PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control



Pages : [1] 2

troung
06 Nov 15,, 00:20
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/tom-gresham-the-great-gun-control-con/

Subscribe
Weekly Ads
Mission creeps

Home
Opinion
Commentary

The Great Gun Control Con

Gun-ban advocates don’t want you to know that gun violence is falling
By Tom Gresham - - Wednesday, November 4, 2015

The pendulum of politics swings widely. We see that today as candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for president clamor for more restrictions on lawful gun owners. What a change from 20 years ago, following the passage of the Clinton gun ban (also known as a ban on so-called “assault weapons”), which resulted in President Bill Clinton’s party losing control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. The president himself, in his 1995 State of the Union Address, said as much: “I don’t think it’s a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren’t here tonight because they voted for it.” That gun ban expired 10 years later, and a congressionally required review showed that the law had little or no effect on crime.

Following Al Gore’s loss in 2000, the widespread advice for Democratic candidates was to avoid gun control completely when campaigning. It was a loser, they were told. What changed to prompt Hillary Rodham Clinton to make a new TV commercial, aired last week in Iowa and New Hampshire, where she talks only about gun control?

Ads by Adblade

Simply put, the Great Gun Control Con is running full tilt, aided by a compliant, if not complicit, media shilling a string of lies designed to reshape public knowledge on crime and guns. Is “con” too strong? Only if one “knows” that crime is up, or that “gun crime” has reached the status of an epidemic, that gun shows are somehow immune to gun laws through a loophole, or that “assault weapons” are the preferred tool of murderers. None of those, in fact, is true, but those building blocks of deceit mark the return to a standard premise of the Democrats — that reducing the number of guns results in fewer murders and less crime.

Josh Sugarmann, founder and head of the Violence Policy a gun-ban advocacy group, recognized that the public didn’t know the difference between real military rifles that fire in full-automatic mode (machine guns) and the look-alike versions made for the civilian market that fire only one round per pull of the trigger, the same as all semi-automatic firearms made for the last century. He called these rifles “assault weapons” — a term with no definition, making it infinitely expandable — and set up the plan to use the looks, and not the functionality, to ban them.

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Media lapped up the pejorative term, with CNN showing misleading video of full-automatic machine guns when discussing the 1994 ban on semi-autos. Even today if you ask someone what an “assault weapon” is, chances are she will say it is a machine gun. The latest information gleaned from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports clarifies that more people are killed with fists and feet than with all rifles, and cosmetically challenged semi-automatic rifles represent a small subset of all rifles. Simply put, this class of firearms is a minor factor in U.S. murder rate, but President Obama and Mrs. Clinton continue to call for banning the sale of this popular rifle used for hunting, competition and for personal protection.

Mrs. Clinton’s latest TV commercial starts with her saying, “This epidemic of gun violence knows no boundaries.” A clever phrase, and a key part of the Great Gun Control Con, “epidemic of gun violence” proclaims a rapid increase in “gun violence” (as though someone robbed, raped or murdered is any less violated if some other tool is used). Never does one see a reporter jump up to challenge this basic premise. In fact, the rate of crimes with guns has declined. Not by 5 or 10 percent, but by nearly half in only 20 years. That should be cause for banner headlines. Millions more guns, millions more gun owners, but crimes committed with guns, and murders overall, are down by nearly half in only 20 years. The “epidemic of gun violence” is a myth created by those who would con the public into believing that “something must be done.” Pew Research documents that even though crime with guns has been cut in half, a majority of the public thinks that crime with guns is increasing. The con is working.

CNN’s Sanjay Gupta jumped onto the “epidemic of gun violence” to call for a renewal of “research” to treat firearms as a virus. Congress withdrew from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the amount of funding it was using to promote gun control through these directed research grants, finding it inappropriate at best for this health organization to use taxpayer dollars to stack the deck with junk science. At the time, the CDC director said the goal was to treat guns like cigarettes, and to ban them. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Johns Hopkins University, much of it directed at producing evidence favoring gun control. Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership said, “The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is one of the old established university gun control advocacy factories.” The media quotes these ginned-up studies as fact, never questioning the source or the strings for the funding.

The famous “gun show loophole” is simply a chimera — a widely-accepted con. All laws outside a gun show apply inside a gun show. Multiple studies confirm that criminals rarely get their firearms from gun shows.

Mrs. Clinton also calls for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, which she claims prevents gun companies from being sued. In truth, the act was passed as more than 30 cities were suing gun makers in an openly announced attempt to drive them all out of business through the sheer weight of defending dozens of suits funded by taxpayers. The suits did not claim the manufacturers had made defective products or engaged in illegal activity. They sought to saddle a highly regulated industry with liability for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. The subsequent law clearly states that gun makers and sellers can be held liable for making a defective or unsafe product, or for criminal acts, but it does protect them from politically motivated lawsuits designed to crush an entire industry. Mrs. Clinton seeks to resurrect this tort lawyer paradise and drive hundreds of American companies into bankruptcy.

To convince the public that America needs even more than the thousands of gun control laws now on the books, baseless claims and outright lies must be repeated to the point where “everyone knows” that gun crimes are up, there is an epidemic of gun violence, that gun makers are exempt from legal liability, and that “assault weapons” are machine guns. Tell a lie enough times, using the echo chamber of an activist media, and you can convince the public that restricting the law-abiding gun owner is only “common sense.”

• Tom Gresham hosts the nationally-syndicated radio talk show “Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk” (guntalkmedia.com).

bonehead
06 Nov 15,, 03:49
I am hoping whomever the democratic front runner is will push this issue and then gets clobbered in the general election to such an extent that any other congressmen would soil themselves at the very thought of trying to pursue the insanity of even more gun control.

tbm3fan
06 Nov 15,, 05:23
Opinion

...

troung
27 Nov 15,, 12:44
On gun control, Fox News lets Chris Christie have it with both barrels | Mulshine
1 / 10
Republican presidential candidatestake the stage during the Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (AP Photo | Chris Carlson)
Jonathan D. Salant | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger By Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger
Follow on Twitter
on November 26, 2015 at 7:46 AM, updated November 26, 2015 at 10:00 AM






Reddit




Email

more mulshine (NEW)

On gun control, Fox News lets Chris Christie have it with both barrels | Mulshine
Imagine grilling the candidates on the downing of the Russian jet - before they're told what to think | Mulshine
Even after the Paris attacks, Hillary Christie keeps getting it wrong on ISIS | Mulshine
Attacks on Donald Trump over 9/11: There was a video, but not from New Jersey | Mulshine
Bipartisan Beltway bungling: A Jersey guy wrote the book on ISIS | Mulshine

All Stories

It was shaping up as the usual Fox News interview of Chris Christie. Host Bret Baier was serving up softballs and watching Christie hit them out of the park.

Then this question came out of left field:

"Is it true that the issue of gun control inspired you to get into politics?"

"No. That's not true. No," said the governor.

"It's in the Star-Ledger," said Baier - who's a Jersey guy, by the way.

Christie stuck to his guns, as the cliché goes. But his guns weren't loaded. Baier read this Christie quote from a 1993 Star-Ledger article:

"The issue that has motivated me to get into this race is the recent attempt by certain Republican legislators to repeal New Jersey's ban on assault weapons."

At that point Christie should have realized the game was over. In the old days – the days when newspapers were really made out of paper – a guy could get away with this sort of thing.

MORE: Recent Paul Mulshine columns

There's a story that Franklin D. Roosevelt, when reminded of something embarrassing he had said in Cleveland years before, asked his adviser how to handle it.

"Deny you were ever in Cleveland," the adviser said.

That dodge doesn't work these days.

Nonetheless Christie prolonged the agony through two more rounds of denial that he ever took a position that was documented in more outlets than that one article.

At that point Baier could have brought up another quote from the article: ''We already have too many firearms in our communities."

Or he might have brought up Christie's pledge a paragraph later that he would fight any "weakening" of gun laws if elected to the state Senate.

But Baier mercifully changed the subject to how Christie's doing in the current race.

That took the focus off that first fiasco in his career.

Christie never even made it to the ballot in 1993. It turned out that the 30-year-old newcomer to Mendham Township didn't know Mendham Borough was in in a different legislative district. Half the signatures on his nominating petition were thrown out.

Two years later Christie made a run for state Assembly, still banging on the gun issue. He sent out a flyer in which he said of his opponents: "Tony Bucco and Mike Carroll want to repeal the ban on automatic assault weapons. It's dangerous. It's crazy. It's radical. They must be stopped."
"Is it true that the issue of gun control inspired you to get into politics?"- Bret Baier
gun fly jpeg.jpg1995 Christie for Assembly campaign

They weren't.

But Rick Merkt was.

He was Christie's running mate that year in the Republican primary for two open seats.

"We just got destroyed," he said when I called him yesterday. "I think we came in fifth and sixth."

Merkt, who went on to win an Assembly seat two years later, recalls that at the time Christie had made a calculation that New Jersey was a liberal state and he had to take liberal positions.

"There'd be all sorts of stuff from that era," Merkt said. "Christie was strongly pro-choice and strongly anti-gun. I guess he would say he has evolved on all these issues."

Merkt wouldn't say that. He said Christie will take whatever position he thinks the voters demand.

"He was very pragmatic in what he did and what he espoused and he thought you could get ahead that way," said Merkt. "And it worked for him. He wound up being governor of New Jersey."

That would have been enough for most pols. It certainly would have been for Merkt, who in 2009 gave up his Assembly seat to run as a long shot against Christie in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Christie's main opponent in that campaign was the arch-conservative former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. In that race, Christie previewed the stance-switching tactics he's employing in this race.

When Lonegan proposed ending property-tax rebates, for example, Christie sent out a flyer attacking him. Once safely in office, Christie canceled the rebates. He then brought them back only for low-income households.

When Lonegan and Merkt proposed clearing house on the state Supreme Court bench, Christie joined in the pledge – and then reappointed Jon Corzine's chief justice.

Christie's been pulling the old switcheroo often in this race, changing his stands on issues like ethanol as he goes from corn-state Iowa to "Live Free or Die" state New Hampshire.

But nobody's paying much attention. That sort of thing will only get a guy so far – and at the moment so far is eighth place in the RealClearPolitics average of polls at a mere 3 percent.

If he ever starts rising in the polls, his critics could find plenty of other things Christie said in the past that could come back to haunt him.

For example, I could swear I heard him say once that he wanted to be governor of New Jersey.

But I'll have to check the clips on that one.

BELOW: Go to the nine-minute mark for the exchange on guns:http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/on_gun_control_fox_news_lets_chris_christie_have_i .html

troung
27 Nov 15,, 12:47
WH: Americans Should Talk About Gun Control 'Around the Thanksgiving Table'
By Susan Jones | November 24, 2015 | 8:44 AM EST
(AP File Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Instead of voting to "encumber and bog down the refugee process," Republicans should go along with a Democrat demand to bar people on a secret government list from buying guns, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.

Earnest said the Republican plan to beef up the vetting of refugees will not improve national security: "Again, if Congress were actually interested in doing that, they'd pass a law that would prevent somebody who's on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. That's what Congress should do.

"And as people are sitting around the Thanksgiving table, talking about these issues, as they should, and as I'm sure they will all across the country, I hope that's a question that will be raised, and asked by members around the table--that if we're going to have a serious discussion in this country about national security, let's talk about some pretty obvious things that Congress can do.

"And one obvious thing that Congress can do is pass a law that prevents somebody who is on the terror watch list from--from being able to buy a weapon. That -- that -- there's no reason -- I'm not sure why that's even controversial. I'm not sure why it hasn't been done so far.

"I suspect, however, that it has a lot to do with the fear that Republicans have of the NRA."

It also has a lot to do with a general distrust of secret government lists: Remember, even the late Sen. Ted Kennedy ended up on a terrorist watchlist in 2004 -- and he's not the only American to be surprised by their inclusion on a secret government list of "known or suspected" terrorists.

On the other hand, the man who tried to detonate an underwear bomb on a U.S.-bound airplane on December 25, 2009, was not on the list -- even though the government had been warned about him.

That's the problem: It's not always clear why people are nominated for inclusion on the terrorist watchlist or if their name is ever removed from it. Just having the same name as a terror suspect apparently can land a person on the list.

Earlier this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill called the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015." The bill would give the Justice Department the authority to prevent a "known or suspected" terrorist from buying firearms or explosives.

The National Rifle Association doesn't oppose denying terrorists firearms, but a spokesman told the Associated Press the group wants to ensure that Americans who are wrongly included in the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process.

The Terrorist Screening Center, administered by the FBI, maintains the overall list of known or suspected terrorists. The names in that huge database are then made available to agenies that screen people for possible terror threats.

For example, subsets of the terrorist watchlist are used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to screen individuals before they board an aircraft; by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to inspect or vet individuals traveling to and from the United States, and by the Department of State (State) to screen visa applicants.

The list is long: A 2009 Justice Department audit found that as of December 31, 2008, the consolidated terrorist watchlist contained more than 1.1 million known or suspected terrorist identities.

Three years later, a 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office found that after the attempted attack by the underwear bomber in 2009, "nominating agencies have expressed concerns about the increasing volumes of information and related challenges in processing this information."

The 2012 report also noted that the attempted plane-bombing in 2009 "resulted in more individuals in the (terrorist screening database) being denied boarding flights, being deemed inadmissible to enter the United States, and having their U.S. visas revoked, among other things."

But, the report added, "such screening or vetting and related actions have also had impacts on agency resources and the traveling public, including "more individuals misidentified as the subject of a (terrorism) record, which can cause traveler delays and other inconveniences."

The report found that no single government entity is routinely assessing "how U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are being affected by screening or the overall levels of misidentifications that are occurring."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-suggests-americans-talk-about-gun-control-theyre-sitting-around-0

antimony
30 Nov 15,, 18:20
Gun-ban advocates don’t want you to know that gun violence is falling


I am sure that that is a great source of comfort to folks who have been affected by gun violence.

GVChamp
30 Nov 15,, 20:15
It's not a question of "comfort." It's a question of whether we should infringe on the rights of private citizens.

I should amend this. I am a Republican which means I believe there actually IS a right to own firearms.

The left-leaning Supreme Court justices disagree that there is any right to own guns at all, so they would disagree with my first statement.

zraver
01 Dec 15,, 02:46
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-suggests-americans-talk-about-gun-control-theyre-sitting-around-0

Secret government list with no due process or way to clear your name... yeah thats a good idea.

Albany Rifles
01 Dec 15,, 16:24
It's not a question of "comfort." It's a question of whether we should infringe on the rights of private citizens.

I should amend this. I am a Republican which means I believe there actually IS a right to own firearms.

The left-leaning Supreme Court justices disagree that there is any right to own guns at all, so they would disagree with my first statement.


Well, I am a Democrat and I also believe there is a right to own guns.

But I also believe there is right for the government to also provide a reasonable regulation of the firearms.

Where the friction point is what is reasonable?

antimony
01 Dec 15,, 17:50
It's not a question of "comfort." It's a question of whether we should infringe on the rights of private citizens.


Pl. tell that to the person who wrote the article or to the one who posted it

antimony
01 Dec 15,, 17:51
It's not a question of "comfort." It's a question of whether we should infringe on the rights of private citizens.

I should amend this. I am a Republican which means I believe there actually IS a right to own firearms.

The left-leaning Supreme Court justices disagree that there is any right to own guns at all, so they would disagree with my first statement.

Here is a question? As part of a democratic society, do you believe that citizens have a right to vote?

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 15,, 18:28
Here is a question? As part of a democratic society, do you believe that citizens have a right to vote?To a point. The question of rights is that it cannot be voted out.

YellowFever
01 Dec 15,, 18:50
Here is a question? As part of a democratic society, do you believe that citizens have a right to vote?

Actually we live in a Republic where we have a right to vote but not a right to vote when it infringes on our Bill of Rights.

I've posted this quote before but it seems relevant whenever gun control is debated:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

tankie
01 Dec 15,, 20:52
Gun control in the UK has been a great success in as much as all the licensed gun owners have lost the majority of guns they can own legally ,, however the criminal fraternity have no problems getting their bony oily fingers on them , in one way a success ,,the other a non compliance exercise , no change there then , which pisses me off as a man who wants to defend his family / home etc has to resort to the base ball bat ,,a one sided argument which the legal / lawful citizen will lose . .

gunnut
02 Dec 15,, 01:07
Gun control in the UK has been a great success in as much as all the licensed gun owners have lost the majority of guns they can own legally ,, however the criminal fraternity have no problems getting their bony oily fingers on them , in one way a success ,,the other a non compliance exercise , no change there then , which pisses me off as a man who wants to defend his family / home etc has to resort to the base ball bat ,,a one sided argument which the legal / lawful citizen will lose . .

I was talking to my host in York last month (we rented a room via Airbnb) about gun control. He was shocked that I own "many" guns. I said gun regulation only works on law abiding citizens. Criminals by definition do not obey laws. He said criminals in UK do.

I rolled my eyes.

He did agree with me that many people in the US live far away from effective law enforcement and cannot rely on the government. He also agreed that sometimes when he takes his family to vacation in a rural area, he feels a bit vulnerable.

bonehead
02 Dec 15,, 05:16
A lot of things about "gun control" really gets under my skin. First of all, There is the full court press of the media trying to brainwash the public. I have seen the same story about states that are "unsafe" because they have no gun control, and that story has been trotted out nearly every day for a couple of weeks now. It shows Wyoming as being the most dangerous state (per capita) and heavily regulated California as being one of the safer states. Actual numbers? Wyoming had 16 murders in 2014. California had 1,699. The gun grabbers even will even spew about the "epidemic of gun violence" even though the numbers have dropped to nearly half the level of such crime in the 1990's. The biggest contributor to the lower violence is the tougher laws aimed at keeping violent criminals in prison longer through mandatory sentencing.

To even make up the talking point of "gun violence" is a slap in the face for every citizen as these people would have you believe that gun violence is in a magical vacuum, and if the gun fairy can wave a wand to remove all guns….30K people would magically not die. People who really wanted to kill would not uses other means? Riiiiiiiiight. The general rule of thumb is that violence of all sorts, increases as criminals know that their victim's ability to fight back has been impaired. Further salt is that gun grabbers refuse to look at WHY the numbers are what they are. About 15k are suicides. " I want to die but I don't have a gun so therefore I choose to live" is said by no one ever. There are plenty of other methods to kill oneself and they all are used. Guns are effective so they are the choice but make no mistake, when people want to die badly enough they will find a way. Is jumping off an overpass really a better way to go? according to the gun grabbers…yes. The next largest number of "gun violence" is from gangs. In fact gangs can account for upwards of 70% of all crime in some places. If one really wants to take a bite out of crime and thus make communities safer, gangs would be the best place to start. Other violent criminals have a high recidivism rate. Why on earth are we letting them out early so they can kill again? Long story short is the lions share of violent crimes are being done by a fraction of the population and the rank and file citizens actually do very little such crimes. Mass shootings? By and large the shooters were certifiable and had a history of being a danger to themselves and others yet all was swept under the rug. How is that working out? In response people like Obama want even more gun control yet they know that the ones causing the problems care little about even more laws. Even more telling is that people in prison or a mental institution can't fill out background checks and buy weapons but anti gun people will hear none of this. Nor do they want to consider actually enforcing the gun control laws currently on the books.

Now lets examine Obama's policies. he has signed off on mexican drug lords to buy weapons (fast and furious), and he is currently arming people in the M.E. even though history proves that the allies today are often the enemies of tomorrow. Kind of makes you wonder who else he is arming, yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S. It is rather clear that as with much of politics, the title to get people to transfix on, ie, "gun violence" is not the agenda after all. Just smoke and mirrors for what they are really after. The gun grabbers are after the pot of god lat the end of the rainbow but they know that cant happen until America is disarmed.

Albany Rifles
02 Dec 15,, 17:00
Bonehead,

Can you give specific sources which back this statement "...yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S."

What bills has he offered?

Policies?

He has expressed his opinion but where has that translated into specific action by his Administration?

GVChamp
02 Dec 15,, 18:40
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

*Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
*Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
*Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
*Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.


There's obviously a lot to unpack, but here's the actual point:

While no law or set of laws will end gun violence, it is clear that the American
people want action. If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act.

When your attitude is "everything on the evening news is a catastrophe and requires immediate legislation," you get a lot of crappy, overreaching legislation.

Actual numbers?
The number of Americans who die in mass shootings is trivial. A few hundred a year, at most.
Most people who die from guns die by their own hands.Don't take my word for it, just ask the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0).

If you are allergic to bees? I'd worry more about them than mass shootings.

This is the same sort of stupid logic behind worrying about shark attacks or pet dogs. Let's all ban pit bulls because a few dozen people die each year from dog attacks.


You get a lot of awesome moral posturing and crusading language from this "PANIC!!!!!!" line of thinking. I really like this one:

Some states have cited concerns about
restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as a reason not to share relevant information on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons. The Administration will begin the regulatory process to remove any needless barriers, starting by gathering information about the scope and extent of the problem.
Medical privacy: now a needless barrier.

I don't trust these moral crusaders for even a moment.

gunnut
02 Dec 15,, 19:08
Of course if even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act. Most mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" where there's a large gathering of helpless victims. Let's expand "gun free zones" to as many places as possible to ensure an adequate supply of easy targets for criminals.

Ever noticed no one goes into a police station for a mass shooting? Ever noticed no one shoots up a target range where everyone is armed to the teeth?

I was in France recently. I was walking in Paris on Nov. 13th. What I noticed was all monuments were patrolled by fully armed soldiers carrying their issue rifles. They patrolled in threes. Large transit centers were patrolled by police and Gendarmerie carrying carbines. Terrorists did not hit these locations. Instead they shot up a bunch of restaurants and sieged a theater full of unarmed targets. I was at Eiffel Tower when they attacked the theater. It was full of people on a Friday night. I wonder why they chose the theater rather than a national monument?

Albany Rifles
02 Dec 15,, 19:33
So GVChamp,

People with criminal backgrounds should be allowed to buy guns? People with mental health issues?

What is wrong with closing the loopholes? Straw purchases should be stopped. Do you disagree with that?

Gunnut,

All of what you say are instances of security personnel guarding those sites. Fine...I am all for that. But what are you saying should have been done? Should the concert organizers hired a guard force? If there had been a threat warning to that effect that would have been prudent. Don't know what the specific issue is here.

I want to be clear...I have no issue with responsible gun ownership. I used to have a Class III Federal fire arms license and owned automatic weapons...I got past that.

If a someone wants to own 55 automatic pistols...fine. But let's make sure the individual is not being treated for schizophrenia.

If you want to own an M4, fine. Then lock it up properly. And don't tell me you need it for hunting. If so, then you need to be a vegetarian cause you suck as a hunter.

In order to drive you have to pass a basic test. That is for operating a deadly device if used improperly.

So how is it a violation of basic rights to insist on personnel pass a basic background test to own weapons?

GVChamp
02 Dec 15,, 20:31
People with criminal backgrounds should be allowed to buy guns? People with mental health issues?

What is wrong with closing the loopholes? Straw purchases should be stopped. Do you disagree with that?

What do the proposed Assault Weapons Ban and magazine limit accomplish?

I am more interested in that. Why is the President advancing something so tangential and unimportant compared to the actual issues surrounding gun violence?

"Criminal background" and "mental health issue" are so broad as to be meaningless and can represent major intrusions on American rights. I obviously am not going to trust any American President who describes medical privacy as "pointless" and am obviously not going to trust a President who fear-mongers in order to ban entire classes of weapons for no reason.

I would not be opposed to some meaningful gun control legislation if the opponents in this debate were not hell-bent on simply seizing guns and lying their asses off when they say they aren't.

Albany Rifles
02 Dec 15,, 21:15
So what concrete measures do you propose?

I have said what I proposed numerous times on this subject over the past several years on the WAB.

What exactly do you propose?

gunnut
02 Dec 15,, 21:19
Gunnut,

All of what you say are instances of security personnel guarding those sites. Fine...I am all for that. But what are you saying should have been done? Should the concert organizers hired a guard force? If there had been a threat warning to that effect that would have been prudent. Don't know what the specific issue is here.

Maybe the concert venue should have had a guard force. I have never been to a rock concert here. Do we have a security force at our venues? Are concealed carry permit holders allowed to carry in a concert?



I want to be clear...I have no issue with responsible gun ownership. I used to have a Class III Federal fire arms license and owned automatic weapons...I got past that.

