Gun control inaction.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

I could sort of humor your rhetoric until you get to the point where you say men 'gave' women the right to vote. It sure sounds like you're kind of man-glossing over 70+ years of suffrage history in the U.S. alone, where women organized politically and fought politically--yes, all without the right to vote. But men didn't 'give' women anything, nor would they have if the women hadn't organized and applied political pressure. I wonder how many husbands were denied their 'husbandly prerogative' before they understood that women were serious about being treated equally. (Pudenda > Pistol. )

Beyond that, though, you seem to be conflating wildly disparate concepts-- what can be achieved via political power and organization, versus what can be taken by violent means, versus a person's right/ability to defend him/herself-- into some sort of male supremacist screed.




And then you end up challenging me to fight your wife in order to prove your point?

You sure sound like a keeper, man.

Not worth the argument to do down that rabbit trail. I will just agree to disagree with you.

[92bDad]

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

When people start having the same effects (as the AZ guy) with their bare hands, I will consider your argument (about "chosen method").

[Murphy3]

I'm definitely not a liberal, but I am all for stricter gun control. I am not saying at all that I do not believe that citizens should have some rights when it comes to owning firearms.... but I would like to see stricter control. How that occurs, I don't know...

[dalger]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

Who would disagree with that? Not many people, I would guess, and even those would want criminals to be accountable for their actions. However, the conclusion that you might draw from this is not necessarily helping your safety. After all, guns are a different animal than pencils or spoons.

A study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1998, notes that "during the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI (high-income) and UMI (upper-middle-income) countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5."

Obviously, there are various aspects to consider when it comes to gun-related crimes, and it hardly happens in emotionally laden political and social debates. That said, I just find it hard to believe that unrestrictive gun laws make America a safer place. The notion of increased security thanks to the right to bear a gun may actually prove fallacious.

[Kirobaito]

When a guy whose community college wouldn't let him back in because of his mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic 9mm Glock without any barrier and even an extended magazine (that has no viable purpose), then yes, there is a serious problem. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way to get guns." Shouldn't we at least make them rather than basically handing them out?

[CadBane]

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

[AngieO41]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

Is Switzerland bordered by Mexico? Is it filled with gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and MS-13? Is it filled with psycho people like, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Nadal Malik Hasan, Clay Duke, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jared Loughner? Probably not.

The US certainly cannot be a country where it allows more guns and less restrictions. Being from Ohio, most of the people I know own guns. I also know they aren't going to be used to kill people. People in Ohio like to hunt, target practice and even collect them as I'm sure they do in Texas. You really don't hear of these people going on mass killing sprees. The US needs to stop allowing those who are crazy have access to guns. There is no reason Loughner should have been able to go to Walmart and purchase ammunition. It shouldn't be so easy for people to purchase stuff like that. I believe that if you want to own a gun or guns, then you need to show that you know how to handle them, shoot them and are mentally capable to have them. They aren't toys. Wouldn't it make sense to have classes people go to learn about how to handle and use guns and then have them prove they know and understand this information before they are allowed to own one?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but if this country was more stable then I could understand allowing more people to own guns.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by CadBane

Switzerland has the highest ratio of guns per person and they also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

Switzerland is tiny. That ratio is probably thrown off by some gun collector who has a thousand guns to his name.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Switzerland is tiny. That ratio is probably thrown off by some gun collector who has a thousand guns to his name.

You are wrong. They all get their guns from the military and take them home. They also need to go practice by law.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by AngieO41

Is Switzerland bordered by Mexico? Is it filled with gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and MS-13? Is it filled with psycho people like, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Nadal Malik Hasan, Clay Duke, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jared Loughner? Probably not.

The US certainly cannot be a country where it allows more guns and less restrictions. Being from Ohio, most of the people I know own guns. I also know they aren't going to be used to kill people. People in Ohio like to hunt, target practice and even collect them as I'm sure they do in Texas. You really don't hear of these people going on mass killing sprees. The US needs to stop allowing those who are crazy have access to guns. There is no reason Loughner should have been able to go to Walmart and purchase ammunition. It shouldn't be so easy for people to purchase stuff like that. I believe that if you want to own a gun or guns, then you need to show that you know how to handle them, shoot them and are mentally capable to have them. They aren't toys. Wouldn't it make sense to have classes people go to learn about how to handle and use guns and then have them prove they know and understand this information before they are allowed to own one?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but if this country was more stable then I could understand allowing more people to own guns.

