mouchoir: Gun Stuff

[Desertrat]

"Seriously, I don't trust you with arms, and i've never met you. Why should I trust you with a deadly weapon?"

Why not? Why should I trust you with that deadlier weapon, the automobile? More people in the US die from involvements with automobiles that with guns.

"Would you feel less safe if nobody was allowed to keep a gun?"

No. People of bad intentions can always find or manufacture a weapon, up to and including firearms. There is no physical way to avoid this.

"The ease in which a US citizen can obtain a gun, the destruction of purchase background check files and the fact the government isn't allowed to keep a database of gun owners is outrageous. (well, on that last point, maybe that isn't so bad if you're planning a revolution)."

No, it's not outrageous. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. The Constitutional intent has nothing to do with revolution; the enumerated right has to do with protection against the misuse and abuse of power by the State. And if anybody wants to argue that point, first go read the Preamble to our Bill of Rights, which gives the reason for its existence. The Bill of Rights conveys nothing. It enumerates some--but not all--human rights. This package of 10 cannot be separated, and the reason for it is "...to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the State's) powers...

"Why do you need a gun?"

Why do you need a Rolls Royce or Ferrari? A house with one bedroom per offspring, or more than one bathroom? People have things they want, whether or not there is any perceived need.

And, it's a bit hard to hunt deer or elk in open country without one.

"Why would an 'innocent' person need an automatic rifle?"

Some people have found it to be entertaining to turn money into noise. There are approximately 200,000 fully automatic weapons in the U.S. which are owned by private citizens. The only two known criminal misuses were by police, using "official" machine guns (One was a wife-kill). So, who cares about machine guns? If something is not a problem, why give a rat's patoot one way or the other?

"Why is there so many gun related crimes in the US?"

We have too many evil people. However, with some 40% of all U.S. households having one or more firearms, and only some 15,000 firearms-related homicides per year (about 25% of all homicdes) it's not that big a deal.

The gun-tragedy of the U.S. lies in our way of dealing with illegal drugs, and the sub-culture of the black ghettos. These drug-related murders raise the homicide rate from around 5 per 100,000 to 22 per 100,000. Were it not for that, we'd be right in with western Europe. The majority of all blacks, of course, are not in this sub-culture arena; some 2/3 are in the economic middle-class.

Remember that to buy a firearm in most of the U.S., one must have FBI approval, certifying that one has no prior criminal record. I, for my handgun carry license, not only need the FBI certification, I must be approved by my local "boss" cop. My photo and fingerprints are on file. I have proven my competency in shooting. I have been tested as to knowing the law. I have had training in peaceful conflict resolution. I note that few in our Congress can make that claim. :D

Interestingly, at the time I read your post in that political thread, the six of us here at my house included a deputy sheriff and his probation-officer wife; three people with handgun carry licenses, my wife who's never harmed anybody with any of her firearms, and probably a total amount of firearms exceeding 30,000 pounds in value.

Regards,

'Rat

[takao]

personal question: for me it is absolutly beyond me why someone want to own a gun...
so what was your personal reason to be a gun owner ? (my guess: hunting ?)

i have no problem with hunters etc. they exist here too ;) (and not very few)... but who is hunting with a pistol ?


as for the gettho thing...you really should experience what the people here already consider a "gettho".... (i have to admit that i use the word 'gettho' sometimes too when those huge blocks of flats are mentioned..but i try my best not to use it anymore)

[blackfox]

NO. NO. NO. No...noooooooooooo.

Another unsolveable, intractable Gun thread...say it ain't so...

Here are a couple memorable ones (for mouchoir, mostly):

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=74129&highlight=gun
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=69929&highlight=gun

<backs slowly away...>

[takao]

NO. NO. NO. No...noooooooooooo.

Another unsolveable, intractable Gun thread...say it ain't so...

<offtopic>
hm i think a gun thread is refreshing compared to that endless threads about themes like "war on terror","Showdown in Iraq" (as CNN called it), "flipflopper" vs. "cowboy","Election" ...
so many threads are evolving into "us vs. them" threads over the time...
</offtopic>

for not being completly offtopic:
i just got reminded of my time when i was in conscription service: when our battalion was on border patrol duty (2 months), we were pretty scared about some guy (a fanatic) going berserk/some screwing up all the time/or some other guys killing themselves (every year there are about 10-20 suicides in the troops who are on border patrol) so we had to take 'pre-cautions' when they got sent out in the field the seargents removed the 'firing pin' (sp?) from those dangered with telling them.. and as soon as they came back to the camp they put the firing pin back into the rifle..without those guys even noticing it... quite amusing to know that some guys out there were sitting around together and both had disfunctional rifles.. :rolleyes: (actually the sound of the front grip of the austrian rifle sliding into vertically position with a loud "clack" is enough for arresting illegal imigrants .. in the last 2 years there was no incident where a soldier had to put a cartridge into the chamber... most illegal immigrants where from afgahnistan,iraq,chechenia at that time)

[Stelliform]

....

[Desertrat]

"Messing" with guns goes way back in my family. My uncle was an armorer for the National Guard when he was still in high school, back in the 1920s. All my foreebears did some amount of hunting, going back several generations.

My mother, a PhD in Psychology, gave me my first Daisy Red Ryder BB gun when I was seven years old. I began plinking with a .22 about that same time, with my grandfather's .22 rifle. My uncle gave me my first centerfire rifle when I was sixteen; an old Enfield Model 1917 .30-'06. He started me in loading my own ammunition, mostly in order that I load ammo for him as well. (Child labor? :D)

For background, my family has been an unending mix of agricultural/rural folks with college educations since several generations ago. My umpteenth grandfather Witherspoon was president of what became Princeton University, back about the time he signed the Declaration of Independence. We're not in any way a bunch of knuckle-dragging, non-thinking Neanderthals.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Hunting with a pistol: I have an old Colt "Woodsman" .22 semi-auto pistol which belonged to my grandmother. My father's comment was that she killed many squirrels for the kitchen with that pistol.

While I have never hunted deer with a pistol, I have killed several within a range of fifteen to twenty-five yards. I'm a reasonably good stalking hunter. I easily could have used a pistol instead of a rifle. Within a short time for aiming, hitting a soda-can sized target out to 50 yards is not particularly difficult.

It's a shame that a high percentage of all police don't do as much practice/training as do many "just folks". As it is, more non-combatant people are killed during a self-defense shooting by the police than by a homeowner. (Last datum was 30 for police and 3 by homeowner.)

If there is really a problem among honest people in the U.S. with respect to firearms, it lies in the attitude of, "I own it, therefore I'm an expert." This applies to cars and motorboats as well. However, accidental deaths involving firearms of all types is around 1,000 per year for all age groups (For children 14 and under, about 100 to 120.)

'Rat

[takao]

"Messing" with guns goes way back in my family. My uncle was an armorer for the National Guard when he was still in high school, back in the 1920s. All my foreebears did some amount of hunting, going back several generations.
...
For background, my family has been an unending mix of agricultural/rural folks with college educations since several generations ago. ...

'Rat

well for my familiy it is a complete mix: there is absolutly no clear rural or urban influence but when i look untill my earliest known ancestor ( ~1530 completly with documents) i think it's pretty sure that there were a few hunters in my familiy ;) and even after 470 years most of the familiy is living in my hometown... within a few kilometers... on my father side i'm coming from southern germany (there is even a coat of arms but we haven't any documents...you know his familiy is spread across half central europe...)
untill my father in nearly every generation there where at least 1-3 men serving in the army/french foreign legion/fighting for independence (against napolean forces..other were teachers/architects with a degree others were simple workers or farmers..others went to america because they were hoping for a better life there

[Neserk]

Amen, I would also like to see some religious and abortion threads. Just something different! :)

.


The last religion thread got locked! :eek:

[LethalWolfe]

Hmmm... no argueing is going on yet... I don't trust what's going on here. ;)


I'm an Army Brat and have grown up around firearms my whole life. Target shooting (and to a lesser extent hunting) has been a recreational activity for my whole family (both nuclear and extended). My parents (and nearly all of my extended family) are from Texas so when I was a kid we'd drive down to TX, from Indiana, and spend two weeks or so there on vacation. And we'd always make a trip down to Canyon w/some cousins, aunts and uncles, and tear up cans, bottles, playing cards, and any other make-shift targers we could get our hands on.
Those days are long gone though, and people have slowly scattered to different states. These days whenever I'm in Phoenix visiting my brother we hit up a very nice, local outdoor range there for some shotgun action (skeet, trap, & sporting clays). These days I don't get to shoot nearly as much as I want to mostly because of time & money (range fees).


Lethal

[Neserk]

Guns creep me out. So do knives. *shudders*

[LethalWolfe]

So do knives. *shudders*

Man, you must be quite the mess at meal time. ;)


Lethal

[Desertrat]

:) Neserk, I've never thought it important that somebody have an epiphany and suddenly turn around and go to liking guns, but it always bothers me that anybody has some amount of fear of an inanimate object. My view is that if one is afraid of snakes, learn more about them. Same for guns. Go to a gun store and have somebody show the basics; feel and fondle, etc. After all, it's only the misuse that poses any danger.

Some of it, to me, is a part of parental duty. One of the scariest times one can have at a range or at a deer camp is a 24-year-old with his first rifle and no background in gun safety or knowledge, because his parents were against having guns in the home. "As much responsibility toward another person as a neurosurgeon, with none of the education and training."

