Private Citizen Ends Violence [Archive]

Desertrat

Dec 11, 2007, 01:34 PM

Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001348.html?hpid=sec-nation

"The gunman, identified as Matthew Murray 24, of Englewood, Colo., was carrying an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition when he shot his way into the huge New Life Church in Colorado Springs and was confronted and shot by Jeanne Assam, a former police officer who was serving as a volunteer security guard, police said.

"I saw him coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer," Assam told reporters. "I came out of cover, I identified myself and engaged him and took him down," she said.

Assam, a member of the New Life Church, said that although she was outgunned and physically weak from three days of fasting, "God was with me. . . . God made me strong."

One weak little ol' gal with a gun did pretty good. Killed a goblin, and not only saved a bunch of lives but saved Colorado's taxpayers a bunch of money. Good on her!

Just shows to go ya that "Gun Free Zones" aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Like Marko says at his Munchkin Wrangler blog, "The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."

The first option is obviously better than the second.

'Rat

killr_b

Dec 11, 2007, 01:36 PM

+1 for the average hero with a CC.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 01:43 PM

Carrying "1,000" rounds of ammunition? Yikes! No wonder he couldn't move very quickly! ;) Have they reported on what kind of "assault rifle" was used?

More seriously, I think 'Rat's point is well taken. If the police had been involved, it's safe to say more people would have been killed, while the police established a "perimeter" and then had the SWAT team sit on its a** while Murray went round killing people because the police wouldn't want to "unnecessarily risk" any SWAT members or other police. (Which was the official reason SWAT teams did not try to enter Columbine.)

That said, it's easy to take it too far--I think Colorado's "shall issue" law is about right, if a bit expensive (~$125-150 for the required safety course, plus the same for a "background check" that takes 10 seconds and costs nothing). I've applied for a CCW permit partly on the idea that the more people do, the less likely a court is to take it away.

Pittsax

Dec 11, 2007, 01:44 PM

Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001348.html?hpid=sec-nation
Like Marko says at his Munchkin Wrangler blog, "The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."

The first option is obviously better than the second.

'Rat
Riiiight.

She was a volunteer SECURITY GUARD who was also a former police officer. This isn't your average shmoe walking around carrying a gun because he/she thought 1)it would be good to have in case someone started shooting and/or 2) the Constitution says to (which it doesn't even come close to saying). The lucky thing is that a said shmoe with a gun didn't also happen to be there and start shooting as well.

skunk

Dec 11, 2007, 01:48 PM

"The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."I suppose you have plenty of links to verify your "usually".

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 01:54 PM

She wasn't a "private citizen", she was a paid armed security guard.

And the first armed security guard did nothing to stop the violence.

latergator116

Dec 11, 2007, 02:10 PM

It now appears he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings

aquajet

Dec 11, 2007, 02:10 PM

Well, maybe not. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/colorado.shootings/index.html)

Is anybody else interested how a person convinces himself that this an acceptable way of dealing with problems? Anybody else tired of the playground names being thrown around?

ucfgrad93

Dec 11, 2007, 02:51 PM

Private citizen, volunteer guard, paid guard, she killed him, he committed suicide. What does it matter? Clearly the death toll would have been much higher if she hadn't taken action.

kavika411

Dec 11, 2007, 02:57 PM

It now appears he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings

Why do we no longer use the phrase "shot himself." I'm not being critical of the above post; it is consistent with the way everyone writes that phrase now. But I find it strange we no longer simply say that someone "shot himself." The first time I remember hearing it phrased strangely was MTV's Kurt Loder reporting that Kurt Cobain "was the apparent victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head." ?????

Blue Velvet

Dec 11, 2007, 03:00 PM

pseudobrit

Dec 11, 2007, 03:02 PM

Why do we no longer use the phrase "shot himself." I'm not being critical of the above post; it is consistent with the way everyone writes that phrase now. But I find it strange we no longer simply say that someone "shot himself." The first time I remember hearing it phrased strangely was MTV's Kurt Loder reporting that Kurt Cobain "was the apparent victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head." ?????

Technical lingo. GSW is used instead of "shot".

skunk

Dec 11, 2007, 03:05 PM

If you had proper gun control laws and a neutered NRA you wouldn't have people carrying 'an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition' around that easily in the first place. Simple.Yes, but we all know that the right of every citizen to be a crazed psychopathic fruitloop wielding a small armoury is enshrined in the Constitution (pbui).

killr_b

Dec 11, 2007, 03:11 PM

If you had proper gun control laws and a neutered NRA you wouldn't have people carrying 'an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition' around that easily in the first place. Simple.

'Cause prohibition totally prevents crime. Not.
Anyone who wants to can get an "illegal" firearm just as easily as they can get pot.

And what part of the second amendment isn't clear? The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty much says it all.

And, btw, the NRA was founded FOR gun control laws. FYI.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 03:11 PM

If you had proper gun control laws and a neutered NRA you wouldn't have people carrying 'an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition' around that easily in the first place. Simple.

Hardly. The American experience with gun control laws is far from clear, with a number of studies showing violent crime decreasing as gun control laws are reduced. Plus the old chestnut "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them" has a large grain of truth to it.

From a brief review, it appears that gun control in the UK has not decreased gun crime. By way of example, here is a BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

So perhaps it's not quite so simple?

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 03:11 PM

Private citizen, volunteer guard, paid guard, she killed him, he committed suicide. What does it matter?
If it didn't matter, why would 'Rat have posted a thread with the title "Private Citizen Ends Violence"? Clearly the OP thought that the fact this woman was a private citizen was important. He also clearly thought the fact that she shot him (even if that fact turns out to be wrong) was important.

Clearly the death toll would have been much higher if she hadn't taken action.
Clearly the death toll would have been much lower with proper gun control laws.

I mean, since we're not supplying proof to back up our assertions and all...

killr_b

Dec 11, 2007, 03:15 PM

Riiiight.

She was a volunteer SECURITY GUARD who was also a former police officer. This isn't your average shmoe walking around carrying a gun because he/she thought 1)it would be good to have in case someone started shooting and/or 2) the Constitution says to (which it doesn't even come close to saying). The lucky thing is that a said shmoe with a gun didn't also happen to be there and start shooting as well.

I bet you know all about our constitution…

pknz

Dec 11, 2007, 03:16 PM

killr_b

Dec 11, 2007, 03:17 PM

If it didn't matter, why would 'Rat have posted a thread with the title "Private Citizen Ends Violence"? Clearly the OP thought that the fact this woman was a private citizen was important. He also clearly thought the fact that she shot him (even if that fact turns out to be wrong) was important.

Clearly the death toll would have been much lower with proper gun control laws.

I mean, since we're not supplying proof to back up our assertions and all...

Why don't you do your job and be an informed person and look up the Fed's own stats that less gun control laws= less crime in those cities.

juanm

Dec 11, 2007, 03:25 PM

Why don't you do your job and be an informed person and look up the Fed's own stats that less gun control laws= less crime in those cities.

I don't know, but maybe there are less gun control laws in those cities because, in the first place, there was less crime, and thus, less need for those laws which were created elsewhere precisely to fight the high crime rates.

Just curious. When was the article in the constitution related to firearms use created/modified/amended last time?

obeygiant

Dec 11, 2007, 03:28 PM

Clearly the death toll would have been much lower with proper gun control laws.

Would it really? People kill people with guns or not. I've read the kid's manifesto (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jM9PLHO9zowm4wx8udtQJzd0j4tA) and its not pretty. If he didn't have a gun he probably would've snuck around and beat christians with blunt instrument.

I mean, since we're not supplying proof to back up our assertions and all...

I don't see where ufcgrad93 needed any proof to back up what he said.

Blue Velvet

Dec 11, 2007, 03:32 PM

And what part of the second amendment isn't clear? The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty much says it all.

I believe that conveniently you've left off the important qualifying first part of that sentence there.

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.

So what part of a well-regulated militia applies to nutcases being able to lay their hands on assault rifles?

You guys are so awash with weapons over there, that you can't see the absurdity of it... and when the solution offered is to arm everyone, the collective insanity of that approach is revealed for the farce it is.

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 03:33 PM

Why don't you do your job and be an informed person and look up the Fed's own stats that less gun control laws= less crime in those cities.
If you had a clue, you would have known that that was not my point.

Please try again.

Would it really? People kill people with guns or not. I've read the kid's manifesto (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jM9PLHO9zowm4wx8udtQJzd0j4tA) and its not pretty. If he didn't have a gun he probably would've snuck around and beat christians with blunt instrument.
Sure it would. I don't see where I needed any proof to back up what I said. And really, my point wasn't so much to argue the point as to show that if we're not backing up claims like that with proof, anyone can say anything.

I don't see where ufcgrad93 needed any proof to back up what he said.See above.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 03:42 PM

'Cause prohibition totally prevents crime. Not.
Anyone who wants to can get an "illegal" firearm just as easily as they can get pot.

Unfortunately all too true.

And what part of the second amendment isn't clear? The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty much says it all.

The problem is that the text you quoted is only part of the Amendment. The complete text is "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." Since you have to consider all the words in the Amendment, we don't really know what the heck it means. The Supreme Court may actually decide what it means in District of Columbia v. Heller, Case No. 07-290.

And, btw, the NRA was founded FOR gun control laws. FYI.

Interesting. I did not know that.

latergator116

Dec 11, 2007, 03:43 PM

Iscariot

Dec 11, 2007, 03:44 PM

Because a criminal can make an assault rifle appear out of thin air, amirite?

pseudobrit

Dec 11, 2007, 04:04 PM

And, btw, the NRA was founded FOR gun control laws. FYI.

NRA didn't start lobbying until 1934. Got any other facts you want to invent?

The NRA was founded on November 17, 1871 by two Union Army officers, Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who were upset with the poor marksmanship of their troops. In a magazine editorial written by Church, he stated their primary goal was "providing firearms training and encouraging interest in the shooting sports

Ugg

Dec 11, 2007, 05:33 PM

From a brief review, it appears that gun control in the UK has not decreased gun crime. By way of example, here is a BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

So perhaps it's not quite so simple?

It's pretty simple when you look at the root causes. The uptick in gun crime in the UK is probably solely due to Thatcher's socially destructive policies, along with Labour's repression of the socially marginized.

People who think gun crimes are only about gun laws or the lack thereof are simply deluding themselves.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 05:50 PM

It's pretty simple when you look at the root causes. The uptick in gun crime in the UK is probably solely due to Thatcher's socially destructive policies, along with Labour's repression of the socially marginized.

Pretty simple? Forgive me while I laugh.

What would you say are the root causes? I'd also suggest the UK has experienced more than an "uptick" in gun crime--to call it an "uptick" rather trivializes the increase, don't you think?

And I think you need more qualifiers than "probably solely." ;)

People who think gun crimes are only about gun laws or the lack thereof are simply deluding themselves.

Precisely. I did not say they were, although the person I responded to certainly implied that. I said "So perhaps it's not quite that simple?"

Blue Velvet

Dec 11, 2007, 05:55 PM

What would you say are the root causes?

Easier availability of weapons coming in from former Eastern Bloc countries and in some cases, a glorification of gun ownership, something which I've seen at close first-hand...

But to somehow compare the murder rate by gun to the US per capita is absurd.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 05:58 PM

Easier availability of weapons coming in from former Eastern Bloc countries and in some cases, a glorification of gun ownership, something which I've seen at close first-hand...

But to somehow compare the murder rate by gun to the US per capita is absurd.

I'm sorry, I didn't see where you were making that comparison. What are you saying? That the US has a higher per capita murder rate by gun? Agreed. But as Ugg pointed out, to claim that the higher rate is explained solely by gun control laws, or the lack thereof, is overly simplistic.

Blue Velvet

Dec 11, 2007, 06:04 PM

I'm sorry, I didn't see where you were making that comparison. What are you saying? That the US has a higher per capita murder rate by gun? Agreed. But as Ugg pointed out, to claim that the higher rate is explained solely by gun control laws, or the lack thereof, is overly simplistic.