Well, deal with the instability. During alcohol prohibition you would've asked, is Switzerland bordered by Canada?
_____
And for the people who blame this massacre on an angered political climate: ever wondered why people loose any respect for life, when their government enslaves half a million people in prison for non-violent crimes, while it's killing thousands of people in the drug war and hundred of thousands of innocents in its endless wars around the world. Don't bullshit me with "angry rhetoric".

[AngieO41]

Originally Posted by Arne

Well, deal with the instability. During alcohol prohibition you would've asked, is Switzerland bordered by Canada?
_____
And for the people who blame this massacre on an angered political climate: ever wondered why people loose any respect for life, when their government enslaves half a million people in prison for non-violent crimes, while it's killing thousands of people in the drug war and hundred of thousands of innocents in its endless wars around the world. Don't bullshit me with "angry rhetoric".

I want to respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure how. All I said was crazy people shouldn't be able to go through a drive-thru and say, "I'd like the .38 special please!"

Also, I shouldn't have to deal with the instability, why don't people want to stand up for anything anymore? No wonder this country is going down the crapper.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by Arne

You are wrong. They all get their guns from the military and take them home. They also need to go practice by law.

Shows my ignorance. But doesn't take away from the point that people should pass some sort of mental stability test. While I'm pretty sure service is mandatory in Switzerland, I'm pretty sure someone mentally unfit would not be obligated to serve, and thus, not given a firearm.

You also need to take under consideration what was the purpose of the second amendment. To bear arms in order to keep government in check... that's not what guns are being used for right now.

While there is much to be angry about in the nation no doubt, not the least the prison system which has been privatized and shown to be rather corrupt in quite a few stances, among other things, the "angry rhetoric" can go quite a long way in convincing someone crazy to go ballistic, quite literally, can push some crazy gun owner over the edge. While it *MIGHT* not be the case here (this guy really was completely cookoo, check his youtube page) it might do it for someone else.

I simply cannot see anything bad about more thorough screening of firearm sales. That in itself would lower the number of firearms somewhat, and lower the number of firearms in the hands of nutcases significantly.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

You also need to take under consideration what was the purpose of the second amendment. To bear arms in order to keep government in check... that's not what guns are being used for right now.

This statement isn't quite fair.....it may very well be that very broadly dispersed gun ownership amongst the citizenry carries with it a threat which keeps the government in check. In such an event, the right to bear arms is serving the exact purpose it is supposed to serve.

[dalmations202]

Just a question?

Is it easier to go to Academy (any gun store) and buy a gun -- wait three days for a background check -- have to come back to the store etc -- (or find a FFL to do the background check)
or is it easier to buy a gun for cash from the back of a vehicle where the gun most likely was stolen in the first place so comes at a cheaper price?

If you know criminals, and are a criminal -- wouldn't it just be easier (and cheaper) to get it on the street. If that is the case -- then isn't making more laws just effecting the "law abiding citizen" in the first place?

We have plenty of laws - we just need to enforce the ones we have, and accept the fact that sometimes bad things happen. Some people do bad things. There are BAD people in the world.

It comes down to the fact that I sleep better knowing that I can defend myself -- than expecting someone else to do it for me (ie government - local or federal).

More restrictions on guns only makes people more dependent. I don't care to depend on others because it allows them to become the master, and me end up being the slave to their decisions.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

This statement isn't quite fair.....it may very well be that very broadly dispersed gun ownership amongst the citizenry carries with it a threat which keeps the government in check. In such an event, the right to bear arms is serving the exact purpose it is supposed to serve.

I understand. But while that is fair for you to say, the fact remains that is a side-effect. You could also say that as a side effect of keeping the government in check is we have some unfit people owing guns. But ultimately I retract the 2nd amendment argument for the time being.

In regards to the people getting guns illegally vs. getting them legally: just because someone can get heroin illegally doesn't mean you should just legalize heroin "shops" everywhere. The case I can bring up here is the latest one in Arizona. This guy went through the legal channels, which somehow allowed him to get a gun and wreak havoc.

Just because people can get things illegally doesn't mean you just roll over and give up. You try to stop illegal gun trafficking and make sure that people that get guns through legal channels are fit.

As an aside: I believe guns in general do more harm than good, because people aren't mentally prepared to use them, or don't know how to use them; and in some cases, aren't mentally fit to use them.