I have right at a half-century as an adult in the "world of guns". The great majority of folks I've known exhibit a high level of personal responsibilty, and an above-the-usual amount of courtesy and politeness. In many years of having a trade table at gunshows, I never got a hot check. I make no claim as to any perfect people, but I have more innate trust of gun-folks than of others.

Harking to the comment about trust in the opening post, how does one have trust of a person who abdicates the responsibility for the safety of himself and of his family to some outsider of unknown competency?

:), 'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

personal question: for me it is absolutly beyond me why someone want to own a gun...
so what was your personal reason to be a gun owner ? (my guess: hunting ?)

i have no problem with hunters etc. they exist here too ;) (and not very few)... but who is hunting with a pistol ?


as for the gettho thing...you really should experience what the people here already consider a "gettho".... (i have to admit that i use the word 'gettho' sometimes too when those huge blocks of flats are mentioned..but i try my best not to use it anymore)

Gun ownership in the US is a thorny issue.

Our Bill of Rights allows for gun ownership. Some feel that that means for no restrictions. There are those of us that feel that gun ownership was meant for a "militia" or in present day terms our National Guard.

Back during the Cold War days, the fear of a hostile takeover of the US led the hearts of many. It was felt that registering a a weapon was an invite to prevent "patriots" from protecting the homeland. Now that the Cold War is over, they now have to find a new fear to lay on the people. One familiar refrain that I hear from NRA members today, is for protection of their family from the criminals. I do not have a gun or a rifle, and for the most part I feel safe. And if I truly did not feel safe there are less violent ways of protecting ones self.

I have no problem with gun ownership for a hunter. Or a sport shooter. Reasonable restrictions should be placed on ownership IMO in order to protect the community as a whole. If a registered gun is stolen, there must be a way of tracking it. A thornier issue is how many weapons is too much, and what weapons have a place in civilian hands.

Recently a Bull Run Middle School student (near where I live) brought three weapons into school. His intention was a Columbine like attack by most reports. A search of his parents home came up with 20 more weapons. That is 23 weapons in one household. I am assuming that all were capable of being fired. I for the life of me can not see a reason for that many weapons.

We need tougher laws IMO in the US. As an example the parents of the child above should be charged as if they had committed the actual crime. For it would appear that weapon safety was not practiced. IMO having gun/weapon owners doing major time for not securing their weapons would make sure that more practice gun safety.

My Dad was a law enforcement officer. So I was brought up with a gun in the house. But I was also brought up with respect of that gun. And I was also brought up that Heaven would not help me if I ever touched that gun. It is funny in thinking about it now. My Dad having 20+ years as an officer, never joined the NRA. He never owned his own gun/weapon. In fact the bullets for his weapon were kept in a separate lock-box. And when he retired, he never held another gun/weapon.

[Neserk]

Man, you must be quite the mess at meal time. ;)


Lethal


LOL... you know it ;)

[Neserk]

:) Neserk, I've never thought it important that somebody have an epiphany and suddenly turn around and go to liking guns, but it always bothers me that anybody has some amount of fear of an inanimate object. My view is that if one is afraid of snakes, learn more about them. Same for guns. Go to a gun store and have somebody show the basics; feel and fondle, etc. After all, it's only the misuse that poses any danger.

Some of it, to me, is a part of parental duty. One of the scariest times one can have at a range or at a deer camp is a 24-year-old with his first rifle and no background in gun safety or knowledge, because his parents were against having guns in the home. "As much responsibility toward another person as a neurosurgeon, with none of the education and training."

I have right at a half-century as an adult in the "world of guns". The great majority of folks I've known exhibit a high level of personal responsibilty, and an above-the-usual amount of courtesy and politeness. In many years of having a trade table at gunshows, I never got a hot check. I make no claim as to any perfect people, but I have more innate trust of gun-folks than of others.

Harking to the comment about trust in the opening post, how does one have trust of a person who abdicates the responsibility for the safety of himself and of his family to some outsider of unknown competency?

:), 'Rat

I'll think about it... What you say makes tons of sense but i have problems bringing myself to even look at them let alone touch one or fire one :eek:

Maybe... later...

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

.....

[LethalWolfe]

Gun ownership in the US is a thorny issue.

Our Bill of Rights allows for gun ownership. Some feel that that means for no restrictions. There are those of us that feel that gun ownership was meant for a "militia" or in present day terms our National Guard.

I've never felt that the National Guard was a mordern day version of the militia the Founding Fathers spoke of because the NG is still a tool of the State. I can't expect the NG to protect me and my rights if the NG are the ones attempting to take them away by order of the State.

Back during the Cold War days, the fear of a hostile takeover of the US led the hearts of many. It was felt that registering a a weapon was an invite to prevent "patriots" from protecting the homeland. Now that the Cold War is over, they now have to find a new fear to lay on the people. One familiar refrain that I hear from NRA members today, is for protection of their family from the criminals. I do not have a gun or a rifle, and for the most part I feel safe. And if I truly did not feel safe there are less violent ways of protecting ones self.

It's obviously a personal thing but I put keeping a firearm up there with having a fire extingisher<sp?>, smoke detectors, and emergency supplies of food and water. All things I hope I never need but if I do at least I have them.

I have no problem with gun ownership for a hunter. Or a sport shooter. Reasonable restrictions should be placed on ownership IMO in order to protect the community as a whole. If a registered gun is stolen, there must be a way of tracking it. A thornier issue is how many weapons is too much, and what weapons have a place in civilian hands.

Recently a Bull Run Middle School student (near where I live) brought three weapons into school. His intention was a Columbine like attack by most reports. A search of his parents home came up with 20 more weapons. That is 23 weapons in one household. I am assuming that all were capable of being fired. I for the life of me can not see a reason for that many weapons.

Assumptions can be dangerous things. ;) I know many gun collectors that have many, many more firearms than that and most of them, practically speaking, cannot be fired (unless you are able make the correct ammunition yourself or are lucky enough to find live rounds at gun shows or what not). And if you are even a just a hobbie shooter it's not hard, IMO, to buy that many fire arms over the course of many years.

We need tougher laws IMO in the US. As an example the parents of the child above should be charged as if they had committed the actual crime. For it would appear that weapon safety was not practiced. IMO having gun/weapon owners doing major time for not securing their weapons would make sure that more practice gun safety.

The shooters at Columbine broke something like 19 laws before even stepping foot into that high school. Would more laws have stopped them? The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not aquired legally so tossing more laws onto the books wouldn't help much, if at all, IMO.

What we need is education and a focusing of our efforts and resources to finding out why people are commiting these crimes instead of focusing on what tools they. Focusing on the "gun" part of "gun violence" is addressing the symptom not the cause. I also think the law you suggested opens a very slipperly slope. What if your kid gets drunk, hops in the family car and kills someone. Should you be charged w/the crimes your child commited? What if the guns were locked up but the child managed to get them anyway? If it is a case of gross negligence that led to the situation that is a different story though.

If properly used the kids that shot up Columbine HS could have done significantly more death and destruction w/the dozens of pipe and propane bombs they had (most of which were either not used or malfuctioned). But I don't see people asking for stricter laws regarding propane. In the end though, does it really matter how they did what they did? Isn't finding out why they did it more important?

And I was also brought up that Heaven would not help me if I ever touched that gun.

Roger that. Gun safety was paramount in our house growing up and the last thing any of us kids wanted to do was cross the 6'-2" 200lb Lt. Colonel w/the Ranger tab on his shoulder that was our father.


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

They can be fun too. My dad loves sporting clays (http://www.mynsca.com/about.shtml). It is basically like hunting without the animals. You walk through the woods and stop at a station, then the clays shoot out from the trees and you have to shoot them. I am not big on guns myself, but I have done sporting clays with my dad. It is fun, although I really stink. I much rather golf. Much more peaceful and relaxing. (But my Dad hates golf. To each his own.)


You guys should combine the two. You hit the golf ball and your dad trys to shoot it. :D


Lethal

[takao]

:) Neserk, I've never thought it important that somebody have an epiphany and suddenly turn around and go to liking guns, but it always bothers me that anybody has some amount of fear of an inanimate object. My view is that if one is afraid of snakes, learn more about them. Same for guns. Go to a gun store and have somebody show the basics; feel and fondle, etc. After all, it's only the misuse that poses any danger.

you know a bottle of sarin/soman/tabun is inanimate too..and believe me... one drop alone is enough to scare the sh.. out of me... ;) (especially after i saw what one drop does to a mouse if she gets the trop on the end of her tail...on video of course)

the more i learned about guns (during my service) the more i got scared ... especially when i see how _many_ guys can't handle a gun even after 3 months of intensive daily training... sure there are a lot of people who can handle a gun responsible..but there are a lot of people who _can't_... there are even people who can't handle a glock 17 (which is far from being difficult)

edit:the problem with the us gun laws is not the laws itself...IMHO it is the 'failing' enforcement of those laws

[LethalWolfe]

you know a bottle of sarin/soman/tabun is inanimate too..and believe me... one drop alone is enough to scare the sh.. out of me... ;) (especially after i saw what one drop does to a mouse if she gets the trop on the end of her tail...on video of course)

I understand what you are getting at probably as well as you understand the severe shorting comings of your example. ;)


Lethal

[Chip NoVaMac]

In 2001 (According to the CDC (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) 72 kids (under 15) died from accidental gunshot wounds. To compare, 859 kids drowned in the same year, 493 dies in house fires, 2463 died in car accidents.

