The Obama Gun Effect

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Paranoia is only a heightened sense of reality...

(funny one liner from an old college professor I knew who worked in the Manhantan Project with Einstein, Enrico Fermi, and company)

You're 100% full of shit, unless you studied under the originator of that quote, William S. Burroughs... Otherwise your "professor" lifted it from Naked Lunch...

Next time try reading a book before you spin a yarn...




[we now return you to your regularly scheduled fear-based circle jerk...]

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Chumdawg, I apologize. I got your own quote off slightly when I went from pure memory. So, I researched it and found your exact quote.

Here is the link:
http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...340#post902340

It is post #39

Now, as I said originally: I think you were just bullshitting me and trying to get some sort of sick response out of me.

My response then is the same now: see post #40

So, sorry your memory is not as sharp as mine...

Thanks for the reminder. That's back when you didn't know an HTML tag from a hole in the ground but you sure knew how to wield a deadly weapon.

I guess where you and I differ is that I don't see the world like you do. I don't feel the need to be heavily armed on a daily basis.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

If you're going to hunt with a .223, double check the gun laws. I don't know if it's an issue or not in TX, but in some states it's illegal to hunt deer with a 22 caliber bullet. Varmints I'm sure are fine anywhere.

I try not to take the Hornet with me too often...........LOL

Ideally I'd take a Remmington R-25 in .243 ---- but they are a little pricey right now for me.

I tend to shoot larger calibers, but my son is a little light in the backside right now.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

You're 100% full of shit, unless you studied under the originator of that quote, William S. Burroughs... Otherwise your "professor" lifted it from Naked Lunch...

Next time try reading a book before you spin a yarn...




[we now return you to your regularly scheduled fear-based circle jerk...]

I don't care where the quote came from originally. I heard it from my old college professor as advertised.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thanks for the reminder. That's back when you didn't know an HTML tag from a hole in the ground but you sure knew how to wield a deadly weapon.

I guess where you and I differ is that I don't see the world like you do. I don't feel the need to be heavily armed on a daily basis.

So... safe to assume that you were just bullshitting me about having shot a man?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

You're 100% full of shit, unless you studied under the originator of that quote, William S. Burroughs... Otherwise your "professor" lifted it from Naked Lunch...

Next time try reading a book before you spin a yarn...




[we now return you to your regularly scheduled fear-based circle jerk...]

My professor may have lifted the quote from an earlier author. Who cares? The point is still the same.

Professor Delta Gier was the fourth of four sons. They were named Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta, being named by their father who was in the first generation of nuclear physicists. The elder Gier named his sons after the first four atomic "particles". Delta was a nuclear physicist like his father and was also a chemist of acclaim. He also was a great educator. And, he was involved in the Manhattan Project. I was among his last students. He died a couple of years after I finished his program in Kansas City.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I try not to take the Hornet with me too often...........LOL

Ideally I'd take a Remmington R-25 in .243 ---- but they are a little pricey right now for me.

I tend to shoot larger calibers, but my son is a little light in the backside right now.

7 mm Mauser and 6.5 Swede Mauser are two other options that would be likely inexpensive and without much of a kick at all.

[wmbwinn]

Underdog: [we now return you to your regularly scheduled fear-based circle jerk...]

Be Prepared- Scout Motto.

Being prepared is not a function of fear.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

7 mm Mauser and 6.5 Swede Mauser are two other options that would be likely inexpensive and without much of a kick at all.

I am looking at a Romanian Dragonov Sniper Rifle right now. Just undecided if I want to drop $800 on a sniper rifle for him (when I am the one who wants it). I am also looking at some SKS in 7.62 and a couple of mini 14's in .223.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am looking at a Romanian Dragonov Sniper Rifle right now. Just undecided if I want to drop $800 on a sniper rifle for him (when I am the one who wants it). I am also looking at some SKS in 7.62 and a couple of mini 14's in .223.

I have been looking at the Dragonov too. I met a guy at a gun range who had one, and he completely loved it. From what I saw, it was pretty accurate too. But I would have a hard time dropping $800 on a gun for my son too. It would definitely be MINE. My only functional objection to this gun is it has a stamped receiver, and not steel milled. But I'm not sure how much that really matters.

[wmbwinn]

Riots in Greece:

"Critics say that the government has lost control over the tactical management of the crisis, with radical anarchists burning shops, cars, banks and even government buildings, including the Hellenic Parliament Foundation and the Foreign Ministry's diplomatic academy. Some 320 stores, 50 banks and a number of civilian buildings have been damaged or destroyed in Athens, with another 100 stores in the northern city of Thessaloniki targeted. There have also been outbreaks of violence in several small cities and on the island of Corfu.