If you have got the training, are mentally stable, and see a need in having one, then I think you should have a gun. But I bet many, if not most, people who own guns don't meet the criteria.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If you know criminals, and are a criminal -- wouldn't it just be easier (and cheaper) to get it on the street. If that is the case -- then isn't making more laws just effecting the "law abiding citizen" in the first place?

I do think more restrictive laws will effect everyone except for those most intent upon using guns for nefarious purposes.

I think our anti-pot laws in this regard are quite instructive -- law-abiding citizen that I am, I'm not one to partake (I prefer scotch, arguably a more harmful drug, but I digress)....but how much do anti-pot laws restrict the activities of your average 415er? Not much, I'd say.

Which is to say, it ain't so much the restrictions (or lack thereof) of guns that matter, it's: 1) the number of guns in circulation; and s) in who's hands they rest that matters. Tighter restrictions on gun ownership probably won't reduce the number of guns in circulation but they may (unintentionally) give the evil-doers are an advantage in acquiring guns.

Now....maybe more restrictive laws can somehow prevent the Loughners of the world from happening, but the Loughners of the world are like 1-in-350,000,000 type events. I don't know that it's wise to re-write lawbooks on the basis of the most extremely unlikely and remote events without first giving some really serious consideration to the unintended consequences.

[bernardos70]

But then I disagree with the pot being a good analogy. I'd say harder drugs are a better analogy. Looser restrictions will probably cause more guns to come into circulation. While it is true that tighter restrictions on gun ownership won't reduce the number of guns in circulation, they will slow down the rate at which they enter circulation.

I'd say you also have to take under consideration how many guns enter circulation legally, but then are stolen, lost, etc. I don't know how much of it so I'm not gonna sit here and say I do, but I think it's something to consider.

[Arne]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/drug-...t-enough-crime

[AngieO41]

.

[92bDad]

Only one questions needs to be asked in order to qualify a person for a concealed handgun.

If they answer YES, then they are denied the license :-)

Do you post, read or otherwise participate on a blog, internet message board or some other mass media forum?

No doubt those of us that do this are not stable enough to handle the responsibility that comes with Gun Ownership. ;-)

[dalger]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

When a guy whose community college wouldn't let him back in because of his mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic 9mm Glock without any barrier and even an extended magazine (that has no viable purpose), then yes, there is a serious problem. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way to get guns." Shouldn't we at least make them rather than basically handing them out?

That's probably the reason why many people outside of the United States are so baffled. As much as I could understand a person's interest in being able to protect themselves and their families--that right comes at a high price when it allows nutjobs like Loughner to easily buy a gun as well, without any background checks.

According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, "political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that 'approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.'"

Apparently, licensed guns in the hands of responsible citizens aren't much of a problem. However, unrestrictive gun laws make it easy for irresponsible and/or criminal citizens to possess guns as well and cause a considerable firearm-related death rate in the United States that is much higher than in any other comparable country.

In other words, the good feeling of potentially being able to shoot a burglar or even murderer in your house on your own instead of relying on the police to arrive and do it for you doesn't seem to outweigh the negative consequences of unrestrictive gun laws. Additionally, even with stricter gun laws, responsible citizens could still own a gun while criminal and/or unreliable persons would not be allowed to have one. Thus, as soon as they got one, they could be charged with illegal gun possession.

[92bDad]

For every ONE nutjob who creates hell for Gun Owners, we could all list off 1000's of examples of Responsible Gun Owners.

This is the left using fear tactics to manipulate perceptions.

It's the WMD's of the Left...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

For every ONE nutjob who creates hell for Gun Owners, we could all list off 1000's of examples of Responsible Gun Owners.

This is the left using fear tactics to manipulate perceptions.

It's the WMD's of the Left...

Don't nutjobs have more reason to own a gun than responsible people?

(I mean, I guess it WOULD be crazier to go on a killing spree with a spoon, but it's probably easier with a gun...)

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

For every ONE nutjob who creates hell for Gun Owners, we could all list off 1000's of examples of Responsible Gun Owners.

This is the left using fear tactics to manipulate perceptions.

It's the WMD's of the Left...

And we can trust those guns owned by those 1000-to-1 responsible owners to remain in their possession all the time, not go off by accident, etc. There's nothing wrong with more restrictive gun laws. But it isn't as easy as some think to judge who is fit to own one or not. Or train them. I think gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license, and with it should carry equivalent training, etc.

We're talking about a tool which has the purpose of killing/injurying people. It should be taken seriously.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

I think gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license, and with it should carry equivalent training, etc.