I think the accidental death argument (however true that one death is too much) is overused. I was surprised by the actual number of accidental deaths. I felt it would be low, but so significantly lower than other death type was surprising.

Now intentional deaths by guns was 414. Still the lowest of the types of death that kids face.

I just don't see this issue as one for gun control, as much as a push for more gun safety. (Which I know our local police departments distribute gun locks for free annually. (however I don't think that these programs work since the kids are getting killed by parents that don't lock their guns at all in the first place. If they got a free gun lock, they still have to use it.)

I never said that gun deaths are epidemic among youth. But with proper training and care they can be greatly reduced.

I was not asked about how I feel about holding the parents responsible for their children's deaths in other ways either. In the case of drowning and fires, if the parents are responsible, they should be so charged and serve the maximum time.

And you bring up another topic when you bring up children dying in automobile accidents. I feel that a parent that is caught speeding, DUI/DWI, reckless driving, and the such should be charged with child endangerment. If it results in the child's death they should face maximum punishment.

Children are our most precious resource. As such we need to send the message that as a parent you have a responsibility to make sure that child is out of harms way.

Now what I find funny is that when Ford Pinto's were exploding into flames everyone was up in arms. Same way when the Ford Explorers were rolling over. Lets make them safe was the cry. But when it comes to guns lets bring up the low numbers here.

Notice what I was aiming at is that if we can not control the guns, we can at least control those that own them to be responsible and think twice about their choices.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Roger that. Gun safety was paramount in our house growing up and the last thing any of us kids wanted to do was cross the 6'-2" 200lb Lt. Colonel w/the Ranger tab on his shoulder that was our father.


Lethal

:)

I respect where you are coming from. And hope you understand where I am coming from when I say this, you sound like a pamphlet for the NRA. That is not a personal attack against you.

Let's say that we agree to disagree. :)

[LethalWolfe]

:)

I respect where you are coming from. And hope you understand where I am coming from when I say this, you sound like a pamphlet for the NRA. That is not a personal attack against you.

Let's say that we agree to disagree. :)


We'll I has half way thru a response to your previous post when I saw this one so in an effort to save 3 or 4 pages of banter I agree w/the agreement to disagree. :)

Although I do take offense to the NRA pamphlet comment ( I understand that none was intended though). I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I want to be. While I am a strong believer in gun ownership (obviously), and I do like the gun safety/education programs the NRA has but I don't like the hard-line stance that the NRA typically takes. I am a firm believer in compromise and the NRA, to me, seems too uncompromising. But maybe I'm just another victim of the liberal media. :eek: :D :p


Lethal

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

You guys should combine the two. You hit the golf ball and your dad trys to shoot it. :D

LOL!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Although I do take offense to the NRA pamphlet comment ( I understand that none was intended though). <snip> I am a firm believer in compromise and the NRA, to me, seems too uncompromising. But maybe I'm just another victim of the liberal media. :eek: :D :p


Lethal

And they say that people here can't have civil discourse. :)

I may dig myself in deeper, but here it goes anyway. i want to explain that a guy I worked along side with was with the NRA. And in an attempt to make me better informed I got some of their material. I guess I "over reacted to your points, since they seemed all to familiar.

My Dad was former military also, so it sounds like you and I have much in common. I guess I look back over the last 25 to 30 years, and I don't see the strength in the family unit as there once was. We could talk till the cows come home on the reasons, and never come up with all the answers.

Because parents seem unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their children and their safety, then the threat of punishment might be able to help avoid some deaths. Yes, I'll admit that I think that some people that think the idea of owning a weapon is "cool", might not if they think they might run afoul.

I also wanted to note that my mention of Columbine in reference to Bull Run Middle was to state what the kid's mind set was. What he intended to do. I am maybe some of the few that wants some more control on guns, yet understands that not all of it could have stopped Columbine with further gun control.

But it does go back to punishing to the fullest extent anyone that aids in the death of someone through firearms, even though their finger was not on the trigger. It means backing up the laws that exist. And maybe some new ones.

No, I am not talking of holding gun manufactures responsible. But I am talking about those that make fake ID's that allow those that can not legally own a gun to obtain one. I am talking about holding gun dealers more responsible. I am talking about more ATF agents to oversea the dealers and gun shows.

Hopefully responsible weapon owners like yourself can offer suggestions too.

[pseudobrit]

Would anyone be against a government-mandated training/licensing programme for gun owners? One for long guns, one for handguns.

I think it's the least we can do to try to lower the gun problems in the US, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it and there are regulations more unreasonable for owning a car.

[LethalWolfe]

Would anyone be against a government-mandated training/licensing programme for gun owners? One for long guns, one for handguns.

I think it's the least we can do to try to lower the gun problems in the US, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it and there are regulations more unreasonable for owning a car.


I'm in favor of training, but couldn't this impede on the 2nd Amendement? With a few specific exceptions all Americans have the right to own firearms (unlike owning/operating a car which is a privledge<sp?> not a right). I mean, what if you had to take and/or pass a training course before you were allowed to exercise your First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights? It kind of defeats the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights doen't it?

What about gun safety being taught in schools? I think the education would help prevent many of the accidental shooting deaths that happen each year.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

I'm in favor of training, but couldn't this impede on the 2nd Amendement? With a few specific exceptions all Americans have the right to own firearms (unlike owning/operating a car which is a privledge<sp?> not a right). I mean, what if you had to take and/or pass a training course before you were allowed to exercise your First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights? It kind of defeats the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights doen't it?

You don't need to take a training course to use your fourth or fifth amendment rights, nor need you be licensed to be protected by them.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that one must identify onesself to the police when prompted. This is a new limit to which your rights are not protected. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and all-encompassing. The right to freedom of speech is limited to speech which does not directly endanger others.

Rather than debate whether such regulations are Constitutional, why not pass the law, see if it impacts gun violence and let the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality if needed?

What about gun safety being taught in schools? I think the education would help prevent many of the accidental shooting deaths that happen each year.

I don't think gun education would have done much for kids like me, who grew up with almost no gun exposure whatsoever (aside from seeing my grandfather shoot the skunks caught in traps on his farm :D ).

[skunk]

(aside from seeing my grandfather shoot the skunks caught in traps on his farm :D ).
Hey!

[Desertrat]

It once was common to have training in shooting .22 rifles in the 4H, FFA, the Boy Scouts and other social groups for teens. Many high schools had shooting teams, competing with other schools.

In the fall of 1952 I worked in Corpus Christi, Texas. I rented a room downtown, in the central business district. The room was upstairs over a shooting gallery. Shooting galleries, 3 shots for a quarter and a kewpie-doll for a prize, were once common throughout the country. They typically had Winchester Model 62 pumps or Model 63 semi-autos which shot .22 Shorts or "Gallery" loads.

Manufacturers of firearms and ammunition commonly had highly-skilled shooters tour the country, putting on demonstrations. For instance, Ad Topperwein: http://www.sanantonio.gov/dome/hallfame/AD.htm

It is only since the 1960s that the emotional "Guns! Eeeooowwww!" stuff became common. Prior to that, generally, guns were just part of the world, and not of great signifcance as any major problem.

You stop and think about it: Prior to 1934, the USPS would deliver your machine gun. After the Federal Firearms Act of 1934, you could buy a machine gun, but there was then a $200 transfer fee and a federal background check before taking possession. Between 1934 and 1968 the USPS would deliver any pistol or semi-auto rifle. After 1968 you had to record the sale on the "Yellow Sheet" with its provisions for perjury and penalties. After 1986, no more production of machine guns for civilian purchase. Then we got the specious and fallacious "Assault Weapon Ban" which did nothing but legislate cosmetics (The same guns, with minor changes, are still sold.)

Many laws; negligible effect on gun-related crimes...

I gay-rawn-damn-tee you that you won't find an NRA member objecting to any gun-control law which has a positive effect on gun-related crime yet favors the law-abiding citizen. There's just one problem: None exist. Gun-control laws only control those who are already law-abiding: So what's the point?

'Rat

[LethalWolfe]

You don't need to take a training course to use your fourth or fifth amendment rights, nor need you be licensed to be protected by them.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that one must identify onesself to the police when prompted. This is a new limit to which your rights are not protected. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and all-encompassing. The right to freedom of speech is limited to speech which does not directly endanger others.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I made myself clear. Let's say you have to pass a training course to purchase a firearm. If you never pass that course, you are being denied your 2nd Amendment rights. I don't think you should have to prove yourself worthy to be allowed to excerise your Constitutional rights. Doesn't that fly in the face of why the Bill of Rights were created?

Free Speech has it's limits, and so does gun ownership (i.e. you don't have the right to carry a pistol on your hip, although some cities/states give you that privlidge), and you can't buy a firearm if you have a felony record or are not of sound mind. I'm weary<sp?> of any law that limits people's Constitutional rights (any of them).

Rather than debate whether such regulations are Constitutional, why not pass the law, see if it impacts gun violence and let the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality if needed?

Proper gun training would probably reduce the number of accidental deaths but that's it. It wouldn't have a significant, if any, impact on crimes commited w/guns. A person who legal obtains a firearm is very unlikely to use it in an illegal manor. A person who illegaly obtains a firearm is very likely to use it an illegal manor. Putting restrictions on the former will not impact the latter.