In Athens' Syntagma square, just across from Parliament, protesters set ablaze the large Christmas tree. Today, more clashes took place in the square and the surrounding streets as police used tear gas to break up a large group of protestors throwing rocks at the Parliament building. Later in the afternoon clashes resumed in downtown Athens with youth groups barricaded in the Athens Polytechnic School, near the Exarchia district, setting up roadblocks outside the School, burning cars and bus stops."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008120...08599186532600

Now, what would happen in Texas if people were throwing rocks and setting fires across the cities and landscape?

Answer: The armed citizens of Texas would prevent the sort of situation Greece is seeing.

Discussion: An armed populace is the best guarantee of peace. A police squad and military system cannot maintain peace and cannot take care of you.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am looking at a Romanian Dragonov Sniper Rifle right now. Just undecided if I want to drop $800 on a sniper rifle for him (when I am the one who wants it). I am also looking at some SKS in 7.62 and a couple of mini 14's in .223.

When you say "Romanian Dragunov", are you referring to the 7.62x54 "PSL" weapon? I have considered one as well primarily because it will be available for a short time, sale out, and then climb in value as the supply is gone. The other nice thing about that gun is that it shoots the very cheapest surplus military ammo on the planet right now.... Downside is what Jefelump noted: it has a stamped receiver. The AK47 design originally used stamped receivers. The Russians kept track of how many times they had been shot and scheduled the guns for destruction (or at least schedule to replace the receiver). But, then the various countries with these weapons discovered that the eager US Market would buy these guns that were scheduled for destruction. So, that is always my fear with an original AK47 inspired gun with an original stamped receiver. I very much prefer the guns that have a new US made milled steel receiver with the parts kit coming from Romania or elsewhere... So, I haven't bought one. Eventually, the various US companies that make clone receivers will make a milled steel receiver for that gun. Then, I'll be very interested...

Consider the Yugoslavian M76 "Sniper" 8 mm AK47 type gun. They had the cheap stamped receivers as well. But, Ohio Rapid Firearms makes a milled steel receiver for them. You can get one of those with a receiver that will last hundreds of years if cared for. J&G Sales (jgsales.com) is advertising that gun for 1750 dollars in the Shotgun News. I can't find it online at J&G. But, you can get the complete kit WITH the American receiver at ORF (Ohio Rapid Firearms) much cheaper. You just need someone to put it together.

I am not a fan of the SKS. Just my opinion. They are sloppy, inaccurate guns. The Russians made some that are reportedly more accurate. But, the Yugo I once owned disgusted me and I sold it off.

Ruger has made huge improvements in the mini Ranch and mini 30. They offer the "Target" model now. Basically, Ruger noted how many aftermarket companies were taking their guns and improving them for good money. So, Ruger started making the improvements themselves. However, A Ruger Mini Ranch Target gun will cost you more than the Dragunov you were looking at.

An old standard Ruger Ranch .223 is not a very accurate gun. I'm not a fan of it either. But, that is just my opinion.

If a gun isn't accurate, I don't keep it. Can't stand sloppy, inaccurate guns, or guns that malfunction.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Discussion: An armed populace is the best guarantee of peace. A police squad and military system cannot maintain peace and cannot take care of you.

If I wanted/needed a gun, I could have one by noon tomorrow. Whether it would be legal for me to own/use that gun would not be a concern of mine, if we are talking about a militia state.

What exactly is your point?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If I wanted/needed a gun, I could have one by noon tomorrow. Whether it would be legal for me to own/use that gun would not be a concern of mine, if we are talking about a militia state.

What exactly is your point?

Most of you that argue with me about guns want gun control. You want these guns to not be available. If you had what most of you want, then you could not just go get the gun when you wanted it...

British citizens are at risk of the same problems Greece is seeing. They have had their guns taken away and destroyed. They literally have no access to the guns and cannot "have one by noon tomorrow"

[wmbwinn]

TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) – Gunmen are deliberately killing innocent people with random shootings at bars, restaurants and shopping malls in the city of Tijuana in a new scare tactic that takes Mexico's drug war to new depths.

Hit squads have killed at least 50 people, including around 10 children, since October in an escalation of violence in public places that security officials say is akin to terrorism.