We're talking about a tool which has the purpose of killing/injurying people. It should be taken seriously.

Did Jared Loughner have a driver's license by any chance? What about the two columbine dudes, or maybe that guy at Va Tech?

A wise old friend of mine always says....just because you've got a problem doesn't mean you're guaranteed of a solution.

-----------------

addendum....in a way this is a classic quality control problem....it's easy to get 90% right, and 95% right isn't too hard either....it's that last little bit, the 99.99% kind of area where it gets really tough. When talking about loons on psycho killing sprees, you're talking 1 in a gazillion type of occurences. About the only way realistically you can prevent this sort of thing is to round up everygun on earth and melt it, and I'm on board with that as long as the state and local police are first to throw their guns in the fire.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

<snip>

We're talking about a tool which has the purpose of killing/injurying people. It should be taken seriously.

2007 Data:

Deaths and Mortality
(Data are for the U.S.)

Number of deaths: 2,423,712
Death rate: 803.6 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77.9 years
Infant Mortality rate: 6.75 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 616,067
Cancer: 562,875
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Diabetes: 71,382
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
Septicemia: 34,828

—In 2007, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries
resulted in 42,031 deaths, accounting for 23.0 percent of all injury
deaths

—In 2007, 31,224 persons died from firearm injuries in the
United States, accounting for 17.1 percent of all injury
deaths that year. Firearm suicide at 55.6 percent and homicide at
40.5 percent were the two major component causes of all firearm injury
deaths in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------

Right at 1/2 of 1% of the deaths in the US in 2007 was caused by Firearm homicide. I don't think you can add in the firearm suicide because suicide is suicide and they would do it with something else regardless of the laws. Also, not sure how many less of the 12,646 death in homicides there would be, even if there were no such things as guns.

----------------------------------------------------------

Cars on the other hand cause ~ 4 times more deaths in the US - and yet elderly, drunk, drugged, mentally ill, minors, etc all drive -- even though there are some laws against it.

WHERE IS ALL THE OUTRAGE? I mean when 4 times more people every year are killed on the roads, WHY AREN'T WE MAKING MORE LAWS AGAINST driving? WHY aren't we eliminating the ability to drive? Why isn't driving the major factor we are up in arms about? Shouldn't we do backgroud checks before a car is sold? How about one each time you fuel up, and no more than 100 gallons at a time being sold? Shouldn't we have the government invent a system for car traffic control like they have for air traffic where they can automate the movement in and around major metropolitan areas?

ANSWER Hipocrisy..................

-----------------------------------------------------------

If you want a little history -- in the 11 years we were in Vietnam
Hostile deaths: 47,359
Non-hostile deaths: 10,797
Total: 58,156 (including men formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties).

On American Highways
1964 45,645
1965 47,089
1966 50,894
1967 50,724
1968 52,725
1969 53,543
1970 52,627
1971 52,542
1972 54,589
1973 54,052

-------------------------------------------------

So why is this an issue?
If you want to be safe -- stop getting out on US highways.
If you want to be safe -- start worrying about your health and eating habits. (maybe we should be going after McDonalds, and fast food?)

Guns are so far down on the list it isn't funny -- they are just sensationalized by the media to produce fear so they can gain more power through fear and make more money on a story.


** Oh, and guns are not just a tool to kill people... they are a tool. People use them though for many things (hunting, plinking, putting holes in things, etc) which includes killing of people for both the WRONG and the right reasons. Sorry, but it is a good tool to have if some drugged out cartel stooge is trying to rape my daughter. It is a good tool to have if I am trying to stop someone who's intention is to kill someone else. It is a tool - period.

I don't need one more law or my name on one more government list allowing the government to know who has and doesn't have guns.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalger

According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, "political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that 'approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.'".

This point completely and utterly fails to make the case that more restrictive licensing would serve any meaningful purpose.

Selection Bias, anyone?

All one can reasonably infer from the above fact is that people intent upon committing a crime with an automatic weapon are reluctant to rush to the BATF and register their names for future reference.

[AngieO41]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

And we can trust those guns owned by those 1000-to-1 responsible owners to remain in their possession all the time, not go off by accident, etc. There's nothing wrong with more restrictive gun laws. But it isn't as easy as some think to judge who is fit to own one or not. Or train them. I think gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license, and with it should carry equivalent training, etc.

