Another public shooting rampage...

Remove all ads!

I never said there was more or less violence. I said there was a lot, and I actually made no implication one way or the other about whether there was more or less violence in the '20s, but since you brought it up, I did look it up. Through the 20's and 30's, our murder rate hovered around 8-9 per 100,000, peaking at 9.7 murders per 100,000 in 1933. In 1998, after 6 years with a pro-gun control president and an assault weapons ban, the murder rate was 6.9 per 100,000. They track this stuff, you know. With the repeal (or, more accurately, the non-renewal) of the assault weapons ban and a very anti-gun control president, these crime rates, unsurprisingly, are on the rise again.

I used to sell cars, and if someone had a block on vehicle registration or no insurance, the law prohibited me from selling him a car.

Can he do it on a highway or downtown?

I'm not the one who implied that gun violence doesn't have anything to do with guns. You are. That said, these mass shootings we've had wouldn't have happened without guns, so your point about violence being violence is also moot. Columbine, VA Tech, or the shooting that is auspiciously the topic in this thread would not have been anywhere near as bad as they were if the perpetrators brandished knives instead of guns. They certainly wouldn't have been severe enough to make national headlines. The DC sniper would have probably been a bit less effective, too, if he were restricted to crossbows, blowguns, and throwing stars.

I'm a little unclear about what the good uses of firearms that happen everyday are. Would you please enlighten me?

 

look at the dept od justices own records that show firearms are used 2.5-3 million times a year to prevent crimes. that good enough for you

no, the rates are not on a rise show proof otherwise

you do not have to have insurance to buy a car, granted if you have a registration block you will have to clear that up.

you are the one who brought up the artifical category of gun violence not me.

ah, you were a car salesman? that explains a lot.

question: whats the difference between a car salesman and a serial killer?












you can feel bad for the serial killer!

 

Martaug: Read a newspaper. It's common knowledge that violent crimes have been on the rise since the turn of the century. If you think you don't need insurance to buy a car, you apparently have never actually bought one. Not only do you need insurance to buy a car (and you need a license to get insurance), but you also need it to register your car.

Actually, this comes from a University Survey conducted by Gerry Kleck, PHD which only had 4,978 respondents. Here is a link to a rather telling interview with Dr. Kleck. Some highlights; 1.33 percent (56) of the 4,798 respondents reported using a gun to defend themselves against a crime. This figure was then extrapolated against the entire US population. Of these instances, 72% of them occurred at home, where the gun owner needn't have been carrying his weapon. 8% of uses involved some sort of sexual crime, about 29% involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault, about 33% involved burglary or other theft at home, 22% involved robbery, and 16% involved trespassing.

The statistical viability of measuring 5,000 survey respondents against the entire population of the US (most of whom not only do not own guns and have not, themselves, been the victims of any of the sorts of crimes listed above) aside, this number is a mere pittance compared to the number of crimes that are committed with legally owned firearms each year. It's also telling that you are far more likely to accidentally hurt a family member with a firearm at home than you are to actually defend yourself with it.

 

I now see the light. As weapons are just inanimate objects and only humans kill, there's no point to regulate weapons. Machetes, AKs, RPGs, IED's for everybody.

Give everybody that Militia Chic (tm). I guess there is just no reason why Americans should live any different than people in Colombia, Somalia or Baghdad.

 

Not more, but better thought out and enforced. Of course, arguing whether law X or Y would decrease or would have decreased crime is a mostly theoretical exercise - no one in their sane mind would suggest we repeal all laws to try it out and know better.

Anyway, most of my points have been made by Drew and Rags, so I won't reiterate those. Still, If you want to be able to own a weapon, then imo it makes a lot of sense to have you undergo a decent background check (which would mean a 2+ weeks waiting period - even today administrations aren't exactly fast) and periodical examinations/training to make sure you remain fit to use it properly should the need arise. Sure, you may have to wait a little to get a tool that allows you to nearly effortlessly kill a large number of people in a short period, as well as prove that you're mentally stable and know how to, you know, operate the tool you're given. It's not the government taking your guns, it's not losing the right to defend yourself (which in itself does not require having a gun, although it can be enhanced by it), it's an inconvenience.

As for my view on automatic firearms, I think I've mentioned it before - these belong in the army, national guard and heavy-duty law enforcement (SWAT etc). You do not need an AK-74 SU for self-defense, and it is only too good for mass killings. Besides, at some point the cops are supposed to have an advantage.

 

Absolutely. I think, though, that a 2 week waiting period is plenty sufficient, both as a "cool-off" period and to allow for a thorough background check. I don't really see any reason to make it longer. The one thing I'd like to see is that this waiting period apply not only to handguns but also to rifles and shotguns.