To point something out is not evidence of anything... making weapons easily available to all and sundry is an obvious cause, funny how people fudge this very basic point. 3 weapons per person... 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms, according to the BBC.

You don't think that has something to do with it?

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 06:43 PM

To point something out is not evidence of anything... making weapons easily available to all and sundry is an obvious cause, funny how people fudge this very basic point.

I think I'm missing something. Do you mean in the UK or the US? Making weapons (and I assume you mean firearms only, if not, please correct me) easily available is an obvious cause of what? Gun violence? That's precisely what is not obvious from the statistical studies that have been done. In fact, the studies done to date suggest the opposite.

3 weapons per person... 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms, according to the BBC.

Well, I'd best go buy another one, then--since I only have two. I think that means 3 weapons per owner? Otherwise there would be close to 900 million firearms.

You don't think that has something to do with it?

I think it is a much more complicated question than how you have framed it. Is it possible that the level of gun ownership has something to do with the rate of gun violence? Of course. Is it also possible that it does not? Of course.

.Andy

Dec 11, 2007, 06:58 PM

Another shooting today: 6 kids getting off school bus (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/six-students-shot-getting-off-bus/2007/12/12/1197135510976.html).

Blue Velvet

Dec 11, 2007, 07:08 PM

I think it is a much more complicated question than how you have framed it.

No, it's a pretty basic scenario. Make guns easily available to all, and more people will lay their hands on one. Only those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and blurring the issue insist that the situation is more complex than it is.

How is it that a private citizen should have the ability to buy an assault rifle? What conceivable purpose does that have?

I've shot rifles before, and have also carried a knife at times when I definitely needed it. But I was no illusion that was I was doing was a fundamental right or legally permissable... it's hard to pick off innocent strangers at 40 yards with a knife, anyway.

Aranince

Dec 11, 2007, 07:11 PM

Clearly the death toll would have been much lower with proper gun control laws.

Crazed people who go one these killing sprees already get the guns illegally, by making guns illegal all around what won't change that, it will just stop people from legally defending themselves and others by these illegal firearms.

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 07:12 PM

Crazed people who go one these killing sprees already get the guns illegally, by making guns illegal all around what won't change that, it will just stop people from legally defending themselves and others by these illegal firearms.
Where did I say I wanted to make guns legal all around? You're arguing a red herring.

Besides, you need to include the last line of that post to understand the point of what I said.

.Andy

Dec 11, 2007, 07:14 PM

Crazed people who go one these killing sprees already get the guns illegally, by making guns illegal all around what won't change that, it will just stop people from legally defending themselves and others by these illegal firearms.
Why haven't any of the recent mass shootings been stopped by private citizens carrying guns then?

obeygiant

Dec 11, 2007, 07:18 PM

How is it that a private citizen should have the ability to buy an assault rifle? What conceivable purpose does that have?

Some people collect and fire weapons for personal enjoyment, just like they collect and drive cars.

I've shot rifles before, and have also carried a knife at times when I definitely needed it.

You carried a knife for personal protection? You'd be better suited with a retractable billy club unless you have wicked fast reflexes.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 07:36 PM

No, it's a pretty basic scenario. Make guns easily available to all, and more people will lay their hands on one. Only those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and blurring the issue insist that the situation is more complex than it is.

I'm curious what makes you think I have any "vested interest" or "blurring the issue?" What "issue" are you referring to? Are you saying there is a direct, demonstrable link between gun ownership and gun violence? That has yet to be demonstrated--either way, for that matter.

How is it that a private citizen should have the ability to buy an assault rifle? What conceivable purpose does that have?

Why not? The better way to ask that question, in the US at least, is "what gives a government the power to restrict an individual's right to own one?"

Is your real argument that people should not be allowed to own an assault rifle? Personally, I have no interest in owning one, but if someone else does, why not?

I've shot rifles before, and have also carried a knife at times when I definitely needed it. But I was no illusion that was I was doing was a fundamental right or legally permissable... it's hard to pick off innocent strangers at 40 yards with a knife, anyway.

And, in the UK, owning a rifle or carrying a knife may not be a fundamental right. However, in the US, the right to "bear arms" is, at worst arguably, a fundamental right. As an aside, why were you carrying a knife? Protection?

.Andy

Dec 11, 2007, 07:48 PM

As an aside, why were you carrying a knife? Protection?
Blue Velvet likes oranges for lunch.

Naimfan

Dec 11, 2007, 07:50 PM

Blue Velvet likes oranges for lunch.

Aha! That explains it! Thanks!

obeygiant

Dec 11, 2007, 07:56 PM

Blue Velvet likes oranges for lunch.

lol, well you don't need a knife to peel an orange. Although i have heard of people shooting oranges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmW0XTJh4Vw).

Iscariot

Dec 11, 2007, 08:01 PM

Why not? The better way to ask that question, in the US at least, is "what gives a government the power to restrict an individual's right to own one?"

Is your real argument that people should not be allowed to own an assault rifle? Personally, I have no interest in owning one, but if someone else does, why not?

Why stop there? Why does the government have the right to restrict my right to own missiles? Anthrax? I just like firing sidewinders off at the range, I swear.

Aranince

Dec 11, 2007, 08:02 PM

Why stop there? Why does the government have the right to restrict my right to own missiles? Anthrax? I just like firing sidewinders off at the range, I swear.

Missiles are slightly different than rifles...rifles can't destroy whole buildings...or towns.

mactastic

Dec 11, 2007, 08:06 PM

Missiles are slightly different than rifles...rifles can't destroy whole buildings...or towns.
But the point is, what in the Constitution prevents one from owning a missile - or even a nu-cu-lar device?

Iscariot

Dec 11, 2007, 08:07 PM

Missiles are slightly different than rifles...rifles can't destroy whole buildings...or towns.

That seems pretty arbitrary to me. Isn't the second amendment about maintaining a well-armed civilian militia? If the government has missiles, and we don't, how can we protect ourselves?

Besides, if a guy breaks into my house, if I don't have any missiles, how am I supposed to vaporize him?

Desertrat

Dec 11, 2007, 11:45 PM

The WashPost article said ex-cop, which equals just plain citizen. Absent SWAT training, most cops get rudimentary firearms training. The article also said she was a volunteer security guard, which implies she wasn't of a security guard company with any extra training. It is common for CHL holders to have training which equals or exceeds that of many police forces.

The point is that she proved that an on-the-scene armed individual can stop a perp before he's anywhere near completion of his intent.

If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you'll see that this incident had nothing to do with the provisions of the Second Amendment. If any amendment applies, it would be the Fourtheenth, via the equal protection clause. You have a civil right to stay alive.

I'm surprised that anybody would need statistics to support Marko's comment. The article cited "thousands" of people on that campus. A wait for police to arrive with guns would have provided many opportunities for more shootings; her gun, already there, stopped the action before more shootings.

This situation is in strong contrast to the situation at Virginia Tech. "Gun Free" zones merely create "Free Fire" zones. They essentially protect and cater to murderers, to the obvious detriment of the unarmed.

How often do you hear of any armed robberies or assaults on police stations? Or NRA conventions? Or gun shows or gun stores?

Iscariot

Dec 11, 2007, 11:50 PM

How often do you hear of any armed robberies or assaults on police stations? Or NRA conventions? Or gun shows or gun stores?

Iraq?

Additionally, how effective do you think an assault on a school would be with, say, a knife?

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 12:05 AM

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 12:06 AM

Easier availability of weapons coming in from former Eastern Bloc countries and in some cases, a glorification of gun ownership, something which I've seen at close first-hand...

But to somehow compare the murder rate by gun to the US per capita is absurd.
Most of what I've read points to increased drug related gang violence. Not too dissimilar to the source of much of the violence in the US. Looking back in history the era of Prohibition was an incredibly violent time in the US and legal gun ownership had very little to do with it.

To point something out is not evidence of anything... making weapons easily available to all and sundry is an obvious cause, funny how people fudge this very basic point. 3 weapons per person... 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms, according to the BBC.

You don't think that has something to do with it?
Considering that in the US only about 10% of legally purchased weapons are used to commit crimes I'd say legal gun ownership isn't a large contributing factor.

That seems pretty arbitrary to me. Isn't the second amendment about maintaining a well-armed civilian militia?
If the government has missiles, and we don't, how can we protect ourselves?

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" not "arms and artillery" or "arms and battleships" so I think it's reasonable assume that "arms" means "small arms" such as rifles and pistols. To cite a very contemporary example, the insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing fairly well against arguably the most well equipped and technologically advanced military in history.

Lethal

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 12:19 AM

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" not "arms and artillery" or "arms and battleships" so I think it's reasonable assume that "arms" means "small arms" such as rifles and pistols. To cite a very contemporary example, the insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing fairly well against arguably the most well equipped and technologically advanced military in history.

Arms typically includes anything that can be carried and used by an individual. (Although Law of Armed Conflict stipulates a projectile of 15mm or less).

Looks like RPGs and Hand Grenades are back on the market!

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 12:49 AM

Arms typically includes anything that can be carried and used by an individual. (Although Law of Armed Conflict stipulates a projectile of 15mm or less).

Looks like RPGs and Hand Grenades are back on the market!
And so goes the balancing act regarding personal liberties. The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, isn't boundless.

IIRC though, you can legally own things like grenade launchers in the US you just have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it.

Lethal

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 01:20 AM

Considering that in the US only about 10% of legally purchased weapons are used to commit crimes I'd say legal gun ownership isn't a large contributing factor.

10%? So that's approx 20 million weapons. Once again, it's more fudging the point, splitting hairs. Make guns easily available to anyone, and you'll have more use of them...

Fact is, that putting lethal force into the hands of idiots, is going to produce situations like this. (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec12/0,4670,BusStopShooting,00.html)

It's not about crime, it's not even about socio-economic causes, it's not about some testosterone-fuelled utterly ludicrous fantasy where armed heroes supposedly prevent shootings... it's about the sheer ubiquity of lethal weapons available to people who probably couldn't tie their own shoelaces.

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 01:42 AM

And so goes the balancing act regarding personal liberties. The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, isn't boundless.

IIRC though, you can legally own things like grenade launchers in the US you just have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it.

Lethal

And what use would a private citizen have for anything like that, or, going back, an assault rifle?

10%? So that's approx 20 million weapons. Once again, it's more fudging the point, splitting hairs. Make guns easily available to anyone, and you'll have more use of them...

Keep in mind that even if "only" 10% are "legally obtained", the majority of the remaining 90% were obtained legally at some point. It's not like there's a vast ring of underground gun manufacturers, toiling in darkened tunnels making makeshift Glocks. The proliferation of legal firearms is directly responsible for the proliferation of illegal firearms.

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 03:47 AM

10%? So that's approx 20 million weapons. Once again, it's more fudging the point, splitting hairs. Make guns easily available to anyone, and you'll have more use of them...
It's not splitting hairs it's looking at the facts. Making guns unavailable to the general public doesn't mean you are keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Forgive me if I'm not in favor of tearing up one of the fundamental rights of citizens in the US for nothing more than ineffective, feel good legislation.

it's about the sheer ubiquity of lethal weapons available to people who probably couldn't tie their own shoelaces.
Well if, that's all it's about then I guess we have a huge problem 'cause lots of things that lots of people have easy access to can be used as lethal weapons. There are more idiots w/access to more firearms now than there was 20yrs ago in the US yet the homicide rate is lower now than it was then. Considering how long people have had access to firearms and how relatively new these school shootings are I don't think the source of the problem is the access to the firearms.

And what use would a private citizen have for anything like that, or, going back, an assault rifle?
Rich man's toy? Collector's item? I dunno. But if you want one legally the Feds are going to pick you over w/a fine tooth comb. IIRC, assault rifles have made up only about 1-2% of the firearms used to commit crimes so, no, I don't see the usefulness of going down that slippery slope again. Time and energy can be spent more effectively elsewhere to combat gun crime.