We're talking about a tool which has the purpose of killing/injurying people. It should be taken seriously.

B, we should just give up. The people who don't want restrictive gun laws are the same people who seem to think it's ok to go through the ringer before getting on a plane cause ya know, terrorists might do something! GASP! Make sense to you? Yeah me neither.

Tell me, how many times have we been affected by psycho's on a plane? How many times have we been affected with psycho's from a gun? Thank you.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by AngieO41

The people who don't want restrictive gun laws are the same people who seem to think it's ok to go through the ringer before getting on a plane cause ya know, terrorists might do something! GASP! Make sense to you?

Are they really?

(for the record, I don't completely disagree with Bernados point that one should have to go through something like getting a driver's license to get a gun, I'd just prefer the federal government not be involved and I doubt the efficacy of such requirements)

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Did Jared Loughner have a driver's license by any chance? What about the two columbine dudes, or maybe that guy at Va Tech?

A wise old friend of mine always says....just because you've got a problem doesn't mean you're guaranteed of a solution.

-----------------

addendum....in a way this is a classic quality control problem....it's easy to get 90% right, and 95% right isn't too hard either....it's that last little bit, the 99.99% kind of area where it gets really tough. When talking about loons on psycho killing sprees, you're talking 1 in a gazillion type of occurences. About the only way realistically you can prevent this sort of thing is to round up everygun on earth and melt it, and I'm on board with that as long as the state and local police are first to throw their guns in the fire.

I see your point. In a way, it may be as dumb an argument as "war on terror." How do you get rid of terrorism? You don't, but you try to contain it as best as you can.

[dalger]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

For every ONE nutjob who creates hell for Gun Owners, we could all list off 1000's of examples of Responsible Gun Owners.

This is the left using fear tactics to manipulate perceptions.

It's the WMD's of the Left...

Let's better not turn this into a left vs. right debate for no good reason. I know it's increasingly popular in political and social debates to immediately categorize someone's opinion, deem it "left" or "right" and ignore its potential reasonableness in the process. Finding the "objectively correct side of the argument", as alexamenos is confident in doing, is next to impossible while wearing the blinders of a particular political movement or ideology, whether left-wing or right-wing. It's quite frustrating to see so many people unable to approach a matter without bias of any kind--almost as if they were politicians themselves (like those they then go on to criticize...)

It's already been established that responsible gun owners aren't the problem. Only because some mentally challenged kid from Arizona goes nuts doesn't mean that responsible citizens have to be or should be affected by it.

You may call it "perception" that's based on "fear tactics to manipulate" people. Yet the numbers suggest that the firearm-related death rate in the United States is significantly higher than in any other comparable country. That's more like a fact, not manipulated perception.

Is it impossible or just undesirable to allow responsible citizens to have guns while making it more difficult for nutjobs and/or criminals to obtain them as well? And is the unconditional right (not the right itself) to possess a gun important enough to allow criminals to easily exploit that very right?

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Right at 1/2 of 1% of the deaths in the US in 2007 was caused by Firearm homicide. I don't think you can add in the firearm suicide because suicide is suicide and they would do it with something else regardless of the laws. Also, not sure how many less of the 12,646 death in homicides there would be, even if there were no such things as guns.

Cars on the other hand cause ~ 4 times more deaths in the US - and yet elderly, drunk, drugged, mentally ill, minors, etc all drive -- even though there are some laws against it.

WHERE IS ALL THE OUTRAGE? I mean when 4 times more people every year are killed on the roads, WHY AREN'T WE MAKING MORE LAWS AGAINST driving? WHY aren't we eliminating the ability to drive? Why isn't driving the major factor we are up in arms about? Shouldn't we do backgroud checks before a car is sold? How about one each time you fuel up, and no more than 100 gallons at a time being sold? Shouldn't we have the government invent a system for car traffic control like they have for air traffic where they can automate the movement in and around major metropolitan areas?

ANSWER Hipocrisy..................

I've never really understood that line of thinking. Just because a problem is less frequent, does it mean it's not worthy of acknowledging it or even finding a solution to it? Couldn't we then also get rid of traffic controls targeting drivers who are under the influence, given that relatively few people die because of car accidents as compared to, say, cancer or even diabetes? What about legalizing drugs? Given that far less people die of a drug overdose or at the hands of a drug addict than a heart attack, maybe drugs aren't much of a problem either in the big picture. And does it really make sense to spend billions of dollars to prevent terrorist attacks, given that the number of people falling victim to such attacks in the Western civilization each year is pretty close to zero?