I'm totally for responsible gun ownership. The problem is what is "responsible?"



If a someone wants to own 55 automatic pistols...fine. But let's make sure the individual is not being treated for schizophrenia.

The reverse of that is if we start to crack down on mental patient, then no one would report or seek treatment for fear of losing one's hobby.



If you want to own an M4, fine. Then lock it up properly. And don't tell me you need it for hunting. If so, then you need to be a vegetarian cause you suck as a hunter.

Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was.



In order to drive you have to pass a basic test. That is for operating a deadly device if used improperly.

Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.

Gun ownership is a right under the Constitution.



So how is it a violation of basic rights to insist on personnel pass a basic background test to own weapons?

I'm all for basic background check and tests to make sure the individual can own guns.

What do you think about a background check and a test to make sure people are eligible to vote?

GVChamp
02 Dec 15,, 21:28
So what concrete measures do you propose?

I have said what I proposed numerous times on this subject over the past several years on the WAB.

What exactly do you propose?

Take it up with your state government and do not pass any new federal laws.

Red Team
02 Dec 15,, 21:35
Take it up with your state government and do not pass any new federal laws.

The lack of a coherent national policy seems to be a pretty big effect on gun violence, just see the case with Chicago and Indiana. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/28/lax-indiana-gun-laws/74740388/


A report from Chicago authorities found that nearly 60% of illegal guns recovered in the city from 2009 to 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. The largest portion came from Indiana, which accounted for 19% of the illegal guns in Chicago.

Albany Rifles
02 Dec 15,, 21:44
Gunnut,

At almost every concert I have been to in the US we have police...same in Germany. But if the threat level in France called for that level of security...then there should have been cops or private security. Not sure of their laws.

I am not saying you crack down on mental patients...I am saying the fact that you have a disease which could cause you to act in violent and irrational manner should be a reason for you to not have a weapon until such time as you are evaluated to being cured.

"Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was."

Yup, and our world has evolved since then. We do not have an active threat of Canadians, Frenchman and Spaniards on our northern, western and southern borders waiting to attack.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right own a weapon. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And we have changed the Constitution or interpreted before. There is no reason why there cannot be a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

As for how to fix the problems...and there are problems...http://www.cnn.com/...they cannot be fixed when the opposite ends of the debate are allowed to control it.

There is too much outside money...ON BOTH SIDES...polluting the issue.

Elected representatives need to act like adults and sit down and come up with a rational way forward that both sides can live with. We cannot keep living that it is all or nothing for "my side" on an issue or we will go the way of past societies which stopped governing themselves.

kato
02 Dec 15,, 21:46
That's just a matter of sourcing though. If you couldn't buy 'em in other states of the US you'd import them from Mexico. Or you'd legally buy certain parts in Canada and assemble them with certain other parts legal in the US.
Been going on that way in the illegal weapons trade in Europe since the 60s.

Red Team
02 Dec 15,, 21:56
That's just a matter of sourcing though. If you couldn't buy 'em in other states of the US you'd import them from Mexico. Or you'd legally buy certain parts in Canada and assemble them with certain other parts legal in the US.
Been going on that way in the illegal weapons trade in Europe since the 60s.

Kato,

Certainly, that's true. But wouldn't it be much more expensive to smuggle things across a regulated national border than it is across an unregulated state border. The name of the game here is deterrence through inconvenience; is a nutjob more likely to follow through with his plans if he has to spend ~$1000 just to get a handgun trafficked to him?

For the record, I'm also a supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that volume of guns per capita do not necessarily correlate with gun crime. Just look at Vermont.

GVChamp
02 Dec 15,, 22:18
The lack of a coherent national policy seems to be a pretty big effect on gun violence, just see the case with Chicago and Indiana. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/28/lax-indiana-gun-laws/74740388/

Not a big enough problem to allow Chicago to run national gun policy (ban all guns).

antimony
02 Dec 15,, 23:41
Actually we live in a Republic where we have a right to vote but not a right to vote when it infringes on our Bill of Rights.

I've posted this quote before but it seems relevant whenever gun control is debated:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."


To a point. The question of rights is that it cannot be voted out.

I don't care about voting it away. Here is my question : if conservatives/ Republicans care so much about protecting the right of carry arms, why do they violate or tamp down the right to vote?

gunnut
02 Dec 15,, 23:53
I don't care about voting it away. Here is my question : if conservatives/ Republicans care so much about protecting the right of carry arms, why do they violate or tamp down the right to vote?

When and where have the conservatives/republicans attempted to tamp down the right to vote? They merely want "sensible and responsible" voting laws.

Is asking for a photo ID at a voting booth a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for a permit to vote a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for two forms of proof of residency to vote a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for a written voting application form at the time voting a violation of the right to vote?

If you say yes, then my right to firearms has been violated repeatedly over the last 20 years.

It seems like all constitutional rights are equal. Some are just more equal than others.

YellowFever
02 Dec 15,, 23:57
Right now, to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) only US citizens can vote in local and federal election.

Legal residents can vote in local elections but not federal elections.

Illegals can't vote in any elections (if you don't count the wacky law passed by Jerry Brown here in Commiefornia and subjected to numerous lawsuits)

Give me examples of where Republicans contested voting by legal citizens in federal elections.

gunnut
03 Dec 15,, 00:20
Gunnut,

At almost every concert I have been to in the US we have police...same in Germany. But if the threat level in France called for that level of security...then there should have been cops or private security. Not sure of their laws.

I am not saying you crack down on mental patients...I am saying the fact that you have a disease which could cause you to act in violent and irrational manner should be a reason for you to not have a weapon until such time as you are evaluated to being cured.

But the problem is if I seek treatment, I will be labeled a "mental patient" for life and never be able to obtain a gun legally. This must be a case by case basis determined by the court system through due process. We can't just say so and so has a problem and he will be denied his constitutional right.



"Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was."

Yup, and our world has evolved since then. We do not have an active threat of Canadians, Frenchman and Spaniards on our northern, western and southern borders waiting to attack.

I'm all for re-interpreting the Constitution based on the current situation of the republic. We don't have slaves any more. Let's re-examine the 14th Amendment, especially the birthright citizenship part because it is being abused right now.



Yes, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right own a weapon. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Never said it is. Article Five clearly offers a way to alter the Constitution. We have a process in place. Let's go through the proper process like any law abiding citizen would.



And we have changed the Constitution or interpreted before. There is no reason why there cannot be a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Change the definition to create a favorable outcome. Very nice.



As for how to fix the problems...and there are problems...http://www.cnn.com/...they cannot be fixed when the opposite ends of the debate are allowed to control it.

There is too much outside money...ON BOTH SIDES...polluting the issue.

Elected representatives need to act like adults and sit down and come up with a rational way forward that both sides can live with. We cannot keep living that it is all or nothing for "my side" on an issue or we will go the way of past societies which stopped governing themselves.

How do we keep money out of politics? Restrict government power. Money is in it to buy influence. No one ever bribes me because I can't do anything for them. People will bribe any and all sitting senator/representative because they can influence an outcome of a political process to be favorable.

Perhaps "bribe" is too harsh a word. Let's just say we "contribute to the re-election fund" of the said politician.

antimony
03 Dec 15,, 01:19
When and where have the conservatives/republicans attempted to tamp down the right to vote? They merely want "sensible and responsible" voting laws.

Is asking for a photo ID at a voting booth a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for a permit to vote a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for two forms of proof of residency to vote a violation of the right to vote?

Is asking for a written voting application form at the time voting a violation of the right to vote?

If you say yes, then my right to firearms has been violated repeatedly over the last 20 years.

It seems like all constitutional rights are equal. Some are just more equal than others.

Lovely, now we are talking.

The state has every right to ensure that those who go out to vote has the right to do so. This needs to be done in such a way as the id check is not overly burdensome for any particular segment.

Now my turn

Are criminal background checks a violation of the right to bear arms ?
Are mental background checks a violation of the right to bear arms?
Is creating a law around permits to own guns a violation of the right to bear arms?
Is a gun registry a violation of the right to bear arms?

gunnut
03 Dec 15,, 05:19
Lovely, now we are talking.

The state has every right to ensure that those who go out to vote has the right to do so. This needs to be done in such a way as the id check is not overly burdensome for any particular segment.

Now my turn

Are criminal background checks a violation of the right to bear arms?
Are mental background checks a violation of the right to bear arms?
Is creating a law around permits to own guns a violation of the right to bear arms?
Is a gun registry a violation of the right to bear arms?

I'm not against any of those measures as long as you approve the following:

Are you for or against a background check at the voting booth? Of course this background check has a nominal cost, say....$19, to administer the system.
Should we strip mental patients the right to vote without due process?
Should there be a voting permit for people to vote? Of course one has to take a 30 question test to and pay a $25 fee (for the administration) to obtain this permit. These questions aren't hard, just basic civic knowledge of the United States political system.
There is a voter's registry already so I'm ok with that.

In addition, at the voting booth, one must fill out a form stating one's full name, address, county and state spelled out in full, no abbreviations, and state that one is not a criminal or any other person ineligible to vote, sign and date, before being handed a ballot. One must also present a photo ID and 2 documents to prove residency. A United States passport does not count as proof of residency. A cell phone bill is not a proof of residency. It must be a car registration or cable/utility bill.

Now get this, California just passed a law that automatically registers anyone who applies/renews a driver's license to vote. California also issues driver's license to illegal immigrants. Thoughts?

DOR
03 Dec 15,, 11:55
YellowFever,

“Give me examples of where Republicans contested voting by legal citizens in federal elections.”

Florida, 2000, for starters. The purge of the voter rolls is widely known. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

Red Team
03 Dec 15,, 15:24
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't voter fraud in the US essentially a statistical non-issue?

Albany Rifles
03 Dec 15,, 16:51
Gunnut,

So everything I ask or posit are too hard, inconvenient or controversial so we won't talk about them?

Not saying we have to amend any amendment...but we cannot say it cannot be on the table.

As for the 14th Amendment...you're right about the birthright abuse....it has given us Donald Trump!

Albany Rifles
03 Dec 15,, 16:51
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't voter fraud in the US essentially a statistical non-issue?

Missing the LIKE button again!!!

YellowFever
03 Dec 15,, 17:07
YellowFever,

“Give me examples of where Republicans contested voting by legal citizens in federal elections.”

Florida, 2000, for starters. The purge of the voter rolls is widely known. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

Chads anyone?

Dimples?

You expected Republicans to let a widely Democratic District to count the votes over and over with differing standards as to what counts as a vote?

And what does this has to do with intimidating voters, which was the original charge by antimony?

Besides the purging was attempted by both sides in the courts.

Republic wanted to purge the "felon" vote and the Dems wanted to purge the military vote.

Oh and by the way, the Panhandle ( traditionally voting Republican) was told the the voting closed an hour before it actually did.

Zad Fnark
03 Dec 15,, 17:33
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't voter fraud in the US essentially a statistical non-issue?

Not quite...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

YellowFever
03 Dec 15,, 17:59
Not quite...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

What, you mean to tell me Norm Coleman conceded the election...and then didn't whine and rush to the courts afterwards?????

Shocking.....

Red Team
03 Dec 15,, 18:14
Zad,

Were these convicted felons voting while in prison or did they serve their time? Also are we making the assumption that all of these votes were for Al Franken?

Also this:


No one objects in principle to the need to have drivers’ licenses or passports renewed, even if they have to stand in line someplace to get it done. Annoying? Yes. Time consuming? Absolutely. But the requirement for renewal is in no way an impediment, constitutionally or otherwise, to getting it done. It seems perfectly reasonable, therefore, to ask people to do the same with their voter registration.


At least here in New York, getting even a Driver's permit costs upwards of $80, which is hell of a lot of money for some poorer folks who don't already have them (renewals are similarly costly). Never mind the hundreds of dollars taking Driver's ed courses. Also, Passports are even more expensive to acquire. Now if local and state governments are willing to give out free voting IDs that match the names on the registered listings then that's all well and good, but a license and/or passport requirement would seem to be an unnecessary barrier of entry for poorer voters.

gunnut
03 Dec 15,, 18:28
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't voter fraud in the US essentially a statistical non-issue?

So is mass shooting deaths compared to other homicides, but yet we are talking about it.

Red Team
03 Dec 15,, 18:38
So is mass shooting deaths compared to other homicides, but yet we are talking about it.

Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

gunnut
03 Dec 15,, 18:40
Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

Have you bought a gun recently? What more background check do you want to have? What criteria do you want to use? Who do you want to disqualify from owning guns? How does this centralized federal database get its information? Who feeds it?

We don't need to be like Europe. France just shut down 3 mosques. Do you want our government to have that kind of power? Europe also has much lower corporate tax rates. Do we want to be like Europe? WE ARE NOT EUROPE! We are not perfect, but I like this place much better than Europe.

GVChamp
03 Dec 15,, 19:18
Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.
"Leading the world" is a red herring.

The number of people who die in mass shootings is also a statistical non-issue.

Take the absolute worst case. Have a mass shooting every day. Have 10 people die in every mass shooting.

That's 3600 people dead a year.

That's the UPPER limit for mass shootings. More likely the number is around 500.

Here's the actual leading causes of death for Americans:

•Heart disease: 611,105
•Cancer: 584,881
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
•Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
•Diabetes: 75,578
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112

Source: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

Even in the worst case scenario, Americans are 15 times more likely to die from just kidney diseases then they are from mass shootings.

Background checks and arms limitations also will not STOP mass shootings. They will reduce their intensity and frequency. That means you are imposing HUGE limitations on American rights, essentially equivalent to disarming Americans, to save, maybe, 200 lives a year.

That's not a reasonable trade-off.

It also is not the actual trade-off. The gun control lobby does not believe in the right of Americans to own weapons: They want to ban all guns. See Chicago, DC, and the longing for "European" gun control. They will use every tragedy to maximum extent in order to actualize their real goal, which is ban guns.

Even total gun control will not stop mass shootings. See: Paris.

By all means, pass whatever law you want in New York, but this is not a real issue, and you should not be imposing your will on me or the people of Vermont.


Do you want our government to have that kind of power?
Absolutely. If even one child dies, it's unacceptable. That's why I support 15 mph speed limits everywhere. For the children. If you really need to travel faster, Lord Obama will grant you a waiver.

Don't you trust our Noble Government?

YellowFever
03 Dec 15,, 20:26
I don't own a gun.

However, I find it kind of strange that so many people want the government to regulate something given to us by the forefathers to protect us from the government in the first place.

Gun Grape
04 Dec 15,, 01:22
Not quite...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud


Convicted Felons in Minn. have their voting rights restored once their sentence is completed. Only those incarcerated, on parole or on probation do not have the right to vote. So the number of Ex felons mentioned as voting in the opinion piece is a nonissue.

Gun Grape
04 Dec 15,, 01:31
Bonehead,

Can you give specific sources which back this statement "...yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S."

What bills has he offered?

Policies?

He has expressed his opinion but where has that translated into specific action by his Administration?



President Obama has signed 2 gun laws since he has been in office. Both expanded the rights of gun owners.
Allowing gun owners to carry weapons in National Parks and to allow weapons in checked baggage on Amtrack.

That evil antigun President

Gun Grape
04 Dec 15,, 01:39
"Leading the world" is a red herring.

The number of people who die in mass shootings is also a statistical non-issue.

Take the absolute worst case. Have a mass shooting every day. Have 10 people die in every mass shooting.



The Mass shooting in California yesterday was the 355th Mass shooting of this year. And there was a second Mass shooting is Georgia also, Dec 2d is the 336th day of the year. We are 20 days ahead of your worst case scenario.

Bigfella
04 Dec 15,, 03:53
The Mass shooting in California yesterday was the 355th Mass shooting of this year. And there was a second Mass shooting is Georgia also, Dec 2d is the 336th day of the year. We are 20 days ahead of your worst case scenario.

America has more mass shootings per month than we have had since 1996. The population is about 15 times larger. And that doesn't even get into the vast discrepancy between firearms murders (If the US had the same rate as us annual numbers would be 600-800). I'm not suggesting America can or should attempt to replicate our laws, just to point out that what is 'normal' in America is so far off the charts in other modern Western democracies that it is barely comprehensible.

Red Team
04 Dec 15,, 03:55
Here's the actual leading causes of death for Americans:

Source: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

Even in the worst case scenario, Americans are 15 times more likely to die from just kidney diseases then they are from mass shootings.



A significant number of those cases you mention are contingent on an individual's own life choices, and can be mitigated by them independently changing their lifestyles over time (i.e., diet, sleep, better driving etc.). How do you mitigate a near-regular occurrence of mass shootings? Hope it doesn't include you or someone you know next?


Background checks and arms limitations also will not STOP mass shootings. They will reduce their intensity and frequency .
That's kinda what we could use right now.


That means you are imposing HUGE limitations on American rights, essentially equivalent to disarming Americans, to save, maybe, 200 lives a year.

Again, nobody's talking about disarming Americans as a whole. Just keeping guns out of the hands of crazies. And before you make a quip about government overreach, I would argue a system where mental health evals on prospective owners with "at-risk" histories are done independently and approved by a psychologist/psychiatrist on a case by case basis, with a "bill of good health" sent to the proper authorities as proof of sound condition. No breach of patient confidentiality, no breach of HIIPA, and more accountability in the hands of mental health professionals. And who's to say the number of lives to be saved would be capped at 200? What reason would there be not to expect suicide and homicide (non-mass shooting) rates to be affected due to enhanced awareness of mental health in background checks?

Though I will add that I'm aware that current background checks on paper are supposed to account for mental health histories, but for whatever reason are often overlooked or omitted from the process. If what it takes is a better enforcement of the current laws, then I would be absolutely content with that. But as it stands, recent events have made it clear that the way we carry out checks is flawed.


Even total gun control will not stop mass shootings. See: Paris.

And yet they've still got a vastly lower murder per capita and gun violence rate than we do.


By all means, pass whatever law you want in New York, but this is not a real issue, and you should not be imposing your will on me or the people of Vermont.

Funny, because I actually really like how Vermont handles gun culture. I don't know what you think my stance is, but for the record I unequivocally support the second amendment. I completely support your right as an law abiding American citizen to own firearms for hunting, sport, and most importantly to protect yourself from the countless crazies in this world. Furthermore, I also believe that laws limiting magazine sizes, banning suppressors, full auto receivers etc. are asinine, because this does little to deter crazies and miscreants and more to limit the options of law abiding citizens.

What I'm not for, is neglecting mental health when it comes to selling guns. What I'm not for, are people using private and online sales to irresponsibly sell guns to people without prior background checks. And what I'm especially not for, is the perpetuation of a dysfunctional gun culture where guns are seen at polar extremes as scary playthings or as objects of power and glamour. And what I most definitely can't stand, is the fantasy of Johnny Triggerfingers being the big damn hero and saving the day as some sort of CCP average joe superhero. Don't get me wrong, I'm for concealed carry, but I simply can't stand how glamorized gun culture has become.

What I like about Vermont is that gun owners have a great, lasting tradition of treating their guns not as a plaything or a show of status or authority, but as a tool of great power and great responsibility. Many such owners descended from families that often lived and died by the gun, whether it was to hunt for game or defend against predators. This solemness, in my view, is sorely and disappointingly missing from our country's bipolar and convoluted view on guns.


Don't you trust our Noble Government?

I trust our government just about as much as I trust Johnny Triggerfingers.

Doktor
04 Dec 15,, 07:59
Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

UK leads in stabbing and noone asks to ban knives or to register them. Matter of fact even a kid can buy them.

Bigfella
04 Dec 15,, 08:28
UK leads in stabbing and noone asks to ban knives or to register them. Matter of fact even a kid can buy them.

Numbers Doc. In 2009 there were 270 knife murders in England & Wales, population 55 million. And that is for something pretty much anyone can pick up in any house. That same year the number of gun homicides in the US topped 9,000, with a population less than six times that of England & Wales. In 2012 only 1 US state had a murder rate as low as London, one of the largest & most densely populated cities in the Western world.

There are restrictions on the carrying of knives & there are bans on a wide range of knives & bladed instruments.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Doktor
04 Dec 15,, 10:47
Numbers Doc. In 2009 there were 270 knife murders in England & Wales, population 55 million. And that is for something pretty much anyone can pick up in any house. That same year the number of gun homicides in the US topped 9,000, with a population less than six times that of England & Wales. In 2012 only 1 US state had a murder rate as low as London, one of the largest & most densely populated cities in the Western world.

There are restrictions on the carrying of knives & there are bans on a wide range of knives & bladed instruments.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

Bigfella
04 Dec 15,, 11:19
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

A useful reminder of why I wouldn't line my cat litter try with the Daily Heil: scaremongering, race baiting and selective presentation of data but somehow fails to provide the single most important piece of data relevant to the story. I guess 269 murders looks less scary than a figure of 130,000 assaults derived from survey data (a definition that includes threats not occasioning bodily harm).

In case you were wondering, close to 10,000 people were murdered by firearms in the US that year.

Surreal McCoy
04 Dec 15,, 12:12
A useful reminder of why I wouldn't line my cat litter try with the Daily Heil

Exactly. No offence to Doktor, but one might as well cite the National Enquirer. In the UK, the Daily Fail is most commonly associated with OAPs (Old Age Pensioners) who need something to get worked up about.

Also...


You can't stop mass shootings by making guns illegal, so that's not a solution.

Is the same as...


You can't stop people taking meth by making it illegal, so that's not a solution.

Mihais
04 Dec 15,, 12:14
The US has a demographic problem that ruins statistics.Ghetto blacks killing each other for lack of anything better to do.
Otherwise it would be perfectly fine. Tons of EU countries have plenty of guns,with murder rates close to the civilized parts of US i.e anything not a ghetto.

As for the usefullnes of guns,a comparison of European nations with similar economical and social level will show that more guns=less murders.

Worldwide the murder rates have dropped in the last 25 years.But they dropped faster where gun laws were lax(ed).

Parihaka
04 Dec 15,, 12:35
Yes well. Certainly four times the intentional killing rate in the US compared to the UK (remember if you shoot a burglar in the US it's an intentional killing) but that four times is still very low in world comparison.

40593

As for total crimes, well this is where the criminals getting shot becomes interesting
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000
So if I go to the UK I'm as likely to be killed or have a crime committed against me as New Zealand.
If I go to the US I'm four times as likely to be shot, but only a third as likely to be the victim of a crime overall.
Homicides by guns are a small fraction of overall violent crimes.
And here's an American vs Europe comparison that puts to bed most of the myths regarding how violent and dangerous the US is compared to the rest of the world.
http://www.germanjoys.eu/2015/10/violent-crime-is-more-common-in-europe-than-the-usa.html
I'm far more likely to be robbed or violently attacked in NZ or Australia, the likelyhood of me being shot in the US is miniscule in comparison to being beaten up in Sydney and I'm far less likely to be robbed or attacked in the US as well.

Mihais
04 Dec 15,, 12:44
Btw,have you noticed the dirty and idiotic way of comparing gun killings with overall killings?

Parihaka
04 Dec 15,, 15:26
Btw,have you noticed the dirty and idiotic way of comparing gun killings with overall killings?

How do you mean?

Doktor
04 Dec 15,, 15:29
A useful reminder of why I wouldn't line my cat litter try with the Daily Heil: scaremongering, race baiting and selective presentation of data but somehow fails to provide the single most important piece of data relevant to the story. I guess 269 murders looks less scary than a figure of 130,000 assaults derived from survey data (a definition that includes threats not occasioning bodily harm).

In case you were wondering, close to 10,000 people were murdered by firearms in the US that year.

Ok.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33547806

Is that good enough?

You blame DM for being partial, but what you don't say is 2/3 are suicides of your gun deaths.

Medical malpractice kills way more. Let's ban hospitals.

Mihais
04 Dec 15,, 15:39
It is commonly used in Europe,by the usual suspects.They don't compare killing rates or circumstances.For example, in the beloved motherland an average of 15 persons die yearly due to firearms.Idiots consider this to be good,compared to 10000 in US.But the other ~450 caused by anything else are graciously ignored.Considering some of the US killings to be legit,we have a higher murder rate per capita than US and we're virtually disarmed.But we're great,they're not shot.They're only stabbed ,hacked with axes etc...
The same moronic style of argument is obviously used by morons all over Europe.