Keep in mind that even if "only" 10% are "legally obtained", the majority of the remaining 90% were obtained legally at some point. It's not like there's a vast ring of underground gun manufacturers, toiling in darkened tunnels making makeshift Glocks. The proliferation of legal firearms is directly responsible for the proliferation of illegal firearms.
The majority of them were "legally obtained" by crooked, or fake, FFLs and sold under the table w/o ever entering circulation into the general public. The weak link, if you will, isn't w/the end user shopping at the local gun store.

Would fewer people be shot and killed if guns didn't exist? Of course, but I don't think anyone has a magic wand that can put the genie back in the bottle the Chinese uncorked centuries ago.

Lethal

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 04:26 AM

The majority of them were "legally obtained" by crooked, or fake, FFLs and sold under the table w/o ever entering circulation into the general public. The weak link, if you will, isn't w/the end user shopping at the local gun store.

Where does end user responsibility begin, then? How about the nearly half million firearm thefts annually? Interestingly, you can't steal something that doesn't exist.

Would fewer people be shot and killed if guns didn't exist? Of course, but I don't think anyone has a magic wand that can put the genie back in the bottle the Chinese uncorked centuries ago.

Arming the civilian population isn't a viable alternative either, especially given the statistic I listed above, and the exaggerated threat of violence and safety a gun provides.

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 04:41 AM

Forgive me if I'm not in favor of tearing up one of the fundamental rights of citizens in the US for nothing more than ineffective, feel good legislation.

What part of 'well-regulated militia' applies to individual citizens buying weapons for themselves?

The Second Amendment does not read, 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

ucfgrad93

Dec 12, 2007, 06:28 AM

The Second Amendment does not read, 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

But that is how our courts have interpreted it to read.

Just like they have interpreted "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean any type of government not just Congress.

Pittsax

Dec 12, 2007, 10:05 AM

I bet you know all about our constitution…
Since I am a US citizen who lived in the US up until July 2006, and I'm actually being able to read the words without leaving things out, yeah I'd say so

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 10:50 AM

Blue--

Just to get back on topic, your preference in the situations reported in Colorado would have been to let Murray (the shooter) continue to kill people until he either ran out of ammunition or the police decided they could actually do something? Your belief that stricter gun control laws would have prevented this is simply not credible, as criminals determined to get guns will get them, as your own country is learning painfully.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, the Second Amendment has to be read in its entirety. No one knows precisely what it means because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on what the specific meaning is. The Court may yet decide that question in a case I noted earlier. Since all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights relate to individual rights, it will be difficult for the Court, as constituted, to create a group right. But we shall see, assuming the Court does not dismiss it as improvidently granted.

Iscariot--

The data I saw said 1.7 million firearms were stolen over the decade from 1993 to 2002, of which roughly 700,000 were recovered. Still a lot, but nowhere near the half a million you cite.

Let's not lose sight of 'Rat's point--a private, armed citizen was able to save lives because she was armed. Let's also not get carried away--either way--in trying to extrapolate too much from this one incident.

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 11:26 AM

Where does end user responsibility begin, then? How about the nearly half million firearm thefts annually? Interestingly, you can't steal something that doesn't exist.
What's even more interesting is how many more people are being killed in England now w/something that "doesn't exist" than were being killed years ago when that something did "exist."

At least in the US, it's is a relatively rare occurrence for a firearm to be stolen from a private residence and later used in a crime. IIRC more firearms get stolen during shipping and used in crimes than get stolen from private homes and used in crimes.

Arming the civilian population isn't a viable alternative either, especially given the statistic I listed above, and the exaggerated threat of violence and safety a gun provides.
I'm not suggesting we arm everyone, although if someone chooses to arm themselves that is their right, I merely think we need to treat the cause instead the symptom.

What part of 'well-regulated militia' applies to individual citizens buying weapons for themselves?

The Second Amendment does not read, 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
"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." The 9th and 10th Amendments also pretty much state "when it doubt, the right is w/the people".

Again, banning has not proven to be effective so I see no reason to strike out one of the Bill of Rights for nothing more than show.

Lethal

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 11:41 AM

Again, banning has not proven to be effective so I see no reason to strike out one of the Bill of Rights for nothing more than show.

Exactly right!

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 12:36 PM

If any amendment applies, it would be the Fourtheenth, via the equal protection clause. You have a civil right to stay alive.
Funny how you'll pull this argument out here, but not when it comes to health care...

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 12:58 PM

killerrobot

Dec 12, 2007, 02:03 PM

It's obvious that there is no middle ground here. I've spent most of my life living in countries in different parts of the world that restrict the ownership of firearms, with no obvious detriment to any civil liberties at all. And I've never had to worry about some idiot pulling a gun on me for the slightest reason...

Yet the US, which is almost unique in its enthusiasm for the private ownership of firearms, is somehow presented as a paragon of civil liberties, when its clear that for many people, that's far from the case.

The title of this thread is deceptive; the assailant shot himself. And many of you can't even bring yourself to seriously question why someone like this can lay their hands on these types of weapons without paying lip service to an old law, written for other times, that clearly states that it's about well-regulated militias; it's the shaping and opening statement of the amendment.

So, like goldfish, you can't see the water you swim in, assuming that what you have over there is somehow normal... but without doubt, there will be more massacres, random shootings made by troubled and insecure men, and it's almost always men, who in an orgy of destruction, want to make some form of powerlessness and impotent statement by taking others with them. And yet, you willingly enable these soulless inadequates to obtain these weapons without considering the rights of others to be free from those that would prey upon them.

No doubt, we'll revisit this topic the next time some innocents are killed, whether in a school, a church... at your workplace, in your neighbourhood.

Pick up a gun, gives you a power that you don't have without it. Good luck to you all.

Just finished reading the thread and I'm trying to be as impartial as possible but, BV, you're being quite emotional about this. Which is good, because it means you're adamant, but I do find most of your arguments lacking. BTW, I wouldn't worry too much about being shot in the UK either, but I would be worried about being randomly stabbed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nknife320.xml).

As far as a guy getting an assault rifle, you can blame Mr. President Bush for not renewing the ban on them in 2000. As far as you thinking that this killer wouldn't have tried to kill anyone without it, I think you're trying to argue that there are no illegal gun sales going on ever, in any country in the world, and I just tend to think that's false.

I've lived most of my life in the US, and I was never worried once that I would get shot. I've actually been robbed at knife point though while living here in Spain, and I've got to say I almost would have preferred to have a gun pointed at my head than have a knife against my throat. Either way, the guy that robbed me, still robbed me without a gun, still threatened my life, and his buddies' fists and feet did a hell of a job on my ribs.

So why limit the ban the guns when knives kill people too? Why limit it to guns and knives when someone could strangle someone else (or themselves) with rope as well? Why limit the ban to guns, knives, and rope, when someone could poison someone else (or lots of people) as well...
Sure it's easier to kill with a gun (we're supposing here), and a killer might kill more people, but then you say one person's life taken with a knife is not as important as 10 taken with a gun.

The question isn't about gun control. It's about violence and how do you stop violent acts and violent people.

@Desertrat
I was going to post this story, but now I'm glad you beat me to it because you get to take all the blame for this mess.;)

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 02:07 PM

@Desertrat
I was going to post this story, but now I'm glad you beat me to it because you get to take all the blame for this mess.;)
You were going to post this story, even though we all know now that it is not true?

Why would you want to do that? :confused:

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 02:10 PM

...you're being quite emotional about this. Which is good, because it means you're adamant, but I do find most of your arguments lacking.

What's lacking around here is a simple recognition that in a land full of guns, you'll have gun violence. I'm not really emotional, just tired of hearing ridiculous justifications by people thinking that tooling up and strolling into town at High Noon is somehow going to reduce that.

Virgil-TB2

Dec 12, 2007, 02:13 PM

... Like Marko says at his Munchkin Wrangler blog, "The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."... I thought this was a cool quote, but then I thought about it a bit more and it kind of doesn't make any sense.

Here's a couple of flaws:

- The gun that kills the mass murderer is most often his own gun, and thus has been at the site the whole time.
(All the heavy artillery brought by the cops remains unfired for the most part.)

- Most sites of mass killings are schools, and most victims are children so there wouldn't be any guns around anyway.

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 02:24 PM

What's lacking around here is a simple recognition that in a land full of guns, you'll have gun violence. I'm not really emotional, just tired of hearing ridiculous justifications by people thinking that tooling up and strolling into town at High Noon is somehow going to reduce that.

Blue--

You do see the irony of your statement when gun violence in the UK rose after private ownership was effectively banned?

killerrobot

Dec 12, 2007, 02:24 PM

You were going to post this story, even though we all know now that it is not true?

Why would you want to do that? :confused:

:confused:
I meant I was going to start a similar thread yesterday about this "security guard" related shooting, but didn't get around to it and stumbled upon yours today.
:confused:

@BV
I understand that, but it seems like you're pretending there's no gun violence in the UK (there are 56? deaths this year alone among teens) because there guns are banned there.
I could see saying that banning might help lower gun related mortalities but it is not the end all, perfect solution I think you're trying to make it sound like, nor the cause of people wanting to kill other people.

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 02:52 PM

Blue--

Just to get back on topic, your preference in the situations reported in Colorado would have been to let Murray (the shooter) continue to kill people until he either ran out of ammunition or the police decided they could actually do something?

Yeah, that sounds exactly like what she was saying.

Just finished reading the thread and I'm trying to be as impartial as possible but, BV, you're being quite emotional about this.

Yes, because the gun advocacy side of this argument is so unemotional about it when they start evoking hysterical fantasies of a man's family being cut up into little pieces in front of him and him not being able to do anything about it because guns were outlawed and only outlaws had guns.

killerrobot

Dec 12, 2007, 03:05 PM

Yes, because the gun advocacy side of this argument is so unemotional about it when they start evoking hysterical fantasies of a man's family being cut up into little pieces in front of him and him not being able to do anything about it because guns were outlawed and only outlaws had guns.

Don't remember anyone posting one of those yet. But thank you for taking it to that level.
I think LethalWolfe has made a better argument and hasn't been getting emotional.

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 03:09 PM

Who says I'm being emotional? Way to cast a slur and discredit someone without engaging... project whatever tone you like. But hey, this thread is all yours. No point in me wasting time here when you can discuss an event that didn't actually happen the way it was portrayed.

Desertrat

Dec 12, 2007, 04:03 PM

.Andy

Dec 12, 2007, 04:12 PM

Don't remember anyone posting one of those yet. But thank you for taking it to that level.
I think LethalWolfe has made a better argument and hasn't been getting emotional.
You obviously missed the post where dessertrat claimed that gun-free zones CATER TO MURDERERS and pointed the finger at virginia tech. The blatant implication being that people, or institutions, that decide that guns aren't for them are somehow complicit in their own deaths. You don't get much lower than that to make a ideological point. Don't carry a gun, you are asking to be murdered.

I'm always interested in why people live in places where they feel the need to carry a weapon for their own personal (and family) protection. There's millions of towns and countries in the world you don't need to. Why is carrying around a deadly weapon 24/7 preferable to moving to somewhere safer?

mpw

Dec 12, 2007, 04:27 PM

...discuss an event that didn't actually happen the way it was portrayed.
It's the internet, I've learned to take whatever I read with a huge handful of salt, and also learned(leant) that a lot of people don't read what anybody else actually read and or understand the reasonable and logical arguments put forward by others.

However the argument that less legally owned guns would result in less crimes IS flawed due to the enormous number of guns in criminal circulation already.

What would be needed is a real committed effort to cease gun production, take all guns out of private circulation and a change in 'gun culture', which I just don't see happening.

Numbers and statistics don't mean anything from either side in an argument like this as you can prove anything with them. An example would be Switzerland (or Austria, I can't recall) where every man over 18years old has an assault rifle yet they have virtually no gun crime. Is this an argument for everybody to own a gun to keep society safe, or an argument that structured fire-arms training and national service creates a safer culture?

