somebody with my gun? Not my problem. I can't watch my kid 24/7 and shouldn't have to lock up my gun.
I'm in poverty and would like some help? All my problem. Must have been something I did, or didn't do. Personal responsibility!
And this:
Registration leads to confiscation. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, yes.
Is typical of the paranoia of some gun owners that keeps them from being a useful contributor to whatever conversation might lead to solutions. No restrictions, no registration, no limits, no background checks, no, no, no.
What a fun country we live in.
Where do you get your information from?
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
Where are you getting yours?
DocHolliday
12-13-13, 9:33pm
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
Where are you getting yours?
What is your point? The link you shared confirms what I said.
Registration leads to confiscation. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, yes.
No way, no how.
That is something I will not compromise on. Period. And if you (and you know who you are) think I'm a yahoo, f'ing idiot, whatever, I don't really give a flying fig.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon labe
Do you own a car? Has it been confiscated? No..really? I thought registration leads to confiscation. Do you vote? Have YOU been confiscated? What about your drivers license? Are they going door to door to confiscate drivers? Has your pet been confiscated? Are they lining up old people, registered for SS, to confiscate? When they count your toilets in a census, do they then come to confiscate your toilet?
((sigh)) No, registration DOES NOT lead to confiscation. This is a total BS straw man argument fed to the less than stellar (low information) mass. It's just registration. And maybe a way to keep some of the guns off the street. And what, exactly, about that do you object to? Those of us who don't think it should be a free for all no weapon restricted society see what this unregulated NRA wet dream of a civilization is doing to our country, and we want to try, at least, to do something about it.
Maybe you are comfortable with tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, but I will never for the life of me understand why any HONEST, NON-CRIMINAL person would have reservations about reasonable regulations for a weapon (tool, if you want) that has a single, sole, solitary purpose, to kill. That is the only purpose for a gun. That is what it is designed for, and it does that quite effectively. It kills. People, animals, whatever it is aimed at. It kills. That is what guns are for. TO KILL.
The real question is, why don't YOU want to reduce gun deaths? Why do YOU want unrestricted gun ownership for just about anyone who wants one? why are YOU against reducing gun violence and deaths?
The real question is, why don't YOU want to reduce gun deaths? Why do YOU want unrestricted gun ownership for just about anyone who wants one? why are YOU against reducing gun violence and deaths?
Owning a gun doesn't logically lead to violence and death. In some cases, owning a gun may prevent it.
Here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo
((sigh)) No, registration DOES NOT lead to confiscation. This is a total BS straw man argument fed to the less than stellar (low information) mass. It's just registration. And maybe a way to keep some of the guns off the street. And what, exactly, about that do you object to? Those of us who don't think it should be a free for all no weapon restricted society see what this unregulated NRA wet dream of a civilization is doing to our country, and we want to try, at least, to do something about it.
Maybe you are comfortable with tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, but I will never for the life of me understand why any HONEST, NON-CRIMINAL person would have reservations about reasonable regulations for a weapon (tool, if you want) that has a single, sole, solitary purpose, to kill. That is the only purpose for a gun. That is what it is designed for, and it does that quite effectively. It kills. People, animals, whatever it is aimed at. It kills. That is what guns are for. TO KILL.
The real question is, why don't YOU want to reduce gun deaths? Why do YOU want unrestricted gun ownership for just about anyone who wants one? why are YOU against reducing gun violence and deaths?
Holy crap, Peggy, and you call gun owners unreasonable? Paint with a broad brush much?
Being against registration does not mean a responsible gun owner is against restrictions for those with criminal records, a history of violence, demonstrated mental health issues, etc.
Yes, that's right, a gun is to kill. And that's why I practice a great deal, to be able to be effectively protect myself. But then in your mind, someone who has a gun and actually <gasp! oh, the horror! oh, the humanity!> practices with it must have some diseased mind. Well, you know what, bully for you! Must be doing something right if I've peeved off a liberal.