Why shouldn't we debate it? I don't think passing laws and asking questions later is the proper course of action.


I don't think gun education would have done much for kids like me, who grew up with almost no gun exposure whatsoever (aside from seeing my grandfather shoot the skunks caught in traps on his farm :D ).

Well it might have helped kids that did have fatal exposure to guns because little Timmy thought little Bobby would get up just like the people on TV. Knowledge is power. I've never OD'd on drugs or alcohol (neither have any of my friends) and I've never needed to use CPR, but I'm glad we learned about in school so I won't be completely clueless if one of those situations arrises.


'Rat,
I was reading an article about trick shooters that were touring the country and one of the guys would toss a quater up and peg it w/his rifle (can't remember what kind/calibur). The really cool part was he'd aks someone in the audience to pick which side, head or tails, they wanted the bullet to hit. :eek:


Lethal

[Chip NoVaMac]

Lethal,

I may be opening a big can of worms, but I truly respect your opinion on the gun/weapons issue.


Amendment II

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.

I understand how be derive the right to bear arms be cause of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed portion. Yet, how do you explain the intent the founding fathers with A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; you know how I interpret it.

Not trying to start any flame wars here. I am truly at a loss.

[mouchoir]

"Seriously, I don't trust you with arms, and i've never met you. Why should I trust you with a deadly weapon?"

Why not? Why should I trust you with that deadlier weapon, the automobile? More people in the US die from involvements with automobiles that with guns.

"Would you feel less safe if nobody was allowed to keep a gun?"

No. People of bad intentions can always find or manufacture a weapon, up to and including firearms. There is no physical way to avoid this.

"The ease in which a US citizen can obtain a gun, the destruction of purchase background check files and the fact the government isn't allowed to keep a database of gun owners is outrageous. (well, on that last point, maybe that isn't so bad if you're planning a revolution)."

No, it's not outrageous. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. The Constitutional intent has nothing to do with revolution; the enumerated right has to do with protection against the misuse and abuse of power by the State. And if anybody wants to argue that point, first go read the Preamble to our Bill of Rights, which gives the reason for its existence. The Bill of Rights conveys nothing. It enumerates some--but not all--human rights. This package of 10 cannot be separated, and the reason for it is "...to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the State's) powers...

"Why do you need a gun?"

Why do you need a Rolls Royce or Ferrari? A house with one bedroom per offspring, or more than one bathroom? People have things they want, whether or not there is any perceived need.

And, it's a bit hard to hunt deer or elk in open country without one.

"Why would an 'innocent' person need an automatic rifle?"

Some people have found it to be entertaining to turn money into noise. There are approximately 200,000 fully automatic weapons in the U.S. which are owned by private citizens. The only two known criminal misuses were by police, using "official" machine guns (One was a wife-kill). So, who cares about machine guns? If something is not a problem, why give a rat's patoot one way or the other?

"Why is there so many gun related crimes in the US?"

We have too many evil people. However, with some 40% of all U.S. households having one or more firearms, and only some 15,000 firearms-related homicides per year (about 25% of all homicdes) it's not that big a deal.

The gun-tragedy of the U.S. lies in our way of dealing with illegal drugs, and the sub-culture of the black ghettos. These drug-related murders raise the homicide rate from around 5 per 100,000 to 22 per 100,000. Were it not for that, we'd be right in with western Europe. The majority of all blacks, of course, are not in this sub-culture arena; some 2/3 are in the economic middle-class.

Remember that to buy a firearm in most of the U.S., one must have FBI approval, certifying that one has no prior criminal record. I, for my handgun carry license, not only need the FBI certification, I must be approved by my local "boss" cop. My photo and fingerprints are on file. I have proven my competency in shooting. I have been tested as to knowing the law. I have had training in peaceful conflict resolution. I note that few in our Congress can make that claim. :D

Interestingly, at the time I read your post in that political thread, the six of us here at my house included a deputy sheriff and his probation-officer wife; three people with handgun carry licenses, my wife who's never harmed anybody with any of her firearms, and probably a total amount of firearms exceeding 30,000 pounds in value.

Regards,

'Rat

Wow! I get to headline a thread! I feel kind of special (though not sure if it's a good special or not).

Would've answered sooner but was too busy arguing on another thread.

OK. All good points.

Guns are here to stay... i'm over it.

I'm not against guns for hunting, although i'm not sure you need a glock, or any sort of handgun to do it with. Or other gun sports. I do remember enjoying using an air rifle to shoot paper targets at a yearly Italian festival (in the UK!) when I was a kid.

Still, when I start thinking 'only some 15,000 firearms-related homicides per year (about 25% of all homicdes) it's not that big a deal' is not that big a deal, is when I start to worry.

Compare that to the equivalent in canada and I guess it just comes down to a cutural thing.

Maybe limitations on the calibre or type of weapon is more appropriate?

Does your statisitc of only 2 known machine gun deaths include sub-machine guns?

I don't think gun-laws are a bad thing, they just need to be better enforced.

Maybe I was a bit too strong on the anti-gun front, I forgot how much some people love them, and not everyone owning a gun is going to shoot their wives/neighbours/school friends. Just 15000 of you. A year.

We have our own problems here – if someone was to break into our home and we hurt them in anyway, we would be the ones facing a trial. :(

[Desertrat]

mouchoir, look back at my comment about the tragedy of our black ghettos. With that specific, localized problem taken out of the overall picture for the moment, note that our homicide rate is about the same as England, Germany, France and Italy. (Roughly)

Question: If you're made to be dead, does it matter if it were via gun, knife or club? Canada's homicide rate is probably no great amount lower than England or Germany, I'm guessing. Ergo, it's not much lower than the non-black-ghetto U.S.

Overall, I'm uninterested in the Constitution or law. I take it for granted that I have a God-given/Gaia-given right to live. No other person has any right to gratuitously threaten my life with violence. Therefore I have a right to defend myself. No government edicts required, thank you. The right would exist in a condition of total anarchy; it would exist although a totalitarian government would deny me that right.

From this concept of "rights" I then ask: "Who is to determine the methodology of my own "insurance" against violence?" That is, who can rightfully say I may not have the means of self-defense? Who can rightfully say that I should die rather than possess a pistol and the skill to use it?

Why should I die at government behest, or the behest of one who hates guns?

What does hunting have to do with self-defense? And, if I have the skill, why should I not have a pistol with which to hunt? (The last deer I killed was at 25 meters. I felt halfway ashamed to have used a rifle. The taste of backstrap overwhelmed the sense of shame, however.)

:), 'Rat

[LethalWolfe]

Lethal,

I may be opening a big can of worms, but I truly respect your opinion on the gun/weapons issue.



I understand how be derive the right to bear arms be cause of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed portion. Yet, how do you explain the intent the founding fathers with A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; you know how I interpret it.

Not trying to start any flame wars here. I am truly at a loss.


No worries Chip,

I believe that the militia refered to by the Founding Fathers is, basically, armed civilians. Many people say the National Guard is the modern version of the militia the Founding Fathers but I think that is an incorrect assumption. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure the people can physically defend themselves against the government and the National Guard is a tool of the government. Why would the Founding Fathers grant citizens the right to bear arms only to mean that only the government can bear arms? The National Guard is merely a branch of the Army and although it typically serves at the State level Guard Units do serve at the Federal level (i.e. being treated/deployed just like units of the regular Army). I think there would be a few bodies rolling over in their graves if the 2nd Amendment was used to arm the Federal government while depriving citizens of arms. ;)


mouchoir,
To quote myself from a previous post, A person who legal obtains a firearm is very unlikely to use it in an illegal manor. A person who illegaly obtains a firearm is very likely to use it an illegal manor. Putting restrictions on the former will not impact the latter.

A good working example would be Great Britian. The firearm regulations are stricter than ever yet gun crime is doing nothing but increaseing.


Lethal

[takao]

well i asked my mother today if she know anybody who owns a gun (ijust got back in my hometown from studying).... zip nada.. in our neighbourhood there are no guns... do i suddenly feel unsafe ? no ;)

imagine a newspaper with reports about the police stopping berserking dogs and cows (that happens quite regulary) with their firearms... absolutly amusing...

btw: most gun-murders are family tragedies (you know cheating/depressions etc.) with legal firearms and _not_ some criminals with illegal guns (at least here..perhaps you have more illegal guns in the US)

and yeah there are "sub-standard" living districts with higher criminality and murder rates here too.....so counting some regions away "for the same murder rate" can be played from both sides


my guess is that the whole thing is just a cultural thing.... as long as US citizens are happy with ~10.000 gun related deaths...fine...it's their choice...

here it works with less guns just fine

(personally i feel more unsafe when guns are around...)

[skunk]

and yeah there are "sub-standard" living districts with higher criminality and murder rates here too.....so counting some regions away "for the same murder rate" can be played from both sides
I agree entirely with your post. I also agree that excluding the worst-affected areas renders any comparisons meaningless.