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 04:49 PM

What would be needed is a real committed effort to cease gun production, take all guns out of private circulation and a change in 'gun culture', which I just don't see happening.

Barring that, perhaps some sensible regulation and licensing would be, well, sensible.

But this is the internet, where the slope is very slippery.

94125

Scottyk9

Dec 12, 2007, 04:53 PM

If you had proper gun control laws and a neutered NRA you wouldn't have people carrying 'an assault rifle, two handguns and as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition' around that easily in the first place. Simple.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this was my 1st thought (and surprised it took 10 replies for this to be mentioned)

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 04:58 PM

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this was my 1st thought (and surprised it took 10 replies for this to be mentioned)

Yes, without the NRA, no responsible citizen would have been able to carry a weapon to stop the loony who wouldn't have been able to easily obtain an arsenal without the NRA.

skunk

Dec 12, 2007, 05:02 PM

Per the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights was included with the Constitution as a restraint upon the central government, to "...prevent the abuse of power by the State..."
and
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
Notice a disconnect here? The wording makes it crystal clear that the purpose of the clause is to provide for the security of the state, presumably in the absence of a standing army. Since there is little prospect of a land invasion of the US mainland, and since there is a large and well-equipped standing army and the National Guard, this provision is patently no longer necessary.

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 05:11 PM

Who says I'm being emotional? Way to cast a slur and discredit someone without engaging... project whatever tone you like.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

But what do I know? I'm just a myopic, testosterone fueled goldfish waiting for high noon who keeps spouting nonsense stuff like facts and stating that I want to treat the cause and not the symptom...:rolleyes:

I'd expect a Demi, let alone a Mod, to set a better example in regards to following the letter, and the spirit, of the rules of the forum.

Lethal

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 05:17 PM

I'd expect a Demi, let alone a Mod, to set a better example in regards to following the letter, and the spirit, of the rules of the forum.

Excuse me for not caring one iota about your expectations.

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 05:59 PM

Excuse me for not caring one iota about your expectations.
I guess you don't care how you represent MR either.

Lethal

FrankBlack

Dec 12, 2007, 06:08 PM

Blue Velvet, guns exist. They're not going away. Bad people exist. They're not going away, either. The gun is the best defense for any single individual against one or more assailants. The gun is not perfect, but it beats heck out of karate, knives, fists or loud screams. Gun control laws only serve as restraints upon the honest citizenry--which doesn't need such restraints in the first place.

That the perp shot himself as the final solution is irrelevant. Her shots into him stopped his hostile actions toward others, which is all that is needed. His final shot was the good deed which save a lot of taxpayer money.

That he used an assault weapon is also irrelevant. There are many other semi-auto rifles which are actually of much higher power. "Assault rifle" is an issue only of cosmetics. There is a mythos about "high capacity" magazines, but that, too, is irrelevant. Somebody of the age and physical ability of the perp can in a matter of hours learn to shoot, reload with a new magazine and shoot again in roughly one--count 'em, one--second. When I competed in combat pistol, 25 years ago, I did it regularly with a 1911 Colt. Overall, I considered myself slightly above the mid-range of most competitors.

Per the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights was included with the Constitution as a restraint upon the central government, to "...prevent the abuse of power by the State..." That's WHY the Bill of Rights exists. In that context, I have difficulty entertaining the idea that at the same time there is anything in any of the amendments which is also a restraint upon any citizen. But, few ever bother to read the Preamble...

'Rat

Well put.

As I've said before when this subject has come up, I live in Massachusetts. This state has what many consider to be the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Law abiding citizens are literally afraid to enter their police departments to even ask for the application forms to apply for a license to carry (handguns) or an FID card (Long guns) In this state, you cannot even carry pepper spray (purely defense weapon) without a "restricted FID card".

All types of permits are very difficult to obtain. (Unless you have a political connection, of course). How difficult? Well, the Gun Owners League of MA (GOAL) strongly advises anyone who wants to apply for a permit of any kind to engage the services of an attorney first. The attorney will guide you through the application process, and represent you during the process. Yes, GOAL will refer you to an attorney who specializes in the complex gun laws.

People who have been licensed for decades are now having trouble renewing their licenses. Reason: Some police chiefs are now putting their own political beliefs into the mix. Naturally, people who are refused are going to court on appeal, but this can take months.

So, what have these ultra-strict gun control laws accomplished? Not much, other than make law abiding gun owners and other citizens fearful. There is violent gun crime on the streets of the big cities (Boston, Worcester) every day and night. You don't hear about the smaller cities as much (Holyoke, Fitchburg) but they have frequent gun crime as well. Nope, criminals, and other assorted nut jobs, just aren't intimidated by these laws at all.

What's especially interesting is that New Hampshire, right to our north, has very relaxed gun control laws, and very little violent crime. Target shooting and hunting are very popular in NH. With all those guns, where is all the violent gun crime? (Heh, I'm tempted to answer that myself by saying, "Oh, they keep it in MA, where the law abiding can't have guns")

So, why should a law abiding citizen be denied gun ownership? What is the basis?

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 06:08 PM

Notice a disconnect here?

Yes. The original Bill of Rights must not be worded correctly, because it's clear they meant something entirely different. Let's just change it.

I guess you don't care how you represent MR either.

No one should have to censor themselves in the political forums for any reason beyond staying within the rules of the forum.

Blue Velvet

Dec 12, 2007, 06:12 PM

I guess you don't care how you represent MR either.

Actually, while you're content to back-chat, I'm doing plenty of work behind the scenes here, hours on end, and helping people out, and doing a pretty good job of it. The PRSI forum is not on the list of anyone's priorities here, and if I choose to speak for myself here, I will do so... no condition is laid upon me to 'represent' MR or to meet anyone's expectations except Arn's.

Anyway, this is all off-topic stuff, that you've chosen to publicly rake over under the guise of being somehow personally affected by something I've said in the general sense, hoping to make some kind of point.

If you have problems or issues with the moderation, please use the Contact Us form (http://forums.macrumors.com/sendmessage.php). Any further off-topic posts will be deleted, thank you.

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 06:15 PM

Law abiding citizens are literally afraid to enter their police departments to even ask for the application forms to apply for a license to carry (handguns) or an FID card (Long guns)
I got this far before I realized you must be employing hyperbole.

Do you have any evidence that people are "literally afraid to enter their police departments"? I find that strikingly hard to believe.

What could the be afraid of? Of being told "no"? You have to be pretty thin-skinned to be afraid of that.

So are the cops assaulting people who ask for CC permits? Are they arresting them? Stripping them of their guns right on the spot? What is causing this intense fear of police departments among law-abiding citizens?

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 06:17 PM

So are the cops assaulting people who ask for CC permits? Are they arresting them? Stripping them of their guns right on the spot? What is causing this intense fear of police departments among law-abiding citizens?

I hear they're being water boarded. Hey, at least it's not torture.

Kashchei

Dec 12, 2007, 06:34 PM

There's a classic psychology experiment that is often included in beginning psych textbooks. It involves three people, two of whom are actually "in" on the experiment; only one of the people is the true subject of the experiment. The people are shown two lines, one slightly but noticeably longer than the other. The people are asked to state which is the longer line. All agree, but only at first. The two ringers then begin to waffle, saying first that the two lines look equal. Eventually, the two ringers decide that they were initially wrong; the shorter line is actually the longer of the two. The experiment tests how easily the subject will allow the opinion of others to affect their own. Most often, the subject will agree with the ringers that the shorter line is actually the longer one, first reluctantly, then with more conviction.

I often feel when reading these political discussions that I am part of such an experiment; the topics are inevitably emotional issues that can't easily be defended. Such topics include gun control, the Iraq war, terrorism in general, the GOP, etc. I agree with Blue Velvet and don't feel like she's being emotional at all. Instead, this is a classic case of projection. If I read her responses correctly, she might feel like she's part of an experiment like the one I described above.

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 06:35 PM

Iscariot--

The data I saw said 1.7 million firearms were stolen over the decade from 1993 to 2002, of which roughly 700,000 were recovered. Still a lot, but nowhere near the half a million you cite.

NCVS estimates ranging from 300,000 to 600,000 incidence of theft annually, and that each incident represents at least one gun. Also consider how many thefts went unreported, and how many thefts were of already illegal firearms. Admittedly hard to pinpoint, which is why I used a generalized number instead of an exact one, since we simply can not know.

What's even more interesting is how many more people are being killed in England now w/something that "doesn't exist" than were being killed years ago when that something did "exist."

Seems to work quite well for Japan.

At least in the US, it's is a relatively rare occurrence for a firearm to be stolen from a private residence and later used in a crime. IIRC more firearms get stolen during shipping and used in crimes than get stolen from private homes and used in crimes.

So then the responsibility lies with poor practices of American manufacturers? The problem of firearm proliferation lies somewhere within the American system of gun manufacture and ownership, and I'm inclined to believe there is a significant amount of responsibility to be laid at every level.

I'm not suggesting we arm everyone, although if someone chooses to arm themselves that is their right, I merely think we need to treat the cause instead the symptom.

I don't disagree with the latter, but I do disagree with the former. Gun ownership is simultaneously a dollar auction fallacy and a collective action problem.

FrankBlack

Dec 12, 2007, 06:44 PM

I got this far before I realized you must be employing hyperbole.

Do you have any evidence that people are "literally afraid to enter their police departments"? I find that strikingly hard to believe.

What could the be afraid of? Of being told "no"? You have to be pretty thin-skinned to be afraid of that.

So are the cops assaulting people who ask for CC permits? Are they arresting them? Stripping them of their guns right on the spot? What is causing this intense fear of police departments among law-abiding citizens?

Ahh, Mactastic! Right on schedule. Before I answer your question, I need to ask you one, and I do mean this kindly. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately? I know you seem to enjoy political discussions, but really, don't you think you're getting just a tad too worked up in some of these threads? I switched to decaf some time ago, and I find it quite enjoyable. So, get that BP checked. It's important.

People are afraid because of the twists that some police departments are putting on this. Sometimes, it something minor, such as what the city of Cambridge has been doing, "adjusting" fees for license renewals Link. (http://www.goal.org/news/feeviolations.htm). As for being "thin skinned", ok, I'll go along with that. I'm sure some people are. But, some are wondering if their application will be refused for something totally irrelevant, such as an unpaid parking ticket.

My question still stands: Why should a law abiding citizen be denied gun ownership?

Mactastic, I understand that in CA, a waiting period is required for all firearm purchases. I have no problem with a waiting period. In fact, I think it's a sensible approach. Tell me, do you feel it's effective?

pseudobrit

Dec 12, 2007, 06:56 PM

My question still stands: Why should a law abiding citizen be denied gun ownership?

For the equivalent reasons we'd deny a law-abiding citizen a driver's license.

skunk

Dec 12, 2007, 06:58 PM

FrankBlack

Dec 12, 2007, 07:07 PM

In your language, "kindly" appears to be synonymous with "patronisingly".

This is what makes people "literally afraid"? Wow. That is all.

So, why should a law-abiding citizen be denied gun ownership?

LethalWolfe

Dec 12, 2007, 07:20 PM

Seems to work quite well for Japan.
Unless we are talking about suicide rate. And lack of firearms didn't work so well in preventing genocide in Rwanda.

;)

Obviously it's multifaceted problem. I mean, why the "rise" of school shootings in the past decade or so? Why now and not 20 years ago? The availability of firearms doesn't explain the relatively new rise of violence in youth sports (coaches being threatened, parents hiring hitmen to kill their child's competition, etc.,). There is a social aspect to the problem that removing firearms won't solve. Not to long ago two teenage girls tortured and murdered their friend for apparently no reason at all. There is also an economic factor. How much gun violence takes place in "rich" neighborhoods vs. "poor" neighborhoods? How much of this violence is related to drug trafficking and gang's staking out their turf?