And you say registration doesn't lead to confiscation? Look up the High River gun grab this past summer in High River, Alberta, where the RCMP forcibly broke into homes of people kept away after a flood and took their guns and ammo. They knew what homes to target due to the now defunct Canadian long gun registry. The records were supposed to be destroyed, but the RCMP still seem to have had electronic access to the information.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/12/09/high-river-gun-grab-broken-trust-sun-news-documentary-examines-the-controversial-actions-of-mounties-following-albertas-floods1
As I said, not much point to this discussion.
Guess so. However, out to the range tomorrow!
I revisit the issue every time we have another senseless shooting and am at the point of thinking the entire gun issue debate is futile.
On one side, the country is awash with guns and those wishing to own one, especially criminals, will find a way. The differences between magazine size and assault type weapons are probably insignificant.
On the other side, any gun legislation is not going to prevent honest people from owning weapons to protect their property and selves. Registrations are only a small inconvenience. Though more firepower might be needed for zombie attacks and police state take over, I find both equally as likely.
I would much rather seen an examination of media violence where TV gun killings are so common they become trivialized and in video games they are fun and romantic. I wish politicians would quit wasting my tax dollars on the debates and legislation over gun control and move on to things that are more important.
catherine
12-14-13, 12:01pm
I think that one of the things I liked about the movie Bowling for Columbine was that Michael Moore (OK, conservatives on this board, don't shut me down yet!) took a bunch of different hypotheses about why we have more crazy shootings--from more guns, to more access, to more violence, to foreign/military policy in the US, to mass paranoia. He always provides counterarguments and debunks the assumptions, and at the end, you don't really have an answer. I think that's an honest assessment. I don't know that there is any real answer--as least that we can be sure of yet. It makes dealing with the issue a lot more difficult.
iris lilies
12-14-13, 12:04pm
I think that one of the things I liked about the movie Bowling for Columbine was that Michael Moore (OK, conservatives on this board, don't shut me down yet!) took a bunch of different hypotheses about why we have more crazy shootings--from more guns, to more access, to more violence, to foreign/military policy in the US, to mass paranoia. He always provides counterarguments and debunks the assumptions, and at the end, you don't really have an answer. I think that's an honest assessment. I don't know that there is any real answer--as least that we can be sure of yet. It makes dealing with the issue a lot more difficult.
While Bowling for Columbine may not have demonstrated a Single Entity to blame for US gun death, Moore pinned the tail on the Media. I thought it was brilliant, it gets him people of all political stripes into the theatre. ca-ching ca-ching.
Rogar........I agree with you about the issues with media violence. But, in this freedom-for-everyone and "rights", etc. etc., we will never be able to deal with (or lesson/remove) all those violent shows/games/movies. Its that nasty word "censorship". I'm a broken record..........too many freedoms/rights can end up destroying the society.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-13, 12:48pm
On one side, the country is awash with guns and those wishing to own one, especially criminals, will find a way. The differences between magazine size and assault type weapons are probably insignificant.
Yes, maybe that difference matters, I don't know enough about guns to know*. Outright prohibition can have worse collateral damage than not, so that is on the one hand.
*I'm quite honestly as interested in owning a gun as I am in owning a blonde wig, which is to say not at all, I could see the shooting range being fun, however I would want the guns to STAY there, not come home with me.
On the other side, any gun legislation is not going to prevent honest people from owning weapons to protect their property and selves. Registrations are only a small inconvenience. Though more firepower might be needed for zombie attacks and police state take over, I find both equally as likely.
yea and they require training just to operate a motor vehicle so it's hard to see gun training as that much different (oh please don't give me "driving is a privilege not a right" when cities are designed (by their very physical infrastructure) for one type of transportation almost exclusively. privilege my ...).
I wish politicians would quit wasting my tax dollars on the debates and legislation over gun control and move on to things that are more important.