[LethalWolfe]

well i asked my mother today if she know anybody who owns a gun (ijust got back in my hometown from studying).... zip nada.. in our neighbourhood there are no guns... do i suddenly feel unsafe ? no ;)

imagine a newspaper with reports about the police stopping berserking dogs and cows (that happens quite regulary) with their firearms... absolutly amusing...

btw: most gun-murders are family tragedies (you know cheating/depressions etc.) with legal firearms and _not_ some criminals with illegal guns (at least here..perhaps you have more illegal guns in the US)

and yeah there are "sub-standard" living districts with higher criminality and murder rates here too.....so counting some regions away "for the same murder rate" can be played from both sides


my guess is that the whole thing is just a cultural thing.... as long as US citizens are happy with ~10.000 gun related deaths...fine...it's their choice...

here it works with less guns just fine

(personally i feel more unsafe when guns are around...)


I think is a soci-economic based problem, not a gun based problem.

In the States the vast majority of gun violence is done by people who have illegally purchased/obtained those guns. And death by accidental shootings are, relatively speaking, rare. Restricting the publics legal access to guns will do little or nothing to easy gun violence. Just look at the drug problem here in the US. Last time I checked pot, crack, and heroine are all banned substances but that doesn't mean they are impossible to come by (quite the opposite actually).

By and large gun violence is a symptom of a greater problem and if you want to stop the violence (w/and w/o guns) focus on why that violence exists, not how it is carried out.


Lethal

[takao]

I think is a soci-economic based problem, not a gun based problem.

In the States the vast majority of gun violence is done by people who have illegally purchased/obtained those guns. And death by accidental shootings are, relatively speaking, rare. Restricting the publics legal access to guns will do little or nothing to easy gun violence. Just look at the drug problem here in the US. Last time I checked pot, crack, and heroine are all banned substances but that doesn't mean they are impossible to come by (quite the opposite actually).

By and large gun violence is a symptom of a greater problem and if you want to stop the violence (w/and w/o guns) focus on why that violence exists, not how it is carried out.


Lethal


you might have point there but IMHO the gun issue shouldn't be ignored either...
BTW: i just looked again on the FBI murder statistik 2002 provided earlier in this thread...i didn't noticed earlier but the clearance rate of 64.0% for murder nationwide doesn't look very good (Germany BKA statistik 2002: murder clearance rate: 96.7%, Austria: a lousy 91.4%)

[pseudobrit]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I made myself clear. Let's say you have to pass a training course to purchase a firearm. If you never pass that course, you are being denied your 2nd Amendment rights. I don't think you should have to prove yourself worthy to be allowed to excerise your Constitutional rights.

You cannot buy a weapon if you've been found mentally insane in a court of law. You cannot buy a weapon if you're under a certain age. You cannot buy a weapon if you've committed a felony.

Why would it be a bad thing if you cannot buy a weapon if you fail a simple training course on how to handle one and understand your responsibilities as an owner?

I would think that law-abiding, responsible, competent gun owners would support such a measure, since it wouldn't affect them.

I'm weary<sp?> of any law that limits people's Constitutional rights (any of them).

No law can limit your Constitutional rights. You either have them or you don't. It's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether a law is Constitutional, not the legislature.

Proper gun training would probably reduce the number of accidental deaths but that's it. It wouldn't have a significant, if any, impact on crimes commited w/guns. A person who legal obtains a firearm is very unlikely to use it in an illegal manor. A person who illegaly obtains a firearm is very likely to use it an illegal manor. Putting restrictions on the former will not impact the latter.

How do people who get illegal firearms get them? Gun manufacturers do not sell directly to them, obviously. They steal them from law-abiding citizens. If we had a licensing system that made gun owners more aware and/or responsibile for their weapons, perhaps there would be less theft (wanna see where my dad keeps his gun, Joe?).

Why shouldn't we debate it? I don't think passing laws and asking questions later is the proper course of action.

You don't debate the Constitutionality of a law when deciding whether it's a good idea or not. You debate it on whether or not it will have a positive imapct on the community.

For instance, Congress (both federal and state) will repeatedly push through the likes of flag-burning and anti-abortion laws even though they know it will be struck down in the Supreme Court in a matter of days.

[LethalWolfe]

you might have point there but IMHO the gun issue shouldn't be ignored either...

I'm not saying the gun issue should be ignored. Quite the opposite. I'm saying we need to address the heart, the cause, the source of gun violence and violent crime in general.

Of course saying "guns are bad" and legilslating<sp?> firearms out of the hands of law abidding cititzens is much easier than addressing the socio-economic problems that are the breeding ground for violent crime. But that is just a band-aid. A temporary fix. It solves nothing. It's like a doctor giving you pain medication for the pain in your hand and doing nothing for broken bone that is the source of that pain.

The people who think guns=gun crime are the ones ignoring the problem.


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

You cannot buy a weapon if you've been found mentally insane in a court of law. You cannot buy a weapon if you're under a certain age. You cannot buy a weapon if you've committed a felony.

Why would it be a bad thing if you cannot buy a weapon if you fail a simple training course on how to handle one and understand your responsibilities as an owner?

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing. I'm just openly questioning the idea and pondering the possible repercussions (applying the same logic to the rest of the Bill of Rights is a bit unsettling IMO). I'm also offering alternative ideas such as education in schools (which I think is a better idea). I'm not dismissing the idea but I'm not behind it either.

I would think that law-abiding, responsible, competent gun owners would support such a measure, since it wouldn't affect them.

I would think that law-abiding, responsible, competent citizens would support a relaxing of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments since it wouldn't affect them. ;)

How do people who get illegal firearms get them? Gun manufacturers do not sell directly to them, obviously. They steal them from law-abiding citizens. If we had a licensing system that made gun owners more aware and/or responsibile for their weapons, perhaps there would be less theft (wanna see where my dad keeps his gun, Joe?).

The US doesn't have a monopoly on the sales and/or manufacturing of firearms. Illegal guns get into the country the same way illegal drugs and illegal aliens do. There are also people who sell firearms illegally. How would placing greater restrictions on legal gun owners negatively affect gun thiefs? Isn't that kinda like trying to reduce the number of car thefts by making it harder to get a driver's license?

Overall I'm failing to see the significant bennifits of having a law like this other than having a placebo effect(hey we passed a law, must mean we are being productive). I'd much rather see education in schools, PSAs, and other advertisements of training programs. Basically I'd like to see "gun safety" get similar attention as "fire safety" and what to do in case of a natural disaster.


Lethal

[takao]

just looked up the famous 'second Amendment':

"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 we are talking about a regulated militia here ? hmmm confusing

[pseudobrit]

I would think that law-abiding, responsible, competent citizens would support a relaxing of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments since it wouldn't affect them. ;)

Like the USA PATRIOT Act?

The US doesn't have a monopoly on the sales and/or manufacturing of firearms. Illegal guns get into the country the same way illegal drugs and illegal aliens do. There are also people who sell firearms illegally. How would placing greater restrictions on legal gun owners negatively affect gun thiefs? Isn't that kinda like trying to reduce the number of car thefts by making it harder to get a driver's license?

There would be no "greater restrictions" on competent, qualified gun owners. And I would wager that the vast majority of illegal guns in the nation were stolen from their legal buyers before entering the black market. I see plenty of local items in the news where a suburban or rural home will be burgled and a cache of guns taken. Here's (http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunsmug.html) an interesting report that shows most gun deaths in Canada are done with weapons smuggled in from the US.

Overall I'm failing to see the significant bennifits of having a law like this other than having a placebo effect(hey we passed a law, must mean we are being productive). I'd much rather see education in schools, PSAs, and other advertisements of training programs. Basically I'd like to see "gun safety" get similar attention as "fire safety" and what to do in case of a natural disaster.

Is that enough though? We make drivers jump through hoops to get licenses, we make lifeguards get certified, you'd think the very least we could do for weapons that are designed to kill living things very efficiently would be to have some kind of license. PSAs don't stop kids from doing drugs, are they going to stop gun owners from leaving a loaded weapon in their closet where their kids' friends can steal it?

There are limits to the Second Amedment, I've established that. You cannot buy, make or own certain types of weapons.

I'm just saying there would be nothing explicitly unconstitutional about a licensing programme, while the benefits of such a programme could be dramatic.

[Desertrat]

In the U.S. we have the regular military, the organized militia--which, roughly, is the Reserves and the National Guard--and the unorganized militia. Per U.S. law, the unorganized militia is made up of all healthy males between the ages of 16 to 47, give or take a year or so on ages. That's written law, passed by Congress and signed by the Prez--somewhere in the 1800s, IIRC.

As to the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment: It did not have the meaning of today's rules and regulations. In the 1700s, the word meant trained and equipped, operating or functioning properly. A brand of quality clock was called the "Regulator". If you adjust the barrels of a double rifle or a double-barreled shotgun, you have "regulated" them. thus a "well-regulated militia" meant a group which could march and shoot and follow its unit leaders. Militia units were self-selecting as to the chain of command and ranks--and they provided their own arms.

I notice as folks above have commented about all manner of controls upon gunowners, nobody has commented about my own belief in my right to life and survival.

:), 'Rat

[mouchoir]

mouchoir, look back at my comment about the tragedy of our black ghettos. With that specific, localized problem taken out of the overall picture for the moment, note that our homicide rate is about the same as England, Germany, France and Italy. (Roughly)

Question: If you're made to be dead, does it matter if it were via gun, knife or club? Canada's homicide rate is probably no great amount lower than England or Germany, I'm guessing. Ergo, it's not much lower than the non-black-ghetto U.S.

