Here's where the gun debate should go!

[ApatheticNoMore]

There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American-born member of al-Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says:

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

Ok if that's true, the fact that there haven't been much in the way of such terrorist attacks might show that, I don't know, the threat of terrorism has been *WAY* overblown.

[Gregg]

I think Mrs. M was referring to the fact that a 20 year old often hasn't the life experience or maturity to hold their emotions in check. A 20 year old is still a kid, in many ways, and I'm guessing she is thinking of the many stressful situations, school, girlfriends, new jobs, etc...where someone with very little 'life experience' might find themselves with very spun up emotions and not have the skill to deal with it.

Mrs. M was quite clear in what she said, but that doesn't take away from what you're saying here. And I don't disagree with you. What I said was gun specific, since that is our topic here. At 20 or 14 or 51, there has never been any time in that span where putting a gun in my hand would have been a dangerous thing to do. When I said it was unthinkable that anyone in my high school would have ever used a gun against another person I meant it. Our parents, usually our fathers, made sure that is how we operated or we would have never touched a gun or a car or a drink...

The examples you gave perfectly illustrate that the world has changed. I completely and totally agree with you and creaker and anyone else that says we are all screwed up regarding what behavior is acceptable. It was devastating when my girlfriend gave me the boot, but I NEVER thought about hurting someone else as a way to express my emotions. Being hurt and confused and overwhelmed and emotional are very much a part of growing up. Being violent is not. We were all taught that violence was only an option if you were threatened. Now it seems to be the first reaction to everything. I don't know where the disconnect between then and now is exactly, but there is one (or maybe several). Maybe we should be working a little harder to figure that out.

[Rogar]

But of course none of that is true. Why do suppose a terrorist would lie?

It is absolutely true. It is featured in the Bill Moyers video. You can watch it.

Why would you fabricate a story that it is a lie?

In many states there are no background checks required at gun shows and semi-auto assault weapons have been legal since 2004.

[JaneV2.0]

I think a linked issue is the "rage" culture we have, the acceptableness of just "losing" it - I wonder what those numbers look like in Switzerland?

My (perhaps unsupported) impression is that Europeans in general are better-educated and more thoughtful than we are. International satisfaction indices say they're happier too, which I attribute to socially democratic governments and a strong safety net. There's more community and fewer Marlboro men, and--as far as I know--no powerful media empire set up to convince white males they're horribly oppressed by feminists and people of color and that the whole game is cruelly rigged against them. I believe the Swiss take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously--they get extensive training along with their weapons--and consider national service a solemn trust. All these factors make a difference: we have a huge cohort of ill-educated, disaffected, resentful cranks milling around, and they don't.

[iris lily]

The suicide rate in Switzerland is high. Don't know how that squares with a perception that The Swiss are happier.

[Gregg]

Rogar, I was commenting on what the terrorist, Adam Gadahn, said. Specifically, what I said was untrue was this comment by Gadahn that you posted...

You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card.

You can NOT go to a gun show and just buy a FULLY automatic assault rifle, no matter what the terrorist says. It doesn't happen. That class of weapon is not bought and sold that way and it is a different animal from a SEMI-automatic rifle that yes, you can buy at gun shows and shops. The ATF would throw away the key for anyone who went around selling fully automatic weapons without having all their ducks in a row. Perhaps the terrorist, or for that matter Mr. Moyers, doesn't know the difference between the two types of guns.

The only way to legally sell a fully automatic weapon is by first acquiring a Class III Federal Firearms License. I don't believe you need a special permit or license to buy one. As I understand it you go through a rigorous background check, have a law enforcement officer sign your paperwork and then pay a $200 transfer tax. Bae or Alan, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. What you CAN'T do is just walk up to a counter in a gun shop or at a gun show and buy one.

Most dealers at gun shows are licensed federal firearms dealers. They are subject to the same rules and regulations at a show that they are in their shops. You WILL have to fill out a Federal Firearms Transaction Record, known as a Form 4473, to purchase a gun from them. You WILL have to show a picture ID. I don't know about everywhere, but here only a state issued id or military id will work. A US passport might work, I'm not sure about that. If there is a waiting period or background check or any other requirement to purchase a firearm in your jurisdiction it will apply to you there as well. Around here anyway the only guns you can buy or sell at shows without filling out federal paperwork are antiques, guns made before 1898.