GVChamp
04 Dec 15,, 15:58
The Mass shooting in California yesterday was the 355th Mass shooting of this year. And there was a second Mass shooting is Georgia also, Dec 2d is the 336th day of the year. We are 20 days ahead of your worst case scenario.
Come on, this is pedantic.
1. There is no universal definition of "mass shooting" so your total isn't obviously true.
2. The larger numbers of mass shootings tend to flex the definition to include incidents where multiple people were SHOT, but no one or only 1 or 2 people died: it does not change the actual calculation.
3. Even adjusting the total to 1.5 shootings per day instead of 1 shooting per day does not substantially alter the final count. The orders of magnitude are 10:1 plus.

If we are talking 10 mass shootings every day, each one killing 10 people, then we might have a legitimate public health concern. From mass shootings. And even then, that does not automatically justify banning assault weapons or limiting magazine size. It's still a trade-off to be considered.


America has more mass shootings per month than we have had since 1996. The population is about 15 times larger. And that doesn't even get into the vast discrepancy between firearms murders (If the US had the same rate as us annual numbers would be 600-800). I'm not suggesting America can or should attempt to replicate our laws, just to point out that what is 'normal' in America is so far off the charts in other modern Western democracies that it is barely comprehensible.
And what's incomprehensible to me are the draconian gun laws the rest of your nations pass in order to achieve marginal mortality gains.

That's why you live in Australia, and I live in America.



A significant number of those cases you mention are contingent on an individual's own life choices, and can be mitigated by them independently changing their lifestyles over time (i.e., diet, sleep, better driving etc.). How do you mitigate a near-regular occurrence of mass shootings? Hope it doesn't include you or someone you know next?


That's kinda what we could use right now.


Again, nobody's talking about disarming Americans as a whole. Just keeping guns out of the hands of crazies. And before you make a quip about government overreach, I would argue a system where mental health evals on prospective owners with "at-risk" histories are done independently and approved by a psychologist/psychiatrist on a case by case basis, with a "bill of good health" sent to the proper authorities as proof of sound condition. No breach of patient confidentiality, no breach of HIIPA, and more accountability in the hands of mental health professionals. And who's to say the number of lives to be saved would be capped at 200? What reason would there be not to expect suicide and homicide (non-mass shooting) rates to be affected due to enhanced awareness of mental health in background checks?

Though I will add that I'm aware that current background checks on paper are supposed to account for mental health histories, but for whatever reason are often overlooked or omitted from the process. If what it takes is a better enforcement of the current laws, then I would be absolutely content with that. But as it stands, recent events have made it clear that the way we carry out checks is flawed.



And yet they've still got a vastly lower murder per capita and gun violence rate than we do.



Funny, because I actually really like how Vermont handles gun culture. I don't know what you think my stance is, but for the record I unequivocally support the second amendment. I completely support your right as an law abiding American citizen to own firearms for hunting, sport, and most importantly to protect yourself from the countless crazies in this world. Furthermore, I also believe that laws limiting magazine sizes, banning suppressors, full auto receivers etc. are asinine, because this does little to deter crazies and miscreants and more to limit the options of law abiding citizens.

What I'm not for, is neglecting mental health when it comes to selling guns. What I'm not for, are people using private and online sales to irresponsibly sell guns to people without prior background checks. And what I'm especially not for, is the perpetuation of a dysfunctional gun culture where guns are seen at polar extremes as scary playthings or as objects of power and glamour. And what I most definitely can't stand, is the fantasy of Johnny Triggerfingers being the big damn hero and saving the day as some sort of CCP average joe superhero. Don't get me wrong, I'm for concealed carry, but I simply can't stand how glamorized gun culture has become.

What I like about Vermont is that gun owners have a great, lasting tradition of treating their guns not as a plaything or a show of status or authority, but as a tool of great power and great responsibility. Many such owners descended from families that often lived and died by the gun, whether it was to hunt for game or defend against predators. This solemness, in my view, is sorely and disappointingly missing from our country's bipolar and convoluted view on guns.



I trust our government just about as much as I trust Johnny Triggerfingers.

I don't actually know your position specifically, any better than I know Gun Grape's position, or Gunnut's, or Bigfella's, or anyone else.

I obviously have an interest in curbing gun violence, same as anyone else. I don't actually disagree with most of your proposals or most of the substance of what you are saying. Obviously mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns....on the other hand, a national database of anyone who has a mental health condition at some point is going to include a huge part of the nation.

My biggest problem isn't that we have some form of gun control, but it's that:

Again, nobody's talking about disarming Americans as a whole.
Yes! Yes, we are! This isn't some hypothetical situation, this actually happened in several local governments throughout the United States. When brought before the Supreme Court, 4 Justices said banning all guns is absolutely Constitutional.
The problem is that the side that wants to disarm all Americans will continue to use any tragedy to satisfy their actual political ends.
Even if we don't actually disarm Americans entirely, we're still talking about extreme limitations on the items Americans are allowed to own, which was the case under the Brady Bill not even 15 years ago.

Parihaka
04 Dec 15,, 15:59
It is commonly used in Europe,by the usual suspects.They don't compare killing rates or circumstances.For example, in the beloved motherland an average of 15 persons die yearly due to firearms.Idiots consider this to be good,compared to 10000 in US.But the other ~450 caused by anything else are graciously ignored.Considering some of the US killings to be legit,we have a higher murder rate per capita than US and we're virtually disarmed.But we're great,they're not shot.They're only stabbed ,hacked with axes etc...
The same moronic style of argument is obviously used by morons all over Europe.
Yes well, actual statistics aren't any use in attacking conservatives, which is what this is all about.
When you look at numbers,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex _of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
the massive elephant in the room is the hugely disproportionate number of black on black shootings. America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem, but it's much more fun to bait and harrass conservative gun owners.
It becomes super ironic when you examine gun crime by political leanings.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/01/guns_%20_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html

Doktor
04 Dec 15,, 16:15
200 mn guns are out there in the US, good luck.

Meanwhile, explosives are illegal. So are drugs and so was the alcohol.

Mihais
04 Dec 15,, 16:20
400 mn ,bro

Officer of Engineers
04 Dec 15,, 16:24
Meanwhile, explosives are illegal. So are drugs and so was the alcohol.Actually, low grade explosives are legal, ie fireworks, and the knowledge on how to make them is so wide spread that it is practically impossible to make it illegal.

Mihais
04 Dec 15,, 16:27
Yes well, actual statistics aren't any use in attacking conservatives, which is what this is all about.
When you look at numbers,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex _of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
the massive elephant in the room is the hugely disproportionate number of black on black shootings. America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem, but it's much more fun to bait and harrass conservative gun owners.
It becomes super ironic when you examine gun crime by political leanings.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/01/guns_%20_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html

But that's raycisss....


You know it,I know it,the sane Americans know it.The rest will just talk&act like the idiots they are.

The issue is for the sane folks to be strong enough to bloody their nose.

Red Team
04 Dec 15,, 16:31
Since when should this be a party issue? There's plenty of liberal gun owners with a vested interest in the second amendment. And plenty of people on both ends of the political spectrum have been affected by gun violence. Hell Vermont, the state with the loosest gun laws in the country, is a freaking blue state.

Red Team
04 Dec 15,, 17:04
But that's raycisss....


You know it,I know it,the sane Americans know it.The rest will just talk&act like the idiots they are.

The issue is for the sane folks to be strong enough to bloody their nose.

It's absolutely no secret that black on black violence, especially in the ghettos, is a problem and has been for decades.

Albany Rifles
04 Dec 15,, 17:17
It's absolutely no secret that black on black violence, especially in the ghettos, is a problem and has been for decades.


And a large part of that is gang violence...which is related to turf...which is tied to the illegal drug trade.

And we know how successful the War on Drugs has been.

Gun Grape
04 Dec 15,, 18:06
Come on, this is pedantic.
1. There is no universal definition of "mass shooting" so your total isn't obviously true.

The one I always see is 4 or more people shot with at least 2 dead. But you brought up the term.


2. The larger numbers of mass shootings tend to flex the definition to include incidents where multiple people were SHOT, but no one or only 1 or 2 people died: it does not change the actual calculation.

SO you have to kill someone for there to be a gun violence problem?



3. Even adjusting the total to 1.5 shootings per day instead of 1 shooting per day does not substantially alter the final count. The orders of magnitude are 10:1 plus.

If we are talking 10 mass shootings every day, each one killing 10 people, then we might have a legitimate public health concern. From mass shootings.

Death is not a public health concern. Everyone dies. People killed in a mass shooting(or car accident......) don't eat up health care money. Wounded people do.
You tag and bag the dead at the scene. Its the survivors that cost health care money.

Gun Grape
04 Dec 15,, 18:27
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem, but it's much more fun to bait and harrass conservative gun owners.


Last time I checked Black Americans were still considered Americans.

But its easy to pick an choose segments to define problems or the lack of a problem.

" America doesn't have an education problem 57% of adult Asian Americans have at least a Bachelors degree. Its them pesky white people that skew the numbers with only 33% having the same."

I look at your link and see that 5763 Americans were murdered in 2013. Thats a problem

Parihaka
04 Dec 15,, 23:43
Last time I checked Black Americans were still considered Americans.

Well duh.

YellowFever
05 Dec 15,, 00:18
Hell Vermont, the state with the loosest gun laws in the country.....

...also has one of the lowest gun violence rates.

Places like California...or Chicago, with draconian gun control laws have some of the hightest gun murder rates, which should tell you it's not just about the guns.

Bigfella
05 Dec 15,, 00:50
Ok.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33547806

Is that good enough?

Much. Britons are lucky to live in a nation where the 'big' story in crime is a weapon that kills under 300 people per year despite being easily obtained by anyone old enough to open a drawer. There simply isn't a meaningful comparison to gun in the US & the more you try to make one the sillier it gets.


You blame DM for being partial, but what you don't say is 2/3 are suicides of your gun deaths.

Why write a story all full of scary figures & accusations and not put the number of people actually killed? You know the reason - it would have deflated the headline because 269 people in a population of 55 million isn't very shocking.

All the figures I have used are for homicides Doc, not gun deaths. Straight from the FBI. Sorry you'll have to do MUCH better than that if you are going to accuse me of manipulating data.


Medical malpractice kills way more. Let's ban hospitals.

How about we ban shithouse false equivalence arguments?

Yo are too smart to be saying crap like this & I like you too much to continue an argument where you do. I'm out.

Bigfella
05 Dec 15,, 01:04
It's absolutely no secret that black on black violence, especially in the ghettos, is a problem and has been for decades.

Easy availability of firearms has turned a bad problem into a catastrophic one. There are plenty of Western nations with entrenched areas of poverty, disadvantaged ethnic minorities etc. They don't have even vaguely comparable homicide rates. Baltimore has about double the number of murders as London with less than 10% of the population and 40% fewer blacks. Guns, especially handguns, have been petrol on the fire. It is the difference between an area being economically depressed & an area being Belfast....or worse (for comparison, 'the Troubles' killed about 100 people a year on average).

Parihaka
05 Dec 15,, 01:19
Since when should this be a party issue? There's plenty of liberal gun owners with a vested interest in the second amendment. And plenty of people on both ends of the political spectrum have been affected by gun violence. Hell Vermont, the state with the loosest gun laws in the country, is a freaking blue state.

It shouldn't be, but has been declared so by your president

Bigfella
05 Dec 15,, 01:19
And what's incomprehensible to me are the draconian gun laws the rest of your nations pass in order to achieve marginal mortality gains.

That's why you live in Australia, and I live in America.

If you think a homicide rate 400% higher is a 'marginal' difference then you need to re-do math.

I live in an overcrowded inner city area with pockets of entrenched poverty that pre-date my nation's existence, a rampant drug trade, a largely non-white population with a history of gang violence and massive towers block I can see from my back yard ('the projects' if you will). In America this would be 'the hood'. People go about their business in safety day and night. I can recall two shootings in public in 25+ years, only one fatal. It is an area people want to live in, despite the problems, and real estate prices reflect that.

Sane firearms policy isn't about 'marginal' gains, it is about a liveable society. I wouldn't make any more than marginal changes to your gun laws for no other reason than it is no longer practical. We started the process in the 1920s & continue to reap the benefits in terms of human life and society in general.

That is why I live in Australia & I am thankful for it.

Red Team
05 Dec 15,, 03:32
It shouldn't be, but has been declared so by your president

I'm pretty certain it has more to do with our current hyperpolarized political climate than the actions of our president, who has yet to declare the sweeping gun snatch that most of his opponents are panicking about.

citanon
05 Dec 15,, 03:51
I'm pretty certain it has more to do with our current hyperpolarized political climate than the actions of our president, who has yet to declare the sweeping gun snatch that most of his opponents are panicking about.

Only because he knows he faces certain legislative defeat. So, no panic, only vigilance.

Parihaka
05 Dec 15,, 04:03
I'm pretty certain it has more to do with our current hyperpolarized political climate than the actions of our president, who has yet to declare the sweeping gun snatch that most of his opponents are panicking about.

Agreed, what I was specifically referring to though was this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/obama-vows-to-make-gun-violence-a-political-issue-after-shooting

Red Team
05 Dec 15,, 05:41
Only because he knows he faces certain legislative defeat. So, no panic, only vigilance.

Certainly, but one would have thought he'd have rolled major gun legislation in during the Dem's dominance in Congress alongside the ACA if it was such a vested interest for him to take our guns.

Doktor
05 Dec 15,, 07:53
Much. Britons are lucky to live in a nation where the 'big' story in crime is a weapon that kills under 300 people per year despite being easily obtained by anyone old enough to open a drawer. There simply isn't a meaningful comparison to gun in the US & the more you try to make one the sillier it gets.



Why write a story all full of scary figures & accusations and not put the number of people actually killed? You know the reason - it would have deflated the headline because 269 people in a population of 55 million isn't very shocking.

All the figures I have used are for homicides Doc, not gun deaths. Straight from the FBI. Sorry you'll have to do MUCH better than that if you are going to accuse me of manipulating data.



How about we ban shithouse false equivalence arguments?

Yo are too smart to be saying crap like this & I like you too much to continue an argument where you do. I'm out.

We have a very very very tight gun regulation. It is enforced very strictly. Guess how many shootings we fet. Heck, yesterday we had one. And a week earlier another. Out of 2 mil. So, we have more shootings without guns, then Americans with 1.333 guns per capita.

citanon
05 Dec 15,, 09:34
We have a very very very tight gun regulation. It is enforced very strictly. Guess how many shootings we fet. Heck, yesterday we had one. And a week earlier another. Out of 2 mil. So, we have more shootings without guns, then Americans with 1.333 guns per capita.

Exactly Dok. Different countries are, gasp, different.

Doktor
05 Dec 15,, 09:40
Exactly Dok. Different countries are, gasp, different.

I am not the one saying hey look how good it works for us we only have 1/6 per capita compared to...

citanon
05 Dec 15,, 10:44
I am not the one saying hey look how good it works for us we only have 1/6 per capita compared to...

No I actually agree with you.

The US is a very large country and different US cities have different sets of problems. Comparing the US specifically to country X is not useful.

There are large US cities that are very safe, and then there are specific areas that are very much different, and that's a product of what's happening in those areas, and the history of how it got that way.

GVChamp
05 Dec 15,, 16:15
The one I always see is 4 or more people shot with at least 2 dead. But you brought up the term.

SO you have to kill someone for there to be a gun violence problem?

Death is not a public health concern. Everyone dies. People killed in a mass shooting(or car accident......) don't eat up health care money. Wounded people do.
You tag and bag the dead at the scene. Its the survivors that cost health care money.
I still cannot tell what you are trying to argue. I don't actually know the number of survivors of gun deaths, but for the total US health care system, I am pretty sure the majority of expenses are on issues like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

If you think a homicide rate 400% higher is a 'marginal' difference then you need to re-do math.

I live in an overcrowded inner city area with pockets of entrenched poverty that pre-date my nation's existence, a rampant drug trade, a largely non-white population with a history of gang violence and massive towers block I can see from my back yard ('the projects' if you will). In America this would be 'the hood'. People go about their business in safety day and night. I can recall two shootings in public in 25+ years, only one fatal. It is an area people want to live in, despite the problems, and real estate prices reflect that.

Sane firearms policy isn't about 'marginal' gains, it is about a liveable society. I wouldn't make any more than marginal changes to your gun laws for no other reason than it is no longer practical. We started the process in the 1920s & continue to reap the benefits in terms of human life and society in general.

That is why I live in Australia & I am thankful for it.
What in the world makes you think the United States isn't livable? Have you actually lived in the United States? My Wife is absent-minded: she's left the door unlocked or her keys in the door 3 or 4 times in the 6 months we've lived her, and we haven't had a problem. Once she left the window open. The only problem is that it was 45 degrees outside and cooled the entire house.

Clearly the United States is livable. It's the richest nation on Earth, and it's the most populated of the advanced nations, not to mention the 3rd most populous nation on Earth. We have immigration, including the brightest and best in the world.

Not sure where you are getting this idea that the United States isn't livable. The 400% higher rate of homicides doesn't meaningfully affect most Americans, because it's such a low number to begin with.

By the way, what does Vox say about Australia's sane gun control of seizing law-abiding citizen's guns (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution)?


. Leigh and Neill found that the buyback resulted in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the gun homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this change wasn't statistically significant
Yeah, it's a 35 percent decline, of something that's terribly small to begin with, so small we can't even come up with a way to measure it. That small.

So, yes, you have a number, but it doesn't mean anything.

Here's what it actually means:
For gains so small you can't even statistically measure it, you sent police officers into the homes of tax-paying, law-abiding, fellow citizens, in order to seize their property.

You then insist you have a monopoly on sanity and everyone who disagrees with you is obviously irrational.

Here's the thing: no one in my family, besides service members, has ever been shot at. No one in my family has ever shoot at anther person. I know of one person in my entire life who has ever been shot, and that was indeed in a mass shooting with international press coverage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Illinois_University_shooting).
I do not think that justifies disarming my family. I certainly do not think that should allow a federal bureaucrat to manage a database of all the mental health information for every person in my family. My family does not have good experiences with government databases (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/opm-hack-government-finally-starts-notifying-21-5-million-victims-n437126).

That some people kill themselves with their guns is not a good enough reason. That the 'hood cannot police itself is not a good enough reason, though the local officials there can pass whatever laws they deem necessary for their safety. That there are sometimes mass shootings in a nation of 300+ million people is not a good enough reason.

Nope, not a good enough reason, I am going to continue my blessed life in the world's richest nation that somehow operates despite all these guns. I am even going to a public place today because I don't fear mass shootings from my fellow Americans anymore than I fear mass shootings from ISIS.


EDIT: I should add that I don't think your preference for policy choices is irrational or crazy. It is a measured policy response I would expect of someone who is very interested in reducing gun violence and does not care much about gunowner rights.

The United States does not share that policy preference. It's not odd that different nations have different policy choices. That does not make us uncivilized.

I do not want the federal government making unilateral policy decisions for the United States. Americans are way too eager to get the federal government involved in every little problem.

I also worry about Americans overresponding to little problems. The last time an American city became unlivable was when the police shut down Watertown after the Boston bombing, because there was a half-dead teenager bleeding out somewhere. That is completely irrational and dangerous.

Parihaka
05 Dec 15,, 21:00
No I actually agree with you.

The US is a very large country and different US cities have different sets of problems. Comparing the US specifically to country X is not useful.

There are large US cities that are very safe, and then there are specific areas that are very much different, and that's a product of what's happening in those areas, and the history of how it got that way.

But but but Melbourne's EXACTLY like Chicago. And every time I wake up in Venice beach I could swear I was in Bristol. Really.

Parihaka
05 Dec 15,, 21:05
I still cannot tell what you are trying to argue. I don't actually know the number of survivors of gun deaths, but for the total US health care system, I am pretty sure the majority of expenses are on issues like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

What in the world makes you think the United States isn't livable? Have you actually lived in the United States? My Wife is absent-minded: she's left the door unlocked or her keys in the door 3 or 4 times in the 6 months we've lived her, and we haven't had a problem. Once she left the window open. The only problem is that it was 45 degrees outside and cooled the entire house.

Clearly the United States is livable. It's the richest nation on Earth, and it's the most populated of the advanced nations, not to mention the 3rd most populous nation on Earth. We have immigration, including the brightest and best in the world.

Not sure where you are getting this idea that the United States isn't livable. The 400% higher rate of homicides doesn't meaningfully affect most Americans, because it's such a low number to begin with.

By the way, what does Vox say about Australia's sane gun control of seizing law-abiding citizen's guns (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution)?


Yeah, it's a 35 percent decline, of something that's terribly small to begin with, so small we can't even come up with a way to measure it. That small.

So, yes, you have a number, but it doesn't mean anything.

Here's what it actually means:
For gains so small you can't even statistically measure it, you sent police officers into the homes of tax-paying, law-abiding, fellow citizens, in order to seize their property.

You then insist you have a monopoly on sanity and everyone who disagrees with you is obviously irrational.

Here's the thing: no one in my family, besides service members, has ever been shot at. No one in my family has ever shoot at anther person. I know of one person in my entire life who has ever been shot, and that was indeed in a mass shooting with international press coverage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Illinois_University_shooting).
I do not think that justifies disarming my family. I certainly do not think that should allow a federal bureaucrat to manage a database of all the mental health information for every person in my family. My family does not have good experiences with government databases (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/opm-hack-government-finally-starts-notifying-21-5-million-victims-n437126).

That some people kill themselves with their guns is not a good enough reason. That the 'hood cannot police itself is not a good enough reason, though the local officials there can pass whatever laws they deem necessary for their safety. That there are sometimes mass shootings in a nation of 300+ million people is not a good enough reason.

Nope, not a good enough reason, I am going to continue my blessed life in the world's richest nation that somehow operates despite all these guns. I am even going to a public place today because I don't fear mass shootings from my fellow Americans anymore than I fear mass shootings from ISIS.


EDIT: I should add that I don't think your preference for policy choices is irrational or crazy. It is a measured policy response I would expect of someone who is very interested in reducing gun violence and does not care much about gunowner rights.

The United States does not share that policy preference. It's not odd that different nations have different policy choices. That does not make us uncivilized.

I do not want the federal government making unilateral policy decisions for the United States. Americans are way too eager to get the federal government involved in every little problem.

I also worry about Americans overresponding to little problems. The last time an American city became unlivable was when the police shut down Watertown after the Boston bombing, because there was a half-dead teenager bleeding out somewhere. That is completely irrational and dangerous.
Like ^^^

Mihais
05 Dec 15,, 21:47
Well,you know the excuse.All lives matter,so if only one life is saved by grabbing guns,it is worth it.
Innocents getting stabbed as a result of increased crime,or even of ''normal'' crime don't matter.

The weird thing is that we're living for the first time in an era when the voice of those unarmed actually can force decisions on those who are armed.That is probably only an accident of history,even if it lasts for decades.

I would have never believed possible a war in Donbass.A theoretical exercise is one thing,actually believing it will happen,nope.

citanon
05 Dec 15,, 22:10
Mihais,

we in the US did not just enshrined the right to bear arms in our constitution for citizens to poses weapons. we did it so the idea of individuals defending life, freedom, property and country become a central part of the ethos of our citizenry.

the second amendment is both a key reason why we can have the largest and most effective all volunteer military on Earth and a great insurance that our citizen soldiers can be trusted to defend individual rights and freedoms instead of serving merely the state.

the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is the symbolic and concrete embodiment of the idea that political power rests in the hands of the people. Its that idea's first line of defense via shaping of the character of the citizens and its final insurance via the actual control of arms. Its value is paramount.

Parihaka
05 Dec 15,, 22:23
The weird thing is that we're living for the first time in an era when the voice of those unarmed actually can force decisions on those who are armed.

If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

Doktor
05 Dec 15,, 22:47
If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

Touche

Mihais
05 Dec 15,, 23:09
Mihais,

we in the US did not just enshrined the right to bear arms in our constitution for citizens to poses weapons. we did it so the idea of individuals defending life, freedom, property and country become a central part of the ethos of our citizenry.

the second amendment is both a key reason why we can have the largest and most effective all volunteer military on Earth and a great insurance that our citizen soldiers can be trusted to defend individual rights and freedoms instead of serving merely the state.

the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is the symbolic and concrete embodiment of the idea that political power rests in the hands of the people. Its that idea's first line of defense via shaping of the character of the citizens and its final insurance via the actual control of arms. Its value is paramount.

Dude,you preach to the choir.I know what the 2nd stands for.I'm just envious.

Mihais
05 Dec 15,, 23:14
If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

''Mr Officer, thiefs got in the night and they stole my weapons.''

citanon
05 Dec 15,, 23:45
Dude,you preach to the choir.I know what the 2nd stands for.I'm just envious.