The indiscriminate attacks, including shootings in cinemas, pool halls and restaurants, appear to be an attempt by the weakened Arellano Felix cartel to show security forces and rival gangs that it is still a force despite setbacks.

In one recent attack, gunmen in body armor and armed with assault rifles stormed into Tijuana's popular Crazy Banana pool hall and opened fire on customers, killing four men and a woman.

"We were playing pool and these masked men came in shouting and started firing at everyone," said day laborer Juan Miguel at the scene, wiping blood from his head after the attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081209/...s_mexico_drugs

The above example is a lot closer to you there in Texas. Those killings have occurred in New Mexico and Arizona also...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Riots in Greece:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008120...08599186532600

Now, what would happen in Texas if people were throwing rocks and setting fires across the cities and landscape?

Answer: The armed citizens of Texas would prevent the sort of situation Greece is seeing.

Discussion: An armed populace is the best guarantee of peace. A police squad and military system cannot maintain peace and cannot take care of you.

oh my....

do you REALLY think that adding random guns to the situation in Athens would DIFUSE the situation?

OR that a bunch of yahoos charging in willy nilly with guns but without any sort of coordination would be the solution?


wow.

[chumdawg]

Hit squads have killed at least 50 people, including around 10 children, since October in an escalation of violence in public places that security officials say is akin to terrorism.

Let me get this straight. This is support for making guns more readily available?

[mary]

I'm always hearing about police departments taking guns off the streets. You bring a gun, and they'll give you something spiffy, like a $ 100 gift certificate.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm always hearing about police departments taking guns off the streets. You bring a gun, and they'll give you something spiffy, like a $ 100 gift certificate.

I saw an article several days ago about Los Angeles doing that. Given it's California, I'm not surprised. It's based on the thought process that "less guns on the streets means less violent crime." But how do you reconcile that cities like Chicago, which have very strict gun control laws (complete ban on hand guns) have the highest crime rates?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I saw an article several days ago about Los Angeles doing that. Given it's California, I'm not surprised. It's based on the thought process that "less guns on the streets means less violent crime." But how do you reconcile that cities like Chicago, which have very strict gun control laws (complete ban on hand guns) have the highest crime rates?

Simple thought process for simple people.

No guns -- I can use my strength to overpower and control.
No guns -- except mine -- I own your a$$.


Why do you think our police carry them? Because why risk your life all the time, without a way to defend it, for next to nothing in pay.

Locks keep honest men honest, and guns keep tempers slower to boil -- although when they do it is usually more deadly.

If I am a crook, I'd want to be in an area without guns because I would be much less likely to get harmed.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. This is support for making guns more readily available?

Absolutely. If hit squads were killing children in my neighborhood, I'd be killing hit squads.

The areas of the US with the strictest gun laws are Washington DC, Chicago, and the large cities of California. The worst crime problems are in the areas with the strongest gun controls.

Tyrants, especially corrupt tyrants (Chicago, Washington DC) have always preferred unarmed peasants...

[wmbwinn]

Just to repeat myself to all you "Johnny come lately types" that are too lazy to read the earlier posts (note that everything is referenced with web pages if you want to challenge any fact below):

posted just for your educational benefit:

Guns.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.

Gun Owners.

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

"Less Gun Control."

Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15

Notes

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jl...aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel...stat101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=126

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

oh my....

do you REALLY think that adding random guns to the situation in Athens would DIFUSE the situation?

OR that a bunch of yahoos charging in willy nilly with guns but without any sort of coordination would be the solution?


wow.

The Greek military and police certainly are unable to handle this. So, what is your "enlightened solution"

The answer is simple. You are responsible to protect yourself.

Break into my business to loot and steal. Get shot by the owner.
Break into my house to rob, harm, etc. Get shot by the owner.
Harm my neighbor or neighbor's business. Get shot by the neighbor.

It is places like Greece and France where riots can break out (recall the Islamic riots earlier in France) and the populace is unarmed and unable to defend themselves. Every time, the police and military fail.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The Greek military and police certainly are unable to handle this. So, what is your "enlightened solution"

The answer is simple. You are responsible to protect yourself.

Break into my business to loot and steal. Get shot by the owner.
Break into my house to rob, harm, etc. Get shot by the owner.
Harm my neighbor or neighbor's business. Get shot by the neighbor.

It is places like Greece and France where riots can break out (recall the Islamic riots earlier in France) and the populace is unarmed and unable to defend themselves. Every time, the police and military fail.