So then the responsibility lies with poor practices of American manufacturers? The problem of firearm proliferation lies somewhere within the American system of gun manufacture and ownership, and I'm inclined to believe there is a significant amount of responsibility to be laid at every level.
IMO, a large part of the problem lies w/the politics that keeps the BATF from effectively doing their job. One of the most glaring examples of this that I've read is that the BATF has to give FFL's 2 weeks notice before they come in for an annual inspection (of course they are so under funded that "annual" inspections don't happen annually). How are you supposed root out the criminals when everyone gets a two week notice to clean up their act? It's another case of politicians caring more about money than the people who vote for them.

Personally, before we start adding new laws to the books, or removing parts of the Constitution I think we should demand that the government do a better job of enforcing the current laws and tweaking them where appropriate as well establishing long term goals to address the social and economic issueless.

Lethal

mactastic

Dec 12, 2007, 07:22 PM

Ahh, Mactastic! Right on schedule. Before I answer your question, I need to ask you one, and I do mean this kindly. Have you had your blood pressure checked lately? I know you seem to enjoy political discussions, but really, don't you think you're getting just a tad too worked up in some of these threads? I switched to decaf some time ago, and I find it quite enjoyable. So, get that BP checked. It's important.
Thanks for the patronizing concern. I drink decaf already, and have had my blood pressure checked recently.

People are afraid because of the twists that some police departments are putting on this. Sometimes, it something minor, such as what the city of Cambridge has been doing, "adjusting" fees for license renewals Link. (http://www.goal.org/news/feeviolations.htm). As for being "thin skinned", ok, I'll go along with that. I'm sure some people are. But, some are wondering if their application will be refused for something totally irrelevant, such as an unpaid parking ticket.
So you are retracting the "people are literally afraid to enter their police departments" statement, on the basis of it being fearmongering hyperbole?

My question still stands: Why should a law abiding citizen be denied gun ownership?
If they have an unpaid parking ticket, have they not broken the law, and thus do not deserve the moniker "law-abiding citizen"?

Mactastic, I understand that in CA, a waiting period is required for all firearm purchases. I have no problem with a waiting period. In fact, I think it's a sensible approach. Tell me, do you feel it's effective?
"Ten days?? But I'm mad now!" :D

I don't know about the efficacy of a waiting period. It seems to make sense in terms of putting a barrier up for a small subset of people who would try to purchase a gun in a fit of anger, but maybe that's offset by people who need that kind of protection immediately but can't get it.

But really, that has nothing to do with your claim that people are "literally afraid to enter their police departments" to apply for a CC permit.

With that level of rhetorical hyperbole, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 07:47 PM

Personally, before we start adding new laws to the books, or removing parts of the Constitution I think we should demand that the government do a better job of enforcing the current laws and tweaking them where appropriate as well establishing long term goals to address the social and economic issueless.

+1!

Well said.

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 08:33 PM

Seems to work quite well for Japan.

Japan is a great place but its not devoid of its share of violence. People are stabbed, hung, poisoned, thrown off buildings, and shot(occasionally).

hulugu

Dec 12, 2007, 08:52 PM

Japan is a great place but its not devoid of its share of violence. People are stabbed, hung, poisoned, thrown off buildings, and shot(occasionally).

Sure, but not everyone is Rasputin. ;)

Unless we are talking about suicide rate. And lack of firearms didn't work so well in preventing genocide in Rwanda.

Yes, but if everyone had a rifle in Rwanda the genocide still would have happened. The lesson from Rwanda isn't just that people kill people, but people armed as well as, or better than, their victims will kill them. A well-armed Tutsi minority might have fought a few pitched battles before being pinned down and over-run by marauding Hutus, by the end result would have been the same.

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 09:16 PM

Japan is a great place but its not devoid of its share of violence. People are stabbed, hung, poisoned, thrown off buildings, and shot(occasionally).

There's no comparison.

Unless we are talking about suicide rate. And lack of firearms didn't work so well in preventing genocide in Rwanda.

Suicide =/= violent crime. Additionally, there's a lot of very violent places in the world where firearms are comparitively scarce, but violence is not.

Obviously it's multifaceted problem. I mean, why the "rise" of school shootings in the past decade or so? Why now and not 20 years ago? The availability of firearms doesn't explain the relatively new rise of violence in youth sports (coaches being threatened, parents hiring hitmen to kill their child's competition, etc.,). There is a social aspect to the problem that removing firearms won't solve. Not to long ago two teenage girls tortured and murdered their friend for apparently no reason at all. There is also an economic factor. How much gun violence takes place in "rich" neighborhoods vs. "poor" neighborhoods? How much of this violence is related to drug trafficking and gang's staking out their turf?

IMO, a large part of the problem lies w/the politics that keeps the BATF from effectively doing their job. One of the most glaring examples of this that I've read is that the BATF has to give FFL's 2 weeks notice before they come in for an annual inspection (of course they are so under funded that "annual" inspections don't happen annually). How are you supposed root out the criminals when everyone gets a two week notice to clean up their act? It's another case of politicians caring more about money than the people who vote for them.

Personally, before we start adding new laws to the books, or removing parts of the Constitution I think we should demand that the government do a better job of enforcing the current laws and tweaking them where appropriate as well establishing long term goals to address the social and economic issueless.

Lethal

I'm not trying to make the case that gun control is "the solution" to a multifaceted problem, but rather that gun proliferation certainly isn't.

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 09:21 PM

There's no comparison.

Well its your comparison. Banning guns will curb gun violence, but it won't curb all violence. Which I think is the issue here. You could ban sticks but people would just smack each other with something else.

Swarmlord

Dec 12, 2007, 09:49 PM

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 09:55 PM

Well its your comparison. Banning guns will curb gun violence, but it won't curb all violence. Which I think is the issue here. You could ban sticks but people would just smack each other with something else.

You're creating a straw man by insinuating that because there's some level of violence still present, the comparison is invalid.

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 10:22 PM

You're creating a straw man by insinuating that because there's some level of violence still present, the comparison is invalid.

Creating a straw man? This thread is ABOUT banning guns and if that would solve our problems. So I guess you're right in that YOUR comparison is invalid. :rolleyes:

you said:
I'm not trying to make the case that gun control is "the solution" to a multifaceted problem, but rather that gun proliferation certainly isn't.

Well thats not actually saying anything is it? More like, something different than the status quo would be better. Good luck with that. :)

hulugu

Dec 12, 2007, 10:23 PM

Well its your comparison. Banning guns will curb gun violence, but it won't curb all violence. Which I think is the issue here. You could ban sticks but people would just smack each other with something else.

Of course, the average kitchen is an armory for someone bent on homicide, but there's a difference between chasing someone down with an iron frying pan and picking someone off with a rifle from a clock tower.

What's needed is sensible use of the current gun control laws, registration, waiting periods, and classes on how to shoot. If someone thinks they're going to defend their home or person, they better know how to fire the damned thing accurately.

I'd rather an unarmed society, but since there's already a massive surplus of cheap weapons abound, I'm willing to work to make sure that the people who are armed know what they're doing and the people who shouldn't be have to work to become armed.

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 10:32 PM

Creating a straw man? This thread is ABOUT banning guns and if that would solve our problems. So I guess you're right in that YOUR comparison is invalid. :rolleyes:

Might want to read the first post again, friend.

obeygiant

Dec 12, 2007, 10:39 PM

Of course, the average kitchen is an armory for someone bent on homicide, but there's a difference between chasing someone down with an iron frying pan and picking someone off with a rifle from a clock tower.

What's needed is sensible use of the current gun control laws, registration, waiting periods, and classes on how to shoot. If someone thinks they're going to defend their home or person, they better know how to fire the damned thing accurately.

I'd rather an unarmed society, but since there's already a massive surplus of cheap weapons abound, I'm willing to work to make sure that the people who are armed know what they're doing and the people who shouldn't be have to work to become armed.

I fully agree.

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 10:43 PM

If someone thinks they're going to defend their home or person, they better know how to fire the damned thing accurately.

Hulu--I agree with a lot (not all) of what you wrote, so pardon the very selective quote. Gotta agree with the quote above!

If someone were to break into my home in the middle of the night, I would most likely NOT reach for one of my firearms. Not because I don't know how to use them, because I do. But rather that if someone is stupid enough to break into my house in the dark, where they don't know where anything is, and I do, I am not responsible for what happens to them. And yeah, that's ranger school and SFAS and sniper school etc. talking. If I heard someone cocking a gun, different story. That said, seems highly unlikely that anyone would break in. . .

.Andy

Dec 12, 2007, 11:06 PM

If someone were to break into my home in the middle of the night, I would most likely NOT reach for one of my firearms. Not because I don't know how to use them, because I do. But rather that if someone is stupid enough to break into my house in the dark, where they don't know where anything is, and I do, I am not responsible for what happens to them. And yeah, that's ranger school and SFAS and sniper school etc. talking. If I heard someone cocking a gun, different story. That said, seems highly unlikely that anyone would break in. . .
-1
Overboard on the machismo.

hulugu

Dec 12, 2007, 11:08 PM

Hulu--I agree with a lot (not all) of what you wrote, so pardon the very selective quote. Gotta agree with the quote above!

If someone were to break into my home in the middle of the night, I would most likely NOT reach for one of my firearms. Not because I don't know how to use them, because I do. But rather that if someone is stupid enough to break into my house in the dark, where they don't know where anything is, and I do, I am not responsible for what happens to them. And yeah, that's ranger school and SFAS and sniper school etc. talking. If I heard someone cocking a gun, different story. That said, seems highly unlikely that anyone would break in. . .

I take a fairly jaundiced eye to the whole defending the household scenario, mostly because of this:

During a period I worked with EMTs, we went to a house where two kids have been shot by the homeowner. One kid was nearly dead, sitting in his car with wounds in his chest and stomach. The other kid was on the front porch, facing out, half on the steps and half in the dirt, and most definitely dead with wounds in his chest, back, and head.

The homeowner claimed the kids had broken in and he had fired on them because he felt threatened. Of course, the coroner's report cited that the kid who died had been shot as he was running away, the wounds in his chest caused by the rounds passing through his body. The other kid was treated in the hospital and later testified that they had come to visit the man's daughter, with whom they were friends with, and had opened an unlocked door and walked into the hallway when they were confronted with the homeowner who immediately fired on both boys.

I know it's an anecdote, and just one of the cases where gun-ownership went horribly wrong, but if the homeowner had been armed with a frying pan or had his wits about him, rather than being drunk and armed, one kid would be alive and the other wouldn't be paralyzed from the neck down.

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 11:08 PM

I take a fairly jaundiced eye to the whole defending the household scenario

. . .

I know it's an anecdote, and just one of the cases where gun-ownership went horribly wrong, but if the homeowner had been armed with a frying pan or had his wits about him, rather than being drunk and armed, one kid would be alive and the other wouldn't be paralyzed from the neck down.

I'm actually with you on taking a fairly jaundiced eye to needing a gun to defend your home. Most people's homes are never broken into--especially when they're home. The two firearms I own are for target shooting--I'm not competitive, but I enjoy it--demands a great deal of skill. (Again, pardon the selective quote.)

Based on what you wrote, I hope that the homeowner was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. -1
Overboard on the machismo.

-1
overboard on being judgmental. . .
:D

Iscariot

Dec 12, 2007, 11:13 PM

-1
overboard on being judgmental. . .
:D

Overboard on smilies, minus a million!

.Andy

Dec 12, 2007, 11:14 PM

-1
overboard on being judgmental. . .
:D
Curses :mad:.
You win this round naimfan....;)

Naimfan

Dec 12, 2007, 11:27 PM

.Andy--

You've got a PM.

Desertrat

Dec 12, 2007, 11:58 PM

"You obviously missed the post where dessertrat claimed that gun-free zones CATER TO MURDERERS and pointed the finger at virginia tech. The blatant implication being that people, or institutions, that decide that guns aren't for them are somehow complicit in their own deaths. You don't get much lower than that to make a ideological point. Don't carry a gun, you are asking to be murdered."