Ah, misread what you meant by grabbing a gun. =)

InExile
06 Dec 15,, 01:22
Clearly the United States is livable. It's the richest nation on Earth, and it's the most populated of the advanced nations, not to mention the 3rd most populous nation on Earth. We have immigration, including the brightest and best in the world.

This is a good post. I lived in the US for 8 years and never felt at great personal risk from gun violence inspite of living in a couple of places that might be considered dangerous like downtown St Louis or Philadelphia. I did know of a couple of acquaintances who experienced a mugging involving guns (though did not get shot). However the level of gun violence in the States is nowhere so high such that the average resident is at any significant risk of being a victim of a gun homicide in their lifetime. Or at a significantly higher risk of being a victim of crimes such as mugging, theft or assault than any other Western Country. I do have thoughts when visiting the US that any person around me might be carrying a gun, and might be the next nut to start opening fire. But I know intellectually that the risk of that is like almost zero.

A society without the gun culture of the United States might consider even this level of gun violence to be unacceptable and take steps to restrict the ownership of guns. Also, in contrast to the death from guns the number of deaths from Islamist terrorism, including this week's episode is like a order of magnitude lesser yet Americans are willing to consider far more drastic action in regards to that.

citanon
06 Dec 15,, 01:33
Islamic terrorism is something that will escalate exponentially if not checked early. that's the difference.

meanwhile we have been making great progress in reducing all forms of violent crime, including gun violence, while rolling back gun control.

zraver
06 Dec 15,, 01:40
If you think a homicide rate 400% higher is a 'marginal' difference then you need to re-do math.

I live in an overcrowded inner city area with pockets of entrenched poverty that pre-date my nation's existence, a rampant drug trade, a largely non-white population with a history of gang violence and massive towers block I can see from my back yard ('the projects' if you will). In America this would be 'the hood'. People go about their business in safety day and night. I can recall two shootings in public in 25+ years, only one fatal. It is an area people want to live in, despite the problems, and real estate prices reflect that.

Then it ain't hood... But your comparison brings up an important distinction. Gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly a problem for young economically dis-empowered minority males. Gun violence in the US is mostly drug violence. The solution isn't to punish everyone else. White American males, much maligned in the media are statistically under represented in mass shootings, serial killings and murder in general despite being the most heavily armed ethnic group anywhere on Earth. If guns caused Violence, white Americans should be shooting it out with anything and everyone like some Hollywood movie.


Sane firearms policy isn't about 'marginal' gains, it is about a liveable society. I wouldn't make any more than marginal changes to your gun laws for no other reason than it is no longer practical. We started the process in the 1920s & continue to reap the benefits in terms of human life and society in general.

Benefits?

Is your risk of violent crime as a white guy much different than mine as a white guy? Not really. Is your suicide rate lower? Not really. Funny thing is your society is actually more fearful than mine, not much but for all your disarmament it is measurable. It seems your gunless urban utopias haven't delivered happiness and a sense of security and well being.


That is why I live in Australia & I am thankful for it.

Glad to be an American

InExile
06 Dec 15,, 01:59
Islamic terrorism is something that will escalate exponentially if not checked early. that's the difference..

Agreed, yet it does seem somewhat hypocritical when the hard right (Trump etc) are willing to greatly infringe on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans while being dead against any steps that might even slightly inconvenience gun owners.


meanwhile we have been making great progress in reducing all forms of violent crime, including gun violence, while rolling back gun control

Perhaps so, but there is a consensus building on the left and the democrats for gun control with each mass shooting. While its unlikely the Democrats win control of Congress and the Presidency in the near future it cant be ruled out that a tipping point that might lead to action on gun control might not be reached at some point in the future.

Mass shootings are somewhat like Airplane crashes or terrorist attacks, extremely low in odds to happen to an individual but spectacular and gruesome when they do which cause people to greatly overestimate the risk it might happen to them. And lead to far greater resources being spent to prevent them.

citanon
06 Dec 15,, 02:24
Then it ain't hood... But your comparison brings up an important distinction. Gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly a problem for young economically dis-empowered minority males. Gun violence in the US is mostly drug violence...

The problems in our inner cities go deeper than economiC's or drugs. often serious corruption, neglect or mismanagement is also involved.

who were the most dangerous thugs on the loose after hurricane Katrina? turns out it was members of the new Orleans PD.

what are the chances that a murder of a young black man is solved in south central LA? The chances are abysmal.

how safe was time square under Giuliani? which way is it going now under deblasio?


meanwhile in Phoenix az, the murder rate dropped from roughly 200 per 100k to roughly 120 from 2001 to 2013. in that time gun laws were loosened so that every person over age 21 can carry concealed with no permit.

zraver
06 Dec 15,, 02:48
The problems in our inner cities go deeper than economiC's or drugs. often serious corruption, neglect or mismanagement is also involved.


The biggest problem is failed welfare policies that forced dad out of the home and penalized marriage. Large numbers of idle young men with no productive father figures or mentors is a real Lord of the Flies situation.

who were the most dangerous thugs on the loose after hurricane Katrina? turns out it was members of the new Orleans PD.

what are the chances that a murder of a young black man is solved in south central LA? The chances are abysmal.

how safe was time square under Giuliani? which way is it going now under deblasio?


meanwhile in Phoenix az, the murder rate dropped from roughly 200 per 100k to roughly 120 from 2001 to 2013. in that time gun laws were loosened so that every person over age 21 can carry concealed with no permit.[/QUOTE]

troung
08 Dec 15,, 00:18
Secret list being used ot take away constitutional rights, sounds all above board.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/



How Obama's Gun-Control Push Inverted the Politics of the No-Fly List

Democrats, once critics of Bush-era terror policies, have decided they’re a useful tool, while Republicans have rediscovered the importance of due process.

David A. Graham 2:47 PM ET News

It’s a familiar story of the post-September 11 era: Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a partisan fight over the “no-fly” list created after the attacks. One party insists that the nation must take common-sense measures to protect citizens and the homeland. The other party howls that it’s an outrageous violation of due-process rules and part of a slide into lawlessness. All that’s different now is that the dominant voices in the two parties have flipped 180 degrees.

During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.
Related Story

Last week, prior to the massacre in San Bernardino, House Republicans blocked debate on the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. On Thursday, the measure failed in the Senate as well. While its sponsors say the bill would prevent those on terror lists from acquiring guns, the law doesn’t specify whether it would bar those on the no-fly list or on several other federal watchlists.

What’s striking about this debate is how closely it mirrors the argument during the George W. Bush administration, when Democrats warned against the excesses of the list and Republicans defended it. The current debate suggests the extent to which the leading voices in the parties are willing to rearrange their positions around hot-button issues like gun rights, and shows how civil liberties tend to be treated as a tactical tool, exalted when they’re politically useful and forgotten when that’s more expedient.

Before September 11, the government did maintain a list of people who were not permitted to get on planes—16 of them, according to 60 Minutes. The list quickly grew after the attacks, though the government doesn’t report exact figures, making it tough to tell where things stand at any given moment. By 2006, 60 Minutes reported, there were 44,000 people on the list, plus another 75,000 for whom the feds called for extra screening. The no-fly list is also part of a much larger set, the Terrorist Screening Database, which the government compiled in 2003. In September 2008, an FBI deputy director told Congress there were 400,000 people on that last, 97 percent of them foreigners.

How does someone get on the watchlist? Who knows! The government says it gets thousands of tips a day, but it won’t tell you whether you’re on it, and it won’t tell you how to get off, as my colleague Conor Friedersdorf explained in 2012. The enormous size of the lists inevitably led to confusion, false positives, and outrage. Even Senator Ted Kennedy managed to end up on the no-fly list. So did Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam.

The system understandably raised the hackles of civil libertarians. The ACLU has been outspoken about the problems with the list for years. But it also upset Democrats, who complained that the list was yet another example of the Bush administration overreaching in its conduct of national-security policy, sacrificing in order to fight terrorism the very liberties that it purported to be defending.

“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Kennedy’s spokesman told The Washington Post.

Over the late 2000s, pressure grew, and the no-fly list actually shrank significantly, to about 4,000. But after the failed Christmas Day “underwear bomber” attack in December 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and significantly ramped up the list. By 2013, according to documents obtained by The Intercept, there were 47,000 people on the no-fly list, topping the Bush administration’s high. Obama’s decision was driven in part by national-security hawks in his own party, including California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called for a more aggressive list after the failed attack.

Republicans did not hesitate to criticize Obama over the attack, but the party was starting to discover a newfound skepticism for the no-fly list, now that a Democrat was in the White House and in charge of the list. That shift was helped by the election of a crop of libertarian-leaning legislators in the 2010 Tea Party wave, and growing evidence of the TSA’s inefficacy. The change wasn’t unanimous—you can read the conservative pundit Michelle Malkin saying no-fly enforcement was too lax in 2010—but something had changed. (It can’t have helped that Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes was somehow placed on the list, too.)

Obama didn’t personally make a great deal out of the no-fly list itself during his 2008 campaign for president, but he did criticize the Bush administration for overreach on civil liberties and excessive secrecy. Yet when the administration was sued by a man who believed he was on the list, it refused to say whether or not the man was on the list. As Nick Baumann of Mother Jones put it, “2008 Obama would have slammed 2014 Obama for this.”

When arguing that those on the no-fly list shouldn’t be able to buy guns, Obama and his allies have pointed to a 2011 call from American-born al-Qaeda member Adam Gadahn for would-be jihadis to take advantage of lax American gun laws. Still, it’s unclear how large an effect such a change would have on actual terrorism. The GAO found in 2010 that between February 2004 and February 2010, people on the terror watchlist were subject to firearm or explosives background checks in 1,228 cases. They were allowed to make their purchases in 1,119 of those cases, because there was noting that legally prohibited the buys.

In a smaller subset of the data, between 2009 and 2010, the GAO found that “several” people on the no-fly list were allowed to buy guns. So far, there’s nothing to suggest that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tafsheen Malik, the suspects in the San Bernardino shooting, were on the no-fly list, either.
“There aren’t 700,000 terrorists operating in America openly on watch lists.”

The major objection among Republican politicians at the moment to Obama’s proposal is not that it wouldn’t prevent many gun purchases. It’s that it would infringe on people’s Second Amendment rights.

While that’s true, it somewhat misses the point. There are plenty of reasons why people in the United States can have their firearm rights abridged. The broader problem is not that the people on the no-fly list are being denied their rights; it’s that they’re being denied their rights without due process. The lack of due process for being placed on the list or getting off forms the basis for an ACLU case against the government, Latif, et al. v. Holder. In 2014, a federal court ruled that the redress process for people on the list was unconstitutional. The government revised its redress system, but the ACLU has again challenged that process as unconstitutional because of its lack of due process.

On Sunday, Rubio said, “There aren’t 700,000 terrorists operating in America openly on watch lists.” In fact, very few of the 700,000 he lists are in the U.S., but even accepting the principle, Rubio might, on some level, be making an argument against Obama’s gun proposal. But mostly, it’s a compelling case against the essence of the no-fly list as it exists today.

gunnut
08 Dec 15,, 01:26
I work in Irvine, CA. It's one of the safest cities in the US.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/california/irvine.html

There were 2 murders/manslaughter in 2012. One murder/manslaughter projected for 2015. That's not 2 murders/manslaughter per 100,000. That's TWO, period.

http://www.usa.com/irvine-ca-crime-and-crime-rate.htm

There was ZERO murder/manslaughter in 2010.

The gun laws here are the same as LA county. In fact, looser, since residents can mail order ammo in Irvine but not in LA county.

Why is Irvine so safe but not LA? Don't know.

citanon
08 Dec 15,, 03:39
I work in Irvine, CA. It's one of the safest cities in the US.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/california/irvine.html

There were 2 murders/manslaughter in 2012. One murder/manslaughter projected for 2015. That's not 2 murders/manslaughter per 100,000. That's TWO, period.

http://www.usa.com/irvine-ca-crime-and-crime-rate.htm

There was ZERO murder/manslaughter in 2010.

The gun laws here are the same as LA county. In fact, looser, since residents can mail order ammo in Irvine but not in LA county.

Why is Irvine so safe but not LA? Don't know.

Also, OC Sheriffs follow Shall Issue guidelines for concealed carry permits last time I checked.

DOR
08 Dec 15,, 10:18
I work in Irvine, CA. It's one of the safest cities in the US.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/california/irvine.html

There were 2 murders/manslaughter in 2012. One murder/manslaughter projected for 2015. That's not 2 murders/manslaughter per 100,000. That's TWO, period.

http://www.usa.com/irvine-ca-crime-and-crime-rate.htm

There was ZERO murder/manslaughter in 2010.

The gun laws here are the same as LA county. In fact, looser, since residents can mail order ammo in Irvine but not in LA county.

Why is Irvine so safe but not LA? Don't know.


Irvine is a planned city, largely an artificial creation since 1960. Communities are fairly small, and separated by freeways. There are no ancient slums (Southside Chicago, Watts) with names that strike terror in the wallets of real estate agents.

250,000 people (50% white, 40% Asian, mostly Vietnamese and Korean), top-rated schools and strong skilled labor employment. Single parent household are only about 13-14%. Half the residents own their own homes.

Most intreging of all, Prop 13 was bypassed by Mello-Roos taxes, providing the funding for economic and social development.

astralis
08 Dec 15,, 15:44
that, and Irvine is so widely spaced that it's almost rural...;-)

I should know, I grew up in the turtle rock community...parents are still there in fact.

gunnut
08 Dec 15,, 19:49
Irvine is a planned city, largely an artificial creation since 1960. Communities are fairly small, and separated by freeways. There are no ancient slums (Southside Chicago, Watts) with names that strike terror in the wallets of real estate agents.

250,000 people (50% white, 40% Asian, mostly Vietnamese and Korean), top-rated schools and strong skilled labor employment. Single parent household are only about 13-14%. Half the residents own their own homes.

Most intreging of all, Prop 13 was bypassed by Mello-Roos taxes, providing the funding for economic and social development.


that, and Irvine is so widely spaced that it's almost rural...;-)

I should know, I grew up in the turtle rock community...parents are still there in fact.

So....the theme looks to be a widely spaced community to decrease rate of murder/homicide/manslaughter in an area with high gun ownership.

By the way, David, Irvine is not that sparse any more. Not sure if you have visited recently, there are dense pockets of population with newly constructed multi level apartment buildings not commonly found in OC.

astralis
08 Dec 15,, 20:03
gunnut,


So....the theme looks to be a widely spaced community to decrease rate of murder/homicide/manslaughter in an area with high gun ownership.

of course, if only because there's fewer targets to hit in any given area. that's not really going to be practicable in a big city, though, especially one that wasn't planned out.

it's not an accident that gun-control is more popular in densely populated urban areas and not so much in rural areas.

gunnut
08 Dec 15,, 20:50
gunnut,



of course, if only because there's fewer targets to hit in any given area. that's not really going to be practicable in a big city, though, especially one that wasn't planned out.

it's not an accident that gun-control is more popular in densely populated urban areas and not so much in rural areas.

So...let's solve the problem by putting more people into big cities. Or should we discourage dense city planning?

astralis
08 Dec 15,, 21:26
gunnut,


So...let's solve the problem by putting more people into big cities.

greater economic opportunities where there's more people, which mostly outweighs considerations of getting shot.


Or should we discourage dense city planning?

dense city planning is actually a good thing-- it's more efficient, for one. Irvine is very much a product of the 1960-1970s city planning, which was very much fixated on cars (like LA). turns out most people LIKE a walkable neighborhood, and that's why some of the newer Irvine neighborhoods have tried to do that instead.

closer to the topic, I actually think gun control, or lack thereof, should be a local affair. what's good for Upper Nowhere, Mississippi, may not be what's good for New York.

gunnut
08 Dec 15,, 21:45
gunnut,

greater economic opportunities where there's more people, which mostly outweighs considerations of getting shot.

But we don't see that in Detroit or Chicago or Philadelphia or St. Louis.



dense city planning is actually a good thing-- it's more efficient, for one. Irvine is very much a product of the 1960-1970s city planning, which was very much fixated on cars (like LA). turns out most people LIKE a walkable neighborhood, and that's why some of the newer Irvine neighborhoods have tried to do that instead.

Is it really efficient? I've seen the subway systems in Europe, Japan, and Hong Kong. They are great because they are subsidized. The cost to run them is higher because a train that can carry 500 people runs all the time, even when there's only a handful of people riding it.

When our freeway or streets empty, they are not expending energy.

Of course there's the "independence" part that I like with our system. I enjoy going to my friend's house, watch movies, hang out, and leave at 230am. I hop into my car whenever I want and get back home without exposing myself to the rest of the world for more 2 minutes. I don't want to live on the government's schedule. I don't want to share my space with other people. I don't like strangers. They don't have to like me. And I sure as hell don't want to be trapped at home when the government shuts down the subway.



closer to the topic, I actually think gun control, or lack thereof, should be a local affair. what's good for Upper Nowhere, Mississippi, may not be what's good for New York.

But how do we reconcile that with the Constitution, the "supreme" law of the land? Why is it OK for locals to have their own gun control laws but not their own voting laws or immigration laws?

troung
09 Dec 15,, 01:45
closer to the topic, I actually think gun control, or lack thereof, should be a local affair. what's good for Upper Nowhere, Mississippi, may not be what's good for New York.

Thinking like that was used by bigots to ban blacks from having guns, an interesting chapter even the guns rights crowd doesn't wish to touch...



The Ignorant Gun Control Crusade
By Rich Lowry
December 08, 2015
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/08/the_ignorant_gun_control_crusade_128971.html
Self-righteousness is liberating. The same people who are most exercised about guns in America, and want to ban and even confiscate entire categories of firearms, know little about them and evidently feel no compunction to learn.

The worst terror attack in the United States since September 11 has become the occasion for another frenzied, poorly informed push for new gun restrictions.

President Barack Obama gave a prime-time address on the terror threat, in which he resolutely reaffirmed the status quo in the campaign against ISIS. Except that he hopes that gun control, one of the signal political and policy failures of our time, will now be deployed to help foil the apocalyptic terror group.

Almost every time there is a mass shooting, there is a rush to push old gun-control chestnuts, regardless of their applicability. The San Bernardino terror couple didn’t buy their guns at a gun show (making the effort to close the so-called gun-show loophole irrelevant); they weren’t on the terrorism watch list (so the proposal to ban people on the list from buying guns wouldn’t have stopped them); and Syed Farook passed a background check when he bought two handguns (rendering calls for universal background checks moot).

The president and the New York Times, which saw fit to publish a front-page editorial for the first time since it thundered against Warren Harding in 1920, have fastened on the two “assault weapons,” AR-15s, used in the attack. The Times called them “weapons of war, barely modified.” President Obama referred to them as “powerful assault weapons.”

On this question, the Left has fallen for its own propaganda. Decades ago, gun-controllers decided to play on the confusion between semi-automatic versus automatic weapons to push for a ban on nasty-looking assault weapons, even though they are, for the most part, functionally indistinguishable from other semi-automatic rifles.

The AR-15 is one of those semi-automatic guns. It isn’t exotic or particularly powerful. It is the most popular rifle in the country. At least 3.5 million are in circulation. It is lightweight, accurate, and without much kick. You wouldn’t use it in combat and, in fact, wouldn’t necessarily use it to hunt. A .223-caliber gun, it is less powerful than many handguns. Some states forbid .223-caliber rifles in deer hunting because they aren’t powerful enough to reliably take down the game.

If gun-controllers know any of this, they hide it well. Nor do they seem to care that a prior version of the assault-weapons ban, in effect in the ten years after 1994, was wholly ineffectual. A Department of Justice-backed study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” (Rifles of all types, let alone assault rifles, are used in gun homicides only rarely.)

The proposal to keep people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns sounds sensible, yet it is problematic in that it denies people an explicit constitutional right on the basis of little or no due process. Last year, the Times itself inveighed against “the shadowy, self-contradictory world of American terror watch lists.” If the watch list is to become a no-gun list, it has to be cleaned up, and listees should have an opportunity to challenge their status upon attempting to buy a gun.

Such a prohibition would affect a tiny slice of gun purchases and would likely be mere symbolism, like the assault-weapons ban. The overriding reality that gun-controllers ignore is that almost all gun homicides are committed with handguns in routine street crime, and are often obtained in informal networks operating outside the gun rules we already have.

But please don’t confuse the anti-gun campaigners with facts. Their ignorance is invincible, and necessary to their crusade.

gunnut
09 Dec 15,, 02:23
Is it true that the 2 "assault" rifles in Farook's possession were straw purchases? Didn't he know that was illegal? Why would anyone break the law? I mean, it's the law. We set it up for a reason. I simply don't understand why anyone would break the law. It doesn't make any sense.

DOR
09 Dec 15,, 11:13
Is it really efficient? I've seen the subway systems in Europe, Japan, and Hong Kong. They are great because they are subsidized. The cost to run them is higher because a train that can carry 500 people runs all the time, even when there's only a handful of people riding it.

I can't speak for Europe or Japan, but Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway Corp (MTRC) is often described as a property company with a railroad problem. Here's how it was financed:

The government decides where it wants a subway line.
The government then gives the MTRC several plots of land, one at each station.
The MTRC either develops or sells the land rights to pay for the subway.
The government sets rates and safety rules, and the population gets highly efficient and low cost mass transit at no more than an opportunity cost to the public purse.

This is an excellent model, and the MTRC is being asked to advise on implementing it in both China and Eastern Europe.

Officer of Engineers
09 Dec 15,, 14:14
Is the line profittable? Or are they using real estate to pay for rail?

astralis
09 Dec 15,, 16:36
gunnut,


But we don't see that in Detroit or Chicago or Philadelphia or St. Louis.

depends on the economic opportunities, of course. there's a reason why Detroit has shrunk, while the likes of SF continues to boom.


Is it really efficient? I've seen the subway systems in Europe, Japan, and Hong Kong. They are great because they are subsidized. The cost to run them is higher because a train that can carry 500 people runs all the time, even when there's only a handful of people riding it.


if you're talking about the microeconomics of a subway, yeah, they can't pay for themselves. but that's true of any public road; even the ones with tolls take decades just to make back the initial cost, let alone maintenance. (of course, that's also not dealing with secondary costs like air pollution, traffic jams, accidents, etc.)

you run the subway/road to make the rest of the city more economically efficient. some subway systems are more efficient than others, again usually based on population density.


But how do we reconcile that with the Constitution, the "supreme" law of the land? Why is it OK for locals to have their own gun control laws but not their own voting laws or immigration laws?

note that there's a lot more leeway for local implementation of domestic policies vice what's considered foreign policy, or would have an impact on foreign policy.

of course there's a bottom-line in the Constitution; and then it's up to the courts to decide if the local law violates the Constitution.

citanon
09 Dec 15,, 20:31
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/12/09/the-right-to-bear-arms-isnt-up-for-debate/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


By Charles C.W. Cooke December 9 at 8:00 AM

Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we’re talking about gun ownership. Need a primer? Catch up here.

Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review and the author of “The Conservatarian Manifesto.”

When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such.

The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.” Practically speaking, at both the state level (as a bulwark against tyranny) and at the individual level (as a means by which to protect oneself), this necessitates the auxiliary right to the private ownership of “arms,” which, in the common law that preceded the Second Amendment, was understood to include personal weapons that could be wielded by an individual — such as the “musket and bayonet”; “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine”; and sundry “side arms.”

[Other perspectives: America is only pretending to regulate lethal firearms.]

At the time of the American founding, it was widely understood that there was a real danger in a government’s attempting to deprive the people of what Alexander Hamilton called their “original right of self-defense.” This is why, when it came to writing the Constitution, the anti-Federalists, who feared the government’s potential to become corrupt, refused to sign on to a more powerful national government until they had been promised certain explicit protections. Then, as now, their logic was clear: It makes no sense to allow the representatives of a free people to disarm their masters.

Reacting to this argument, we often hear advocates of gun control propose that the Founders’ observations are irrelevant because they could “not have imagined the modern world.” I agree with the latter assertion: They couldn’t have. As well-read in world history as they were, there is no way that they could have foreseen just how prescient they were in insisting on harsh limitations of government power. In their time, “tyranny” was comparatively soft — their complaints focused on under-representation and the capricious restriction of ancient rights. In the past century, by contrast, tyranny involved the systematic execution of entire groups and the enslavement of whole countries. The notion that if James Madison had foreseen the 20th century he would have concluded that the Bill of Rights was too generous is laughable.