I suspect it's deliberate, two parties of plutocrats (of, by and for the plutes), poverty increasing. Oh I know: let's have a culture war.
iris lilies
12-14-13, 1:42pm
Where do you get your information from? All licensed dealers at gun shows must do a background check and have the buyer fill out form 4473 just like they would if they were at their place of business. ...
Is that true in Missouri? DH bought a rifle or shotgun (I can't remember) a few months ago at a gun show outside of St. Louis, a semi-antique one exactly like the one his dad had when he was a kid. He said he didn't fill out paperwork for a background check, but perhaps there is something lost in our communication.
Look, I am pro-gun rights but just am not sure that what you said is correct. That's all!:)
Rogar........I agree with you about the issues with media violence. But, in this freedom-for-everyone and "rights", etc. etc., we will never be able to deal with (or lesson/remove) all those violent shows/games/movies. Its that nasty word "censorship". I'm a broken record..........too many freedoms/rights can end up destroying the society.
I don't know if media violence is the only other issue, but I can picture all the money people like Bloomberg and the other anti-gun groups and pro-gun groups have poured down the drain having an influence on the media without censorship if it had gone that direction. Censorship isn't the only way.
Its definitely a complex disease.
Holy crap, Peggy, and you call gun owners unreasonable? Paint with a broad brush much?
Being against registration does not mean a responsible gun owner is against restrictions for those with criminal records, a history of violence, demonstrated mental health issues, etc.
Yes, that's right, a gun is to kill. And that's why I practice a great deal, to be able to be effectively protect myself. But then in your mind, someone who has a gun and actually <gasp! oh, the horror! oh, the humanity!> practices with it must have some diseased mind. Well, you know what, bully for you! Must be doing something right if I've peeved off a liberal.
And you say registration doesn't lead to confiscation? Look up the High River gun grab this past summer in High River, Alberta, where the RCMP forcibly broke into homes of people kept away after a flood and took their guns and ammo. They knew what homes to target due to the now defunct Canadian long gun registry. The records were supposed to be destroyed, but the RCMP still seem to have had electronic access to the information.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/12/09/high-river-gun-grab-broken-trust-sun-news-documentary-examines-the-controversial-actions-of-mounties-following-albertas-floods1
And how exactly are you going to keep guns out of those who are mentally unbalanced, criminal history, etc..without a registration? Maybe you just trust these folks will 'refrain' from buying guns, or turn themselves in? If folks did this, or were this honest, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, would we.
And speaking of discussion, it's kind of difficult to hold a discussion when one side only resorts to NRA sound bites and bumper stickers for their talking points. You haven't addressed my very reasonable steps to maybe curb some of the gun violence that plagues our nation. Or maybe you are comfortable with the level of gun violence. if that's the case, this discussion isn't for you. If all you got is "they want to take all our guns away" yada yada yada, then you should probably move along. Nothing to see here.
As far as the Alberta thing, knowing the history of this kind of disaster, I'm not surprised they got the guns under protection. They were probably also looking for drugs, or valuables like jewelry, or anything else that might fall into the hands of looters, which anyone who has been even half paying attention knows move in when this sort of disaster occurs. Bravo, I'm sure, was the response of the homeowners who got their valuables back at the end of this.
Let's engage our thinking skills for just a minute here.. if they were truly trying to confiscate everyone's guns, wouldn't they simply do that across the board, across the country? I mean, Canada isn't the third world. If these people's guns were 'confiscated' as you seem to think they were, wouldn't these folks simply buy more guns? Or demand their guns back? And why do you think Canada is some 'out there third world nation?' They have laws and protections JUST LIKE WE DO. They are citizens of their country JUST LIKE US. Dont' you think there would be more to this than just some reporting on a 'paranoid of government right wing' web site?
Canada does have stricter gun laws...and Canada has far fewer gun deaths. Direct correlation. Direct.