The problem, wmb, that I have with your logic is that I don't see how it has anything to do with the laws. If I'm a business owner or a homeowner, I can put a gun in my business or home no matter what the law says. I can get my hands on a gun, I can protect myself. What, do I need the government to tell me it's OKAY to have a weapon in my business or my home? Not me, baby.

What I want is for the bad guys to NOT have guns. Consider the harsh gun laws in NYC, as we have learned about thanks to the Plaxico Burress incident. Carry a loaded weapon illegaly, and it's three years in the can, no questions asked. That's the sort of harsh punishment that is going to make fools think twice about carrying around loaded guns. Use a gun in a crime? VERY harsh penalties. Again, makes fools think twice.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The problem, wmb, that I have with your logic is that I don't see how it has anything to do with the laws. If I'm a business owner or a homeowner, I can put a gun in my business or home no matter what the law says. I can get my hands on a gun, I can protect myself. What, do I need the government to tell me it's OKAY to have a weapon in my business or my home? Not me, baby.

What I want is for the bad guys to NOT have guns. Consider the harsh gun laws in NYC, as we have learned about thanks to the Plaxico Burress incident. Carry a loaded weapon illegaly, and it's three years in the can, no questions asked. That's the sort of harsh punishment that is going to make fools think twice about carrying around loaded guns. Use a gun in a crime? VERY harsh penalties. Again, makes fools think twice.

Nothing but double speak in your logic.

How do you have access to a gun to put in your home or business and restrict gun ownership away from "bad guys"?

You (and many others) maintain this utopian idea that we can somehow
1)allow guns to those who should have them
2)deny guns to those who should not have them

We do the best we can to meet those ideals but it is not possible. The best we can do is have a background check at the point of purchase. That is done. We could improve the database that the FBI has access to but that is sticky and goes through issues of privacy and civil rights.

It is not possible to prevent "bad guys" from getting guns. "Bad guys" or criminals have no regard for the law and are not going to be therefore affected by laws. Criminals will obtain guns one way or another (it is easy) without going through a background check. A criminal can steal the gun. A criminal can buy the gun at a garage sale or otherwise buy a gun from a private citizen who is not a dealer or seller of weapons. There is no law that prevents that. You can find guns advertised in estate sales. You can find them in the "greensheet" type fliers/ads. Criminals can bring them across borders.

So, Chum, it is impossible to have your ideals. But, we strive for those ideals.

So, the next progression is to eliminate guns. That is what Britain, Greece, and many other Western nations have done. And, by doing so, they have reduced their citizens to unarmed peasants who cannot protect themselves.

[wmbwinn]

What I want is for the bad guys to NOT have guns. Consider the harsh gun laws in NYC, as we have learned about thanks to the Plaxico Burress incident. Carry a loaded weapon illegaly, and it's three years in the can, no questions asked. That's the sort of harsh punishment that is going to make fools think twice about carrying around loaded guns. Use a gun in a crime? VERY harsh penalties. Again, makes fools think twice.

Now, we're talking good logic.

The NRA is all in favor of harsher punishment for crimes committed with guns. You are absolutely right on this point.

NYC has seen a dramatic reduction in crime. Chicago should follow suit as should other "trouble" spots in the nation.

Now, take the logic further.

These other factors need to be adjusted to be harsh in punishment:
1)the penalty (or range of penalties) for a crime with a gun are established in law set forth by state legislatures. These should be more harsh and severe.

2)The Judge/Jury system decides where in the above range of punishment to establish punishment after determining guilt. Nothing here to change.

3)Prison systems allow for shortened sentences or reduced punishments for good behavior and other issues. This should be eliminated. The prison system should not have the authority to essentially over ride the State Congress and Judicial/Jury system. If the laws established by a State Congress allow such power to the Prison/Corrections system, then those laws should be re-written specifically to disallow such for crimes committed with a gun.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Now, we're talking good logic.

The NRA is all in favor of harsher punishment for crimes committed with guns. You are absolutely right on this point.

NYC has seen a dramatic reduction in crime. Chicago should follow suit as should other "trouble" spots in the nation.

Now, take the logic further.

These other factors need to be adjusted to be harsh in punishment:
1)the penalty (or range of penalties) for a crime with a gun are established in law set forth by state legislatures. These should be more harsh and severe.

2)The Judge/Jury system decides where in the above range of punishment to establish punishment after determining guilt. Nothing here to change.