Bernados mentioned that "gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license". I agree, and that may be all that's needed to have a shot at reducing the problem. There's no way to completely eliminate it. Instead, it would be all about finding ways to make the problem less likely to occur, as Bernados mentioned as well.

Cars serve an important purpose, so we cannot get rid of them to avoid fatal accidents. We can only try to reduce risks; that's why there are speed limits, traffic lights, signs and controls. And of course a driver's license. Assuming that guns serve a purpose as well, why is it difficult to come to terms on a couple of measures to reduce risks stemming from unconditional gun distribution?

Handing a gun to a criminal is like handing car keys to an alcoholic--one way or the other, it's not going to end well...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dalger

<snip>

I've never really understood that line of thinking. Just because a problem is less frequent, does it mean it's not worthy of acknowledging it or even finding a solution to it? Couldn't we then also get rid of traffic controls targeting drivers who are under the influence, given that relatively few people die because of car accidents as compared to, say, cancer or even diabetes? What about legalizing drugs? Given that far less people die of a drug overdose or at the hands of a drug addict than a heart attack, maybe drugs aren't much of a problem either in the big picture. And does it really make sense to spend billions of dollars to prevent terrorist attacks, given that the number of people falling victim to such attacks in the Western civilization each year is pretty close to zero?

Bernados mentioned that "gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license". I agree, and that may be all that's needed to have a shot at reducing the problem. There's no way to completely eliminate it. Instead, it would be all about finding ways to make the problem less likely to occur, as Bernados mentioned as well.

Cars serve an important purpose, so we cannot get rid of them to avoid fatal accidents. We can only try to reduce risks; that's why there are speed limits, traffic lights, signs and controls. And of course a driver's license. Assuming that guns serve a purpose as well, why is it difficult to come to terms on a couple of measures to reduce risks stemming from unconditional gun distribution?

Handing a gun to a criminal is like handing car keys to an alcoholic--one way or the other, it's not going to end well...

But most do get a license when they hunt or want to carry concealed, etc. Also, guns do serve an important purpose - even if that purpose is to make sure that something else doesn't happen. Hunter safety cert required for hunting license, etc.

Presently there isn't unconditional gun distribution. At least not for what most people do. There is background checks anytime a new gun is bought. There is all kinds of checks if you want to carry concealed.

The problem is -- you can't stop illegal transfer and theft. Criminals will have the guns regardless. Most can't accept that as fact -- although in my opinion it is fact. Just like you can make possession of drugs illegal, but I think I can get my hands on them in a few hours if I wanted to.

Why do you want to keep causing problems for the law abiding people? Since they are the only ones you can effect anyway.

Guess what, if you make guns illegal -- there will be a demand for them outside the legal ways, and you will create an even larger black market.

[dalger]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

But most do get a license when they hunt or want to carry concealed, etc. Also, guns do serve an important purpose - even if that purpose is to make sure that something else doesn't happen. Hunter safety cert required for hunting license, etc.

Presently there isn't unconditional gun distribution. At least not for what most people do. There is background checks anytime a new gun is bought. There is all kinds of checks if you want to carry concealed.

The problem is -- you can't stop illegal transfer and theft. Criminals will have the guns regardless. Most can't accept that as fact -- although in my opinion it is fact. Just like you can make possession of drugs illegal, but I think I can get my hands on them in a few hours if I wanted to.

Why do you want to keep causing problems for the law abiding people? Since they are the only ones you can effect anyway.

Guess what, if you make guns illegal -- there will be a demand for them outside the legal ways, and you will create an even larger black market.

Apparently, (some of) the aforementioned background checks are either ineffective or not in place at all in some states. This article regarding gun shows mentions that "17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner. [...] The Department of Justice reports, 'after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with guns used in crime recovered in the New Orleans area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns.'" This is just one example of existing loopholes that enable irresponsible citizens to obtain guns pretty easily.

The notion that "criminals will have the guns regardless" is partially true, but only to a certain extent. If gun laws don't affect the illegal and criminal use of firearms in any way and only increase the amount of illegal guns in circulation without changing the overall amount, how come countries with more restrictive gun laws have a lower firearm-related death rate? According to FBI statistics, 71.8% of all homicides in the US in 2009 involved firearms; of 13,636 murder victims, 9,146 were killed with a firearm. By comparison, there were 703 (attempted) murders in Germany in 2009; in only 86 cases a firearm was used (12.2%). Canada is at around 30%. It's hard to believe that this is just a coincidence.