If you aren't interested in a discussion about reducing gun violence in OUR country, then maybe this thread isn't for you. Bae is right. If all you got is right wing rhetoric and NRA sound bites, then this discussion is pointless. I'm sorry, I do kind of like hearing your views on other subjects, but bringing Fox News sound bites here is about as helpful as 'Death Panels" are for the ACA. This discussion board is populated, I think, with fairly intelligent folks who have really thought provoking ideas, from both sides of the aisle.:)
Back to the real discussion...Iris, you are in the trenches, so to speak, in the neighborhood you live in. What are your thoughts as to what we can do to curb the violence? Seriously Iris, what is your gut reaction..then what is your thoughtful reaction? What does your husband think?
I know the city/ neighborhood you live in and I love that neighborhood. We need to preserve all that's wonderful about it.
iris lilies
12-14-13, 5:01pm
...Back to the real discussion...Iris, you are in the trenches, so to speak, in the neighborhood you live in. What are your thoughts as to what we can do to curb the violence? Seriously Iris, what is your gut reaction..then what is your thoughtful reaction? What does your husband think?
I know the city/ neighborhood you live in and I love that neighborhood. We need to preserve all that's wonderful about it.
Since you asked: The official line of the Police Department here is that getting guns out of the hands of citizens, off the streets, is generally a good thing.
The real advice from cops we know, those who patrol and live here say: get a gun. Learn to use it. The number of times I've called the cops and had them never arrive pretty much illustrates their ability to protect me.
But I don't feel the need for a lot of protection since here in Murder City, in my murderous zip code, old white women such as myself are not the primary victims of gun violence. When I feel the need to have a gun for my self protection I will probably move.
Do you really want to say that since we can't stop ALL guns we shouldn't even try?
Not even close to what I said, is it peggy? What I said was we should try to use the tools already at our disposal before we dump them to buy new ones.
And despite the black market, etc...criminals aren't all 'TV' sophisticated.
$400 Billion dollars a year, peggy. Collectively those 'unsophisticated' criminals have more revenue to buy resources than BP, Toyota, Saudi Aramco, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway... And take a wild guess at what kind of resources they need to operate. To think that business survives at that level on the back of donkeys wading the river at night is to remain ignorant of all the data available on the subject. The thug on the street is a symptom, not the disease. Just like in any other case, you can treat the symptoms, but if the disease is left unchecked they symptoms will just come right back.
And all your stuff about drugs...uh, ok, nice redirect, but totally out of context of this discussion. And, yeah, I do know that criminals, by the very nature of their description, work outside of the law. This really isn't news! >8) But, back to the guns...
Out of context peggy? It IS the context. ~32,000 gun deaths per year in the US. ~19,000 of those are suicides (60%). Another 3% are accidental (~1,100). The remainder, about 12,000, are homicides. The CDC estimated (US Vital Statistics Report, "Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011) that fully 80% of those were gang related. Remind me again how most gangs get their money? Forget the goodfellas, prostitution and gambling are too labor intensive and liquor is legal now. To hide your head in the sand and not consider the correlation between gun crimes and drugs is just silly.
Gun laws, on the books now, whether 10 or 1000, are ineffective. They do not work.
Lots of laws don't work because they either aren't enforced or aren't enforceable. If you make suicide illegal you can eliminate 60% of the US gun deaths a year right off the bat. SIXTY PERCENT! Talk about low hanging fruit. Oh, wait...
Why do you object to standardized laws?
I do not and have never objected to standardized laws. I have always been in favor of better laws. I am not in favor of more laws just for the sake of having more laws.
It's really kind of a win win...unless you are a criminal, or want to buy weapons under the table for ??
criminal [ˈkrɪmɪnəl]
n
1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
2. a person who commits crimes for a living
Let's just think about this for one second. If someone commits crimes for a living, as in breaks laws, why would they suddenly start to pay attention just because a new gun law was passed? My guess is they wouldn't.