3)Prison systems allow for shortened sentences or reduced punishments for good behavior and other issues. This should be eliminated. The prison system should not have the authority to essentially over ride the State Congress and Judicial/Jury system. If the laws established by a State Congress allow such power to the Prison/Corrections system, then those laws should be re-written specifically to disallow such for crimes committed with a gun.

I agree with this: that there should be a punishment for the crime --then additional add on "IF" a gun was used, or you were impaired by alcohol or drugs.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Just to repeat myself to all you "Johnny come lately types" that are too lazy to read the earlier posts (note that everything is referenced with web pages if you want to challenge any fact below):

posted just for your educational benefit:

Guns.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.

Gun Owners.

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

"Less Gun Control."

Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15

Notes

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jl...aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel...stat101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=126

very well constructed attempt to reframe the discussion on gun restrictions in a way to support more widespread access to guns.

it is specious to frame the discussion in the context that gun restrictions do not reduce crime. that is not the argument, for crime is not dependent on the criminal possessing guns. crime will happen with or without gun control, and the argument is not that gun control will reduce crime.

the discussion should be focused on the use of firarms in crimes that result in deaths.

in that context the usa is in the top echelon of countries such as south africa, columbia, bealrus, thailand, uruguay and zimbabwe, all at the top in number of murders per population committed by firearms.

looking at accidental deaths by firearms and again the usa is near the top along with albania and estonia.

gee, aren't we a better society than that?

i don't know about you, but I get no pride in being in the company with zimbabwe or albania on these lists.

plain and simple, guns, and handguns in particular, are too easily obtained by criminals in our country. there are too many loopholes in the laws which allow for people who should not be allowed to possess guns to openly get them.

every peson who desires to purchase a gun should be vetted. every single time, every single weapon. period.

every single person who possesses a gun should be held liable for what happens with that gun, no matter who uses that gun.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

very well constructed attempt to reframe the discussion on gun restrictions in a way to support more widespread access to guns.

it is specious to frame the discussion in the context that gun restrictions do not reduce crime. that is not the argument, for crime is not dependent on the criminal possessing guns. crime will happen with or without gun control, and the argument is not that gun control will reduce crime.

the discussion should be focused on the use of firarms in crimes that result in deaths.

in that context the usa is in the top echelon of countries such as south africa, columbia, bealrus, thailand, uruguay and zimbabwe, all at the top in number of murders per population committed by firearms.

looking at accidental deaths by firearms and again the usa is near the top along with albania and estonia.

gee, aren't we a better society than that?

i don't know about you, but I get no pride in being in the company with zimbabwe or albania on these lists.

plain and simple, guns, and handguns in particular, are too easily obtained by criminals in our country. there are too many loopholes in the laws which allow for people who should not be allowed to possess guns to openly get them.

every peson who desires to purchase a gun should be vetted. every single time, every single weapon. period.

every single person who possesses a gun should be held liable for what happens with that gun, no matter who uses that gun.

very well said. I'm glad that the discussion is moving towards a rational discussion.

You made two good points that should be highlighted and repeated:
1)crime itself will occur with or without guns
2)crime committed with guns results in more death

Naturally, accidental deaths with a gun only occur where a gun is present. That particular statistic is without meaning beyond the obvious.

But, there are other points to also consider.

Countries like Britain, France, and Greece have removed almost all firearms from their people. Those countries are left to the protection of their military and police forces. France and Greece have both shown that their police and military cannot protect their citizens when "all hell breaks loose" (earlier Islamic riots in France and current anarchy in Greece). Mexico is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot protect its people. See the murders and plain day executions occuring each week right now. The USA is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot:
1)secure the border
2)stop the drug trade
3)control gangs
4)deal with drug cartels
and generally cannot protect you or I.

The discussion is larger than crime.

The 2nd amendment is specifically in place to allow citizens to protect themselves. period.

It, nonetheless, remains interesting that the areas of the USA with the strongest gun controls have the worst crime problems. And, the areas with the most lax gun laws have the lower crime rates.

You also stated that all gun sales/transfers should require a background check. I would be shocked to see that ideal reached. That would require that guns not be sold person to person such as at garage sales. Somehow, you would have to force private citizens to take their guns for sale to a gun store and have the Federal Firearms License holder (the gun dealer) manage the transfer including performing the background check. Is that possible? Sure it is. Will it actually happen even if the law were written that way? Heck no.

I'm not saying that your ideal is a bad ideal. I'm just saying it would be like prohibition. A good intention that can't be enforced and which leads to backdoor "crime".

