The Obama Gun Effect

[alexamenos]

I've never owned a gun before...well, I've got an ancient .22 that wouldn't slow down an angry bunny rabbit, but I've never owned a grown-up gun before. Maybe I should buy one before they're outlawed by Obamanation. Any recommendations? Just something that'd mortally wound a crackhead or a social worker should the need arise....and something not too loud. I don't like loud noises.

In times past I've never gotten too bent out of shape over "gun control" one way or the other. The NRA and Republicans invariably chatter endlessly over whether one can hunt a deer or shoot a crackhead, but really the heart of the "gun" issue is the ability to defend oneself from the central government, not deer and crackheads.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

It's a quaint 18th century notion that armed masses are essential to the preservation of liberty, because armed masses means that the central government can't gain a monopoly on the use of violence. Orwell, in one of my favorite little essays says, "The age of the Rifle was the Age of democracy", echoing the sentiment that the degree of dispersion of political power is directly related to the dispersion of the means of violence....or political power comes out of the end of the barrel of a gun as someone else said...

...but I digress...

The Fed Gov has a monopoly on the means of violence, so that ship has long since sailed. You and I don't stand a chance of standing up to our government. We're its little bitches whether we like it or know it or not. For an example of what one might expect if one trys to defend oneself from the forces of the Federal Government, see ca. Waco Texas, April 1994.

At least....that's what I've long thought, but as I watch the ascendancy of 4th generation warfare I'm reminded atom bombs and stealth bombers and aircraft carriers aren't perfect weapons in every situation....I'm reminded of this and I bet Obama is too, hence when Obama quite carefully qualifies,

"Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

I'm willing to bet that "lawful" is going to get a lot more restrictive, and I'd sooner take a crackheads word. I think I will go buy a gun, or two. I might like to have something that I can convert into an semi or an automatic. Any recommendations?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm willing to bet that "lawful" is going to get a lot more restrictive, and I'd sooner take a crackheads word. I think I will go buy a gun, or two. I might like to have something that I can convert into an semi or an automatic. Any recommendations?

That's EXACTLY why people are buying up guns now, as quickly as they can.

As for recommendations, my personal favorite "assault rifle" is the Israeli Galil, but there are several good ones. The Bulgarian SA-93 is a nice gun too. You could also get a 12 gauge Saiga, which is basically a 12 gauge shotgun on an AK47 platform (semi-auto).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by jefelump

That's EXACTLY why people are buying up guns now, as quickly as they can.

yeah, and what I belabor to point out is that not only is Obama a flaming liberal commie, but he's a flaming liberal commie in a climate where the powers-that-be, I believe, are s---ing in their pants scared about maintaining control.

[u2sarajevo]

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

I guess it's good for the economy? At least for anyone in the gun industry. Lord knows Wal Mart needs the money.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

Hell, I remember lefties buying guns for the first time in their lives when Bush won in 2004 (but for somewhat different reasons...)

The sky is ALWAYS falling, Chicken Little...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Hell, I remember lefties buying guns for the first time in their lives when Bush won in 2004 (but for somewhat different reasons...)

The sky is ALWAYS falling, Chicken Little...

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)

[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...]

[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 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 u2sarajevo

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

I guess it's good for the economy? At least for anyone in the gun industry. Lord knows Wal Mart needs the money.

Yes, and Clinton managed to get the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 passed. That is the "assault weapons ban" that was allowed to expire.

again, I do not think I and others are over reacting.

[92bDad]

Chum's comments are offensive.

From myself, I do not own a gun, never have...maybe some day I will, but for now, I don't.

Now, I have gone to the range and fired various handguns as a civilian. I have even taken my sons to the range and taught them how to fire at a target and how to handle a weapon in a safe way.

Basically, my goal was to educate and enable my sons to be safe in the event that they go to someone's house and come across a gun.

With that, we had a great time at the range. So much so, that my older son kicked our tails in his groupings. He was consistantly putting his shot groups of 3 rounds on a dime at nearly every distance in the range.

I also handled various weapons when I served in the military, and yes as a soldier we have a much higher purpose or agenda behind our weapons.

Now today, it is my CHOICE to not own or carry a weapon. I believe we should continue to support our ability to choose what is best for our homes and our families.