Is that true in Missouri? DH bought a rifle or shotgun (I can't remember) a few months ago at a gun show outside of St. Louis, a semi-antique one exactly like the one his dad had when he was a kid. He said he didn't fill out paperwork for a background check, but perhaps there is something lost in our communication.
Look, I am pro-gun rights but just am not sure that what you said is correct. That's all!:)
Any licensed dealer would have to do the paperwork. Its part of the federal firearms license requirements, even in Missouri. If my brother is a licensed dealer and he sells me an old .22 at a family reunion 500 miles from his store he would still be required to collect the paperwork. There are a couple possible exceptions. One is that he could have bought it from an individual or group that was part of the show, but not a licensed dealer. The other possibility is that it could have been made before 1898 (I think that's the cutoff year, close anyway). Guns older than that do not fall under the same laws that apply to modern guns. I'm not really clear why, but they don't.
San Onofre Guy
12-14-13, 9:22pm
I have not been on the boards for a long time. Gun owners are responsible until they are not and then the results are tragic.
i grew up in Maine, two classmates killed in gun "accidents" growing up. Another former childhood friend became a cop and shot himself goofing off with his gun in the middle of the night while on duty, he was bored. Another friend playing with his guy as an adult, brother dead.
i live in California and as a professional I deal with Officer involved shootings. Why do they occur? Becuase criminals have guns which they got by stealing, why didn't the owners of those guns act responsibly?
i know the man and family that made Bushmaster what it is today, they sold out years ago.
believe me we have too many guns in society.
very few people need handguns!
...
,,, When I feel the need to have a gun for my self protection I will probably move.
My sentiments exactly.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-13, 9:39pm
My sentiments exactly.
3rded. If it came to that I'd move rather than get a gun. Though of course some places are more expensive and some cheaper I can live pretty much anywhere if I lower expectations for having huge space or anthing. So why would I live in such a dangerous area, where the quality of life is that low. Pointless.
Let's just think about this for one second. If someone commits crimes for a living, as in breaks laws, why would they suddenly start to pay attention just because a new gun law was passed? My guess is they wouldn't.
What?? You mean criminals don't abide by the law? I'm shocked :-)!!
As a gun owner myself, I am all for very stringent gun control laws. I have no problem with licensing, registration, waiting periods (which is 10 days here in Calif I believe), age restrictions, and having required safety and skills training for every firearm a person buys/owns (i.e. my revolver handles differently than my pistol which is different than my rifle which is different than my shotgun, etc...) and even a few restrictions of type of firearms - although I find this, along with limiting magazine size, to be an almost useless factor when if comes to most types of shooting be they accidental, suicides, homicides and even mass shootings.
However, I personally don't believe that any of the gun control laws will make a difference is the number and type of shootings. Criminals will continue on as always (and may be even LESS likely to commit personal crimes like home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc.. if they believe the homeowners are armed). Suicides will be the same since most suicide by gun (which is fewer than suicide by poisoning or hanging) is done by mostly lawful gun owners. Non-criminal homicides (like road rage, family fights, etc..) probably won't go down as, again, most of those are commited with lawful firearms. Even accidental shootings (like the ones the OP mentioned at the start of this tread) probably won't change unless the people who have firearms (and that includes very highly trained police and military) use them in the right way and keep them safely away from kids.
Just to add my own personal perspective, and I'd be interested in hearing thought of others, since I know we have gun owners (male and female) as well as non-gun owners (male and female) on this board.
I have never, ever considered getting a gun. One reason is, I am not into hunting. But mainly because I simply would feel less safe if I had a gun in my home as opposed to feeling safer.
DH feels the same way, even though he was trained to shoot in the Marines and is a good sharpshooter. We would feel more uneasy about having a firearm in our house--purely on an emotional basis.