Overall, I'm uninterested in the Constitution or law. I take it for granted that I have a God-given/Gaia-given right to live. No other person has any right to gratuitously threaten my life with violence. Therefore I have a right to defend myself. No government edicts required, thank you. The right would exist in a condition of total anarchy; it would exist although a totalitarian government would deny me that right.

From this concept of "rights" I then ask: "Who is to determine the methodology of my own "insurance" against violence?" That is, who can rightfully say I may not have the means of self-defense? Who can rightfully say that I should die rather than possess a pistol and the skill to use it?

Why should I die at government behest, or the behest of one who hates guns?

What does hunting have to do with self-defense? And, if I have the skill, why should I not have a pistol with which to hunt? (The last deer I killed was at 25 meters. I felt halfway ashamed to have used a rifle. The taste of backstrap overwhelmed the sense of shame, however.)

:), 'Rat


How can you take the 'specific, localized problem' of the 'black ghettos' out of the overall picture, and still have an overall picture. These are still US citizens, in the US under US law. They still must be taken into account when talking about gun issues.

I can understand more when you talk about your right to live, and who is to say how you should defend yourself.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue but at least I can appreciate more now different sides of the argument. In my country I don't have the opportunity to talk on this subject with any gun owners/users so it is nice to have a place like this where all sides can be disscussed.
;) mouchoir

[Chip NoVaMac]

just looked up the famous 'second Amendment':

"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 we are talking about a regulated militia here ? hmmm confusing

That is the issue for some, just what our founding fathers had in mind. Lethal gave a "pro-gun" explanation of it in this thread (sorry, Lethal - didn't know how to word it better) of that passage.

[takao]

As to the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment: It did not have the meaning of today's rules and regulations. In the 1700s, the word meant trained and equipped, operating or functioning properly. A brand of quality clock was called the "Regulator". If you adjust the barrels of a double rifle or a double-barreled shotgun, you have "regulated" them. thus a "well-regulated militia" meant a group which could march and shoot and follow its unit leaders. Militia units were self-selecting as to the chain of command and ranks--and they provided their own arms.

so why is a rule from the 18th century applied to modern warfare ? the chances of a unit equipped with civilian weapons and only rudimentary training against an organized armed force wouldn't be really good...sorry the whole concept of that reminds me of the "Volkssturm" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm) ...which was more like "cannon fooder" (sp?)

[Desertrat]

takao, it's not an old "rule"; it's the original usage of words. The original meaning; definition. Sure, shoe styles arew changing, but we still could say "shoe" to a 17th century European and he would understand the word. The modern problem is a lack of knowledge of history--or, more broadly, a lack of knowledge of much of anything...Basing opinions and conclusions upon emotions instead of facts.

mouchoir, "How can you take the 'specific, localized problem' of the 'black ghettos' out of the overall picture, and still have an overall picture. These are still US citizens, in the US under US law. They still must be taken into account when talking about gun issues." is correct as far as it goes, but the "black ghettos" which account for so much crime are some 3% to 4% of the population; they're limited to parts of the megalopoli, and are thus a small part of a vast land area. Some 290 million people, in 99% of the country, aren't involved. So, I take a non-representative portion out of the main argument.

The U.S. has over 50 ethnic groups in its 5,000-kilometer-wide expanse. My home county in Texas is the size of the state of Delaware, but we have less than 10,000 people. Yeah, we're Americans, but there is little in common with Americans in LA besides language and that we have the same sort of varying political views. :)

'Rat

[mouchoir]

takao, it's not an old "rule"; it's the original usage of words. The original meaning; definition. Sure, shoe styles arew changing, but we still could say "shoe" to a 17th century European and he would understand the word. The modern problem is a lack of knowledge of history--or, more broadly, a lack of knowledge of much of anything...Basing opinions and conclusions upon emotions instead of facts.

mouchoir, "How can you take the 'specific, localized problem' of the 'black ghettos' out of the overall picture, and still have an overall picture. These are still US citizens, in the US under US law. They still must be taken into account when talking about gun issues." is correct as far as it goes, but the "black ghettos" which account for so much crime are some 3% to 4% of the population; they're limited to parts of the megalopoli, and are thus a small part of a vast land area. Some 290 million people, in 99% of the country, aren't involved. So, I take a non-representative portion out of the main argument.

The U.S. has over 50 ethnic groups in its 5,000-kilometer-wide expanse. My home county in Texas is the size of the state of Delaware, but we have less than 10,000 people. Yeah, we're Americans, but there is little in common with Americans in LA besides language and that we have the same sort of varying political views. :)

'Rat


That still makes 11.6 million people who are as american as you...

And you may think you have little in common with people form LA but you are still part of the same country. That gives you quite a big link. I'm not sure what the land mass has to do with this topic.

I have little in common with the people in the flat downstairs, but we still live under the same rules. The ethnic and cultural diversity of London is part of what makes it such a great place to live.

[Desertrat]

mouchoir, it's the "One size fits all." nature of federal laws. What might be a dire necessity in one area is burdensome on other areas. This holds for many political arenas besides guns. That's why so many of us don't like the federalization of what used to be state responsibilities. State controls can be tailored specifically to the problems in that state; those states without the problem don't need such laws.

And I don't particularly see why the tail should wag the dog when it comes to issues concerning crimes wherein firearms are used. I get even more irked when the proposed--and existing--laws ONLY impact those who are ALREADY law-abiding.

Laws enable punishment. Laws do not prevent misbehavior on the part of those who are so disposed.

'Rat

[takao]

takao, it's not an old "rule"; it's the original usage of words. The original meaning; definition. Sure, shoe styles arew changing, but we still could say "shoe" to a 17th century European and he would understand the word. The modern problem is a lack of knowledge of history--or, more broadly, a lack of knowledge of much of anything...Basing opinions and conclusions upon emotions instead of facts.

so now i am confused...so the 'definition' (sorry if my choosen word 'rule'was not correct) still applys just cause...??? i would have no problem with milita and arms from the time when this 'definition' was used... a modern milita has relativly few to do with a historic one (you know such weapon ownage/militia 'laws' existed here too but they got changed) same for arms...
for me it looks like when this amandement was written, the possability of future developments was missed...

but i'm not a law expert.....

as for the history thing...you should write that to some politicians out there (you know the one with the already discussed video spot)

[skunk]

they're limited to parts of the megalopoli
That's "megalopoleis" to you. ;)

[Desertrat]

skunk, djou chure? The plural of megalopolis ends in "eis"?

I live in the heart of the microplex, myownself...

takao, my view is that if one wishes to understand the meaning of something written long ago, one must use the same definitions of the words as when they were written. THEN one can argue about specifics.

Our Constitution is not subject to whims of the present moment or redefinitions of the words therein. This doesn't mean such is not done, but I do believe redefining terms in then "unconstitutional". :)

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, djou chure? The plural of megalopolis ends in "eis"?
'S'right! But you could always try "conurbations"... ;)

[Desertrat]

Hokay, thankee kindly, skunk. Actually, I prefer "giant cesspools", myownself.

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

Actually, I prefer "giant cesspools", myownself.

:), 'Rat
I don't think I want to know that. :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

skunk, during my wandering years I saw many major cities around the world, as well as in the U.S. I developed a strong distaste for crowds. As time has passed, I note that most political problems derive from large numbers of people crowded up into small areas. Being a rather independent-minded curmudgeon who prefers plenty of elbow room and personal space, I tend to think of the megalopoleis as giant cesspools.

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

Being a rather independent-minded curmudgeon who prefers plenty of elbow room and personal space, I tend to think of the megalopoleis as giant cesspools.

:), 'Rat
I understood, just playing on your words. :)

And I like that "megalopoleis"!

[LethalWolfe]

Like the USA PATRIOT Act?

So are you saying your idea is as good as the Patriot Act? ;)

There would be no "greater restrictions" on competent, qualified gun owners. And I would wager that the vast majority of illegal guns in the nation were stolen from their legal buyers before entering the black market. I see plenty of local items in the news where a suburban or rural home will be burgled and a cache of guns taken. Here's (http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunsmug.html) an interesting report that shows most gun deaths in Canada are done with weapons smuggled in from the US.

Nearly 10% of state prison inmates incarcerated on gun crimes say the weapons they used were stolen. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm)


According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

Take a little from article one, and a little from article two and we can get a ball park number of 10% of guns used in crimes are stolen from homes and 70% are purcahsed/obtained illegally. I think we can maybe assume that 90% of the people that purcahse firearms legally from retail stores don't commit crimes w/them. Of course this is assuming that an "illegal source" does not include a legit store that makes an illegal sale.


Your mention of Canada goes to prove one of my points. Focusing on regulating/restricting/hampering of legal ownship does little/nothing to stop illegal acquisition and trafficing. And it is illegaly obtained firearms that the vast majority of criminals use. The soft boarders between the US and Mexico and Canada work both ways. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the illegal firearms in the US get here by way of Mexico. The UK is having a similar problem w/guns being smuggled in and increaseing gun violence even though gun laws are tougher than ever. How does the saying go... "If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns." ;)

Is that enough though? We make drivers jump through hoops to get licenses, we make lifeguards get certified, you'd think the very least we could do for weapons that are designed to kill living things very efficiently would be to have some kind of license. PSAs don't stop kids from doing drugs, are they going to stop gun owners from leaving a loaded weapon in their closet where their kids' friends can steal it?

Driver's license. Certified Life Guard. Gun ownership. One is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Two are not.