Nor could the Founders have imagined the entrenched tyranny that would arise in their own country. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Company were hypocrites, certainly — like so many at the time they spoke of equality and liberty while indulging slavery — but the generation that met at Philadelphia did at least consider that the institution would die out peacefully. Instead, it was abolished only by bloody force, and then transmuted into something almost as abhorrent.

[Mass shootings are distracting from the real danger of guns in America]

Conservatives who are scared of tyrants often ask, “Could it happen here?” Well, it did. Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, legal segregation — for a period, the South was everything a free man should fear. When Ida B. Wells noted that “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give,” she was confirming an age-old truth: The gun is a great equalizer, and the state a capricious beast.

Does everyone who uses a firearm to protect himself survive? Of course not. But as a free man, I do not consider my inalienable rights to be contingent upon my ability to exercise them successfully. I may debate freely, even if I am destined to lose the argument. I may enjoy a jury trial even if I am guilty. And I may defend my life and my liberty even if I eventually succumb.

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

I agree partly with this editorial, but absolutely with the bold part.

Our volunteer military IS the citizen militia of our modern times, and with the military, we can see two problems around the world:

First, those who volunteer for military service in a society tend to be some of its most daring and aggressive members. Time and again, in many societies around the world, the relationship between those who see it as their place to keep order and defend society and average citizen who wishes for safety and liberty have been distorted until the former began to seek domination over the latter. We see this in our own society today via the constant tension over police powers and police conduct.

Second, in highly developed modern societies, there tends to be diminishing political support for defense and declining participation in military service over time. We see this today in the societies of our allies in the developed world.

Thus, the 2nd Amendment provides for the development and constancy of the American character and serves as a bulwark against both problems. It ensures support for strong defense and supplies our peace loving society with a core cadre of defenders via generations of gun ownership and the perpetuation of a vibrant gun culture, while also ensuring that those defenders will have invested, from a very early age, their very identities in the protection of individual freedoms and rights via the inextricable linkage of power and authority (2nd amendment) with amendments protecting free speech and civil liberties in the Bill of Rights.

The founders could not have imagined the modern society, but their deep and multifaceted wisdom has transcended time and change.

astralis
09 Dec 15,, 20:53
citanon,



The Bill of Rights unites those who believes in the pen via the 1st Amendment with those who believe in the gun via the 2nd. Without BOTH in the Constitution, over time those who see it as their place to keep order and defend society may get into an adversarial mindset against the average citizen who wishes for safety and liberty. We have seen this time and again in other societies around the world, and we see this constant tension in our own society here today in the US via the struggle over police powers. The 2nd Amendment is our insurance against the accentuation of this conflict and distortion of our society into a police state.

The 2nd Amendment provides for the development and constancy of the American character, supplies our peace loving society with its most courageous defenders, and ensures that those defenders will have their very identities invested in protecting the freedom and rights of individuals via the intimate and concrete linkage of liberty (1st) with political and personal power (2nd) in a single document.

this is one of the "pinnacle" arguments against gun control of any sort, but frankly I think it's one of the weakest ones. (I say this as a gun owner, BTW.)

how much did the 2A assist blacks from being oppressed, or discriminated against, both by other Americans and by the federal government? how much did the 2A assist Japanese-Americans from being interned by the government? how about fairly egregious violations of the 1st amendment in the Alien and Sedition Acts of WWI and in WWII, or the Mccarthy witch hunt?

actually, one of the darkly amusing things regarding the recent hubbub over police powers is how many of the very people who otherwise talk about "abuse of government power" and being suspicious of police...almost instinctively embraced "blue lives matter" against perceived thuggery. would conservatives say that minorities should be better armed to protect against police abuse? I doubt it...

gunnut
09 Dec 15,, 21:18
citanon,



this is one of the "pinnacle" arguments against gun control of any sort, but frankly I think it's one of the weakest ones. (I say this as a gun owner, BTW.)

how much did the 2A assist blacks from being oppressed, or discriminated against, both by other Americans and by the federal government? how much did the 2A assist Japanese-Americans from being interned by the government? how about fairly egregious violations of the 1st amendment in the Alien and Sedition Acts of WWI and in WWII, or the Mccarthy witch hunt?

actually, one of the darkly amusing things regarding the recent hubbub over police powers is how many of the very people who otherwise talk about "abuse of government power" and being suspicious of police...almost instinctively embraced "blue lives matter" against perceived thuggery. would conservatives say that minorities should be better armed to protect against police abuse? I doubt it...

So...something didn't work as planned. Let's get rid of it so it'll work better.

astralis
09 Dec 15,, 21:27
the point is that "2A as the best and final argument against tyranny" seems to be weak and not supported by history, either ours or in fellow democracies.

there's good reasons to protect the right of gun ownership, that's just not one of them.

gunnut
09 Dec 15,, 22:58
the point is that "2A as the best and final argument against tyranny" seems to be weak and not supported by history, either ours or in fellow democracies.

there's good reasons to protect the right of gun ownership, that's just not one of them.

Don't need an excuse. It's a right under the Constitution.

Why don't we question 1A? Why can't congress make laws regarding the establishment of a religion? Europeans do it. I thought we want to be more like Europe.

GVChamp
09 Dec 15,, 23:19
the point is that "2A as the best and final argument against tyranny" seems to be weak and not supported by history, either ours or in fellow democracies.

there's good reasons to protect the right of gun ownership, that's just not one of them.

Not sure you're taking the right view here. The English Revolution and the American Revolution both would've never gotten off the ground without civilian ownership of weapons. If your bar is "perfect social justice as envisioned by Star Trek," then no, the Second Amendment will not get you there.

antimony
10 Dec 15,, 01:07
I'm not against any of those measures as long as you approve the following:

Are you for or against a background check at the voting booth? Of course this background check has a nominal cost, say....$19, to administer the system.
Should we strip mental patients the right to vote without due process?
Should there be a voting permit for people to vote? Of course one has to take a 30 question test to and pay a $25 fee (for the administration) to obtain this permit. These questions aren't hard, just basic civic knowledge of the United States political system.
There is a voter's registry already so I'm ok with that.

In addition, at the voting booth, one must fill out a form stating one's full name, address, county and state spelled out in full, no abbreviations, and state that one is not a criminal or any other person ineligible to vote, sign and date, before being handed a ballot. One must also present a photo ID and 2 documents to prove residency. A United States passport does not count as proof of residency. A cell phone bill is not a proof of residency. It must be a car registration or cable/utility bill.

Now get this, California just passed a law that automatically registers anyone who applies/renews a driver's license to vote. California also issues driver's license to illegal immigrants. Thoughts?

As I have advocated many times before, I respect gun rights and voting right. Part of respecting and upholding rights is the notion that the right should be denied to those who do not deserve them. Felon, mental patients should not be allowed to own guns. non citizens should be allowed to vote. Citizens should not be allowed to vote more than once.

However, instead of creating rules and regulations at the whim of local elected officials, voter registration and identification should be broad based, use transparent rules and make an effort to reach out to everyone eligible. As long as that is done, I am fine with the concept of voter registration. India has nailed this process, the US has not.

The measures that you are talking about are inefficient to the extreme. To see the flip side, background checks for guns should not be the painful process that it is today. We have apps and digital id cards for chrissake, why should the FFL have to CALL an FBI number and be put on hold? Why do we accept a non answer, which adds a delay of 5 days to the process, where it takes seconds to validate against a database?

citanon
10 Dec 15,, 01:42
citanon,



this is one of the "pinnacle" arguments against gun control of any sort, but frankly I think it's one of the weakest ones. (I say this as a gun owner, BTW.)

how much did the 2A assist blacks from being oppressed, or discriminated against, both by other Americans and by the federal government? how much did the 2A assist Japanese-Americans from being interned by the government? how about fairly egregious violations of the 1st amendment in the Alien and Sedition Acts of WWI and in WWII, or the Mccarthy witch hunt?

actually, one of the darkly amusing things regarding the recent hubbub over police powers is how many of the very people who otherwise talk about "abuse of government power" and being suspicious of police...almost instinctively embraced "blue lives matter" against perceived thuggery. would conservatives say that minorities should be better armed to protect against police abuse? I doubt it...

it didn't work against those things because the great majority of the country did not see those things as tyranny. the 2nd amendment prevents certain types of tyranny, and is essential for that reason, but that doesn't mean its a panacea.

it's like saying that the flu vaccine is not useful because it doesn't defeat meningitis. while meningitis is bad, you really don't want to GE the flu and meningitis at the same time.

In that vein, what 2A did do for those causes is to protect the political process so that reforms or corrective action happened when country changed its sentiment.

regarding police abuse, there are actually many conservatives who are worried about police abuse and police attempts to restrain ownership of fire arms, but that is different fROM the extremist position of taking on the police with guns, which is a red herring.

You do, however, see the NRA cheering encouragement of of gun ownership and concealed carry by minorities.

DOR
10 Dec 15,, 10:20
Yes, people kill people. But guns and laws make a huge difference in how many people get killed and the data clearly demonstrates the NRA and Republican narrative is myth-based fantasy, not fact-based reality.
*
By Brian E. Frydenborg Dec 5, 2015 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nra-gop-gun-disinformation-completely-debunked-maps-brian-frydenborg

Like any dangerous product — cars, airplanes, explosives — sensible regulation of guns clearly plays a positive role in reducing both misuse of this product and the number of deaths resulting from such misuse. The map itself was part of a scholarly study*by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.

[The map didn't reproduce. It shows high levels of gun deaths in mostly red states, lower levels in mostly blue states. Go the the URL above to see it. -- DOR]

The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certainly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association (NRA) or from gun-rights advocates.

Sanjac
10 Dec 15,, 10:34
I suspect (but don't know) that if we had a map showing where in LA County the homicides were committed, we'd see that this behavior is concentrated in certain small neighborhoods. Then Irvine might not appear to be an anomaly in comparison to similar neighborhoods in LA County.

When discussing gun control, we also must keep in mind that guns are way down the list of weapons used in actual homicides. In real life, hammers are used several times more frequently than firearms to kill people.

And, in real life, when a city bans guns for its private citizens, violent crimes soar. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an exception to that.

DOR
10 Dec 15,, 10:38
I suspect (but don't know) that if we had a map showing where in LA County the homicides were committed, we'd see that this behavior is concentrated in certain small neighborhoods. Then Irvine might not appear to be an anomaly in comparison to similar neighborhoods in LA County.

When discussing gun control, we also must keep in mind that guns are way down the list of weapons used in actual homicides. In real life, hammers are used several times more frequently than firearms to kill people.

And, in real life, when a city bans guns for its private citizens, violent crimes soar. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an exception to that.

All valid points.

The point the article makes is that more gun control relates to less gun crime.

astralis
10 Dec 15,, 16:18
gunnut,


Don't need an excuse. It's a right under the Constitution.

I understand that. what I question is the view that the 2A is the ultimate "indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual".

it's -one- of the indicators, but not the only or even the most important one.

GVChamp,


Not sure you're taking the right view here. The English Revolution and the American Revolution both would've never gotten off the ground without civilian ownership of weapons.

true. on the other hand, how many times have we (the US) experienced something like this in our history, -other- than the American Revolution? I can think of one example...and that's the Civil War, where the South utilized these personal arms in a revolt against constitutional authority, not to defend it.

remember, I'm NOT arguing regarding the constitutionality or the "correctness" of the 2A.

I'm arguing against the viewpoint that it's the best/ultimate argument against tyranny, the whole "democracy is wolf and lamb having a vote and the 2A means a well-armed lamb."

Mihais
10 Dec 15,, 17:10
The Southerners obviously believed otherwise.

Has any government tried putting a whole class of its citizens or even a race in concentration camps?Yeah,there were the Japs 70 years ago,but we're not talking the real ugly version and we're not talking millions.
The 2A was not needed in the history of the US.Therefore you don't have a basis to disagree with the whole ''wolf and lamb having a vote and the 2A means a well-armed lamb''.

On the other hand,the founding fathers of the US believed the 2A as not being useful until someone tries to supress it.And to my knowledge there were no serious efforts to circumvent it until the 80's or 90's,which is basically our lifetime.

Red Team
10 Dec 15,, 19:06
Mihais,

Well there was that one time when Native Americans were literally forced out of their homes to make room for new settlements and assigned to live in arbitrarily established campsites. And the ones that tried to fight back were brutally put down by the US Army and advancing settlers, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the permanent usurpation of their ancestral lands.

The actions of the government and its citizens clearly indicated that the second amendment didn't apply to them.

YellowFever
10 Dec 15,, 19:29
What time period are we talking about?

It's a sad period in American history but Native Americans weren't considered "real Americans" until they were granted citizenship by congresss in 1924.

Red Team
10 Dec 15,, 20:00
What time period are we talking about?

It's a sad period in American history but Native Americans weren't considered "real Americans" until they were granted citizenship by congresss in 1924.

I was referring to the period starting with President Jackson in the mid-1800s that included the Indian Removal Act/Trail of Tears and the later campaigns of the Great Plains. I'm aware that they weren't considered "real Americans" till the 20th c. but I was more referring to the double standards against groups like the Native Americans, especially considering the American "Nativist" movement against German/Italian/Irish immigrants went on during roughly the same period.

In truth this was way more a general critique of historical American hypocrisy moreso than a critique of gun control, so I'm going a bit off topic.

YellowFever
10 Dec 15,, 20:05
In truth this was way more a general critique of historical American hypocrisy moreso than a critique of gun control, so I'm going a bit off topic.


Gotcha. :thumbsup:

gunnut
10 Dec 15,, 20:58
As I have advocated many times before, I respect gun rights and voting right. Part of respecting and upholding rights is the notion that the right should be denied to those who do not deserve them. Felon, mental patients should not be allowed to own guns.

That's already done. The question on your 4473 form specifically asks if the person has been adjudicated by the court to be a danger to others, a felon, or mentally unstable. This is a constitutional right. It cannot be denied without due process.


non citizens should be allowed to vote.

Whoa....whoa....whoa....Don't you mean non citizens should NOT be allowed to vote?


Citizens should not be allowed to vote more than once.

I agree. But why don't we have a process to make sure these things don't happen? highsea detailed how one could register to vote in Washington state without ever having set foot in the state and never get caught. The same trick would work in most liberal states.



However, instead of creating rules and regulations at the whim of local elected officials, voter registration and identification should be broad based, use transparent rules and make an effort to reach out to everyone eligible. As long as that is done, I am fine with the concept of voter registration. India has nailed this process, the US has not.

Absolutely! Now substitute voting with guns.



The measures that you are talking about are inefficient to the extreme. To see the flip side, background checks for guns should not be the painful process that it is today. We have apps and digital id cards for chrissake, why should the FFL have to CALL an FBI number and be put on hold? Why do we accept a non answer, which adds a delay of 5 days to the process, where it takes seconds to validate against a database?

The measures are fucking ludicrous. And that's exactly the point of gun-grabbers. It is to make it so annoying to own a gun that most people wouldn't bother to exercise their constitutional right.

Liberals are masters at this tactic. They know they can't get everything done at once. They will take away rights piecemeal. Add a fee here. Make you fill out a form there. Get a certificate. Complete your training. No automatic renewals. Must do the whole crap over every few years. That's how they get you.

I just want to see this done to voting rights so only those serious and determined can affect the course of this country.

gunnut
10 Dec 15,, 21:11
Yes, people kill people. But guns and laws make a huge difference in how many people get killed and the data clearly demonstrates the NRA and Republican narrative is myth-based fantasy, not fact-based reality.
*
By Brian E. Frydenborg Dec 5, 2015 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nra-gop-gun-disinformation-completely-debunked-maps-brian-frydenborg

Like any dangerous product — cars, airplanes, explosives — sensible regulation of guns clearly plays a positive role in reducing both misuse of this product and the number of deaths resulting from such misuse. The map itself was part of a scholarly study*by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.

[The map didn't reproduce. It shows high levels of gun deaths in mostly red states, lower levels in mostly blue states. Go the the URL above to see it. -- DOR]

The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certainly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association (NRA) or from gun-rights advocates.


There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

How about if we look at the numbers in counties/cities rather than states? I saw this map that was really cool, put out by an anti-gunner, showing "gun violence" in any city or zip code in the nation. Check all the biggest liberal cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis., Philadelphia, or Boston, and compare them to more conservative cities and see how shootings pan out.

Even more interesting, if only we can overlay the ethnic makeup of these regions to the number of shootings....

By the way, liberals use the term "gun violence" to include shootings in self-defense, negligent discharge, police shooting, suicide, and murder, instead of "criminal acts" committed using guns.

Can't have a negligent discharge without a gun. Can't shoot a crook in self-defense without a gun. One could still commit suicide without a gun, and yet that will not show up on "gun violence" statistics.

Red Team
10 Dec 15,, 22:53
This is what I'm confused about. So what usage of firearms should we label as "gun violence," meaning a maladaptive abuse of force? And why is it often the case where instances of people wounded by gun violence are treated as significantly less severe than those resulting in deaths? Shouldn't even these occurrences of violence involving guns that don't necessarily result in deaths, but possibly mental and emotional trauma, be a thing of concern?

We also have the question of firearms safety competence. Should a person's second amendment rights be weighted upon their incidences of negligent discharges and/or other recorded instances of putting the public safety at risk? Not at all saying that this is even a significant number of gun owners in this country, but I have seen enough stupid shit online and in real life to realize that there are some individuals who should have zero business having a firearm around other people.

Another factor to consider here is the evidence (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/) that presence of firearms in the home makes it more likely for those at risk for suicide to follow through and succeed in their attempts. How do we reconcile mental health intervention measures with second amendment rights here?

And gunnut I hope you didn't meant to include murder in that list because I'm pretty certain that would be considered the centerpiece of "criminal acts."

Mihais
10 Dec 15,, 23:01
Yes,it's easier to commit suicide and there are more suicides with guns available.Here's the thing.A loony's problem is his,his family's and the medical system.
A suicidal individual and the innocent victim of a murder are both equally dead.Yet the moral value isn't similar.

gunnut
10 Dec 15,, 23:18
This is what I'm confused about. So what usage of firearms should we label as "gun violence," meaning a maladaptive abuse of force? And why is it often the case where instances of people wounded by gun violence are treated as significantly less severe than those resulting in deaths? Shouldn't even these occurrences of violence involving guns that don't necessarily result in deaths, but possibly mental and emotional trauma, be a thing of concern?

We can also look at the benefits of a firearm. How often are firearm used to deter a crime from even happening so that no gun-shot statistics occur? Very often the mere brandishing of a firearm could deter a would-be crime from happening. What happens then? Does the would-be victim report to the police that he was about to be assaulted and then showed his gun to stop the assault? The police would probably arrest him for "brandishing."

This is a pro-choice source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

NYT, obviously anti-gun:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_r=0

You can see how the anti-gunners frame the issue. They stress "defensive use of gun" as in shots being fired. People don't work that way. Criminals aren't dumb. They don't want to die as much as the next guy. A guy with a knife or crowbar intending on robbing a home, but the home owner shows a gun, the robber flees. This scenario does not qualify as a "defensive use of gun" in anti-gunner's language, but does qualify in pro-choice point of view.

Put yourself in the shoes of a crazy lunatic intending to do maximum damage. Would you go to a place where people might be able to defend themselves? Or would you pick easy targets? I can tell you my target of choice: gun-free zones with lots of kids and few able bodied men. There will be few weapons and few people who would be able to physically restrain me.

We've heard "work place violence" and that's a call to ban guns. Ever wondered why there aren't any "work place violence" incidences in police stations? I'm sure cops are under just as much stress, if not more, than other professions. There are dirty and bad cops, we know that. There are violent sociopaths who are cops. Most of them are probably type-A personality. Why don't we see more "work place violence" in police stations?



We also have the question of firearms safety competence. Should a person's second amendment rights be weighted upon their incidences of negligent discharges and/or other recorded instances of putting the public safety at risk? Not at all saying that this is even a significant number of gun owners in this country, but I have seen enough stupid shit online and in real life to realize that there are some individuals who should have zero business having a firearm around other people.

Sort of like a literacy test for voters, I agree.



Another factor to consider here is the evidence (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/) that presence of firearms in the home makes it more likely for those at risk for suicide to follow through and succeed in their attempts. How do we reconcile mental health intervention measures with second amendment rights here?

That I do not have an answer to. The easy way is to have a court determine an individual to be "mentally incompetent" to be a gun owner. But then that would just deter people from seeking help. Imagine that you are a gun collector. You think you are depressed. You seek counseling. The counselor reports you to the state, as required by law. You are served a court date to determine whether you will lose your lifetime collection of guns. Do you think anyone would risk that? Hell no!



And gunnut I hope you didn't meant to include murder in that list because I'm pretty certain that would be considered the centerpiece of "criminal acts."

I don't make up those numbers. Liberals define "gun violence" as anything to do with shooting in which person/people are killed or injured, regardless of the intent.

zraver
11 Dec 15,, 02:40
Yes,it's easier to commit suicide and there are more suicides with guns available.

That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.

InExile
11 Dec 15,, 04:42
That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.

There are many factors that affect the suicide rate and yes countries can have higher suicide rates than the United States inspite of stricter gun laws.

However, easy access to a gun does allow a relatively straight forward way to kill oneself without much more thought or intensive preparation. Individuals more motivated to commit suicide will doubtless find other ways, but some, and perhaps a significant percentage might not go through with the act in the time or effort that it took with another, more elaborate method.

Red Team
11 Dec 15,, 07:34
That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.

Z,

Yes, it is true that there are countries with higher suicide rates (Japan!) that have very strict gun laws. But the dataset I was referring to measured the degree to which the presence of firearms affected the suicide rate of the US, not necessarily that less strict gun laws led to higher absolute instances of suicide between countries.The conclusion to be made here is that the at risk individual in the US is more likely to attempt and successfully suicide with a gun than one who does not.

Note that I'm not trying to say that no one should have a gun because it might make them want to kill themself. I was instead trying to contemplate balancing second amendment rights with issues of medical concern such as the treatment plans of suicidal individuals.

DOR
11 Dec 15,, 13:47
“The problem with Donald Trump’s plan to stop all Muslims from entering America, at least ‘until we can figure what is going on,’ is that it doesn’t go far enough. To make the country truly safe, he should insist that – as so many non-Muslims go berserk with guns in schools and shopping malls – no non-Muslims can be allowed into the country, until we can figure out what is going on.

Mark Steel, op-ed 'Voices,' The Independent, Dec 11, 2015, p. 39.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trumps-problem-he-doesnt-go-far-enough-a6768491.html

Red Team
11 Dec 15,, 19:13
“The problem with Donald Trump’s plan to stop all Muslims from entering America, at least ‘until we can figure what is going on,’ is that it doesn’t go far enough. To make the country truly safe, he should insist that – as so many non-Muslims go berserk with guns in schools and shopping malls – no non-Muslims can be allowed into the country, until we can figure out what is going on.

Mark Steel, op-ed 'Voices,' The Independent, Dec 11, 2015, p. 39.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trumps-problem-he-doesnt-go-far-enough-a6768491.html

The logic of Trump supporters do irk me quite a bit. Sure, responsible, law abiding gun owners shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few crazies. That, I can get on board with.

But heaven forbid applying the same standards to responsible, law abiding Muslims...

GVChamp
11 Dec 15,, 19:37
Since Donald Trump is actually a New York City Democrat, Trump's position on guns roughly mirrors Hillary Clinton's: assault weapons ban, longer cool-down period.

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
Of course, DOR's editorial goes into great detail about why some people would support Trump:

Governors in 31 states have supported a ban on all refugees from Syria. Because if someone’s squashed their family onto a pedalo and paddled to Cyprus to get away from Isis, that’s a sure sign they support Isis.

If you support any restrictions on immigration at all, YOU IS RACCISSSSS. Not even racissssssss, but you are basically Hitler. We are a minute away from putting all the Muslims into camps. Mark Zuckerberg said so on Facebook, it must be true, #feelthebern

Trump may be a Democrat, but he's divorced himself pretty firmly from the Progressive and PC crowd. And I've NEVER had anything against Democrats specifically, just against the Progressives and the PC, so I'll absolutely vote for Trump against any of the Democratic candidates.

And, again, I am a Bobo in Paradise, I see these #feelthebern people, "if you support immigration restrictions you are a racist" is close to the median position, just like "we should ban all the guns."