[wmbwinn]

as to the point that crime itself will occur with our without a gun, I recall that we had a long discussion in the past regarding the upward surge of knife related crime in Great Britain. The government there seized and destroyed the weapons of its citizenry. So, now they use knifes to commit crime there. just like in the middle ages. Is that advancement or enlightenment?

[wmbwinn]

the discussion should be focused on the use of firarms in crimes that result in deaths.

You can see above that we discussed that the only real way to impact our society to reduce deaths that occur by using guns in crime is to:
1)increase the legislated penalty for such
2)use the penalty ascribed by application by the judge and jury
3)get rid of the "get out of jail free card" for good behavior. Actually enforce and apply the punishment.

If we are concerned about the number of deaths occuring with a gun during a crime, then why are we not more free with the use of the death penalty?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

very well said. I'm glad that the discussion is moving towards a rational discussion.

You made two good points that should be highlighted and repeated:
1)crime itself will occur with or without guns
2)crime committed with guns results in more death

Naturally, accidental deaths with a gun only occur where a gun is present. That particular statistic is without meaning beyond the obvious.

But, there are other points to also consider.

Countries like Britain, France, and Greece have removed almost all firearms from their people. Those countries are left to the protection of their military and police forces. France and Greece have both shown that their police and military cannot protect their citizens when "all hell breaks loose" (earlier Islamic riots in France and current anarchy in Greece).

these situations have nothing to do with the french and greek police/military not being capable of protecting the citizens, it is a case of the political establishment choosing to not protect private property. note that there haven't been any lossof life in these greek riots, only property destruction. the greek government decided that they would rather allow for the destruction and then provide compenstion to those who lost their property. a very convoluted situation, but also not anything that supports increased gun ownership to sya the least.

Mexico is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot protect its people. See the murders and plain day executions occuring each week right now.

that is supposed to be an argument for increased access to guns?

The USA is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot:
1)secure the border
2)stop the drug trade
3)control gangs
4)deal with drug cartels
and generally cannot protect you or I.

have you been a victim of any of the above? I haven't. seems to me that our police do a very good job of providing us protection from these elements.

The discussion is larger than crime.

The 2nd amendment is specifically in place to allow citizens to protect themselves. period.

what????? the 2nd amendment relates to a militia and 'the security of a free state", it has NOTHING to do with individual citizen's "protection".

It, nonetheless, remains interesting that the areas of the USA with the strongest gun controls have the worst crime problems. And, the areas with the most lax gun laws have the lower crime rates.

one, not entirely accurate, and two as mentioned above the argument is not crime rates but murder rates and accidential death by firearms.

You also stated that all gun sales/transfers should require a background check. I would be shocked to see that ideal reached. That would require that guns not be sold person to person such as at garage sales. Somehow, you would have to force private citizens to take their guns for sale to a gun store and have the Federal Firearms License holder (the gun dealer) manage the transfer including performing the background check. Is that possible? Sure it is. Will it actually happen even if the law were written that way? Heck no.

I'm not saying that your ideal is a bad ideal. I'm just saying it would be like prohibition. A good intention that can't be enforced and which leads to backdoor "crime".

it should be a strict requirement for ALL gun sales both by private or by businesses.

if anyone chooses to violate that law they will be prosecuted. if a firearm were to be used in a crime and that firearm was sold without conformance to the law, the seller will be subject to criminal processes.

why any lawabiding citizen would be against such a requirement is beyond me, after all they want to be lawabiding, right? why would this be a law they would want to violate, they can still engage in the purchase and sale of firearms.

it would be their choice, and imo people on the whole choose to follow the law.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn
very well said. I'm glad that the discussion is moving towards a rational discussion.

You made two good points that should be highlighted and repeated:
1)crime itself will occur with or without guns
2)crime committed with guns results in more death

Naturally, accidental deaths with a gun only occur where a gun is present. That particular statistic is without meaning beyond the obvious.

But, there are other points to also consider.

Countries like Britain, France, and Greece have removed almost all firearms from their people. Those countries are left to the protection of their military and police forces. France and Greece have both shown that their police and military cannot protect their citizens when "all hell breaks loose" (earlier Islamic riots in France and current anarchy in Greece).

(Mavdog): these situations have nothing to do with the french and greek police/military not being capable of protecting the citizens, it is a case of the political establishment choosing to not protect private property. note that there haven't been any lossof life in these greek riots, only property destruction. the greek government decided that they would rather allow for the destruction and then provide compenstion to those who lost their property. a very convoluted situation, but also not anything that supports increased gun ownership to sya the least.