What do you have against broader gun education in general? Everytime I mention it you shoot it down. Instead of relying soley on a gun training course that only a gun purchaser must take why not educate everyone about gun safety? I think many of the accident gun deaths, especially among kids, could be prevented if everyone had at least a working knowledge of firearm safety and how firearms work. In regards to PSA's I was thinking about educational ones (fire safety, natural disaster, etc.,), not ones that use scare tactics (anti-drug/smoking). I think many of the problems in the US stem from a lack of education and a reliance on fear to keep people "in-line" ("Don't have premarital sex you'll get AIDS and go to hell", "Don't smoke pot! You'll fry your brain on the first toke," "Don't drink underage 'cause you'll turn into a alcoholic loser that beats his dog").

There are limits to the Second Amedment, I've established that. You cannot buy, make or own certain types of weapons.

I know there are limits. I mentioned them before you did. ;) Restricting what you can own is different than restricting your right to own.

I'm just saying there would be nothing explicitly unconstitutional about a licensing programme, while the benefits of such a programme could be dramatic.

And I'm saying I might agree with you. Instead of argrueing w/me why don't you attempt to sell your idea? I've already said I was interested.

What dramatic bennifits do you think it would make and why? What do you think should be the stipulations/terms of the license should be? Should it have to be renewed every few years or is it a one-time-only deal?


Lethal

[Desertrat]

takao commented, "the chances of a unit equipped with civilian weapons and only rudimentary training against an organized armed force wouldn't be really good..."

Where does the idea of "rudimentary training" come from? I had two years of ROTC before my four years of active duty. I know lots of "ex-" types who think as I do...The concepts of Sun Tzu and W.H.B. Smith are not on anybody's proscribed reading list, either.

With my pet deer rifle I've proven that anything inside 500 yards belongs to me. However, I'd rather make the appropriate loyalty noises and get a job in a military messhall. Jesse Jackson only spat in white folks' soup...

And anybody who stands up to slug it out with any military unit is merely a candidate for a Darwin award. But, how does The Establishment use its military against its own citizenry? Tanks and cannons? "We had to destroy Wall Street in order to save it"? Duh?

Doesn't matter. Just ask yourself how many armed people went to Sobibor or Auschwicz or Bergen Belsen...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

So are you saying your idea is as good as the Patriot Act? ;)

I can only imagine Bush would support it just as wholeheartedly.

I think we can maybe assume that 90% of the people that purcahse firearms legally from retail stores don't commit crimes w/them. Of course this is assuming that an "illegal source" does not include a legit store that makes an illegal sale.

Something doesn't jibe here. If only 10% of the guns used in crime were stolen, then 90% of them were legally obtained.

Your mention of Canada goes to prove one of my points. Focusing on regulating/restricting/hampering of legal ownship does little/nothing to stop illegal acquisition and trafficing. And it is illegaly obtained firearms that the vast majority of criminals use. The soft boarders between the US and Mexico and Canada work both ways. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the illegal firearms in the US get here by way of Mexico. The UK is having a similar problem w/guns being smuggled in and increaseing gun violence even though gun laws are tougher than ever. How does the saying go... "If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns." ;)

I'm certainly not in favor of outlawing guns. Our porous borders do present a problem (perhaps moreso WRT terrorism than gun trafficking) that has been ignored.

Driver's license. Certified Life Guard. Gun ownership. One is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Two are not.

Transportation was a bit different then, no? You agree that their idea of "arms" was significantly different than the one we have today that includes high explosives, rockets, tanks, high rate of fire machine guns and nuclear weapons? For perspective, the Bill of Rights also says,
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

What do you have against broader gun education in general? Everytime I mention it you shoot it down. Instead of relying soley on a gun training course that only a gun purchaser must take why not educate everyone about gun safety? I think many of the accident gun deaths, especially among kids, could be prevented if everyone had at least a working knowledge of firearm safety and how firearms work. In regards to PSA's I was thinking about educational ones (fire safety, natural disaster, etc.,), not ones that use scare tactics (anti-drug/smoking). I think many of the problems in the US stem from a lack of education and a reliance on fear to keep people "in-line" ("Don't have premarital sex you'll get AIDS and go to hell", "Don't smoke pot! You'll fry your brain on the first toke," "Don't drink underage 'cause you'll turn into a alcoholic loser that beats his dog").

You're right. There should be an education programme in the same vein as fire safety for children around the ages of 5-10. What I'd be opposed to is having children "exposed" to firearms (ie handling them) in a safety course. We don't need that level of familiarity with fire safety, and we shouldn't have it with guns. Just the idea of children being taught fire safety by having them play with matches or watching someone burn something should give the idea why.

I know there are limits. I mentioned them before you did. ;) Restricting what you can own is different than restricting your right to own.

Well, not really. Restricting what you can own is restricting your right to own those weapons. As far as "bearing arms" is concerned, I'd be opposed to any regulation of swords, machetes, knives, or other striking/ cutting weapons.

What dramatic bennifits do you think it would make and why? What do you think should be the stipulations/terms of the license should be? Should it have to be renewed every few years or is it a one-time-only deal?

Well, in the study you posted above:

The study says the decline in gun thefts coincides with a simultaneous drop in crime in the USA and an increase in use of gun locks and storage devices...

The report also says that the 18 states that have safe storage laws had 26.3% lower than average firearms thefts.

If people are made aware that the gun they own is their responsibility and they must keep it safe and secured to a level above and beyond what they voluntarily do with their other possessions, I believe we would see a decrease in available guns in the public and criminal realm.

I don't see why it would be any different that a driver's license in terms of duration and renewal practice. Perhaps with the registration fee you would fund the education programme. :)

[Voltron]

Something doesn't jibe here. If only 10% of the guns used in crime were stolen, then 90% of them were legally obtained.

If 10% of the guns used in crime were stolen the other 90% do not necessarily need to have been legally obtained. There are other methods of retrieving weapons, smuggling, blackmarket, home manufacturing, etc.

[Desertrat]

"You're right. There should be an education programme in the same vein as fire safety for children around the ages of 5-10. What I'd be opposed to is having children "exposed" to firearms (ie handling them) in a safety course. We don't need that level of familiarity with fire safety, and we shouldn't have it with guns. Just the idea of children being taught fire safety by having them play with matches or watching someone burn something should give the idea why."

You have less respect for the learning abilities of children than do I. My generation commonly had cap pistols, BB guns, and either .22 rifles or access to them by around age ten for the last. I was shooting a .22 rifle by myself in my grandfather's pasture by age eight. "Now, don't shoot a cow." was about the limit of cautions, once he'd figured out that my BB gun usage had given me knowledge about proper aim.

We had no trouble distinguishing "toys" from "real", either.

Fires? Ages 9, 10, and 11 are the range for Cub Scouts. Under supervision, we at least learned how to boil water over an open fire...

Take the mystique out of guns, and kids generally regard them more properly as tools with a purpose...

'Rat

[LethalWolfe]

Something doesn't jibe here. If only 10% of the guns used in crime were stolen, then 90% of them were legally obtained.

According to the first link 10% of the guns used in crime were stolen from homes. Which means 90% were purchased/obtained either illegally or legally (but not stolen from homes). Now in the 2nd link says that 12% of guns used in crimes were purcahsed in a retail store or pawnshop. I'm assuming all of these were legal sales (meaning the seller did the appropriate checks and the buyer had no crimminal/mental health record). Also from the 2nd link it says that 80% were gotten from an illegal source (basically). So 10% of the guns used in crimes were stolen. 12% of the guns used in crimes were purchased legally, I'm assuming, from a store. And 80% of the guns used in crimes were purcahsed/obtained illegally.

Obviously it's not going to be exact because we are mixing & matching polls, but I think it gets us in the ballpark enough to see that the vast majory of gun crime is commited w/guns purchased illegally and not from guns purchased legally or guns stolen from homes.

Transportation was a bit different then, no? You agree that their idea of "arms" was significantly different than the one we have today that includes high explosives, rockets, tanks, high rate of fire machine guns and nuclear weapons?

I agree, but I'm not advoacting putting ICBM's up for sale to the general public either. ;)

You're right. There should be an education programme in the same vein as fire safety for children around the ages of 5-10. What I'd be opposed to is having children "exposed" to firearms (ie handling them) in a safety course. We don't need that level of familiarity with fire safety, and we shouldn't have it with guns. Just the idea of children being taught fire safety by having them play with matches or watching someone burn something should give the idea why.

I agree. Basic safety is what I'm looking for. Maybe have a police officer come in for a special convocation or something. Treat it the same as fire safety, poison safety, etc.,.


If people are made aware that the gun they own is their responsibility and they must keep it safe and secured to a level above and beyond what they voluntarily do with their other possessions, I believe we would see a decrease in available guns in the public and criminal realm.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. I also think education will help this. And I have no problem w/reasonable storage/lock laws. I say reasonible because part of owning a firearm is being able to use it for home/self defense and that would be kinda hard to do w/every firearm locked up tight.

[OT]The overall tone of the first article I linked to in my previous post is misleading, IMO. Of course a state w/a higher than average crime rate and a higher than average number of gun owners is going to have a higher than average rate of guns stolen. That's just common sense. And, wildly enough, as the over all crime rate has dropped so as the number of stolen guns.

From article:
"The report also says that the 18 states that have safe storage laws had 26.3% lower than average firearms thefts.