 

hmmm, so drew, you are telling me the 2 vehicles i bought ('03 dodge srt-10 & '07 corvette z4z) that i never insured and never tagged are figments of my imagination? thats funny, just walked out to the storage garage and touched them.

well drew, i dont know what papers you read but as this chart from the dept of justice shows: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
total violent crime is less than half what it was in 1994 or any year when clinton was in office.

also my stats about the use of firearms used to stop crime come from the same site not the small study you show.

shaman, so a woman(5'2" 120 lbs) who has just gotten away from an abusive husband/boyfriend(6' 200lbs) & has a restraining order against him, should have to wait 2 weeks to get some protection for herself? i hope your mother/sister/daughter is never in this situation.
qoute by the shaman :
"As for my view on automatic firearms, I think I've mentioned it before - these belong in the army, national guard and heavy-duty law enforcement (SWAT etc)."
you need to go to a auto firearms shoot. the civilians(who represent 95% of all the competitors) outshoot your proffesionals all day long.

 

Me neither; then again, I would rather I didn't see my friends shooting his S.O or being shot by them over a dinner table scandal. Anyway, let's go with your example. First, there's the chance that the restraining order will, you know, work and he won't touch her - being an abusive husband doesn't mean he has the guts and bile to consciously break that order. Second, if she's thinking about protection from today to tomorrow, then she's better off asking the police or staying at a friend - in 1 day, she's not going to learn how to use a gun well anyway. Speaking of which, I'd have thought that she would have applied before she even told the cops about him (which, from what little I know about abusive relationships, takes a while). Certainly, it may be that you're right - but just as short or no waiting can save people, it can also kill them. I'm sure you've heard enough anecdotal evidence of that, right?

Even if that's so, you don't need to be a crack shot to buy an assault rifle if it's legal, nor does it mean the law enforcement agencies shouldn't try to limit these weapons. First, they are perfect for mass shootings, which usually happen at surprise and at close range - you can kill a lot more people a lot faster with an Uzi than with a hunting rifle. Second, this gives the cops a useful advantage - they can expect any armed opposition to be slightly less dangerous (if automatics are at least more expensive). I'm not exactly a lifelong fan of how the police works, but I'd rather its members were not outgunned every time they are on patrol. It's not good for confidence.

My primary reason, however, is that I don't consider it necessary. For me, the main cause for having a firearm is self-defense, and that puts some limits on what weapon you have. A machine gun or an assault rifle is not a sensible defense weapon.

Sorry, Marty, but it doesn't show that at all. It shows a marked decrease every year after 1994 - which iirc was the year that some gun-control measures passed - followed by a stabilization around 2000-2001, a decrease that happened almost exclusively in the Clinton years. Violent crime rate in 2003 was about the same in 2000 (the last year of the Clinton presidency), so I don't see how you can make such a claim. Actually, the decrease in the 1993-2001 period implies that Clinton's law enforcement policies did a pretty good job. Of course, I can't in all honesty attribute it to gun control, either - there was also an underlying trend in more crimes being recorded, which would imply more efficient police work (given comparable levels of total violent crime) and probably a ton of other factors, but still I'd say that data doesn't really support your position.

 

Shaman,

you make a good point. It is all about the assumption that law doesn't work, anyway, that you need a gun. You need a gun, because the criminals, (who aren't called criminals for no reason *hint*) after all break the law - including firearm regulation laws. So they are always armed. Also, criminals are always violent. You need a gun because the police will always be too late to protect you, etc.

All this babble about statistics, inanimate objects, shooting skills are IMO second layer rationalisations that to address leads reliably nowhere.

It's a Hobbesian world the US pro gunners live in. In my view there is a profound paranoid streak in this. For them the question of gun ownership is a zero sum game: Either you are armed, or the dragon will come and eat you. For those leaning toward the direction of militia movement that dragon can also be the state or federal government. Be prepared! Better safe than sorry! Sorry? Dead!

 

No. But I am telling you that you didn't buy them from a dealer (unless you, yourself are also a dealer or the vehicles were non-functional when you purchased them).

Regarding the rest of the stuff you had to say, I think Ragusa and The Shaman covered those bases just fine. No need for me to repeat them.