Feel The Bern, baby (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/). I am ready for Hope and Change, and if you're not, you're a racist, and you shouldn't be allowed to violate my Safe Space, which is the whole nation.

Yep, I'll take Trump over any of the potential Democratic Nominees. The only Republican I absolutely will not vote for is Carson.

Sanjac
12 Dec 15,, 01:11
I have always assumed that Trump is a Democrat based on what politicians he panders to and that he really had to be part of that political machine to get rich in New York, but isn't he running as a Republican now?

(I might have mentioned that I don't watch television. I s'pose now it really shows!)

InExile
12 Dec 15,, 03:24
And, again, I am a Bobo in Paradise, I see these #feelthebern people, "if you support immigration restrictions you are a racist" is close to the median position, just like "we should ban all the guns."

.

There are many good reasons to have restrictions on immigration; infact it isn't unreasonable to be totally against any immigration whatsoever. But excluding a entire set of people based solely on their religion, while not racist per se (as Islam isn't a race) is almost as deplorable. Infact it isn't unreasonable to assume that some people who support Trump on this ban think of Islam as a religion of mostly brown people and can be closet racists.

Again I dont think most Republicans or even many Trump supporters are racist; many are naturally afraid and angry after years of attacks by Islamic extremists. But one does expect more from a mainstream politician running for the most powerful office than play to people's emotions like this.

Infact, Trump seems a bit too extreme even for Marie Le Pen

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marine-le-pen-trump-muslim-ban

DOR
12 Dec 15,, 13:30
It's pretty insulting to Democrats to call Donald Trump a Democrat, and if I'm being fair, it is only slightly less insulting to Republicans to call him a Republican (less, because that's how he self-identifies).

Sanjac
13 Dec 15,, 03:10
I suppose we should consider the possibility that Trump is running for President as a red herring. Perhaps he is there to lampoon and ridicule by appearing absurd while at the same time saying what many people are thinking. It gives the media someone to hate and ridicule so that they can lead people away from rational points of view.

Parihaka
13 Dec 15,, 06:26
Whether he's a red herring or not he's certainly blindsided the left wing media. By this time we'd have seen multiple hit pieces concocted against the other republican candidates but Trump is eating all their attention and vitriol with gusto and coming back for more. McCain's affair, Romneys dog and 47%, Bush's national guard service, Palins stupidity, try as they might they've managed one insipid hit piece over Rubio's finances and that's it. We may even get a situation where they can't settle down to any serious libels until the eventual candidate is actually named and by then even they won't be able to take themselves seriously.

GVChamp
14 Dec 15,, 16:27
I have always assumed that Trump is a Democrat based on what politicians he panders to and that he really had to be part of that political machine to get rich in New York, but isn't he running as a Republican now?

(I might have mentioned that I don't watch television. I s'pose now it really shows!)
Trump is for Trump and his particular brand of Trump-ism. He'll run under whatever label he feels will give him the best chance of success.

Right now he's running on immigration restrictions which means the Republican Party is his place to go. The base of the party largely wants restrictions while the leadership wants open-er borders. This has been an issue for the Republican Party for over a decade now.

Most of Trump's positions are more left-wing than Republican ideology and message. This includes his position on gun control.



There are many good reasons to have restrictions on immigration; infact it isn't unreasonable to be totally against any immigration whatsoever. But excluding a entire set of people based solely on their religion, while not racist per se (as Islam isn't a race) is almost as deplorable. Infact it isn't unreasonable to assume that some people who support Trump on this ban think of Islam as a religion of mostly brown people and can be closet racists.

Again I dont think most Republicans or even many Trump supporters are racist; many are naturally afraid and angry after years of attacks by Islamic extremists. But one does expect more from a mainstream politician running for the most powerful office than play to people's emotions like this.

Infact, Trump seems a bit too extreme even for Marie Le Pen

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marine-le-pen-trump-muslim-ban
But I'm not talking about Trump. I think we can find common ground that banning all Muslims is wrong-headed. I'd say Constitutional, and I would STRESS that, but I agree that it's wrong-headed.

The issue are the #FeeltheBern types. They don't have a homogenous position, anymore than the Republicans do, obviously. But the MEDIAN position, so far as I can tell, is that immigration restrictions are THE RACISSS!

I'll see if I can find the Aaron Sorkin newsroom rant that sums up the zeitgeist around here. "How dare you call someone an illegal immigrant?"

Chanakya
16 Jan 16,, 22:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG89M6NanWM

Please watch and hear out this excellent debate about the latest efforts by the POTUS to reduce the incidence and prevalence of mass shooting and consequent death or grievous and deleterious physical and mental injury from the present extremely lenient gun-control laws existing in the US and how even measures envisaged by the executive actions by the current POTUS are almost cosmetic in nature !

Chanakya
17 Jan 16,, 00:07
Its a well-orchestrated canard spawned and propagated by those folks who look up to the IInd amendment as though it's a divine diety , the NRA and Gun manufacturing lobbies , that so-called Left Leaning Supreme Court, the socialist POTUS and "left-leaning liberal media" are determined to disarm gun owners ! That's an absolute red-herring borne out by facts ! To qoute a recent article written by John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford University. This article was originally published on The Conversation--"The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens. " Source of the article: http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

troung
18 Jan 16,, 21:12
Its a well-orchestrated canard spawned and propagated by those folks who look up to the IInd amendment as though it's a divine diety

It's in our constitution - so it's a bit more relevant than the divine.


Please watch and hear out this excellent debate about the latest efforts by the POTUS to reduce the incidence and prevalence of mass shooting

AJA - you must have been literally the only person to have watched this crap. That DC guy is an assclown, and my God to bring in a Eurowussie... I am not sure why people think carting in some sissy from a place which wears wooden shoes is supposed to show sophistication.

There is no gun epidemic. Some areas need to crack down on drugs and gangs, but we people in the suburbs are not machine gunning each other on the metro.

gunnut
18 Jan 16,, 21:20
Its a well-orchestrated canard spawned and propagated by those folks who look up to the IInd amendment as though it's a divine diety , the NRA and Gun manufacturing lobbies , that so-called Left Leaning Supreme Court, the socialist POTUS and "left-leaning liberal media" are determined to disarm gun owners ! That's an absolute red-herring borne out by facts ! To qoute a recent article written by John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford University. This article was originally published on The Conversation--"The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens. " Source of the article: http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

Gun control doesn't work just like "gun free zones" don't work.

The only way gun control will work is a total and complete ban of guns.

I am all for that as long as we start with the Secret Service and the police first. After all, if we ban guns, that means criminals won't have guns, right? If so, what do the police and Secret Service need guns for?

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 16,, 21:36
Its a well-orchestrated canard spawned and propagated by those folks who look up to the IInd amendment as though it's a divine diety , the NRA and Gun manufacturing lobbies , that so-called Left Leaning Supreme Court, the socialist POTUS and "left-leaning liberal media" are determined to disarm gun owners ! That's an absolute red-herring borne out by facts ! To qoute a recent article written by John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford University. This article was originally published on The Conversation--"The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens. " Source of the article: http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105Your argument is the Red Herring. You are talking about taking away a fundamental right enshrined by your Constituion Writers away from your citizens. Hello Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

gunnut
18 Jan 16,, 21:40
It's pretty insulting to Democrats to call Donald Trump a Democrat, and if I'm being fair, it is only slightly less insulting to Republicans to call him a Republican (less, because that's how he self-identifies).

Wasn't Trump a democrat long time ago?

citanon
18 Jan 16,, 21:56
Your argument is the Red Herring. You are talking about taking away a fundamental right enshrined by your Constituion Writers away from your citizens. Hello Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

"Like"

antimony
18 Jan 16,, 23:21
Gun control doesn't work just like "gun free zones" don't work.

The only way gun control will work is a total and complete ban of guns.

I am all for that as long as we start with the Secret Service and the police first. After all, if we ban guns, that means criminals won't have guns, right? If so, what do the police and Secret Service need guns for?

Not a for/ against argument but an observation: Most police forces across former/ current British colonies (not sure about Canada) do not carry guns (for the policemen and officers on the street).

antimony
18 Jan 16,, 23:31
Its a well-orchestrated canard spawned and propagated by those folks who look up to the IInd amendment as though it's a divine diety , the NRA and Gun manufacturing lobbies , that so-called Left Leaning Supreme Court, the socialist POTUS and "left-leaning liberal media" are determined to disarm gun owners ! That's an absolute red-herring borne out by facts ! To qoute a recent article written by John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford University. This article was originally published on The Conversation--"The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens. " Source of the article: http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

Chanakya

From the article you quoted:


Handguns are seen for sale in a display case at a store in Missouri, November 13, 2014. If NRA claims about guns reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations, the author writes.

Maybe you can also ask the author why crime rates have fallen since the '90s, even as gun ownership has risen. I am not trying to say that rising gun ownership brought crime down, I am trying to point the danger of linking unrelated phenomenon

antimony
18 Jan 16,, 23:33
The only way gun control will work is a total and complete ban of guns.


That is exactly what Chanakya is proposing when he shares stats from Europe :)

Why don't the damn emoticons work ? :(

gunnut
18 Jan 16,, 23:36
Not a for/ against argument but an observation: Most police forces across former/ current British colonies (not sure about Canada) do not carry guns (for the policemen and officers on the street).

See, there you go. It has worked and it will work again. Let's disarm our police. BlackLivesMatter!!!

gunnut
18 Jan 16,, 23:38
That is exactly what Chanakya is proposing when he shares stats from Europe :)

Why don't the damn emoticons work ? :(

Unfortunately there's this annoying thing called the Constitution which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Repeal the 2nd Amendment if we want to ban guns. While we're at it, let's repeal the 1st Amendment too. It's annoying to not be able to jail people who don't agree with me.

Don't European police still carry guns? When I say a complete ban I mean remove guns from police and all government forces as well. The reason is bad guys won't have guns, why does the government need guns to protect us from bad guys not armed with guns?

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 16,, 23:44
Not a for/ against argument but an observation: Most police forces across former/ current British colonies (not sure about Canada) do not carry guns (for the policemen and officers on the street).Canadian police are armed with lethal firearms. Recently, however, they also started carrying tasers as well.

antimony
19 Jan 16,, 00:55
Unfortunately there's this annoying thing called the Constitution which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Repeal the 2nd Amendment if we want to ban guns. While we're at it, let's repeal the 1st Amendment too. It's annoying to not be able to jail people who don't agree with me.

Don't European police still carry guns? When I say a complete ban I mean remove guns from police and all government forces as well. The reason is bad guys won't have guns, why does the government need guns to protect us from bad guys not armed with guns?

But what do you do when the Mounties with their lethal firearms and tasers decide to invade? :)

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 00:57
But what do you do when the Mounties with their lethal firearms and tasers decide to invade? :)Give them the wrong directions.

Monash
19 Jan 16,, 01:39
Unfortunately there's this annoying thing called the Constitution which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Repeal the 2nd Amendment if we want to ban guns. While we're at it, let's repeal the 1st Amendment too. It's annoying to not be able to jail people who don't agree with me.

Err... the US constitution is a 'living document' by which I mean it has been and can be amended subject to the provisions set out in, is it Article 5? Its not the ten commandments i.e written in stone by God himself.


Don't European police still carry guns? When I say a complete ban I mean remove guns from police and all government forces as well. The reason is bad guys won't have guns, why does the government need guns to protect us from bad guys not armed with guns?

I would suggest that if all firearms of all types were suddenly to be removed from any western nation there would very quickly be moves made to remove or severely restrict their use by Police. The only sticking point I can see is the continued risk of death/injuries due to edged weapons. Depending on the relevant 'incident rate' for assaults with knives and axes etc this might be managed by the use of tazers, mace and anti stab armor with firearms being removed from general duty officers. Alternatively it might still be necessary to have specialist armed response officers who can deal with incidents involving terrorism or situations where there are mentally ill or drug affected individuals who are acting aggressively while armed with blades etc.

Chanakya
19 Jan 16,, 02:35
"Gun control doesn't work just like "gun free zones" don't work.

The only way gun control will work is a total and complete ban of guns"

I may have a perspective which is either center-left or Leftist, yet I'm a realist ! I know that the the attachment , the opponents of gun control and and any stringent and rational regulations governing gun-ownership, harbor towards the hallowed , sacrosanct and infallible IInd amendment , is more formidable than the umbilical cord tying the newborn babe to its mother.

So even though it would be ideal, I am not suggesting banning of guns nor seizure of guns, like they have done in Australia. My ideas are mostly borne out by some of the recommendations made in the following article:-

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/29/three-common-sense-ways-to-reduce-gun-deaths

The ideas written as a narrative and recommendations made which struck a cord with me are:-

"I don’t think I’m being reductionist in describing the NRA’s position on gun safety as pretty basic: Guns are good; gun regulations are bad. That’s unfortunate because the key insight in the perpetually fruitless gun control debate is that our social problem is deaths from guns, not the guns from themselves.

That distinction opens up the door to what I’ve always believed is the sanest approach to gun policy: a public health approach. What if we treated guns like cars, cribs and small electrical appliances? What if we focused less on the guns and more on when, where and why people get hurt or killed by them?

Automobile safety is an encouraging example. America’s roads are much, much safer than they were a half century ago. We didn’t become anti-car. We didn’t take cars away (except for some chronic drunk drivers). We made cars and roads safer and minimized the situations in which Americans were most likely to kill themselves on the road.

[Check out editorial cartoons about gun rights and gun control.]

In 2010, the last year for which we have data, roughly 11,000 Americans died in gun homicides; 19,000 died by gun suicide; and 600 died from gun accidents – over 30,000 gun deaths a year. To put that in perspective, the faulty General Motors ignition switch at the heart of the current massive recall has been blamed for 13 deaths. Not 13,000. Not 130. Thirteen.

Experts believe that a high proportion of gun deaths are preventable. David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, has been an advocate of the public health approach to gun deaths for decades. I first met him when I was writing about this subject for The Economist in the late 1990s. The NRA annual meeting prompted me to call Professor Hemenway and ask what his top three reforms would be if our goal were to reduce unnecessary gun deaths.

Here are three sensible policy changes that would enable Americans to keep their guns and not die from them, too:

Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us.
More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner.
Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns. "

However the recommendations made by Charles Wheeler the author of the above-article, forgets to make one very important recommendation which is :

> Mandatory annual neuro-psychiatric evaluation before annual "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registrations" can be renewed. An evaluation which would be comprehensive enough to reveal any abnormal /significant decline in safety awareness, safety judgement, visuospatial perception abilities {not just confined to simple vision testion such as errors of refraction but also depth perception, retinal evaluation, visual figure versus ground distinguishing ability ,etc), hearing (both peripheral and central auditory ) evaluation, and gross and fine motor abilities of our fingers, hands, arms, etc }. When I become a responsible gun owner which I intend to become fairly soon, I do not mind to pay extra taxes to the Federal Govt and perhaps extra premium to the Health Insurance Provider (and I would prefer a single payer system similar to what they do in Ist world nations with socialized medicine--topic for debate on another thread :-) ) to enable the Federal Govt to pay for these evaluations and also subsidize based on an obvious means-tested sliding scale of income, for people who cannot afford to pay higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums.

> Accelerate research in the Universities and research institutions of the US to fund more studies by Bio-mechanical Engineers (whose domain of research it would be) to constantly improve and evolve the "smart gun" technology and options.

> Make the revocation of the immoral ban imposed by the Right-Wing sects of the Democratic party and the Republicans---legislative and executive branches of the Federal Govt --on public health organizations like the GA based CDC from conducting studies exploring co-relational or causal studies of public health hazard from gun ownership and gun use.

The above list is not exhaustive ! But lets make safer guns, and lets have stringent "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registration" annual permits and lets all enjoy gun use , abiding by and NOT infringing on the "divine" IInd amendment--worshiped and fiercely protected-- as though written in stone by none other than the seemingly omniscient and omnipotent DIVINE POWER -- and not human, fallible, legislators--even if they were our revered founding fathers !

zraver
19 Jan 16,, 03:13
Maybe you can also ask the author why crime rates have fallen since the '90s, even as gun ownership has risen. I am not trying to say that rising gun ownership brought crime down, I am trying to point the danger of linking unrelated phenomenon

Crime rates plummeted with the removal of leaded gasoline. Violent crime as it exists now is overwhelmingly concentrated in areas that are economically and culturally isolated, filled with fatherless men who do not have an education or economic prospects and who already have extensive criminal records and are legally prohibited from having guns. Meanwhile the group with the most guns on the planet- white males, have crime rates that rival Western Europe. Whites also tend to have the benefits of a solid education, live in an area that is economically and culturally vibrant and have a two parent home. It stands to reason that if form follows fucntion, then function follows form. The social welfare and social engineering policies since LBJ may have had good intentions but I dare say you could not create a better system to destroy culture and family to create a broken barbarian society if you tried

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 05:26
"Gun control doesn't work just like "gun free zones" don't work.Here's your fucking problem.

Gun rights do not work like what you want it to be!

Who the hell cares about people who don't have gun rights?

Russia and China do not have your voting rights. Do you want Washington DC to give you the same voting rights as China and Russia?

If so, you can move to China or Russia. Hell, you want European Gun Rights? You are free to move there.

So, tell me, Hitler, why do you want to impose Nazi gun restrictions on your fellow Americans? Heil Hitler!

antimony
19 Jan 16,, 06:50
Here's your fucking problem.

Gun rights do not work like what you want it to be!

Who the hell cares about people who don't have gun rights?

Russia and China do not have your voting rights. Do you want Washington DC to give you the same voting rights as China and Russia?

If so, you can move to China or Russia. Hell, you want European Gun Rights? You are free to move there.

So, tell me, Hitler, why do you want to impose Nazi gun restrictions on your fellow Americans? Heil Hitler!

Col.,

Do we need to go all Godwin's Law just yet? I think there are plenty of holes in his argument that we can talk about without going there.

Like how he treats automobiles and guns in the same breath. I wonder how people will react if "gun control" type restrictions are actually applied on people trying to buy cars.

"Hey you, you got a felony record? No car for you!"

antimony
19 Jan 16,, 07:01
Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


UBC is mandated by FFLs. And if Obama gets his way, more funds are going to be devoted to this. Looks like you are getting your wish at least for gun store sales



Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal.


Wrong



(You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.)


Heard of Darra Adam Khel? Now add American tooling capabilities and ingenuity on top of that.



More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm.

Please explain with specifics



Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them.


Child locks are already available, though not mandated



Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.)

Please explain how an electronic devices would work on a mechanical device like a gun



Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner.


I agree with this one. You would need to assign serial numbers to barrels though. Sales of barrels can be mandated to go through FFLs and UBCs like that of receivers.



Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts?


Straw purchase is already illegal. UBC may be able to prevent it.



> Mandatory annual neuro-psychiatric evaluation before annual "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registrations" can be renewed. An evaluation which would be comprehensive enough to reveal any abnormal /significant decline in safety awareness, safety judgement, visuospatial perception abilities {not just confined to simple vision testion such as errors of refraction but also depth perception, retinal evaluation, visual figure versus ground distinguishing ability ,etc), hearing (both peripheral and central auditory ) evaluation, and gross and fine motor abilities of our fingers, hands, arms, etc }. When I become a responsible gun owner which I intend to become fairly soon, I do not mind to pay extra taxes to the Federal Govt and perhaps extra premium to the Health Insurance Provider (and I would prefer a single payer system similar to what they do in Ist world nations with socialized medicine--topic for debate on another thread :-) ) to enable the Federal Govt to pay for these evaluations and also subsidize based on an obvious means-tested sliding scale of income, for people who cannot afford to pay higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums.


This is too restrictive



Accelerate research in the Universities and research institutions of the US to fund more studies by Bio-mechanical Engineers (whose domain of research it would be) to constantly improve and evolve the "smart gun" technology and options.

Here, go start a kickstarter project : https://www.kickstarter.com



Make the revocation of the immoral ban imposed by the Right-Wing sects of the Democratic party and the Republicans---legislative and executive branches of the Federal Govt --on public health organizations like the GA based CDC from conducting studies exploring co-relational or causal studies of public health hazard from gun ownership and gun use.


Now we are going off the rails...



The above list is not exhaustive ! But lets make safer guns, and lets have stringent "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registration" annual permits and lets all enjoy gun use , abiding by and NOT infringing on the "divine" IInd amendment--worshiped and fiercely protected-- as though written in stone by none other than the seemingly omniscient and omnipotent DIVINE POWER -- and not human, fallible, legislators--even if they were our revered founding fathers !

"Gun registration" infringes on the 2A

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 07:24
Do we need to go all Godwin's Law just yet?Not Godwin's law. Just a hammer over his thick skull! I really don't care how the IIA is abused. When you have a right, you also have a right to abuse that right. The US Consitution allows you the right to vote for a Hitler. However, the US Consitution does not allow a Hitler to destroy it.

In essense, that is his arguement. He is arguing for a Hitler's right to destroy the 2A.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 07:43
I may have a perspective which is either center-left or Leftist, yet I'm a realist ! I know that the the attachment , the opponents of gun control and and any stringent and rational regulations governing gun-ownership, harbor towards the hallowed , sacrosanct and infallible IInd amendment , is more formidable than the umbilical cord tying the newborn babe to its mother.I really don't care how you shape your arguement. Your arguement is still about destroying the 2nd Amendment.

NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING YOU WROTE IS NOT A DIRECT VIOLATION OF 2ND AMENDMENT.

I challenge YOU to prove to US that you're not VIOLATING the 2nd Amendment. At this point, EVERYTHING AND I MEAN EVERYTHING YOU WROTE VIOLATES THE 2ND AMENDMENT LEFT, RIGHT, AND CENTRE.

You are the one advocating destroying the US Consitution.

antimony
19 Jan 16,, 08:31
I challenge YOU to prove to US that you're not VIOLATING the 2nd Amendment. At this point, EVERYTHING AND I MEAN EVERYTHING YOU WROTE VIOLATES THE 2ND AMENDMENT LEFT, RIGHT, AND CENTRE.

You are the one advocating destroying the US Consitution.

Chanakya

This is the crux of it. Most of the "common sense measures" dictated by you involve some rigorous forms of registration or similar measures, which goes against the very essence of the 2A. the essence of the 2A is not just the ownership of guns; it is the ownership of guns with a view to prevent govt. tyranny. You may long for an authoritarian state, we do not.

Others ("smart chip", "smart gun") talks about technologies that either do not exist or make the defensive use of guns unviable. In other words, they do not work.

DOR
19 Jan 16,, 09:08
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A WELL ORDERED MILITIA ...

Not for fun, not for sport, not even for preparation in case the guy you didn't bother to vote against goes off like Adolph.

Solely, deliberately, exclusively "For the purpose of a well ordered militia."

Why?

Because, that's where guns belong: in the hands of those focused on the security of the population.

The rest is just late 20th century NRA mythology.

Mihais
19 Jan 16,, 09:47
You forget the continuation.

Anyway,if guns alone would help in commiting crimes,the 400 millions firearms would produce each year the equivalent of a Verdun.

Unfortunately for the lefties,the reality is that blacks and hispanics slaughter each others merrily.Why not ban them instead?

Chanakya
19 Jan 16,, 10:40
"Gun control doesn't work just like "gun free zones" don't work.

The only way gun control will work is a total and complete ban of guns" --Gunnut-I could not disagree mote because:-

I may have a perspective which is either center-left or Leftist, yet I'm a realist ! I know that the the attachment , the opponents of gun control and and any stringent and rational regulations governing gun-ownership, harbor towards the hallowed , sacrosanct and infallible IInd amendment , is more formidable than the umbilical cord tying the newborn babe to its mother.

So even though it would be ideal, I am not suggesting banning of guns nor seizure of guns, like they have done in Australia. My ideas are mostly borne out by some of the recommendations made in the following article:-

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/29/three-common-sense-ways-to-reduce-gun-deaths

The ideas written as a narrative and recommendations made which struck a cord with me are:-

"I don’t think I’m being reductionist in describing the NRA’s position on gun safety as pretty basic: Guns are good; gun regulations are bad. That’s unfortunate because the key insight in the perpetually fruitless gun control debate is that our social problem is deaths from guns, not the guns from themselves.

That distinction opens up the door to what I’ve always believed is the sanest approach to gun policy: a public health approach. What if we treated guns like cars, cribs and small electrical appliances? What if we focused less on the guns and more on when, where and why people get hurt or killed by them?