[Rogar]

Agreed, Greg. I did not catch that distinction when I first read it. My apologies.

However, it would be accurate if semi-automatic terminology was used. Which has it's own level of concern. Here is the wiki version gun sales at gun shows.


U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadahdeclared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadah urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check.^[10][11]

[JaneV2.0]

The suicide rate in Switzerland is high. Don't know how that squares with a perception that The Swiss are happier.

I was thinking of Europe as a whole. Apparently, it's the Scandinavians (talk about safety nets) who are happiest there.


http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/hap...0423happy.html

From the article referenced above:
The Swiss, Weiner discovered, are efficient and punctual, comparatively wealthy and face hardly any unemployment. Their streets, air and tap water are squeaky clean and chocolate is a national obsession. But Weiner saw no joy in their faces, and reasoned that perhaps it's better to live in this middle range than to vacillate between gleeful moments of elation and gut-wrenching spates of despair. Swiss happiness, he writes, is "more than mere contentment, but less than full-on joy."

[peggy]

Mrs. M was quite clear in what she said, but that doesn't take away from what you're saying here. And I don't disagree with you. What I said was gun specific, since that is our topic here. At 20 or 14 or 51, there has never been any time in that span where putting a gun in my hand would have been a dangerous thing to do. When I said it was unthinkable that anyone in my high school would have ever used a gun against another person I meant it. Our parents, usually our fathers, made sure that is how we operated or we would have never touched a gun or a car or a drink...

The examples you gave perfectly illustrate that the world has changed. I completely and totally agree with you and creaker and anyone else that says we are all screwed up regarding what behavior is acceptable. It was devastating when my girlfriend gave me the boot, but I NEVER thought about hurting someone else as a way to express my emotions. Being hurt and confused and overwhelmed and emotional are very much a part of growing up. Being violent is not. We were all taught that violence was only an option if you were threatened. Now it seems to be the first reaction to everything. I don't know where the disconnect between then and now is exactly, but there is one (or maybe several). Maybe we should be working a little harder to figure that out.

Well yes, that is what I was saying. Guns aren't different, we are, and society is. But, since 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' wouldn't it be reasonable that we would reexamine our laws and modify them to fit our modern society and not your utopia of 30 years ago? And I'm not knocking where or how you grew up. I grew up in Houston Texas and it was even there pretty much as your life was. It was just a different time, and a different society. In so many ways we are better than that yesterday time, but in many ways we are not, and the culture of killing, real and imagined/virtual, is certainly one.

I still think if the sale of guns was more regulated, as in every sale, professional or private, that would be a really good start towards getting a handle on this problem. I'm not talking specifically about the Colorado shooting, but generally guns in the hands of common criminals, who do far more damage every year.
If every sale was officially registered, with background checks, names dates addresses etc...and a particular gun was used in a crime, that gun would be traced back to the last person who owned it. If that person can't produce a police report saying it was stolen/lost, then they should be held responsible. That would keep ne'er do wells with otherwise spotless records from buying and reselling guns to criminals. Such a law would not only help to keep guns out of the wrong hands, it would actually protect the average private seller who just wants to sell a gun. An example being, a guy buys a gun from a dealer, who does the background check, registration, etc..all by the book. The guy then, later on, sells to someone else, a neighbor or friend of neighbor, who then sells it to someone else. Gun is part of crime, and traced back to the first guy who bought it legally and with good intent. He says I sold it to so and so, but, no record, no check, no proof, nothing.
For heavens sakes, we can't sell a car without legally transferring title! Why not do the same with guns.

[iris lily]

I was thinking of Europe as a whole. Apparently, it's the Scandinavians (talk about safety nets) who are happiest there.


http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/hap...0423happy.html

From the article referenced above:
The Swiss, Weiner discovered, are efficient and punctual, comparatively wealthy and face hardly any unemployment. Their streets, air and tap water are squeaky clean and chocolate is a national obsession. But Weiner saw no joy in their faces, and reasoned that perhaps it's better to live in this middle range than to vacillate between gleeful moments of elation and gut-wrenching spates of despair. Swiss happiness, he writes, is "more than mere contentment, but less than full-on joy."

And the Danes and the Swedes are a bit further down in the suicide rate from the Swiss, still higher than in the U.S.

But that said, I'd love to live in Switzerland (if the language didn't limit me too much) but you all can have the Scandinavioan countries, they are just not my bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_suicide_rate