The idea behind deeming certain behavior illegal is not to eliminate the behavior for good, which would be quite unrealistic. Instead, it's about making said behavior less likely to occur. Would I, if I wanted to, be able to get me some weed in a bigger German city? Sure, eventually. Would it be easier in Amsterdam with its numerous "coffee shops" that will probably never serve any coffee? Absolutely. Speaking from experience, getting pot in Amsterdam is like getting a latte at Starbucks. It couldn't be any easier.

You mentioned the black market as well. The funny thing that there technically already is a black market in the United States because of unregistered/unlicensed guns that can legally be obtained without background checks. The first step in tackling the black market would be to actually make a common distinction between legal and illegal possession. Those criminals/nutjobs with a gun could be charged with illegal gun possession and their gun would be taken away from them in the process.

The law-abiding people you mentioned would be the ones to benefit the most as they wouldn't have any trouble getting a weapons license. At the same time, the risk of being endangered by weirdos with guns could be reduced due to them not being allowed to possess a gun. If getting a driver's license was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, why would getting a weapons license be a blatant attack on the law-abiding citizen?

More than anything, one would think, any kind of regulation would be intended to protect American citizens to not have 10,000 of them killed each and every year because of firearms in the hands of the wrong people. Maybe some of them could actually be saved without sacrificing the sacred cow that is (legal) gun possession.

[chumdawg]

The rub I have with certain Second Amendment zealots is that in their arguments they seem to exhibit a robust bravado but at the same time shy away from any semblance of a fight. When asked to imagine a world where you can't just up and get a handgun, they bristle. They say that the bad guys will get one anyway, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same?

My answer is: you *are* allowed to do the same. If it's that easy for the criminal to get the weapon, it's also that easy for you. And if you feel so strongly--oh, so strongly--about protecting your domicile from any and all outside threats, teeming as they are in this day and age, then you will find a way to arm yourself as well. Why is it that you place so much credence in whether your government says it is "okay"? It's about your about-to-be-raped-daughter, right? My God, man. In that case, I would certainly hope that you don't ask your law officials for permission first. You'd be a hell of a pussy if you did.

If you are the kind of guy who can end a life in order to preserve ones close to you--and, much more to the point, you think you will quite possibly *have to* at least threaten to do that--then you are a Wild West sort of guy and gun laws be damned.

I mean, I just don't get it. If I were as adamant about owning a weapon as even the least Second Amendment zealot, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about whether the government approved. Why do Second Amendment zealots need such approval all the time? Stock your armory and be done with it.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The rub I have with certain Second Amendment zealots is that in their arguments they seem to exhibit a robust bravado but at the same time shy away from any semblance of a fight. When asked to imagine a world where you can't just up and get a handgun, they bristle. They say that the bad guys will get one anyway, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same?

My answer is: you *are* allowed to do the same. If it's that easy for the criminal to get the weapon, it's also that easy for you. And if you feel so strongly--oh, so strongly--about protecting your domicile from any and all outside threats, teeming as they are in this day and age, then you will find a way to arm yourself as well. Why is it that you place so much credence in whether your government says it is "okay"? It's about your about-to-be-raped-daughter, right? My God, man. In that case, I would certainly hope that you don't ask your law officials for permission first. You'd be a hell of a pussy if you did.

If you are the kind of guy who can end a life in order to preserve ones close to you--and, much more to the point, you think you will quite possibly *have to* at least threaten to do that--then you are a Wild West sort of guy and gun laws be damned.

I mean, I just don't get it. If I were as adamant about owning a weapon as even the least Second Amendment zealot, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about whether the government approved. Why do Second Amendment zealots need such approval all the time? Stock your armory and be done with it.

I don't know if this is directed at me or not Chum, but to an extent you are correct.

I am ex military, and have been in the situation. I know what I can and can't do -- unlike many Americans. I will try to be a Law Abiding Citizen, but if you watched the movie -- be careful of Law Abiding Citizens when people get stupid.

I do not want to be a criminal, but I will defend my family. Either the law allows it or doesn't allow it. Either I have guns, or I use other weapons.


The question is not whether I give a rat's ass or not -- the question is do I want to be a hypocrite or not? Do I want to teach my children to follow the law, and then show them that I am breaking it?

I mean if my children see me breaking the law -- actions speak much louder than words.