Automobile safety is an encouraging example. America’s roads are much, much safer than they were a half century ago. We didn’t become anti-car. We didn’t take cars away (except for some chronic drunk drivers). We made cars and roads safer and minimized the situations in which Americans were most likely to kill themselves on the road.

[Check out editorial cartoons about gun rights and gun control.]

In 2010, the last year for which we have data, roughly 11,000 Americans died in gun homicides; 19,000 died by gun suicide; and 600 died from gun accidents – over 30,000 gun deaths a year. To put that in perspective, the faulty General Motors ignition switch at the heart of the current massive recall has been blamed for 13 deaths. Not 13,000. Not 130. Thirteen.

Experts believe that a high proportion of gun deaths are preventable. David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, has been an advocate of the public health approach to gun deaths for decades. I first met him when I was writing about this subject for The Economist in the late 1990s. The NRA annual meeting prompted me to call Professor Hemenway and ask what his top three reforms would be if our goal were to reduce unnecessary gun deaths.

Here are three sensible policy changes that would enable Americans to keep their guns and not die from them, too:

Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us.
More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner.
Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns. "

However the recommendations made by Charles Wheeler the author of the above-article, forgets to make one very important recommendation which is :

> Mandatory annual neuro-psychiatric evaluation before annual "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registrations" can be renewed. An evaluation which would be comprehensive enough to reveal any abnormal /significant decline in safety awareness, safety judgement, visuospatial perception abilities {not just confined to simple vision testion such as errors of refraction but also depth perception, retinal evaluation, visual figure versus ground distinguishing ability ,etc), hearing (both peripheral and central auditory ) evaluation, and gross and fine motor abilities of our fingers, hands, arms, etc }. When I become a responsible gun owner which I intend to become fairly soon, I do not mind to pay extra taxes to the Federal Govt and perhaps extra premium to the Health Insurance Provider (and I would prefer a single payer system similar to what they do in Ist world nations with socialized medicine--topic for debate on another thread :-) ) to enable the Federal Govt to pay for these evaluations and also subsidize based on an obvious means-tested sliding scale of income, for people who cannot afford to pay higher taxes or higher health insurance premiums.

> Accelerate research in the Universities and research institutions of the US to fund more studies by Bio-mechanical Engineers (whose domain of research it would be) to constantly improve and evolve the "smart gun" technology and options.

> Make the revocation of the immoral ban imposed by the Right-Wing sects of the Democratic party and the Republicans---legislative and executive branches of the Federal Govt --on public health organizations like the GA based CDC from conducting studies exploring co-relational or causal studies of public health hazard from gun ownership and gun use --permanent and irreversible !

The above list is not exhaustive ! But lets make safer guns, and lets have stringent "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registration" annual permits and lets all enjoy gun use , abiding by and NOT infringing on the "divine" IInd amendment--worshiped and fiercely protected-- as though written in stone by none other than the seemingly omniscient and omnipotent DIVINE POWER -- and not human, fallible, legislators--even if they were our revered founding fathers !

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 12:39
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A WELL ORDERED MILITIA ...

Not for fun, not for sport, not even for preparation in case the guy you didn't bother to vote against goes off like Adolph.

Solely, deliberately, exclusively "For the purpose of a well ordered militia."

Why?

Because, that's where guns belong: in the hands of those focused on the security of the population.

The rest is just late 20th century NRA mythology.Exact line

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does NOT DEFINE WHAT THE PEOPLE CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH THEIR ARMS.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 16,, 15:11
The above list is not exhaustive ! But lets make safer guns, and lets have stringent "concealed firearms permit" and "gun registration" annual permits and lets all enjoy gun use , abiding by and NOT infringing on the "divine" IInd amendment--worshiped and fiercely protected-- as though written in stone by none other than the seemingly omniscient and omnipotent DIVINE POWER -- and not human, fallible, legislators--even if they were our revered founding fathers !What part of that is not INFRINGING?

troung
20 Jan 16,, 00:25
When I become a responsible gun owner which I intend to become fairly soon, I do not mind to pay extra taxes to the Federal Govt and perhaps extra premium to the Health Insurance Provider (and I would prefer a single payer system similar to what they do in Ist world nations with socialized medicine--topic for debate on another thread

I do.


> Accelerate research in the Universities and research institutions of the US to fund more studies by Bio-mechanical Engineers (whose domain of research it would be) to constantly improve and evolve the "smart gun" technology and options.

Waste of time and money.

zraver
20 Jan 16,, 04:38
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A WELL ORDERED MILITIA ...

Not for fun, not for sport, not even for preparation in case the guy you didn't bother to vote against goes off like Adolph.

Solely, deliberately, exclusively "For the purpose of a well ordered militia."

Why?

Because, that's where guns belong: in the hands of those focused on the security of the population.

The rest is just late 20th century NRA mythology.


Uhm NO

Th world in which our Founders wrote the 2A had multiple reasons to own a gun. Indians, foreign troops, pirates, brigands and outlaws were all very real threats out side of the East Coast cities. The militia was a local organisation first and a state asset second. Most men in rural communities belonged to a militia. You defended your own farm or ran to your neighbors aid if he was attacked, if the threat was too big the call would go out locally then regionally all the way up the chain. Under the militia clause of the US Constitution the best definition of well regulated is that a militia have officers chosen from among its members by its members operating along lines defined by congress. Congress however has no authority to raise militias or arm them except when they are mustered into federal service. US Constitution Article 1 section 8 clauses 15 and 16.

gunnut
20 Jan 16,, 05:33
Err... the US constitution is a 'living document' by which I mean it has been and can be amended subject to the provisions set out in, is it Article 5? Its not the ten commandments i.e written in stone by God himself.

Yes, it's a "living document." We have a process to accomplish that. It's spelt out in black and white in Article V of the US Constitution. We don't just arbitrarily change the Constitution whenever we feel like it.



I would suggest that if all firearms of all types were suddenly to be removed from any western nation there would very quickly be moves made to remove or severely restrict their use by Police. The only sticking point I can see is the continued risk of death/injuries due to edged weapons. Depending on the relevant 'incident rate' for assaults with knives and axes etc this might be managed by the use of tazers, mace and anti stab armor with firearms being removed from general duty officers. Alternatively it might still be necessary to have specialist armed response officers who can deal with incidents involving terrorism or situations where there are mentally ill or drug affected individuals who are acting aggressively while armed with blades etc.

Yes, these specially armed police will be equipped with pikes and halberds and spears and swords to combat armored crooks and individuals under the influence. No guns necessary when bad guys don't have guns. We want "proportional" response. Giving police guns will just escalate the situation, prompting the bad guys to seek more powerful weapons. "De-escalation" is the best way to minimize casualties.

gunnut
20 Jan 16,, 05:57
What do we think about registering journalists?

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article55449025.html

I'm totally for a "common sense and responsible journalism regulation" in this country.

I am also for a "common sense voter registration and verification" in this country to prevent voter fraud.

Our Constitutional rights and responsibilities have to be jealously guarded to make sure they remain in the hands of responsible and law abiding citizens.

SteveDaPirate
20 Jan 16,, 16:55
Obtaining a driver's license or a permit to operate heavy machinery requires an educational class, and passing a basic test to ensure the operator possesses a minimum level of competence. Why not treat firearms the same way?

This wouldn't restrict who could own guns, but it ensures gun owners understand how to operate their firearms, and what kind of idiotic things will get you (or your child) injured or killed. Most injuries and fatalities with firearms are not actually a result of intentional violence, most are a result of ignorance, and education can fix that.

As an avid shooter, it is astounding how frequently I see someone at the firing range trying to load a magazine with the bullets backwards, or trying to rack the slide with the barrel pointed at their stomach or another person. It takes me all of 5 minutes to show them how to operate their (usually new) firearm and explain the basics of firearm safety.

These people aren't criminals or stupid, they are well meaning folks trying to protect themselves that just haven't been exposed to any firearm training. Mandating some basic education could go a long way towards producing more responsible gun owners, and eliminating a huge chunk of what become gun "statistics".

zraver
20 Jan 16,, 16:59
Requiring fire arms training prior to owning a gun would be abused the same way may-issue concealed permits are abused. The right would be restricted to the politically or economically powerful and connected. Now I'm all in favor of mandatory fire arms safety classes in school, but it should not be a prerequisite for owning a gun.

bonehead
20 Jan 16,, 17:07
Who we have in government office is far more important than "gun control" as far as public safety. Why is there no requirement for a civics class and test to be able to vote? People should be screaming for that.

SteveDaPirate
20 Jan 16,, 17:19
Requiring fire arms training prior to owning a gun would be abused the same way may-issue concealed permits are abused. The right would be restricted to the politically or economically powerful and connected. Now I'm all in favor of mandatory fire arms safety classes in school, but it should not be a prerequisite for owning a gun.

I like the idea of including firearms safety in school classes. My concern is that so many people have no interest in owning a gun until they start a family, and suddenly have people they are responsible for protecting. How do we reach that demographic?

These are the people that end up trying to figure it out on their own, and as a result end up with a negligent discharge or with a little kid getting a hold of a firearm and ending in tragedy.

Any training as a prerequisite to gun ownership would have to be nationally standardized to prevent issues like you see with certain states being stingy with issuing CCLs or honoring permits from other states.

gunnut
20 Jan 16,, 18:07
Obtaining a driver's license or a permit to operate heavy machinery requires an educational class, and passing a basic test to ensure the operator possesses a minimum level of competence. Why not treat firearms the same way?

This wouldn't restrict who could own guns, but it ensures gun owners understand how to operate their firearms, and what kind of idiotic things will get you (or your child) injured or killed. Most injuries and fatalities with firearms are not actually a result of intentional violence, most are a result of ignorance, and education can fix that.

As an avid shooter, it is astounding how frequently I see someone at the firing range trying to load a magazine with the bullets backwards, or trying to rack the slide with the barrel pointed at their stomach or another person. It takes me all of 5 minutes to show them how to operate their (usually new) firearm and explain the basics of firearm safety.

These people aren't criminals or stupid, they are well meaning folks trying to protect themselves that just haven't been exposed to any firearm training. Mandating some basic education could go a long way towards producing more responsible gun owners, and eliminating a huge chunk of what become gun "statistics".

One fundamental difference between guns and driving: gun ownership is a RIGHT while driving is a privilege.

I'm all for some restrictions on our RIGHTS. Let's start with voter ID. But wait...that's just racist to require people to present an ID, any ID, to pick up a ballot to vote.

SteveDaPirate
20 Jan 16,, 18:19
One fundamental difference between guns and driving: gun ownership is a RIGHT while driving is a privilege.

I'm all for some restrictions on our RIGHTS. Let's start with voter ID. But wait...that's just racist to require people to present an ID, any ID, to pick up a ballot to vote.

You are projecting an argument I'm not making.

I'm fine with asking for an ID when voting. You already have to register anyhow.

I'm also fine with holding gun owners to some minimum standard of education and responsibility.

gunnut
20 Jan 16,, 19:35
You are projecting an argument I'm not making.

I'm fine with asking for an ID when voting. You already have to register anyhow.

I'm also fine with holding gun owners to some minimum standard of education and responsibility.

I'll give that point as soon as we institute minimum standards of education and responsibility on the part of the voting public.

It seems like all Constitutional rights are equal. Some are more equal than others.

citanon
20 Jan 16,, 22:19
Well, I'm happy to report that at least my personal gun control has improved somewhat from last year, especially after I put in a suede grip for my ppq.

double taps are snappy and easy, still trying to make point shooting more consistent...

tuna
21 Jan 16,, 16:55
Uhm NO

Th world in which our Founders wrote the 2A had multiple reasons to own a gun. Indians, foreign troops, pirates, brigands and outlaws were all very real threats out side of the East Coast cities. The militia was a local organisation first and a state asset second. Most men in rural communities belonged to a militia. You defended your own farm or ran to your neighbors aid if he was attacked, if the threat was too big the call would go out locally then regionally all the way up the chain. Under the militia clause of the US Constitution the best definition of well regulated is that a militia have officers chosen from among its members by its members operating along lines defined by congress. Congress however has no authority to raise militias or arm them except when they are mustered into federal service. US Constitution Article 1 section 8 clauses 15 and 16.

We actually have two militias - one being the National Guard (determined to be a militia in the early 1900s) the other being every able bodied male between 18 and 60, which was the original definition - though I'm sure that age waivers on both sides were easily available.
Saying you're a militia and wearing OCPs while trotting around with your M-forgery just makes you look idiotic. You're already in the militia.

The biggest problem at "gun control" laws is that they're aimed at those following the laws to prevent criminal acts. If I don't give a flying frig at a rolling donut about committing armed robbery or murder - why should I care about magazine capacity, or in my state, whether my AR15 has a bayonet lug?
It is too simplistic to say, "look at Vermont" where pretty much the only gun law is (paraphrased) "it is illegal to use a gun to commit a crime". The onus is on the action, not the device. With this lax attitude, Vermont has very little gun related crime. Of course, it also has very few urban areas with the associated problems of drugs, gangs and broken families - but that is too difficult to deal with - so lets ban guns. Just like when the 20's era gangsters were ripping up the Midwest with Tommy guns that could be bought in hardware stores - the NFA was passed to "keep deadly machine guns out of their hands". Nice idea, but too bad the Dillingers didn't buy their guns - they stole them; from the POLICE and ARMY. How does a law stop that?

gunnut
22 Jan 16,, 00:37
We actually have two militias - one being the National Guard (determined to be a militia in the early 1900s) the other being every able bodied male between 18 and 60, which was the original definition - though I'm sure that age waivers on both sides were easily available.
Saying you're a militia and wearing OCPs while trotting around with your M-forgery just makes you look idiotic. You're already in the militia.

The biggest problem at "gun control" laws is that they're aimed at those following the laws to prevent criminal acts. If I don't give a flying frig at a rolling donut about committing armed robbery or murder - why should I care about magazine capacity, or in my state, whether my AR15 has a bayonet lug?
It is too simplistic to say, "look at Vermont" where pretty much the only gun law is (paraphrased) "it is illegal to use a gun to commit a crime". The onus is on the action, not the device. With this lax attitude, Vermont has very little gun related crime. Of course, it also has very few urban areas with the associated problems of drugs, gangs and broken families - but that is too difficult to deal with - so lets ban guns. Just like when the 20's era gangsters were ripping up the Midwest with Tommy guns that could be bought in hardware stores - the NFA was passed to "keep deadly machine guns out of their hands". Nice idea, but too bad the Dillingers didn't buy their guns - they stole them; from the POLICE and ARMY. How does a law stop that?

What we really need is to educate criminals to obey gun laws. It's the LAW. It's ILLEGAL to not follow the LAW. Don't they understand? Look at all those other industrialized nations. They have strict gun laws and their criminals obey them. They never have gun crimes.

troung
22 Jan 16,, 05:35
Virginia Politics
Va. Senate panel scraps gun-control bills, advances gun-rights measures
Resize Text Print Article Comments 243

Lori Haas, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and whose daughter was shot and injured during the Virginia Tech shooting, speaks at a demonstration in Washington. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
By Laura Vozzella January 20 at 10:07 PM
RICHMOND — A Virginia Senate panel on Wednesday scrapped a raft of gun-control bills while advancing measures intended to expand gun rights.

Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others.

“There are people slipping through the cracks who are a danger,” said Lori Haas, a gun-safety activist whose daughter was injured in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. “It is not meant to send somebody into your home unnecessarily.”

The Republican-led Senate Courts of Justice Committee easily defeated that bill and others aiming to tighten gun restrictions, sometimes on party-line votes, sometimes with support from a gun-rights Democrat, Sen. R. Creigh Deeds of rural Bath County. In so doing, members often voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the measures.

“Doesn’t it bother you that a person’s residence could be searched?” Sen. Richard H. Stuart (R-Stafford) said in relation to Barker’s bill. Stuart said he would prefer that people suffering *mental-health crises be removed from their guns via a commitment process rather than having their guns removed from them.

“If we have the ability to get someone help that needs help,” Stuart said, “why do we need to search their home?”

The General Assembly is considering dozens of gun-related bills over the 60-day session that began last week. While guns have always been a hot-button issue in Virginia, this year’s battle mirrors the one raging at the national level, with despair over several high-profile shooting deaths mixing with fears of unchecked executive power. Last month, Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced that the commonwealth will no longer recognize many out-of-state concealed handgun permits, a move that coincides with a national push to circumvent legislatures opposed to tightening gun laws, enraging gun-rights enthusiasts.

CONTENT FROM AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Cloud brings peace of mind to the public sector
Agencies increasingly turn to cloud services to strengthen their security measures.
Indeed, the Senate committee Wednesday also passed several bills aimed at expanding gun rights. The most sweeping, proposed by Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun), would do away with the need to obtain a government permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Gun activists press an old cause with new fervor in Richmond]

The committee scrapped legislation that would have required applicants to demonstrate competence with a handgun before receiving a concealed handgun permit. It rejected a measure to outlaw the open carry of loaded firearms in public places with some exceptions.

Two bills meant to prohibit children as young as 4 from using a firearm or pneumatic gun drew impassioned testimony after it became clear that the measures would apply to BB guns. Bill Heipp of Midlothian stepped up to tell the committee that he taught his sons how to shoot at a young age.

“None of my kids are afraid of guns,” he said. “A lot of that is because they were introduced in a safe environment, at an early age, and given good coaching by a concerned parent. This bill would stuff all that.”

Sen. David W. Marsden *(D-Fairfax), whose bill would have applied to children as old as 7, said he would be willing to amend it so it would not apply to BB guns. But the committee showed no appetite for that, either.

Democrats who sponsored the gun-control bills were hardly surprised.

“It’s not like I didn’t see that one coming,” Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) told the committee after it rejected one of her bills, which would have required all buyers at gun shows to undergo background checks before purchasing firearms. Current law requires gun dealers to make those checks, but not private sellers.

Marsden expressed frustration after the meeting.

“Guns are not our problem; obsession with guns is our problem,” he said. “It is the primary voter in Republican districts, several thousand people, who are . . . making it impossible for our legislators to do anything regardless of how benign it may be because it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.”


But gun-rights supporters said the measures would have infringed upon the rights of responsible, law-abiding people.

The committee approved several gun-rights bills, including one that would allow the state’s judges to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Another would allow retired law-
enforcement officers who annually meet the training and qualifications of active officers to carry concealed handguns in airports and schools.

The most far-reaching of the approved bills was Black’s, which would lift the permitting requirement for carrying a concealed weapon. The measure, which he referred to as “constitutional carry,” now goes to the full Senate for its consideration.

“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government,” Black said. “It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”

Under the bill, the state would continue to issue concealed handgun permits for people who want them, as might be the case for those who travel with their guns out of state, Black said. People who are not entitled to carry concealed weapons under current law, such as fe

citanon
22 Jan 16,, 12:50
You know, i just figured out a CA compliant bullet button alternative that would be much easier to use. I wonder what the size of the market would be for such a thing....

bonehead
23 Jan 16,, 03:56
"Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others."


Here is my beef. If the person is deemed to be a substantial risk of injury to themselves or others, why in the hell is this person not placed in a mental institution until it is deemed safe for this person to be out in the public?

Gun Grape
23 Jan 16,, 05:20
"Among the legislation was one, proposed by Sen. George L. Barker (D-Fairfax), that would have created a way for authorities to remove firearms from people deemed by a Circuit Court judge to be at “substantial risk” of injury to themselves or others."


Here is my beef. If the person is deemed to be a substantial risk of injury to themselves or others, why in the hell is this person not placed in a mental institution until it is deemed safe for this person to be out in the public?

Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

bonehead
24 Jan 16,, 05:06
Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

That is not saving money. That is kicking the can down the road.
In Oregon we have a parallel problem with special needs kids. Once they get into the system and have foster car parents, the state pays 2-7K per kid to the foster parents. Then the state is in the hook for the doctors, therapists and psychologist and the thousands of dollars per month for pills. When they go to school many need a "one on one" from the time they get on the bus until the time they get back home. Some kids are bussed far from home at a great expense to the school district. Finally the state pays for all the case workers and overhead and whatnot for each kid. There is no way this is cheaper than institutionalizing those that don't have the mental capacity to ever be on their own. Oh and I almost left out the added cost for law enforcement and courts when these kids do something illegal or victimize others in the community.

"You cant put someone in jail for what they might do"….but you can take away their Constitutional rights? I know you can see the hypocrisy in that but many gun control people ignore it.

Gun Grape
24 Jan 16,, 17:35
"You cant put someone in jail for what they might do"….but you can take away their Constitutional rights? I know you can see the hypocrisy in that but many gun control people ignore it.

Well in 44 States crazy people can have their voting rights taken away. In some States you can have your gun rights taken for being crazy.

To me, that's just common sense. Although I wasn't there, I'm betting that back in the 17-1800's, we, as a community, didn't let the village idiot have a gun.

bonehead
25 Jan 16,, 00:47
Well in 44 States crazy people can have their voting rights taken away. In some States you can have your gun rights taken for being crazy.

To me, that's just common sense. Although I wasn't there, I'm betting that back in the 17-1800's, we, as a community, didn't let the village idiot have a gun.



For the most part, way back then, they didn't let the village idiot leave the house. Today we have way too many such people walking free even though they have a documented history of violence. How is letting such people walking free "common sense"? No one wants such people to have a gun, or a knife or any other weapon. The Only way to ensure they don't get a weapon is to lock these people up. Look at drunk drivers. You take their license away and they still drink and drive. You take their car away and they buy, borrow or steal another, go to the bar then drive home drunk. That only stops when their ass is locked up.

Sanjac
25 Jan 16,, 04:30
It all seems quite clear to me:


In any interaction between human beings, the government is that body which has a monopoly on violence.


The intent of gun control is to assure that the state, not the people, has the monopoly on violence.


This is in direct conflict with, and violation of, the constitution of the United States, which seeks to secure a free state by assuring that the people, not the state, had the monopoly on violence. Emphasis on free: "... being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people..."

zraver
25 Jan 16,, 05:35
Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

We lock people up for what they might do all the time via commitment and mental health holds. The problem is keeping them there (jail or a hospital) given beds are so limited.

troung
26 Jan 16,, 01:00
Because, to save money, the States closed mental hospitals. Now there are a very limited number of beds avaliable. We cannot lock someone up in jail for what they might do. So the alternative is 'Go home till space becomes available to treat you.

While I think the FFX county guy might be going a bit far - I have no problem with a blanket order taking guns from anyone collecting a disability cheque for anything mental health related - be it anxiety, PTSD, depression.

Gun Grape
26 Jan 16,, 05:13
While I think the FFX county guy might be going a bit far - I have no problem with a blanket order taking guns from anyone collecting a disability cheque for anything mental health related - be it anxiety, PTSD, depression.

Agree. Need that like button back.

It boggle my mind that anyone would object to that.

But then again it boggles my mind that people would object to having someone receive training before buying a gun or show competency with a weapon before you issue them a concealed carry permit. We make people go through a hunter safety course before giving them a hunting license. We make them take a test before issuing a drivers license. But a certain group starts yelling about "Infringing on their Constitutional Rights".

One of the first things I learned growing up was that With rights come responsibility. The old example about free speech, You enjoy the right of free speech but you have the responsibility of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that you have the right to own and carry guns, but you also have the responsibility to be well trained in their use, storage, ect.

bonehead
26 Jan 16,, 06:42
Agree. Need that like button back.

It boggle my mind that anyone would object to that.

But then again it boggles my mind that people would object to having someone receive training before buying a gun or show competency with a weapon before you issue them a concealed carry permit. We make people go through a hunter safety course before giving them a hunting license. We make them take a test before issuing a drivers license. But a certain group starts yelling about "Infringing on their Constitutional Rights".

One of the first things I learned growing up was that With rights come responsibility. The old example about free speech, You enjoy the right of free speech but you have the responsibility of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that you have the right to own and carry guns, but you also have the responsibility to be well trained in their use, storage, ect.

How exactly are gun owners not held to their responsibility and who gets to define those responsibilities?

gunnut
26 Jan 16,, 21:08
I'm all for a mandatory training course for gun owners. Just like I'm for a competency test for all voters. Stupid and uninformed people should not be allowed to vote, or own a gun.

SteveDaPirate
26 Jan 16,, 21:47
I'm all for a mandatory training course for gun owners. Just like I'm for a competency test for all voters. Stupid and uninformed people should not be allowed to vote, or own a gun.