If I were alone, and wanted to feel safer in my home, I'd be much more inclined to get ADT or something like that than to get a gun. To me, if I have a gun, it can be used against me, either accidentally or intentionally. Just the thought of that scares me.
However, plenty of people feel the opposite--they feel safer in their homes with a gun. No right or wrong about it--it's just how people feel. I think this whole gun thing is like food--you can debate rationally about it, but it's really about the feelings attached to it.I'm one of those people who feel safer having a loaded gun withing easy reach in my home (Like the girl in Alan's video). I'm a single female who lives alone for the most part (sis lives here on weekends and she carries a gun - and previously a handgun and rifle - for her profession, as I use to, so between us we have quite a little armory and both have concealed carry permits :-)!) and it does give me a greater sense of security. I do have a dog - the "deadly" 20 pound Barkinator - but she can't do much but alert me if someone is trying to break in (and being mostly deaf I occasionally appreciate her barking). As for feeling uneasy about having guns, I don't. Having carried a gun professionally or personally for over 30 years I am very comfortable and experienced with them so feel none of the unease you mentioned you do. I never worry about someone being able to disarm me. I figure that is less likely just because I can protect myself at a distance. I think it would be more likely that I could be hurt or killed by an unarmed person if I were unarmed myself. Even a smaller person could physically over power and assault, beat, subdue, or kill me pretty easily if they can get close. I also carry a small handgun with me when I travel, camp, hike, etc... alone - which I do often - and I do feel much more protected. Hope that answers your question. Oh and I do love to target shoot too. Especially tactical target shooting and the shoot/don't shoot videos. But all that is a bit pricey for this frugalista so I don't do it as much as I use to any more.
catherine
12-17-13, 5:12pm
Spartana, if I were you, I'd feel more comfortable with a gun, too! But I'm me--a total wimp who jumps when a door slams! You, like my DH, have served in the military, and know what to do with a gun--also, people like Tradd and bae who go and practice and are reasonable and level-headed.. I get it.
But for me, I'd wind up getting shot with my own firearm, that's a certainty. And I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in learning how to shoot a gun. The whole idea is completely foreign to me, but I totally respect your own situation and your right to protect yourself as you see fit.
iris lilies
12-17-13, 9:43pm
Spartana, if I were you, I'd feel more comfortable with a gun, too! But I'm me--a total wimp who jumps when a door slams! You, like my DH, have served in the military, and know what to do with a gun--also, people like Tradd and bae who go and practice and are reasonable and level-headed.. I get it.
But for me, I'd wind up getting shot with my own firearm, that's a certainty. And I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in learning how to shoot a gun. The whole idea is completely foreign to me, but I totally respect your own situation and your right to protect yourself as you see fit.
Thank you. This is what we need, more understanding in society of "my situation/myemotions/myfeelings" are not what everyone should abide by. Citizens should be able to exercise choices. I am not you. You are not me. Vive le differencw!
I am like you I will not be bothered with the burden of a handgun. I can't een be bothered to keep my cell phone charged and to carry it let alone a weapon.
Spartana
12-18-13, 12:27am
Spartana, if I were you, I'd feel more comfortable with a gun, too! But I'm me--a total wimp who jumps when a door slams! You, like my DH, have served in the military, and know what to do with a gun--also, people like Tradd and bae who go and practice and are reasonable and level-headed.. I get it.
But for me, I'd wind up getting shot with my own firearm, that's a certainty. And I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in learning how to shoot a gun. The whole idea is completely foreign to me, but I totally respect your own situation and your right to protect yourself as you see fit.Well it's like with anything else, once someone becomes familiar with it and experienced using it, and uses it all the time, then there really isn't any fear. I'm sure if a person never learned to drive or had ever even been in a car they would REALLY frighten someone. Giant roaring hunks of metal careening at breakneck speeds all jammed together mere inches from each other with nothing but a thin strap to protect us during a collision. Geeze - I'm terrified just thinking about it :-)!