 

no i'm not a dealer. i bought them with certified checks from my bank account and had them trailer to my house where i put them in storage, as they are investments. i plan to sell them in 25-30 years when they are classics/antiques.
the only reason you would need insurance would be if you wanted to drive the car off the dealer lot under your tag or a temp tag.

ragusa & shaman, you really need to get out into the real world more. go to any battered spouse support group to see how effective restraining orders are. as for planning out their protection, most battered spouses live day to day in fear until the day they finally realize they have to run to save themselves(and possible their children).
i dont know how it is in germany or bulgaria but here in the states ask any cop it is NOT his duty to protect you from harm. sorry to burst your little liberal bubble you live in.

qoute by shaman:
"Me neither; then again, I would rather I didn't see my friends shooting his S.O or being shot by them over a dinner table scandal. "
GROW UP. anybody who equates battering to a "dinner table scandal" is obviously so immature as to negate any argument they could possibly make

 

I’m going to swallow my pride here and admit that I’m wrong.

As I see it, in countries such as the US (and similar nations like Arab countries where they actually fire celebratory bullets into the air) that have virtually no restrictions on who can own a gun, and never have had restrictions, there is no point in trying to impose gun control laws. The political backlash would be enormous, and anyway, it would be as futile as the proverbial Dutch boy trying to stop the dam from bursting by sticking his finger in the dike. Yes, more people per capita will die than in countries that have generally restricted firearms, but so be it. Such is the price of “freedom”, and sometimes you need to fight fanaticism with fanaticism.

So basically, gun control works only on a country-by-country basis. Just be careful if you live in a "no gun" country and want to visit an armed one.

 

15000 dead firearm victims a year vs (lets see, 2.5 million crimes stopped... say 10% would have been killed) 250000 lives saved, yeah i will take that.

tal your arguments just dont hold water to me however it has been apparent for a long time that we are on opposite sides of this issue and will NEVER be able to agree.

one thing i find funny(in a weird way) is the "200 million guns" that liberals through around. they have been using that figure since the '80s, i'm pretty sure it is probably over 400 million by now. i shoot idpa & ipsc events. now between them, there are a minimum of 40,000 members. i'm on the small side with a collection of slightly more than 4 dozen firearms, most members have more. so from just this small group you have (40,000x50) 2.5 million firearms. i personally know at least 7 individuals whose collections number over 200 weapons each & 1 gentleman who has almost 500( including almost a dozen h&h shotguns worth more than $75,000 each)

 

Tal was using a hypothetical construct, and his numbers weren't real. You are taking him rather ridiculously out of context.

Nobody knows precisely how many guns there are in the U.S. The only way to know with any accuracy would be for the government to perform a surprise raid on every household, all buildings, and every likely hiding place simultaneously. This article explains quite clearly why that is. That said, the best estimate still places that number at between 190 and 300 million; in other words, the estimate that we have over 200 million guns (back in the '80s, the estimate was actually almost 200 million) is actually quite accurate. When assuming that the number of guns would have doubled over the last 20 years or so, you are forgetting several things. First of all, a great many of our total guns are actually heirlooms. Second, most gun owners own several guns, so the guns in our country are concentrated in less hands than you think, meaning that the number of people who are actually buying guns is also much lower than you think. Now, if you live in one of the "gun happy" regions of the country, it probably looks to you like most households and most people have guns because, in your neck of the woods, they do. Not only are our guns concentrated in few hands, but those hands tend to live disproportionately in certain regions of the country.

If they are collectors, chances are that most of their guns would have been antiques or one of a kind weapons. While some would have been new, I doubt most of them were. If I purchase a gun from another gun owner, the total number of guns in the country doesn't actually go up. Even if a used weapon is purchased from a dealer, that number still won't go up, since the dealer would have gotten it from a private gun owner, too.

 

Ding ding. I quite literally don't know anyone who owns a gun. Not as far as I know, at any rate. When I was in elementary/junior/high school, I knew a whopping one family that owned guns.

 

There's far too many wacko's around to allow guns to be easily accessible. It's as simple as that.

If more people die due to cars, then so be it, accidents happen and you can't legislate for it. But when any old Tom, Dick or Harry can easily obtain (buy, or steal) a firearm (a device designed purely to end lives) then you're going to get innocents dying. As far as I'm concerned, there's no 'so be it' argument to gun-death stats as human life is too important to 'so be it' when murders happen.

I don't think that because there's 200+ million guns in circulation in America, that makes it impossible to police. It just makes it extremely difficult, and a long term job. First, stop selling them in shops. Second, introduce a new license on them (something like, only obtainable via a specific governing body, and only then if needed for job purposes or if properly trained and licenced in their use). Third, hold a gun amnesty in all America's states. Then, start policing it. Anyone found with a firearm without the appropriate licence above will have a heavy fine and jail term. maybe even random bloody spot checks by police later down the line. Whatever, so long as it makes life more difficult for gun owners. It would take time for the US to bring themselves into line with other modern civilized countries regarding this, but it's not impossible.

 

Barmy

Of course you are totally wrong. There are so many whackos around that you need a gun.