Just as someone believes in their choice to give a child two dad's, or to kill a child still in its mother's womb...then I should have the ability to choose if I own a weapon or not.

As for shooting weapons at a weapons range, that is a fun activity. It's a competitive sport, just like going to the batting cages or to the driving range. Their is one difference...first I noticed that as my sons handled the weapons and fired down range, they began to gain some huge respect for the power they were holding, as well as an appreciation for the responsability behind it.

I would trust my son's if they joined the military or some form of law enforcement and they had to make a drastic decision of using their weapons.

Guns are not to be taken lightly and saddly in the wrong hands they are deadly, but no more deadly than a 2 ton piece of metal with 4 wheels and an engine. Just remember, it takes people to kill people...guns or no guns, if someone is bent on killing another, they will figure out a way to take action.

Perhaps the government should learn to enforce the laws they have on the books, rather than create new laws.

[Arne]

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:

Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots

Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.

Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.

In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Arne

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:


http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

And Ron Paul actually nails one one the head.

BINGO

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:


http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

That increases my respect for Ron Paul. Ron is right on many points. He just has a few weird quirks.

But, he is absolutely correct on guns.

[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?

[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

[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".

[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.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

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.

first, crime levels are lower in those countries than the us, but more important, and the focus of the issue, murders are much lower and so are accidental deaths by guns. the argument that people require guns to be protected is shown to be hollow when the citizens of countries that have strict laws on gun possession do not face as high a risk of being killed.

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.

these countries have lower incidence of crime, have lower incidence of murder. more guns do not rid society of criminals, nor do more guns reduce the risk of being murdered...in fact it increases the risk.

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

you’re wrong, the only loss of life is the teen who was killed by the police.

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.

that is not happening in the usa, we are being protected by our police. the easy access to guns by these criminals is not helping the situation in mexico, it is aggravating the crisis.

Have I been a victim of an insecure border? yes. Duh.

really? how have you been a ‘victim” of illegal immigration, and how does this relate to gun laws?

Have I been a victim of the drug trade? yes. I have had friends suffer destroyed lives. I, myself, have not partaken.

people who choose to take drugs aren’t “victims”. and how does this relate to gun laws?

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.

how are you certain it was a gang, and your risk of being murdered increased with your use of a gun.

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?

how have you been a ‘victim”, as people who injest drugs and their friends/family are not victims at all. second, those groups who plant weed in forest land aren’t typically drug cartels they are individuals. last, how does this have anything to do with gun laws?

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.

are you saying that people should become vigilantes to stop human trafficking? otherwise, how does this have anything to do with gun laws?

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

the 2nd amendment says nothing about “protection”. the supreme court decision does not say that guns cannot be regulated.

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...

make mandatory checks for all gun sales, and make all guns sales of record, and law abiding citizens will follow the law.

those who do not do the checks and record the sales will be criminals.

it’s really pretty clear, and all it takes is enacting the laws.

our society, and our country, will be much better off with laws that control the process of gun ownership and set out clear obligations of those who wish to own guns.

[wmbwinn]

Every single one of your "cherry picked" responses ignores the issues of defense. You are doggedly sticking to the issues of crime.

What of the Ghandi quote? You are ignoring the issue of the defense of the citizenry in a state/nation. You are ignoring the issue that citizens in India, Britain, France, and Greece have no way to defend themselves. Britain has not seen an incident yet, but France, Greece, and India have.

Going back to the issues of crime, it is of no value whatsoever to tell me that Britain and some other nations have a lower crime rate than the USA. That is not a function of the prescence/abscence of guns. The crime rate (as you yourself stated earlier) has nothing to do with the prescence/abscence of guns.

And, it is meaningless to say that a nation with no guns has a lower murder rate by gun. It is also meaningless to say a nation with no guns has fewer accidental deaths.

[Mavdog]

what??? as I said above, "more important, and the focus of the issue, murders are much lower and so are accidental deaths by guns. the argument that people require guns to be protected is shown to be hollow when the citizens of countries that have strict laws on gun possession do not face as high a risk of being killed."

guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.....