There are two debates. One is regarding civil crime. The other is regarding the security of a state/nation and the defense of its peoples.

If you eliminate guns like Britain and France, then you obviously will have fewer "accidental deaths with a firearm" Duh.

If you eliminate guns like Britain and France, then you will have crime committed with knifes and other weapons. France and Britain have their problems with crime. And, the criminals still often obtain guns to commit the crime. The law abiding person did not have a gun to stand any chance in defense.

It is silly (IMO) to say (paraphrasing): "Look at our magnaminous cousins in France who have a very low accidental death rate with guns. Look at how low their murder with a gun rate is. Look at how few gun related deaths they have". That is tremendously erroneous as to statistics and logic. The abscence of guns there is the reason for those statistics. But, they still have their areas of high crime. They still have their murders. They still have their rapes. They still have their robberies and other crimes. They just use fewer guns (obtained illegally) and more knifes and other weapons.

And, then there is the other arguement which regards the defense of the state/nation. France was powerless to deal with the Islamic riots that occurred earlier. Their people were defenseless.

And, as to Greece: people are being killed there. It is not just property destruction.

And, if you want to shift the debate to an issue of life versus property, I am glad that our US Constitution states that BOTH are worth protecting and maintaining...

[wmbwinn]

Quote:wmbwinn

Mexico is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot protect its people. See the murders and plain day executions occuring each week right now.

Quote:Mavdog

that is supposed to be an argument for increased access to guns?

Yes. Absolutely. If drug cartel thugs and mercernaries are executing persons in broad daylight and terrorizing my neighborhood, I want to have a chance to defend myself. I need a gun to do that. I need my neighbors to have guns to join me to defend ourselves.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:wmbwinn

The USA is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot:
1)secure the border
2)stop the drug trade
3)control gangs
4)deal with drug cartels
and generally cannot protect you or I.

Quote: Mavdog

have you been a victim of any of the above? I haven't. seems to me that our police do a very good job of providing us protection from these elements.

That is truly dishonest and stretching.

Have I been a victim of an insecure border? yes. Duh.
Have I been a victim of the drug trade? yes. I have had friends suffer destroyed lives. I, myself, have not partaken.
Have I been a victim of gangs? No, because I was carrying a handgun with me on the one time in my life when I almost got mugged in Chicago.
Have I been a victim of the drug cartels of Central America, Mexico, and their branches in the USA? The entire nation has suffered from it. Do a search for news about they are growing their crops in our national parks in harmful ways. Would you really act like this is not a problem in our nation?

I do not think that the US military and police have the capacity to stop these problems unless the people of America get involved with them. Besides, we have too many politicians that don't want to offend Hispanics and other groups by adopting national policies and procedures that would secure the border and deal with the across border crime problems.

Texas has a huge problem with drugs coming across the Mexico border. You also have a lot of girls who were brought across for your enjoyment in the adult entertainment industry. It is all really quite sick.

I enjoy being far away from those problems now.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:wmbwinn

The discussion is larger than crime.

The 2nd amendment is specifically in place to allow citizens to protect themselves. period.

Quote: Mavdog

what????? the 2nd amendment relates to a militia and 'the security of a free state", it has NOTHING to do with individual citizen's "protection".

The second amendment assures the individual right to own and bear arms. Read the SCOTUS decision if you like. It is a settled matter.

[wmbwinn]

Quote: Mavdog

as mentioned above the argument is not crime rates but murder rates and accidential death by firearms.

As noted before, you are stating something that is obvious and statistically and logically inconsequential to the discussion of the reasons why having guns is a good thing.

Obviously, if we have no/few guns like Britain and France, then we will have a low rate of accidental deaths with a firearm. if we get rid of our cars, we will have a low rate of deaths in car accidents. Is that a good reason to get rid of our cars?

Obviously, if we have no/few guns like Britain and France, we will have a low rate of murders with a firearm. If we get rid of our airplanes, we will have a lower rate of deaths in airplane accidents. And, we won't have to worry about hijacked planes being used to kill us and destroy buildings. is that a good reason to get rid of airplanes?

Pencils don't spell incorrectly. People do.
Cars are not responsible for drunk driving. The alcoholic beverage industry is also not at fault. The idiots driving drunk are responsible.
Spoons don't make you fat. It also isn't McDonald's fault.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[wmbwinn]

And, lastly, Mavdog: I am not saying that requiring all sales/transfers of firearms to be done under the license of a FFL (licensed gun dealer) is a bad idea. Those companies would love that. They could charge a fee to watch Joe Bob sell his shotgun to Jim Bob.