Andy, I'm sorry, but I can't get that meaning from what I said. For one thing, I'm not making an idological point: I'm pointing out a fact. It's not that one is "complicit" or "asking to be murdered". The fact is that without some means of self-protection, one is helpless against someone who is armed and hostile. "Armed" can include bats, tire tools, kitchen knives--or even larger physical size, actually...

In the Virginia Tech situation, those who made the rules disabled the student body and faculty from the ability for self-defense. That's not ideological on my part; that's what happened. It was the administration that was complicit with the murderer, by their action.

For all that the events are rare and that the odds are low for any one person's involvement in violence, that's irrelevant. The problem is that the stakes are high.

'Rat

"What's needed is sensible use of the current gun control laws, registration, waiting periods..."

hulugu, registration won't reduce the misuse of firearms in violent crime. Registration merely provides an easy method for government to disarm a populace, thus removing all capability to resist abuse of power.

Nor will waiting periods, since few legally acquired firearms are used in crime. Firearms which are legally acquired and used in crime by the original purchaser commonly are used years after purchase. Other legally-acquired firearms are used by friends or relatives who at the time of purchase were not criminals. I get this view from federal testimony in the hearings during the run-up to the "assault weapon" ban.

The history of gun control laws to date is that they do nothing to reduce the rate of violent crime. That's from studies by statisticians such as Wright, Rossii & Daly in their book, "Under The Gun", among other sources.

"...and classes on how to shoot. If someone thinks they're going to defend their home or person, they better know how to fire the damned thing accurately."

Certainly I agree with the need for knowledge and skill. Not just knowledge of firearms, but knowledge of the laws pertaining to their use in self-defense.

'Rat

.Andy

Dec 13, 2007, 12:38 AM

In the Virginia Tech situation, those who made the rules disabled the student body and faculty from the ability for self-defense. That's not ideological on my part; that's what happened. It was the administration that was complicit with the murderer, by their action.
And every one of those students who was murdered went to that university by their own choice. They were not forced to go there and not forcibly disarmed. Therefore they indirectly chose to not carry a weapon and according to your logic were complicit in their own deaths.

You directly made the comparison between the church shootings and virginia tech to make the a fallacious argument that carrying weapons would have saved the lives of many. Perhaps it would have. Perhaps it wouldn't. It's purely speculation. It's not fact as you claim.

For all that the events are rare and that the odds are low for any one person's involvement in violence, that's irrelevant. The problem is that the stakes are high.
Interesting that you don't take this line of argument in climate change threads.

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 12:47 AM

Based on what you wrote, I hope that the homeowner was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned...

Unfortunately, while he was charged, he was not convicted.

Desertrat

Dec 13, 2007, 09:55 AM

"...to make the fallacious argument that carrying weapons would have saved the lives of many."

It's not fallacious. It's demonstrable fact, and has been proven many times to be fact. The most recent incident was at a mall in Utah where a person already in the mall and armed shot and stopped a perp. Others include instances at schools; one in Mississippi and one in a location I don't remember. At any rate, adults retrieved nearby firearms and stopped the threats before any police ever arrived.

mpw

Dec 13, 2007, 10:12 AM

Unfortunately, while he was charged, he was not convicted.
And therefore what is legally considered innocent, and therefore it's fortunate he's not imprisoned as that would be unjust.

...It's demonstrable fact, and has been proven many times to be fact...
To be fair although I know where you're coming from, you can't say it's fact as it's only assumption, however soundly based, that those killed would have gone on to kill more people. Personally I don't have a problem with one person taking another's life when they reasonable think in doing so they're saving their and or other innocent lives.

FrankBlack

Dec 13, 2007, 12:15 PM

With that level of rhetorical hyperbole, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Given that you do not answer questions directly, and resort to classic red herrings and juvenile personal attacks, I'd say the same about you.

Done.

LethalWolfe

Dec 13, 2007, 12:55 PM

Suicide =/= violent crime.
Agreed. I just got ahead of myself in the discussion as typically people who are for gun control also point to gun suicides as another leg to support their position.

Additionally, there's a lot of very violent places in the world where firearms are comparitively scarce, but violence is not.
Agreed.

I'm not trying to make the case that gun control is "the solution" to a multifaceted problem, but rather that gun proliferation certainly isn't.
And, IMO, banning, or severely restricting, the legal sale of firearms in the US isn't part of the solution because it will have a minimal, if any, impact on keeping firearms out of the hands of people that want to use them to break the law.

Are there problems that need to be addressed? Certainly, but like I stated before I think the problems "up stream" (corrupt dealers selling under the table) should be addressed before we start looking at adding more laws to the books "down stream" (legal gun sales). Corrupt/fadulent FFLs are the single largest source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US. If we pressure our elected officials to give the BATF the resources it needs to go after these guys we'll stop a lot of illicit guns from hitting the street w/o getting into a messing 2nd Amendment, pro gun/pro gun control debate. Sounds a good first step and a "win/win" approach to me.:)

Lethal

mactastic

Dec 13, 2007, 04:38 PM

In the Virginia Tech situation, those who made the rules disabled the student body and faculty from the ability for self-defense. That's not ideological on my part; that's what happened. It was the administration that was complicit with the murderer, by their action.
So by that same logic, if the university allows people to carry and someone packing heat does something along the same lines, the university would be complicit in THOSE deaths.

So really, the university is complicit in murder either way, wouldn't you say?

Given that you do not answer questions directly, and resort to classic red herrings and juvenile personal attacks, I'd say the same about you.

Done.
Someone is sore that they got called on their hyperbole...

Where's the WAAAAAAA smiley? :rolleyes:

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 04:45 PM

And therefore what is legally considered innocent, and therefore it's fortunate he's not imprisoned as that would be unjust.

This is rather circular logic, and completely unnecessary considering I used the term "convicted" which should indicate that he was not considered "guilty" in the eyes of the jury, nor was he sent to prison.

I said unfortunately because it was clear to me that he fired his weapon without the requirement that he thought his life or property were in danger from two 16-year-olds who were unarmed and were fleeing when he began firing.
This was unjust and a failure, IMHO, of the courts.

mpw

Dec 13, 2007, 05:16 PM

...because it was clear to me...
Clear to you, but not to the jury of twelve of his peers who were required to sit through reasoned argument of the facts and shown all the relevant evidence.

pseudobrit

Dec 13, 2007, 05:33 PM

Are there problems that need to be addressed? Certainly, but like I stated before I think the problems "up stream" (corrupt dealers selling under the table) should be addressed before we start looking at adding more laws to the books "down stream" (legal gun sales). Corrupt/fadulent FFLs are the single largest source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US. If we pressure our elected officials to give the BATF the resources it needs to go after these guys we'll stop a lot of illicit guns from hitting the street w/o getting into a messing 2nd Amendment, pro gun/pro gun control debate. Sounds a good first step and a "win/win" approach to me.:)

How dare you propose sensible, logical and practical solutions in a gun thread!

Where's your sense of all-or-nothing?

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 05:47 PM

Clear to you, but not to the jury of twelve of his peers who were required to sit through reasoned argument of the facts and shown all the relevant evidence.

What point are you driving at here? Are we going to have a discussion about the problems inherent in an adversarial judicial system? Or are you going to argue a case you've probably never heard about before, of which I had specific and immediate knowledge?

Also, of note, I've been offering this as my own personal opinion, and in the last instance I included the IMHO. I think I'm allowed to have my own personal opinion of the case without being lectured to about the mechanics of the US courts system.

mpw

Dec 13, 2007, 07:06 PM

What point are you driving at here? Are we going to have a discussion about the problems inherent in an adversarial judicial system? Or are you going to argue a case you've probably never heard about before, of which I had specific and immediate knowledge?

Also, of note, I've been offering this as my own personal opinion, and in the last instance I included the IMHO. I think I'm allowed to have my own personal opinion of the case without being lectured to about the mechanics of the US courts system.
Discuss whatever you like, I just commented that it would've been unfortunate to incarcerate a man, who having been through the legal process had been deemed to be innocent.

You disagree, but you're right that you're allowed to have that opinion. I'm just glad that people generally get convicted by more than the opinion of a single person.

Given the same information as the jury I may agree with you, I may not. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, it's a pet hate of mine to se people on these and other forums figuratively baying for blood based on single-sided strong on opinion, weak on fact stories.

LethalWolfe

Dec 13, 2007, 07:15 PM

Where's your sense of all-or-nothing?
I think I lost it in Vegas last weekend. :D

Lethal

hulugu

Dec 13, 2007, 07:23 PM

...Given the same information as the jury I may agree with you, I may not. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, it's a pet hate of mine to se people on these and other forums figuratively baying for blood based on single-sided strong on opinion, weak on fact stories.

Obviously, I'm not including a significant amount of information because that doesn't matter. Nor was my point intended as a call to "bay for blood" rather I was discussing my personal aversion to the "home defended by gun owner" meme, why I think it's generally faulty and littered with assumptions. My idea originates from this personal experience.

I didn't expect anyone to suddenly have an opinion on this particular case, the man's guilt or innocence is ancillary at best, rather I wanted to discuss the reality that well-armed people are perfectly capable of doing something disastrous and that we should be careful of tooling up the general population, many of whom don't have the wits or the training necessary.

Desertrat

Dec 13, 2007, 11:22 PM

mac, you're stretching things beyond reason, IMO. Going in circles.

lethalwolf, I gotta disagree with "Corrupt/fraudulent FFLs are the single largest source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US." Per BATF testimony before Congress at the time of the AW Ban, it was stated that guns used in crime were some 86% illegally acquired. Predominantly via theft or purchase from a thief. Sure, that was 1994, but I have a problem believing some incredible change such that FFL dealers contribute greatly to the overall bad-guys' gun supply. Even ATF says there are relatively few criminal FFLs.

'Rat

Iscariot

Dec 13, 2007, 11:31 PM

And, IMO, banning, or severely restricting, the legal sale of firearms in the US isn't part of the solution because it will have a minimal, if any, impact on keeping firearms out of the hands of people that want to use them to break the law.

Are there problems that need to be addressed? Certainly, but like I stated before I think the problems "up stream" (corrupt dealers selling under the table) should be addressed before we start looking at adding more laws to the books "down stream" (legal gun sales). Corrupt/fadulent FFLs are the single largest source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US. If we pressure our elected officials to give the BATF the resources it needs to go after these guys we'll stop a lot of illicit guns from hitting the street w/o getting into a messing 2nd Amendment, pro gun/pro gun control debate. Sounds a good first step and a "win/win" approach to me.:)

Gun control remains a viable long-term solution, however it's not an all-or-nothing approach as many would suggest. Gun control needs to be coupled with a much stronger stance on firearm-related crimes, with a focus primarily on controlling the manufacture and distribution of new firearms, while eliminating as many illegal arms as possible. Gun ownership remains a dollar auction and prisoner's dilemma fallacy that needs to be addressed, just not with the immediacy and haphazard implementation often hyperbolized.

There is no quick fix.

Naimfan

Dec 13, 2007, 11:55 PM

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 12:19 AM

lethalwolf, I gotta disagree with "Corrupt/fraudulent FFLs are the single largest source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US." Per BATF testimony before Congress at the time of the AW Ban, it was stated that guns used in crime were some 86% illegally acquired. Predominantly via theft or purchase from a thief. Sure, that was 1994, but I have a problem believing some incredible change such that FFL dealers contribute greatly to the overall bad-guys' gun supply. Even ATF says there are relatively few criminal FFLs.

'Rat

'Rat, this is like the third time you've disagreed w/me 'bout this and every time I show you the same link/links and yer like "huh, I didn't know that." I feel like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day" :D

There are relatively few criminal FFLs, but each criminal FFL can sell a lot of guns under the table, and w/the current state of things (Federal laws, lack of resources, etc.,) it's very difficult for the BATF to sniff them out and shut them down.