Spartana
12-18-13, 12:43am
((sigh)) No, registration DOES NOT lead to confiscation.
While I personally believe in having firearms registered, I think Tradd might have a valid point. If, say, they change the gun laws in your state and make owning certain firearms illegal then any registered firearm that doesn't meet the new laws might be confiscated. Same if you move from a state with less stringent firearms laws to one with more and tried to register your guns in the new state. If it didn't meet that states gun laws, you probably can't register it and it would probably be confiscated. Actually I don't know if they would really confiscate it or not - not sure what states do in that situation - but I know they won't allow you to register it and thus it would be illegal to own. Not a justifiable reason to eliminate registration IMHO, and something a national gun law would cover if we ever have that, as I believe people should follow whatever gun laws are applicable per their state.
The same thing happens with cars here in Calif. If you try to register an out of state car in Calif it must meet our more stringent emissions laws or it can't be registered. Thus making it impossible to get tags and illegal to drive or even park on city streets. And it can be towed and impounded. So while I doubt that they will actually confiscate your car - more likely ticket it - they technically have the power to do so. But no one has tried to confiscate my toilet...yet :-)!
puglogic
12-19-13, 12:08pm
So true, Spartana.
If they change emissions laws.
If they change laws about owning wildlife.
If they discover a certain appliance or device is dangerous.
If they find that certain things are polluting in a way that might harm people.
If they want people to stop using lightbulbs that are hugely inefficient and use better ones instead.
The difference between the poles is that, if a law is changed to better protect the people in my community, and I have to give something up, I'm not in love with anything enough to say "come pry it out of my cold dead fingers you cossacks." My buddy is a multiple gun owner who has at least two with high-capacity magazines, for example. He just shrugs and says, "well, I wouldn't WANT to give 'em up, but it's not the end of the g*ddamned world."
As is the case with most issues, extremists' actions color the perceptions of the entire population of law-abiding citizens who may own firearms. For those who desperately cling to the idea that their guns are going to save them, somehow, from all the perils we face as a species, I can only have pity. That this clinging manifests itself as a country whose gun law gaps end up with a lot of people dead, well, that's nauseating.
Yossarian
12-20-13, 8:28am
For those who desperately cling to the idea that their guns are going to save them, somehow, from all the perils we face as a species, I can only have pity.
I've never met any of those people. I have however encountered many people who want to take responsibility for their own safety. A lot of them pity those who desparately cling to the idea that they will be saved by an ineffectual government apparatus that lacks the capacity to, and in fact denies any responsibility to, actually protect people. So it seems there is plenty of pity to go around.
I've never met any of those people. I have however encountered many people who want to take responsibility for their own safety. I have also never met any of those people and view a firearm of any kind as just a tool for self-protection - nothing more. I don't "love" them any more than I love the seat belt in my car or the life vest I wear when I kayak. I do try to keep with in the law of each state as far as owning or carrying a firearm but I'm sure I am not always in compliance (not knowing all the states various laws). As for myself, if certain restrictions were placed on firearms in my state (Calif) I would do my best to comply. For instance if the county recinded my conceal-carry permit I would comply with that...for the most part. Meaning I wouldn't carry a loaded gun in a public place or even in my car (and generally never do either of those anyway even though legally I can) but if I was going hiking or camping or travelling in remote areas, I would carry a concealed loaded firearm for self-protection even if it was illegal. If I didn't have a concealed permit then I would I would generally comply with any laws on the books and only carry the handgun outside the home (locked in a case and unloaded of course as is they only legal way to transport/carry a firearm in Calif if you don't have a conceal carry license) if I was going to the range or transporting it somewhere. Even if they banned all firearms, I would comply but may decide to illegally keep a handgun or shotgun in my home for personal protection if I felt the need. However, again, I would probably carry it loaded and concealed if I was off in remote areas alone.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or more.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.