That sounds fine in both instances as long as the standards are set at a federal level to prevent states from playing fast and loose with the tests for their own political ends.

gunnut
26 Jan 16,, 22:03
That sounds fine in both instances as long as the standards are set at a federal level to prevent states from playing fast and loose with the tests for their own political ends.

I'm fine with that. Make sure we apply that to gun laws too. Liberal states are playing fast and loose with gun laws for their own political ends.

Sanjac
27 Jan 16,, 02:09
I would certainly support having training in firearms given to all citizens, both rifle and pistol; not just safety, but also maintenance and use of these machines. Then, when you pass the test, you receive your shiny new state-issued firearms and 10,000 rounds for each.

Requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon is an infringement of the right to bear arms. Such pieces of paper inhibit only honest men.

bonehead
27 Jan 16,, 04:33
I'm all for a mandatory training course for gun owners. Just like I'm for a competency test for all voters. Stupid and uninformed people should not be allowed to vote, or own a gun.

Why just "gun owners"? Everybody should be taught the basics as part of a Jr high class. That, and first aid should be universal classes.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jan 16,, 08:24
How exactly are gun owners not held to their responsibility and who gets to define those responsibilities?I said military standards would apply according to your consitution. It's not about denying rights but about accepting responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, then you don't have the right.

Gun Grape
28 Jan 16,, 01:59
I said military standards would apply according to your consitution. It's not about denying rights but about accepting responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, then you don't have the right.

Exactly what I was going to post.

bonehead
28 Jan 16,, 05:39
Could either or both of you be more specific.

Gun Grape
29 Jan 16,, 06:10
Could either or both of you be more specific.

A very short list. Everything is about safety. Any time a Marine is conducting live fire the first thing we do is review safety. A short 15 min reminder. And there is no such thing as a accidental discharge
Its a negligent discharge. Marines are held accountable for them. We take money, time and rank from Jr enlisted. If an NCO or above has one we take rank and the person will never see a promotion again. A special Fitness Report goes to HQMC. This includes training operations where we are using blanks.

So a quick couple of things ( I could spend hours) It is your responsibility as a weapon owner to Know your weapon. Nomenclature, characteristics and function of every part.
Cleaning. What to clean, how to clean and what to inspect when cleaning for possible failure to function.
Know the cycle of operation of your weapon and the function of each part during the cycle. Know what causes misifires, hangfires, failure to fire jams,, ect.
Know immediate action and remedial action for each type and be able to demonstrate it while observing safe practices such as muzzle awareness.
Know what carry condition your weapon is in at all times.
Never leave your weapon unsecured/unattended. Maintain positive control of your weapon. Never play with your weapon, If your not shooting or snapping in the weapon remains in the holster or at sling arms(range) or at the ready position (patrol/combat). Flagging someone with your muzzle on the range will get you thrown off. In the field you might get your clock cleaned. Even when the weapon is unloaded (Always treat a weapon as loaded)

Alcohol/drugs and guns don't mix. When the beer comes out the weapon gets secured. The Corps will also take away your access to a weapon (Normally for a week, up to the command and medical) whenever you have a traumatic event in your life. Death of an immediate relative, divorce or if you are put on mind altering substances (Narcotics for pain/crazy medicine).

Hows that for a start? Notice I haven't even touched (except for once) the 4 general safety rules yet.

Guns are designed to kill. We take that serious in the military

As far as being held responsible in the civilian world. I am a firm believer that if someone (such as a child) gets your unsecured weapon then yu should be held accountable. How many times have you seen the parents of a child where that happens go to jail? If a bartender can be charged for letting a drunk leave the bar and drive. In some states criminally as well as civil. Then you should be held responsible for your actions/or lack of when your weapon is involved.

But even in states where parents could be charged they usually arnt. "They have suffered enough" being the normal excuse. I'm a firm believer in Floridas 10/20/Life being applied. With a little less time. A kid gets your unsecured weapon and as an example takes it to school. You get up to 5 years. Kid fires your unsecure weapon 10 years. Kid shoots and injures someone 20-life. And yes I would include it being your child and them killing themselves or a sibling. Them maybe people would take weapon security serious.

Chanakya
18 Feb 16,, 03:57
I support mandatory training for use and safe storage of firearms , and for
de-escalating a "confrontational " situation which would preclude my use of a firearm ; but has to be paid you existing
Gun owners or potential gun owners and payments / cost to be recovered by means -tested sliding scale of income basis
. Also here is my latest " take"'on this topic : Hope more and more venture capitalists come forward to fund R & D for developing smart firearms , thus making them usable ONLY by legal legitimate owners of the firearms .

Since tweaking the IInd amendment of the US Constitution to allow for more humane and commonsense legislations such as annually renewable mandatory gun/firearm registration with comprehensive neuropsychiatric evaluation being one of the mandatory qualifying criteria to attain or renew registration ( paid for by taxpayers money and the payment for the cost to be made payable based on sliding scale of income and means-testing by current / prospective firearm owners ) is a very taboo topic and a potential lightning rod which no legislator nor POTUS would ever touch for fear of not getting re-elected , measures like embracing smart guns and/or making them mandatory would hopefully go a long way in making folks here in the US safer .

Welcome to the Future of Gun Control | Mother Jones from Mother Jones’s Tweet

Download the Twitter app

And I would like to reiterate to my friends and acquaintances among forum members who are already proud gun owners or who intend to be prospective gun owners , concerned folks like me , who are labeled as part of stereotypical generalizations , as "ivory tower liberals " --- that there is no insinuation nor innuendo here about confiscation of legally owned firearms . The entire discourse is being engaged in to make ownership and use of firearms safe and only direly necessary . I myself intend to be owner of a semiautomatic , compact -sized firearm in the very near future , but having said that I would NOT mind paying extra tax and /or fees for mandatory annual gun registration , for training of use and safe storage etc and also pay a reasonable chunk of dough for extra premium on my medical insurance for annual neuropsychiatric testing and other sensory testing ( such as vision and hearing testing ) as mandatory qualifying criteria for Ist time registration or renewal of firearm registration !

surfgun
18 Feb 16,, 04:40
Gun safety, should be included in a civics curriculum. It is a civil right, that should be taught as a civil responsibility to respect and understand basic firearms safety and responsibility. One year in Elementary school, dont touch tell an adult stuff, middle/ Jr. High basic safety such as all firearms to be considered loaded, don't point at things you are not willing to destroy. High School review firearm safety and a range day with a .22.

dundonrl
20 Mar 16,, 04:26
Well in 44 States crazy people can have their voting rights taken away. In some States you can have your gun rights taken for being crazy.

To me, that's just common sense. Although I wasn't there, I'm betting that back in the 17-1800's, we, as a community, didn't let the village idiot have a gun.

your right, they were locked up in an insane asylum..

dundonrl
20 Mar 16,, 04:32
Gun safety, should be included in a civics curriculum. It is a civil right, that should be taught as a civil responsibility to respect and understand basic firearms safety and responsibility. One year in Elementary school, dont touch tell an adult stuff, middle/ Jr. High basic safety such as all firearms to be considered loaded, don't point at things you are not willing to destroy. High School review firearm safety and a range day with a .22.

when I was 11, in order to hunt with a rifle when I turned 12, I had to attend a Hunters Safety Course, I think it was a 4 day class, about 2 or 3 hours long. (didn't involve any shooting, just practical safety) of course that was 32 years ago, and I don't consciously remember anything about the class. (20 years of being in the Navy, and learning how the Navy small arms work will do that to a person)

bonehead
20 Mar 16,, 08:26
Somehow this thread got under my radar. Thanks for the reply Gun Grape. Much of the military standards look like basic common sense.
Now as for the last couple of paragraphs I have a question. If a kid takes a knife out of the kitchen and stabs a neighbor would you hold the kids parents to the same standard as if the kid got his hands on an unsecured gun?

bonehead
20 Mar 16,, 08:32
when I was 11, in order to hunt with a rifle when I turned 12, I had to attend a Hunters Safety Course, I think it was a 4 day class, about 2 or 3 hours long. (didn't involve any shooting, just practical safety) of course that was 32 years ago, and I don't consciously remember anything about the class. (20 years of being in the Navy, and learning how the Navy small arms work will do that to a person)

I am sure that states differ but in Oregon the general program is a classroom or computer/work at home test that has to be passed, then an all day outdoor/hands on which reinforces what was learned in class/home study and there is some non mandatory shooting. From beginning to end it was stressed that this program was the minimum and a lot more training had to happen for all the safety aspects to become second nature.

Sanjac
22 Mar 16,, 03:30
... If a kid takes a knife out of the kitchen and stabs a neighbor would you hold the kids parents to the same standard as if the kid got his hands on an unsecured gun?

How about hammer? The hammer is the deadliest weapon in America, used in an order of magnitude more homicides than firearms.

Gun Grape
22 Mar 16,, 03:47
Both knives and hammers are tools that are not designed for killing. Guns are. (edit) One of the reasons that the law say that the legal age of possession/ability to buy a gun is either 18/21

I would expect that if a young child was able to get into the knife drawer and harm someone, most likely them self, that the parent would be held responsible. just like when a young child gets out of the house due to a parent neglecting to latch the door, watch the child, they are held responsible.

On a side note. US military personnel are not allowed to have knives with a blade more than 3 1/2 inches unless involved in duties that require it. (field duty). They may not be kept in the BEQ and must be stored in the unit armory.

surfgun
22 Mar 16,, 14:11
Here are some nice tools.

http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/c-20-war-hammers.aspx

https://www.doitbest.com/products/22-caliber-power-hammer-1

tuna
22 Mar 16,, 20:51
On a side note. US military personnel are not allowed to have knives with a blade more than 3 1/2 inches unless involved in duties that require it. (field duty). They may not be kept in the BEQ and must be stored in the unit armory.


I think that that is branch specific.
Ironically, in the Air Force - which has the least amount of "professional trigger pullers" there seems to be a more liberal policy on weapons.
I know of no Air Force wide restriction on knives. Closest I've seen in certain schools prohibit knives in class.
In my state of Massachusetts, the Adjutant General, in charge of all National Guardsmen, both Army and Air (an Air Force 2 star), wanted to allow personal carry of firearms IAW state law after Chatanooga. The Air National Guard commander was on board (this is a man I corrected in 2003 for wearing a horizontal shoulder holster backwards - so it isn't like he is a standard bearer for the NRA) and the only pushback came from the Army side.
Air Force standard for carrying an M9 is: round in the chamber, hammer down, weapon OFF safe. Army seems to be (at least under direction of the Garrison Commander at Bagram, may be different elsewhere but I do remember being called out by Army in 2003 for having my safety off) chamber empty, hammer down, safety on - which to me is a directive from the department of redundancy department.
Maybe the brass are looking at it from a total numbers game - more Army / Marine personnel with guns means more likely an accident, while the few Air Force would have fewer total accidents, even if the percentage is higher.




Or maybe us Air Force folk are just plain smarter. After all, what better way to go to combat than to say, "Good luck, sir" and then grab a beer?

SteveDaPirate
22 Mar 16,, 21:02
Air Force standard for carrying an M9 is: round in the chamber, hammer down, weapon OFF safe.

I'm actually surprised the Air Force continues to use the M9. Judging by your stated carry policy, I think they'd be happier with a something like a Glock, or a modern design with a decocker. They could even spring for a smaller and lighter option like a compact!

citanon
22 Mar 16,, 22:18
I think that that is branch specific.
Ironically, in the Air Force - which has the least amount of "professional trigger pullers" there seems to be a more liberal policy on weapons.
I know of no Air Force wide restriction on knives. Closest I've seen in certain schools prohibit knives in class.
In my state of Massachusetts, the Adjutant General, in charge of all National Guardsmen, both Army and Air (an Air Force 2 star), wanted to allow personal carry of firearms IAW state law after Chatanooga. The Air National Guard commander was on board (this is a man I corrected in 2003 for wearing a horizontal shoulder holster backwards - so it isn't like he is a standard bearer for the NRA) and the only pushback came from the Army side.
Air Force standard for carrying an M9 is: round in the chamber, hammer down, weapon OFF safe. Army seems to be (at least under direction of the Garrison Commander at Bagram, may be different elsewhere but I do remember being called out by Army in 2003 for having my safety off) chamber empty, hammer down, safety on - which to me is a directive from the department of redundancy department.
Maybe the brass are looking at it from a total numbers game - more Army / Marine personnel with guns means more likely an accident, while the few Air Force would have fewer total accidents, even if the percentage is higher.




Or maybe us Air Force folk are just plain smarter. After all, what better way to go to combat than to say, "Good luck, sir" and then grab a beer?

The brass is probably thinking of the 18 year old grunt and popping another Tums.

Gun Grape
23 Mar 16,, 00:15
I think that that is branch specific.
Ironically, in the Air Force - which has the least amount of "professional trigger pullers" there seems to be a more liberal policy on weapons.
I know of no Air Force wide restriction on knives. Closest I've seen in certain schools prohibit knives in class.

It is a DoD policy. No knives over 31/2in, no crossbows, no weapons, no BB guns may be stored in the BEQs




Air Force standard for carrying an M9 is: round in the chamber, hammer down, weapon OFF safe. Army seems to be (at least under direction of the Garrison Commander at Bagram, may be different elsewhere but I do remember being called out by Army in 2003 for having my safety off) chamber empty, hammer down, safety on - which to me is a directive from the department of redundancy department.

Its stupid. One of the reasons that the military got away from the M1911. M9 with round in chamber, on fire with the hammer forward puts the firing pin against the primer. a unsafe condition. All it takes is to bump the hammer for the round to discharge. How hard is it to thumb the roller block safety to fire when needed?

tuna
23 Mar 16,, 14:40
Do you have the DODI that states that? I've done a quick search and only find base instructions, generally Army posts, that list this.

As for the M9 - there is a firing pin block which prevents the gun from firing unless the trigger is all the way back. It is designed to be carried and first shot like a DA revolver - perfectly safe.

surfgun
23 Mar 16,, 15:07
It is a DoD policy. No knives over 31/2in, no crossbows, no weapons, no BB guns may be stored in the BEQs

Answer- The 1911 has an inertia firing pin. It does not "rest on the primer." It is too short. Only with a worn firing pin spring will the drop on the muzzle will it cause the firing pin to contact a sensitive primer causing the firearm to discharge. Of course a firing pin safety also negates this possibility, many Colts have them. A lower mass firing pin also fixes this maintenance shortcoming, or if one just replaced through proper maintenance the damn firing pin spring every few years!
An M9 has a two price firing pin, with one pin contained within the safety, when it is rotated out of alignment, so no matter what one does with the hammer it will not go bang."


Its stupid. One of the reasons that the military got away from the M1911. M9 with round in chamber, on fire with the hammer forward puts the firing pin against the primer. a unsafe condition. All it takes is to bump the hammer for the round to discharge. How hard is it to thumb the roller block safety to fire when needed?

See above

Gun Grape
23 Mar 16,, 16:40
Do you have the DODI that states that? I've done a quick search and only find base instructions, generally Army posts, that list this.
I'll see if I can find it




As for the M9 - there is a firing pin block which prevents the gun from firing unless the trigger is all the way back. It is designed to be carried and first shot like a DA revolver - perfectly safe.

Is the firing pin block a mechanical device subject to break or wear? Yes it is. Then it is not "Perfectly safe"

Thats why the Army and Marine Corps teaches, and practices, weapon on safe until you are ready to kill someone

surfgun
23 Mar 16,, 16:49
I'll see if I can find it




Is the firing pin block a mechanical device subject to break or wear? Yes it is. Then it is not "Perfectly safe"

Thats why the Army and Marine Corps teaches, and practices, weapon on safe until you are ready to kill someone

The firing pin on an M9 would be much more likely to wear than the firing pin block. The block on an M9 is built like a tank. And also the firing pin in an M9 is a inertia type pin. It is too short to reach a primer when a hammer is struck from the rear while the hammer is completely down. So it is safe as a modern hammer block or transfer bar revolver, while chamber loaded and hammer down.

Gun Grape
23 Mar 16,, 19:22
I understand that. I also know that "It can't happen" "Its designed to keep that from happening" fails. I believe in Murphy. And I have seen the results when people don't respect him. As for the won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Triggers are snag magnets.

Now If you don't like that reason for USMC/USN/US Army weapon condition codes, the other argument is that these codes can be used for any weapon. And you will always have a safe weapon. If that AF security/JTAC person goes TAD to a Army/Navy?USMC unit he doesn't have to unlearn and learn a new safety procedure for his M45 or his HK23 or one of the other pistols used by US forces. Or his M9 for that matter.

Also the safety procedures/weapon codes apply to all weapons across the board. A condition 1 weapon is the same, be it a M-16/M-4 or a M9.

tuna
24 Mar 16,, 01:07
OK, that's a valid answer that I disagree with but find no fault in. It makes sense at a strategic, big picture, level. I find a pistol to be a defensive arm, so it should always be ready to shoot someone.
As for the air force having glocks or the like, most would be well served with a makarov or small .380. Reason for smaller is that it is more likely carried than taken off because it's uncomfortable, which I've seen quite a bit.

Gun Grape
24 Mar 16,, 01:43
OK, that's a valid answer that I disagree with but find no fault in. It makes sense at a strategic, big picture, level. I find a pistol to be a defensive arm, so it should always be ready to shoot someone.
.

Weapon on safe, round in the chamber is "ready to shoot someone". That's how we carry all our weapons. Even in combat. When the rifle/pistol goes up, pointed at the target, then the weapon comes off safe.

Shoot, assess the target. Weapon on safe again, then back to the carry.

If more civilian law enforcement agencies used those techniques, you wouldn't have cops getting shot in the back when doing a dynamic entry. Or standing over a perp and the gun "accidentally" goes off.

You can't control the adrenalin rush. So you control what it effects.

surfgun
24 Mar 16,, 02:59
Well GG, there is no safety on a Glock and odds are the US military is heading that way. If they order empty chamber carry, they may as well get something along the lines of Tokarev. The US military carried D/A revolvers for decades loaded. The M9 is at least as safe as the post 1945 revolvers and safer than the pre WW2 revolvers as those are pre transfer revolvers plus an M9 has a redundant safety firing pin safety that it's only function is to protect against a busted sear interface that would allow a hammer to follow through.
I understand Uncle does not trust the common Joe with a ready to fire weapon. This has nothing to do with facts of actual mechanical hardware and I accept that. It however does not change multiple mechanical facts.

tuna
24 Mar 16,, 03:24
If that's how you train, then that works for you. I've never trained like that, so it doesn't seem right to me. I'll take my chances on the accidental discharge from a blow to the hammer (as opposed to a negligent discharge from booger hook on bang switch) and use my M9s safety as a hammer dropper only.

tuna
24 Mar 16,, 03:32
41200


Had to throw this in...just to break stones.

Gun Grape
24 Mar 16,, 05:43
If that's how you train, then that works for you. I've never trained like that, so it doesn't seem right to me. I'll take my chances on the accidental discharge from a blow to the hammer (as opposed to a negligent discharge from booger hook on bang switch) and use my M9s safety as a hammer dropper only.

This is why we train, and fight like we do. And this next remark isn't directed at you personalty. Its to demonstrate our mindset.

I'm glad YOU will take the chance of having a accidental/negligent discharge. But as the person that you may hit/kill with that "oops" I would prefer that you handle your weapon as safe as possible.
Hard to look that squad mates widow in the face and tell her that you decided to take a chance with her husbands safety.

That's the reality.

Also why in the Marine Corps there is no such thing as a accidental discharge. Even with blanks. Weapon goes bang when its not suppose to and at a minimum its Company level NJP

troung
08 May 16,, 18:28
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/05/08/bill-clinton-enacting-gun-control-one-proudest-moments/


Bill Clinton: Enacting Gun Control ‘One Of The Greatest Honors Of My Life’

by AWR Hawkins8 May 201623
Former president Bill Clinton said May 4 that enacting gun control was “one of the greatest honors of my life.”

Clinton was speaking at a Brady Campaign’s gun control awards ceremony in Los Angeles, May 4.

Breitbart News previously reported that Brad Pitt and Adam McKay were co-chairs for the ceremony. And People magazine reports that Clinton attended and gave “an impromptu 30-minute speech at [the] event.”

Clinton referenced signing the Brady Handgun Prevention Act in 1993, which eventually spawned the background check system for gun purchases in 1998. He also referenced signing an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, which included a ban on “high capacity” ammunition magazines. He said, “One of the great honors of my life was signing the Brady law, and then a year later in the crime bill the assault weapons ban and the ammunition clip ban.”

He referenced visiting locations where high profile gun crimes have occurred and spending time with gun control Gabby Giffords, who has spent the past three years campaigning to force every gun owner to pass the same background check her attacker passed to acquire his firearm.

Clinton called on gun control supporters to “redeem the loss” of gun crime victims by pushing for more gun controls for law-abiding citizens.

Bigfella
09 May 16,, 03:37
41200


Had to throw this in...just to break stones.

That looks an awful lot like Australian actor Eric Bana. I'm betting his views on gun control are a long way from the image in the picture.

astralis
09 May 16,, 04:25
yeah, that's one of his famous lines from Black Hawk Down. he's playing a Delta Force guy.

Bigfella
09 May 16,, 05:40
yeah, that's one of his famous lines from Black Hawk Down. he's playing a Delta Force guy.

OK, been years since I've seen it, though I do recall it was his first substantial US role off the back of his starring role in 'Chopper'.

"...why would I shoot a bloke - BANG - and then put him in the car & race him off to hospital at 100 miles an hour. Defeats the purpose of having shot him in the first place."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3VnX0hf_yM

The full movie for anyone who hasn't seen it - great film about a truly odd person. Genius level IQ & nephew of a popular TV 'celebrity doctor'. I used to see the real 'Chopper' wandering around Melbourne, sometimes pushing his kid in a pram.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Fd_f1epgo

A bit off topic, but.... :)

troung
22 Sep 16,, 18:54
I agree it is the height of hypocrisy for anti-2nd amendment creatures to be protected by armed people.

What Donald Trump knows about Hillary Clinton and her bodyguards



John Lott

By John R. Lott
·Published September 22, 2016
· FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/22/what-donald-trump-knows-about-hillary-clinton-and-her-bodyguards.html


Was Donald Trump inciting violence against Hillary Clinton when he spoke last Friday about disarming her bodyguards? Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, says so.

The media was hysterical. According to Martha Raddatz, host of ABC News’ “This Week”: “The message sounds a lot like a threat or encouraging violence.” On NBC’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd claimed: “Trump again raised the specter of violence against Hillary Clinton.” Over the weekend, news show after news show made similar claims.

So what was Donald Trump’s supposedly threatening statement?

"She's [Clinton's] very much against the 2nd Amendment... I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?... Take their guns away. She doesn't want guns. Take their — and let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK? It would be very dangerous.”


Trump’s point is simple: It's the height of hypocrisy for elites to employ armed guards (or live in super-safe neighborhoods / gated communities / doorman buildings) and then demand the disarmament of law-abiding people living in much more dangerous areas.

Trump’s comment was obviously rhetorical. He was not actually advocating that her bodyguards be disarmed. He was pointing out that doing so would be absurd and “very dangerous.”

By making Americans consider Clinton’s need for security, he is making the point that Americans should by extension have a right to their own (personal) armed security.

SteveDaPirate
22 Sep 16,, 20:18
I agree it is the height of hypocrisy for anti-2nd amendment creatures to be protected by armed people.

If we're pointing out hypocrisy, let's not do so by arguing against a stance someone hasn't actually taken. Basing an argument off the statements that HRC is "against the 2nd amendment" and "demanding disarmament" is a stretch. She is largely in favor of stricter gun control measures, but I've yet to hear her call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment or disarmament.

I could talk about how hypocritical it is for Trump to call for the deportation of all immigrants and ask if his wife is included, but that would be similarly stretching his position beyond what he's actually called for.

Let's argue against the candidate's actual positions, and not their positions after applied to a slippery slope.

InExile
23 Sep 16,, 07:42
How about hammer? The hammer is the deadliest weapon in America, used in an order of magnitude more homicides than firearms.

Pretty easy to distort statistics

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-with-hammers-and-clubs-each-year-than-with-rifles/

Actually, hammers kill a few more people in a year than rifles only.

tankie
23 Sep 16,, 14:28
And petrol kills more in arson attacks ,,ban it ??? no chance . UK banned hand guns etc and the only people who have them are criminals , banning imo is not the answer to gun control , its more people control thats needed