This is the story of how Anthony Cucchiara, the owner of Traders, has flourished, even after once losing his license to sell firearms because of "gross disregard" of the law; how he used a loophole in the federal gun law to keep his store open until federal prosecutors abandoned efforts to close it down; and how, despite repeatedly making questionable gun sales, remains untouched both by local police -- who are some of his best customers -- and by ATF agents. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/menace.html)

Sean Twomey, 33, is serving six years in federal prison for forging a federal firearms license and trafficking firearms. Twomey is thought to be one of the most prolific traffickers of illegal firearms in the Bay Area's history, buying and selling more than eleven hundred illegal firearms. (http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/guns/twomey.html)

When corrupt FFLs act in conjunction with other types of traffickers, the average number of guns diverted per investigation increases dramatically when compared to investigations of gun shows, straw purchasers, and unlicensed sellers that do not involve conspiracy with a corrupt FFL. Volumes of firearms can influence the number of firearms illegally diverted in investigations involving gun shows, straw purchasers, and unlicensed sellers.
(http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/following/chap3.pdf)

The firs two stories a a bit old (mid-90's) and I have a saved copy of an interview w/a former BATF agent in 2003, but it's no longer on the WWW so I can't link to it. I could e-mail it to you though if you like. Here is are a couple pertinent excerpts:

Question: The example of the Sean Twomey case, a gun trafficker who managed to forge a Federal Firearms License and buy firearms in bulk: how common a problem is this?

Wachtel: It happens; it¹s relatively simple for a dealer or for someone else who might get a hold of a license to forge it or pass it off as being genuine. It can have extremely serious consequences; having a forged federal license ultimately can put a lot of guns in the hands of criminals. A federal firearms license gives the holder access to the gun marketplace that the private person simply doesn¹t have. If you have a federal firearms license you can literally overnight acquire hundred or even a thousand firearms with virtually no questions asked.
.
.
.
A corrupt FFL takes an in-depth investigation. A corrupt FFL is not going to call you on the telephone and say listen I¹m corrupt I¹m going to turn myself in. You have to go out and find the FFL. To do so takes a lot of investigation. It takes a lot of knowledge of the marketplace. It¹s very labor intensive. But once you learn how to do this you find you have all the corrupt FFLs that you can possibly handle. The assumption that FFLs will simply conduct themselves appropriately is often misplaced. We used gun trace data to initiate our investigations and we have plenty of corruption in the gun marketplace.

Lethal

Iscariot

Dec 14, 2007, 12:33 AM

As Lethalwolfe noted, enforcement of laws already on the books would accomplish a great deal of what you're talking about. Can we agree that the efficacy of further controlling or restricting private firearm ownership is not clear?

I don't think we can agree quite on that. What I will agree to is that, as "feel-good" legislation, or when viewed as the be-all end-all solution, it's efficacy is extremely questionable if not entirely deniable (England, Canada). However, as a part of a greater overall solution to a far-ranging and complex problem, I think it's logically and demonstratably effective to a point (Japan).

The other major challenge is to look at the causes of gun crime and to address those--reduce the drivers of violence and a great deal of gun crime would presumably also be reduced. That, in my opinion, is the direction we should take (although I'd agree with your suggestion that we take a stronger stance regarding crimes involving firearms, although some such laws are already very strict).

I wouldn't say it's the "other" major challenge, I would say it is the major challenge. I would absolutely take the same direction, and completely agree that the root problem needs to be addressed. However, I take issue with: a) the presentation of gun-control as lacking entirely in merit; and b) gun proliferation and C&C laws as being an effective solution. Restriction of private ownership of firearms can only be effective in conjuction with a tougher and more intelligent approach to dealing with crime.

Reduced to a soundbyte: gun control is effective with crime control, not as crime control.

LethalWolfe

Dec 14, 2007, 12:45 AM

Gun control remains a viable long-term solution, however it's not an all-or-nothing approach as many would suggest. Gun control needs to be coupled with a much stronger stance on firearm-related crimes, with a focus primarily on controlling the manufacture and distribution of new firearms, while eliminating as many illegal arms as possible. Gun ownership remains a dollar auction and prisoner's dilemma fallacy that needs to be addressed, just not with the immediacy and haphazard implementation often hyperbolized.

There is no quick fix.

Right now I can't agree that gun control, at the end user level, is a viable long-term solution. There are too many holes "up stream" on the gun food chain, too many examples of bans failing, and of gun crime going up/down regardless of the legal availability of firearms. If things change, such as the availability of illegal firearms is severely reduced, I'll of course re-evaluate my position.

I also think a stronger stance (by that I assume you mean stiffer penalties) on crimes committed w/firearms is treating the symptom and not the cause. Mandatory sentencing, 3-strike laws, and stiffer jail terms for drug offenses put more people in jail in the US, but they don't go after the root of the problem and can actually feed a self-fulling prophecy, IMO. It's a fact that the less educated one is the more likely one is to end up in jail and in some states money is being diverted from the public school system in order to build new Mega-Prisons needed to house the explosion of prisons caused by mandatory sentencing.

Instead of focusing so much on how to react to crime we need to focus a bit more on how to prevent it. Sure, there will always be criminals and they'll always be crime, but what things can we do w/in reason to close the soci-economic gaps so "the bad parts of town" are more like "the good parts of town"? Does the War on Drugs today fuel violent crime like Prohibition did last century?

Lethal

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 01:25 AM

I don't think we can agree quite on that. What I will agree to is that, as "feel-good" legislation, or when viewed as the be-all end-all solution, it's efficacy is extremely questionable if not entirely deniable (England, Canada). However, as a part of a greater overall solution to a far-ranging and complex problem, I think it's logically and demonstratably effective to a point (Japan).

Fair enough! However, I don't think Japan is a relevant comparison. For that matter, I don't think comparisons with any other country is particularly helpful, since history, culture, law, and politics are going to be very different and too difficult to isolate.

One of the challenges with "gun control" is that private gun ownership is deeply rooted in American history and culture. Another is that private gun ownership is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, creating a tremendous hurdle from a legal perspective. Of course, the Supreme Court may be about to eliminate that hurdle, but given the roster of the Court most legal analysts believe the Court will finally explain what the Second Amendment means--and that it means a fundamental right to individual firearm ownership. In any event, there are powerful ideals in the US that make "gun control" difficult to enact.

I wouldn't say it's the "other" major challenge, I would say it is the major challenge. I would absolutely take the same direction, and completely agree that the root problem needs to be addressed.

I agree with that.

However, I take issue with: a) the presentation of gun-control as lacking entirely in merit; and b) gun proliferation and C&C laws as being an effective solution. Restriction of private ownership of firearms can only be effective in conjuction with a tougher and more intelligent approach to dealing with crime.

I certainly appreciate your issues. With respect to "a," I think the problem is more one of presentation and content. I think the problem is that many advocates of gun control are seen to advance it as an all or nothing affair, and as the silver bullet (yes, bad pun) to reduce crime. And I think many, if not most, people innately reject that as a real solution. Further, I think a lot of Americans, rightly or wrongly, equate "restriction" with "elimination."

With respect to "b," I think the same is generally true--most people will innately reject the idea that everyone running around armed with a concealed firearm is a good thing.

Ultimately, I think the two issues you list are two sides of the same coin, or if you prefer, opposite ends of the spectrum. And I think that most people will tend to gravitate towards the center, thinking something like "There must be a way to do both--to allow for private ownership of firearms while decreasing crime."

I just saw Lethalwolfe's response, and I agree with it, particularly where he says stiffer sentences for gun crimes are addressing a symptom and not a cause.

A question for you--what type of "gun control" would you advocate? To whom would you "restrict" ownership of firearms?

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but how about this: Stop the war on drugs, legalize them, regulate and tax them, and invest that money in "welfare-busting" and urban renewal programs. Provide job training and child care to those who need it, provide recreational opportunities, etc., and I would bet the crime rate would decline dramatically. If gun crime didn't decline at similar rates, I'd be surprised...

Iscariot

Dec 14, 2007, 02:11 AM

I just saw Lethalwolfe's response, and I agree with it, particularly where he says stiffer sentences for gun crimes are addressing a symptom and not a cause.

Yeah, I feel I should have worded that better. I'd like to see it addressed on as many fronts as possible, including prevention and treating the symptoms. There are always going to be people who will be more swayed by detterence than any other factor, even if these people may be the minority.

A question for you--what type of "gun control" would you advocate? To whom would you "restrict" ownership of firearms?

That's a question with ideal and realistic answers. I'd like to see guns available to no one but law enforcement (real men hunt with compound bows). More realistically, handguns availalble only to current and retired law enforcement/military types with a clean record (their service weapon only, not replaceable in cases of theft), and limited hunting rifles available to anyone with a clean record. Or something that similarly limits the ownership of firearms designed to dispatch human beings. But I'm more interested in establishing a status quo that doesn't run the danger of spiralling out of control a la dollar auction.

For example, in Canada we have a fairly similar number of guns to the U.S., but a comparatively lower rate of gun violence. This is in no small part due to the fact that most Canadian's guns are hunting rifles, many of which are bolt-action. Deadly yes, but much more difficult to conceal and use in a moment of abandon.

I do not believe guns are a self-defense tool.

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but how about this: Stop the war on drugs, legalize them, regulate and tax them, and invest that money in "welfare-busting" and urban renewal programs. Provide job training and child care to those who need it, provide recreational opportunities, etc., and I would bet the crime rate would decline dramatically. If gun crime didn't decline at similar rates, I'd be surprised...

I can't comment too much on the war on drugs, as I live in Canada. However, as I live in Toronto, I see that most of the people on the streets are there because of lack of opportunity, education and mental disability, so I fully support the ideas of reducing poverty and creating opportunity as a (and perhaps the) solution to crime.

Naimfan

Dec 14, 2007, 12:13 PM

That's a question with ideal and realistic answers. I'd like to see guns available to no one but law enforcement (real men hunt with compound bows). More realistically, handguns availalble only to current and retired law enforcement/military types with a clean record (their service weapon only, not replaceable in cases of theft), and limited hunting rifles available to anyone with a clean record. Or something that similarly limits the ownership of firearms designed to dispatch human beings. But I'm more interested in establishing a status quo that doesn't run the danger of spiralling out of control a la dollar auction.

A fair answer. It is oh so nice to have a civil dialogue in PRSI!

I'm sure you won't be surprised to read that I'm on the other side--I would allow almost anyone who wanted to own a firearm to do so, with a few exceptions, like the certified mentally ill, felons, those convicted of violent crimes (which are not necessarily felonies), etc. In my view, the government must prove why an individual should not be permitted to own a firearm. And that ties back to what I wrote about history, culture, and law in the US.

I do not believe guns are a self-defense tool.

Well, in an ideal world they should not be. But in our world, they are the ultimate self-defense weapon, since they equalize power, roughly speaking, between any two people. (Hence the slang term "equalizer.") A firearm is the one tool that allows (to use a somewhat extreme example) a 75 year old grandmother to defend herself from a 20 year man. Until we reach the point where we don't have to worry about things like that, firearms are indeed self-defense tools.

Desertrat

Dec 16, 2007, 02:53 PM

LW, since at least 1994, the number of firearms in the U.S. has been growing by more than four million per year. BATFE stats show production of some five million per year through 2004, but no mention of export numbers. A recent article indicates that the rate has continued.

Couple that with the "86% illegally acquired" testimony and I don't see how crooked dealers can be all that contributory as a percentage of crime guns.

I read the 1994 Cucchiara article. As far as BATFE stats on dealers who've been in the wrong, remember that just using an abbreviation on a form is a violation. Not just on the 4473, but in the permanent shop log. Dealers have had their licenses pulled because of it.

And a guy with a forged FFL is not a dealer in the legal usage of the word...

After 1994, about 2/3 of all dealers dropped their licenses because of the new, higher annual fee. That reduced the workload for enforcement personnel. A fair number of new regs and laws during the 1990s.