Of those states, four — Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Florida — ranked in the top half of states measured by thefts per 1,000 households."

So we have 18 states w/safe storage laws. And of those 18 states 14 rank in the bottom half of states when ranked by theft.

It looks to me like places w/lower crime rates have fewer things stolen and places w/higher crime rates have more things stolen. And as the crime rate goes down so does the number of things stolen. Hmmmm....

What they don't talk about are states w/similar crime rates, similar numbers of gun owners, but differing laws regarding gun storage. I wonder why...?

Now, I am all for locks and/or gun safes but geeze... Articles like this are ridiculous<sp?>.


Lethal

[Desertrat]

LW, what's irksome about many of these sorts of articles is the attribution of causal relationships where none exist. From the opposite direction, we know that in the states with the loosest gun laws and the most guns there is less crime than the converse. Chicken and egg: Maybe the people in "gun-states" tend to be more law-abiding to start with?

The feds say that over 80% of guns used in crimes were illegally acquired. That means, generally, that originally-legal guns were stolen and then used or sold to those who couldn't legally buy or own them.

That gets us back to responsibility. Few crooks are unaware of bedside-table or under-mattress firearms. I always thought the deal in Kenya during the days of the MauMau insurrection was a good one: "Let" your firearm be stolen and there were severe penalties. Way too many gunsafes get bought only after a collection has been stolen. Carelessness in storing firearms is no less an issue than that of leaving one's keys in one's car.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Carelessness in storing firearms is no less an issue than that of leaving one's keys in one's car.

'Rat

Except I can't remember the last time someone robbed a store or shot up a rival gang neighborhood with a stolen car in his hand.

[LethalWolfe]

The feds say that over 80% of guns used in crimes were illegally acquired. That means, generally, that originally-legal guns were stolen and then used or sold to those who couldn't legally buy or own them.

What about professional gun trafficers? Do you think more money and man power should be shifted to finding people that illegaly sell guns for a living? Maybe some stiffer penalties to boot.

That gets us back to responsibility. Few crooks are unaware of bedside-table or under-mattress firearms. I always thought the deal in Kenya during the days of the MauMau insurrection was a good one: "Let" your firearm be stolen and there were severe penalties. Way too many gunsafes get bought only after a collection has been stolen. Carelessness in storing firearms is no less an issue than that of leaving one's keys in one's car.

'Rat

The problem I have here is being held crimminally responsible for being a victim. If there is neglect involved that's one thing. But what if I have a collection in a safe and word gets around to the wrong people. Some dude breaks into my house, forces me to open the safe, and then uses a gun he stole from me to commit a crime. Should I still be held accountable? What if someone robs me of cash, uses the cash to buy a gun off the street and commits a crime w/that gun. Am I responsible because I "provided" the means for the guy to get a gun?


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Except I can't remember the last time someone robbed a store or shot up a rival gang neighborhood with a stolen car in his hand.


Well how do you think they got to the store to the rival gang's turf? On BMX bikes? :p

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :)


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

What about professional gun trafficers? Do you think more money and man power should be shifted to finding people that illegaly sell guns for a living? Maybe some stiffer penalties to boot.

As was pointed out in your article, gun trafficking and theft is only lightly prosecuted (I believe it was under 800 cases a year)

The problem I have here is being held crimminally responsible for being a victim. If there is neglect involved that's one thing. But what if I have a collection in a safe and word gets around to the wrong people. Some dude breaks into my house, forces me to open the safe, and then uses a gun he stole from me to commit a crime. Should I still be held accountable? What if someone robs me of cash, uses the cash to buy a gun off the street and commits a crime w/that gun. Am I responsible because I "provided" the means for the guy to get a gun?

Now let's not be silly. There are reasonable measures a gun owner should take to ensure his weapons are secured. I'm simply of the opinion that these measures should be mandated by law instead of common sense.

[Desertrat]

Pseudobrit, I said "no less an issue", okay?

"Professional gun traffickers". If by this is meant a licensed dealer who caters to those who would misuse firearms, there very few. They face a felony sentence of up to ten years in jail, if not more. In the overall scheme of things, they're small beer. The guns from these sales are included in the remainder of crime guns, that approximately 15% outside the "illegally acquired" category. (This 15% includes guns borrowed* from friends or relatives, or legally acquired guns later misused by the original owner.)

Federal law monitors the frequency of purchase of handguns from dealers via the computer checks at the time of purchase. Patterns which lead to suspicion of "trafficking" are then investigated.

Overall, the combination of negligence and burglary provides most of the guns misused in crimes.

Armed robbery of a home in the U.S. is a relatively rare event, as it commonly can result in the death of the robbers. And, storing guns in a safe relieves one of the penalties of negligence.

'Rat

*The revolver used by Sirhan Sirhan to murder RFK was borrowed from a law-abiding citizen of no criminal history and having a good reputation in the community.

[takao]

Doesn't matter. Just ask yourself how many armed people went to Sobibor or Auschwicz or Bergen Belsen...

'Rat

hm do you know that actually the SA, which played a major role to bring the NSDAP to power ,was in fact nothing than a paramilitary group (with *cough* arms)
in1923/26 (not sure) they already tried to overthrow the government (with guns)

in austria the NSDAP used guns for assinisations of politicians and opposition leaders before they came to power....(and blamed the communists)
during the austrian civil war...paramilitaric groups with...guns fought against the opposition party

italy ... the same

this "guns against government argument" sounds nice but history shows that it isn't that easy....

didn't mussollini say that he "would take 50.000 guns over 50.000 votes everyday" ?.....

[Desertrat]

takao, not meaning to imply that all deer hunters in the U.S. would jump up and fight an abusive government, but there are some fifteen million of us. 40% of all US households are armed. Heck, the NRA has about four million members. I think it proves the peacefulness of armed Americans that the anti-gun crowd feels no fear in calling us "knuckle dragging Neanderthals" who should be thrown in prison for owning firearms*.

It's not just guns. Look at the fall of the Soviet Empire. It has to do with the will of the overall majority of a people, not just some few activists. If people show willingness to die for their beliefs, they create a power beyond the gun.

However, Sun Tzu's words are indeed wise. Mao plagiarized from him for the "Little Red Book"; Che Guevara ineptly also tried to follow the ideas but without success.

'Rat

* Rosie O'Donnell

[takao]

well my point was that some people could jump up and fight _for_ an abusive government as well.....
there is the nice proverb "eine Medaillie hat immer zwei Seiten" (= "a medal always has two sides")

in austria the biggest association is the ÖSV ... the austrian skiing association
in germany it is the DFB..the german soccer association (with ~ 2 million members)
nowhere else is a gun association as strong as in the USA ... ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Pseudobrit, I said "no less an issue", okay?

"Professional gun traffickers". If by this is meant a licensed dealer who caters to those who would misuse firearms, there very few. They face a felony sentence of up to ten years in jail, if not more. In the overall scheme of things, they're small beer. The guns from these sales are included in the remainder of crime guns, that approximately 15% outside the "illegally acquired" category. (This 15% includes guns borrowed* from friends or relatives, or legally acquired guns later misused by the original owner.)

Federal law monitors the frequency of purchase of handguns from dealers via the computer checks at the time of purchase. Patterns which lead to suspicion of "trafficking" are then investigated.

Overall, the combination of negligence and burglary provides most of the guns misused in crimes.

By professional gun trafficker I meant someone who made a living supplying guns to the wrong people. So that could a corrupt dealer, an unlicensed dealer, a "straw buyer" (someone who can legally purcahse, but purchases on behalf of someone who can't legally pruchasee), etc.,. During a two year investigation into gun trafficking (1996-98 and published in '00) corrupt dealers were responible for nearly half of the trafficked firearms.
Gun theft accounted for about 1/4 of trafficked firearms. This includes theft from dealers/stores, homes, and guns stolen while being shipped.

Armed robbery of a home in the U.S. is a relatively rare event, as it commonly can result in the death of the robbers. And, storing guns in a safe relieves one of the penalties of negligence.


What would be definetion of being legally negligent? Like I said, many people use/buy firearms for self/home defense and you can't really defend yourself if the intruder is between you and your firearm which is locked in a safe.

Pseudobrit,
Yes I was being silly. It was 2 am and I was exageriting to show my point. Or to show how far things could go. Slippery slope ya know. ;)

ATF Report (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/following/followthegunindex.htm)

I've only read the first chapter so far.


Lethal

[Desertrat]

I'd call it "negligence" when a firearm is left unsecured while the residents are away from home. To me, unsecured would mean such things as left in an unlocked drawer, under a mattress or standing in a corner behind a door. I'd include leaving a handgun under the seat of a car, or in an unlocked glovebox--and even this latter is rather vulnerable. It's easy enough to remove a secured weapon upon returning home, if one desires. There are numerous options on the market besides an elaborate safe.

In my rural setting, I don't leave any firearm unsecured when I'm away from my house. The value of my "steel closet" gunsafe is about that of a decent quality rifle or top-line handgun. When I return home, I generally take a rifle and set it somewhere handy but out of my way; my concern is mostly feral "pets". There is a pack of wild dogs in my area which have threatened people as well as wildlife and livestock. And feral housecats are truly rough on quail, killing for the fun of it. Bad People, for me, are less of a concern than if I lived in a city, but I'm not gonna offer any an easily-stolen firearm.

'Rat