I'm just saying that people won't actually go to the store to do it.

And, you also said that if a person sold a gun to someone without going through a licensed gun dealer and that gun was used in a crime, then the seller of the gun would be liable.

You may not realize that most states and cities have no registration requirements. No one knows who owns what guns in the first place. You can't trace that information very well.

Even the FBI background checks do not result in a permanent record. Congress specifically banned the FBI from keeping the records...

no registration exists outside of a few isolated places like Chicago and Washington DC. And, it hasn't helped them there...

[wmbwinn]

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month claimed some 500 casualties, dead and injured. Among the many questions raised by the outrage, there was a purely practical one: Why was the attack so successful? How could so few terrorists claim so many victims?

One obvious answer is firepower. Guns were illegal in the hands of both the terrorists and the victims. The victims obeyed the laws, the terrorists didn't. The police had guns, of course, but instead of protecting people, they stayed away until the massacre was practically over. Gun laws -- surprise, surprise! -- weren't strong enough to defend victims, only strong enough to keep victims from defending themselves.

India's gun control, one of the strictest in the world, goes back to the 19th century when Britain introduced it to forestall a repetition of the Indian Mutiny. "The guns used in last week's Bombay massacre were all 'prohibited weapons' under Indian law," wrote Richard Munday in the Times Online, "just as they are in Britain." The terrorists were successful because they didn't obey the gun control law rooted in the Raj, while their victims did.

India isn't alone. Many countries, including Canada, have gone out of their way to make criminals as invincible and victims as vulnerable as possible. This isn't the aim, of course, only the result.

"Guns don't kill, people do." The gun lobby's old slogan is true enough, but it's also true that guns make people more efficient killers. That's why gun control would be such a splendid idea if someone could find a way to make criminals and lunatics obey it. Since only law-abiding citizens obey it, it's not such a hot idea. It's more like trying to control stray dogs by neutering veterinarians.

The police carry guns for a reason: They're great tools for law enforcement. No doubt, guns make criminals more efficient, but they make crime fighters more efficient, too. Letting firearms become the monopoly of lawbreakers, far from enhancing public safety, is detrimental to it. What you want is more armed people, not fewer, on the side of the law. It would be hard to imagine a Mumbai-type atrocity in Dodge City -- or in Edwardian Europe, for that matter, where gentlemen routinely carried handguns for protection.

Some regard carrying guns uncivilized. I'd hesitate to call an era of legal guns in the hands of Edwardian gentlemen less civilized--or less safe -- than our own era of illegal guns in the hands of drug dealers and terrorists. The civilized place was turn-of-the century London, where citizens carried guns and the police didn't. In any event, a constitutional guarantee to one's "security of person" shouldn't depend on how fast a 911 operator can pick up the phone.

Society needs crime control, not gun control. Munday writes that "violent crime in America has plummeted" in the past two decades after the majority of states enacted "right to carry" legislation and issued permits to carry concealed weapons to citizens of good repute. I think there were many reasons for the decline, but "right to carry" certainly wasn't detrimental to it.

There are Second Amendment absolutists in America, and libertarians elsewhere, who regard a person's birthright to own/carry a firearm beyond the state's power to regulate. I'm not one of them. I think it's reasonable for communities to set thresholds of age, proficiency, legal status, etc., for the possession of lethal weapons, just as they set standards for the operation of motor vehicles, airplanes and ham radios. But it seems to me that, within common sense perimeters, you'd want to enhance, not diminish, the defensive capacity of the good guys, and increase rather than decrease the number of auxiliary crime-fighters who are available to be deputized when the bad guys start climbing over the fence.

Munday quotes no less an advocate of non-violence than Mahatma Gandhi on the imperial decree of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 that laid the foundation for the defencelessness of the victims of the Mumbai massacre 130 years later. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India," said the Mahatma, "history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...tml?id=1071186

It makes me smile to find an article when I wasn't even looking for it. This says what I have been saying...

[wmbwinn]

I just had to repeat this quote from Gandhi:

Munday quotes no less an advocate of non-violence than Mahatma Gandhi on the imperial decree of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 that laid the foundation for the defencelessness of the victims of the Mumbai massacre 130 years later. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India," said the Mahatma, "history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

see link above in full article...