SFAIK, the only way to get a factual answer for either of us is to know how many guns have been stolen versus how many have been sold by crooked dealers. Still, I'll take testimony before Congress over reminiscenses of retired agents.

Anyhow, I'll check with my BATFE buddy about how things stand, these days.

'Rat

Desertrat

Dec 17, 2007, 08:57 AM

Morning email from a BATFE guy:

"About 60% of the weapons involved in crimes are stolen, about 25% are from illegal gun transactions, and the rest are so called crimes of passion, ect. involving the owner. The figure is higher for illegal gun transactions on the east coast and the west coast in their respective metro areas.

Your figure is close to the total for all non personal crimes. (I had used 85% as the total of stolen guns.) Unfortunately, if illicit transactions could be curtailed crime overall would go down in major metro areas, at least for a while."
_________

"Illegal gun transactions" to me are straw purchases, sales between prohibited persons and crooked FFLs.

"non-personal crimes" is most likely the holdups of Mom'n'Pop stores, as an example.

I take it that the "crimes of passion" happen with previously-non-criminal people with legally-acquired firearms.

He went on to say that Cucchiara is selling flashlights, and is expected to go into manufacturing soon: License plates.

Iscariot

Dec 17, 2007, 10:11 AM

A fair answer. It is oh so nice to have a civil dialogue in PRSI!

I aim to be unreasonably reasonable, no matter the situation!

Well, in an ideal world they should not be. But in our world, they are the ultimate self-defense weapon, since they equalize power, roughly speaking, between any two people. (Hence the slang term "equalizer.") A firearm is the one tool that allows (to use a somewhat extreme example) a 75 year old grandmother to defend herself from a 20 year man. Until we reach the point where we don't have to worry about things like that, firearms are indeed self-defense tools.

How many instances are there of a 75 year old grandmother needing to defend herself from a 20 year old, though? Of the reports of weapons stopping an altercation, how many of these could have been resolved without violence? A Firearm may be an "equalizer", but it could also easily be considered an "escalator".

I know that it's ideal to think of them as tools for the defenseless, but the reality of firearm use doesn't really equate to that. For example, in Baltimore, 91% of murder victims themselves have priors, 75% in Philadelphia, with similar numbers in other states as well as in Canada, and as far as I can find, never dropping below 50%. These numbers are on the rise, which indicates that the biggest risk to self defense is being willfully involved in the criminal element.

Random acts of violence and massacre certainly happen — this attempt serves as an example. But I think it's highly unlikely that the value of a gun as a self-defense tool comes anywhere close to equalizing their use as weapons of destruction. The likelihood of being a random murder victim has been talked up well beyond the reality.

The exchange, of course, for that small piece of security is making it all the easier for the criminal element to arm themselves by pumping 5 million firearms a year into the streets.

mactastic

Dec 17, 2007, 03:04 PM

mac, you're stretching things beyond reason, IMO. Going in circles.
Please. You're the one who first broached the idea that a decision made about allowing/disallowing guns on campus brought culpability onto the administration.

If it is plausible that the campus administration is complicit in the murders of the students by their decision not to allow armed students and faculty on campus, then it stands to reason they are also complicit in any murders committed by guns they allow on campus.

That you would argue this just shows how thin your "complicit" argument is.

Desertrat

Dec 19, 2007, 10:35 PM

From Iscariot: "I'd like to see guns available to no one but law enforcement..."

Law enforcement is government. Including war, governments during the 20th century killed some 120 million people. Better to disarm governments and arm the citizenry, from the standpoint of who's likely to do the murdering.

"How many instances are there of a 75 year old grandmother needing to defend herself from a 20 year old, though?"

Isn't "just once" an adequate number? And, actually, it's a fairly common event in the U.S., sad though that is.

Another fairly common event:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

The first two paragraphs should be sufficiently explanatory as to why "...available to no one but law enforcement..." merely enables the causing of agony.

It's all well and good to talk about the causes of crime and doing something to alleviate these causes. But we've been doing talk/talk/talk/talk/talk for some forty-plus years and the situation hasn't improved one iota.

And, ah, the sanctity of one's home:

"Shooting in Butte, Montana

Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders Butte, Montana, November 5, 2006.

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12
gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest."

Mr. Burien may well have been surprised. Guns aren't magic; it's up to the owner as to the efficacy. Q: Should only police have knives?

Why is it somehow more moral for good people to die than to have the means of self defense? That seems basackwards, to me.

'Rat

.Andy

Dec 20, 2007, 12:22 AM

And, ah, the sanctity of one's home:

"Shooting in Butte, Montana

Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders Butte, Montana, November 5, 2006.

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12
gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest."

Mr. Burien may well have been surprised. Guns aren't magic; it's up to the owner as to the efficacy. Q: Should only police have knives?

'Rat
That's an urban legend rat. A complete fabrication. Snopes. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp)

Iscariot

Dec 20, 2007, 12:28 AM

Law enforcement is government. Including war, governments during the 20th century killed some 120 million people. Better to disarm governments and arm the citizenry, from the standpoint of who's likely to do the murdering.

It's not as if all governments are able to mobilize without the tacit or explicit consent and participation of the citizenry. Colonial Africa, the world wars come to mind. Governments that are able to mobilize without the citizenry typically aren't truly organized government bodies, but militant citizenry acting under the banner of dictatorialship.

A good example of government murder would be Mao, but I doubt armed citizenry would have stopped that.

"How many instances are there of a 75 year old grandmother needing to defend herself from a 20 year old, though?"

Isn't "just once" an adequate number? And, actually, it's a fairly common event in the U.S., sad though that is.

No, it's not. And why should it be? Because it tugs at the heartstrings? A whole lot less grandmothers would be in danger to begin with if there wasn't such an easy tool to use for the purposes of intimidation and murder.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Blocked at work (?)

It's all well and good to talk about the causes of crime and doing something to alleviate these causes. But we've been doing talk/talk/talk/talk/talk for some forty-plus years and the situation hasn't improved one iota.

Agree one hundred and fifty bajillion per cent.

(whoops!) See Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp)

I've got some toast for that face egg, my friend :3

Mr. Burien may well have been surprised. Guns aren't magic; it's up to the owner as to the efficacy. Q: Should only police have knives?

Why is it somehow more moral for good people to die than to have the means of self defense? That seems basackwards, to me.

Less good people would die if there were less weapons readily available.

.Andy

Dec 20, 2007, 01:54 AM

Blocked at work (?)
You're not missing anything Iscariot. It's a racist article by a guy with a cigar hanging out of his mouth claiming that black kids are running rampant beating people up and whites are being unfairly treated. The usual paranoid xenophobic stuff. And the other half of the page is devoted to his cafe-press t-shirts. Here's a snippet;
I don’t think whites realize what is out there, how bad things are. If you live in Washington, DC, and work, say, on K Street or Connecticut Avenue, you see well-dressed and courteous blacks who are pretty much like everybody else. Much more resentment lies under the surface than you probably believe, but they certainly aren’t going to attack anyone. They are not a problem.

But go into the realms of the underclass, the great sprawling necrotic Sowetos of any big American city. Better yet, don’t go. You wouldn’t last ten minutes on foot at night. Few whites really know that these places exist, and they never see them. Cabs will refuse to take you. For some half-dozen years when I was on the police beat I did see the bad neighborhoods. God help us.

Iscariot

Dec 20, 2007, 02:33 AM

You're not missing anything Iscariot. It's a racist article by a guy with a cigar hanging out of his mouth claiming that black kids are running rampant beating people up and whites are being unfairly treated. The usual paranoid xenophobic stuff. And the other half of the page is devoted to his cafe-press t-shirts. Here's a snippet;

He's right, though. Have you ever seen a black guy in a top hat attack anybody?

The problem is obviously a lack of hats. But those danged liberals banned hats in schools!

Naimfan

Dec 20, 2007, 11:49 AM

Less good people would die if there were less cars readily available.

There. Fixed it for you! ;)

Does anyone remember the short story "With Folded Hands?"

Iscariot

Dec 20, 2007, 09:25 PM

Less good people would die if there was less alcohol readily available.
There. Fixed it for you! ;)

Does anyone remember the short story "With Folded Hands?"

Double fixed, no fix backs!

On topic: are you familiar with the Boston Gun Project?

Naimfan

Dec 20, 2007, 09:54 PM

Double fixed, no fix backs!

On topic: are you familiar with the Boston Gun Project?

:D

It isn't just alcohol and cars, you know. . .

Yes. I take it you're not familiar with the story? It's quite on point.

Desertrat

Dec 21, 2007, 12:47 AM

The first two paragraphs of the Fred essay are on point. The racial aspect is irrelevant. But, he had a picture of the victim, with a brief description of her effort to mind her own business and use public transportation--without getting brutally savaged because she could not defend herself.

His comments about racial problems stem from having ridden with the D.C. cops for a number of years as a police-beat reporter. His comments actually are almost accidentally about race; they're better described as talking about a sub-culture within our society.

A good example is this URL, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html with the proviso to keep in mind the percentages in our population. It's truly sad.

"Less good people would die if there were less weapons readily available."

A major point of the Montana story is that a murder had already been committed with a knife. It's not unreasonable to believe the girl might well have been knifed, rather than shot.

There's no such thing as "less weapons". There might be fewer types of weapons, yeah, but note that firearms are used in about two-thirds of U.S. homicides. I'm dubious that in the absence of firearms, knives and clubs wouldn't become more popular.

After all, Mexico has far more stringent laws against firearms ownership by private citizens--yet their homicide rate is much higher than here in the U.S.

Is the Boston deal the one where the feds did a serious crackdown on any felon in possession of a gun or even ammo? (Minimum five-year sentence.) It did reduce gang shootings in Boston. But another thing it did was run a lot of the bad guys to other states. Good for Boston, bad for WashDC and Richmond, VA.

Iscariot

Dec 21, 2007, 01:57 AM

:D

It isn't just alcohol and cars, you know. . .

Yes. I take it you're not familiar with the story? It's quite on point.

I read it last week. I'd like to get your take on it.

Anyways, I know it's more than just alcohol and cars, and I'm not making the case in favour of gun control as a solution. I am making a case that gun ownership and proliferation isn't a viable self-defense strategy, which is what this thread originally appeared to suggest.

"Less good people would die if there were less weapons readily available."

A major point of the Montana story is that a murder had already been committed with a knife. It's not unreasonable to believe the girl might well have been knifed, rather than shot.

Except that story isn't real, rat. Nobody got stabbed, and there was no heroic little girl with a shotgun. It's a fabrication. Those people don't exist.

There's no such thing as "less weapons". There might be fewer types of weapons, yeah, but note that firearms are used in about two-thirds of U.S. homicides. I'm dubious that in the absence of firearms, knives and clubs wouldn't become more popular.

After all, Mexico has far more stringent laws against firearms ownership by private citizens--yet their homicide rate is much higher than here in the U.S.

Using a firearm as a weapon is both easier psychologically and physically than using a knife, or club. It's also much more difficult to commit mass murder with only a knife.

And Japan has the most stringent laws of any democratic nation, and one of the lowest violent crime rates as well. Apparently the people in Japan don't need firearms to defend themselves. Tokyo is the safest major city in the world, with even muggings and robberies paling in comparison to anywhere else.

A lot of this is outlook based. But it serves as a demonstration that people do not need firearms to be safe, and it validates the Game Theory that guns make everyone inherently less safe overall. (see: Collective Action Problems, Dollar Auction)

(As an interesting note, illegal firearms are smuggled in from the US)

Is the Boston deal the one where the feds did a serious crackdown on any felon in possession of a gun or even ammo? (Minimum five-year sentence.) It did reduce gang shootings in Boston. But another thing it did was run a lot of the bad guys to other states. Good for Boston, bad for WashDC and Richmond, VA.

It's my understanding that the crackdown wasn't on gun ownership, but on crimes commited with firearms. It posited the idea that a lot of gun crime in the drug trade and among gangs isn't due to turf wars, but rather peer pressure to be 'tough' and other psychological factors.