[Dirkadirkastan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QusfyaV3CFo

[chumdawg]

Data is one thing. Your interpretation of the data is obviously quite another. This is what I pointed out to you in my post above. You seem to think that the data you offer support your assertions, when that is not at all the case.

I mean, come on...if honest citizens are armed, then criminals likely aren't? Gimme a break.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Data is one thing. Your interpretation of the data is obviously quite another. This is what I pointed out to you in my post above. You seem to think that the data you offer support your assertions, when that is not at all the case.

I mean, come on...if honest citizens are armed, then criminals likely aren't? Gimme a break.

you obviously never read the linked article. The point is that criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

go back and read the linked article. The data presented is there to back me up on all the conclusions. Besides, if you are going to stay on the one point only and ignore all the others, then I assume that at least you understood the other points.

[wmbwinn]

the highest murder rates and deaths by fuirearms are the countries who have the highest incidence of gun ownership per person.

The above is Mavdog saying the same thing again although we have run around this same tree repeatedly...

Countries with cars have automobile accidents. We don't advocate getting rid of cars. Cars have a benefit that is greater than the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year that occur in motor vehicle accidents.

If we accept hundreds of thousands of deaths each year with no debate about the value of automobiles, then why can't we discuss a cost/benefit issue with firearms?

Repeatedly saying that countries with guns have deaths with guns is just driving me nuts.

[wmbwinn]

and as far as the nra supporting background checks, they do NOT support mandated checks for private sellers of firearms, only requirements for commercial enterprises to be obligated to do a background check. that is a ludicrous position as it leaves a huge number of sales out of a system that could prevent the wrong people from easily obtaining a firearm.

The above is Mavdog again.

Read the article on the gunshow loophole. Note how few gun sales there are based on the FBI and ATF records and estimates which are from one private individual to another. Note how few guns gained in that fashion end up being used for terror or crime.

You are right that the NRA does not support forcing private individuals to go to a FFL (gun dealer with a license) to oversee a sale.

But, when the seller is selling online such as on an auction (which is probably where a high percentage of private owner to private buyer transactions take place), the seller has to ship that gun to a FFL and that FFL transfers the gun to the buyer by going through a background check. That particular issue occurs because it is absolutely illegal to ship a gun through the mail or by UPS/Fed Ex unless that gun is being shipped to a FFL.

Again, you are talking about a tiny percentage of sales not going through a background check. And, the records show that those weapons are not being used in crime or terror.

Now, I personally don't mind a law that forces all sales to go through a FFL and background check. I just don't think that such a law will pass and I don't think that such a law will be heavily obeyed. Jim Bob and Joe Bob are still going to sell each other their guns in rural America.

And, we haven't even discussed giving guns as gifts. Giving a gun as a gift is already illegal. The background check paperwork specifically states that it is illegal to buy a gun with a plan to pass it on to someone else. But... people give gifts of guns all the time. A few hundred thousand guns are under the Christmas tree right now. Maybe a few million...

And, again, the FBI background checks are not recorded for a record. The US Congress passed a law many years ago that the background check records could not be maintained as a system of record keeping or "registration". So... no one knows who owns what guns...

Not saying that I agree with such things. Just pointing them out...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The above is Mavdog saying the same thing again although we have run around this same tree repeatedly...

Countries with cars have automobile accidents. We don't advocate getting rid of cars. Cars have a benefit that is greater than the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year that occur in motor vehicle accidents.

If we accept hundreds of thousands of deaths each year with no debate about the value of automobiles, then why can't we discuss a cost/benefit issue with firearms?

Repeatedly saying that countries with guns have deaths with guns is just driving me nuts.

so reality is "driving [you] nuts"? too bad.

nothing like comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same...

tell me, what other use is there for a firearm other than hurling a projectile thru the air that will inflict harm on either a person, an animal, or a target?

well? there isn't.

fewer guns in a society results in fewer murders.

criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

yeah, I can't think of a more credible group of people to seek an honest answer from than convicted criminals.....I bet they gave this straightforward answer right after telling the interviewer about the fact that they were innocent.

[wmbwinn]

Obviously, Mavdog didn't read the research article either. If you are just now discussing the method of the survey because I told you that they interviewed prisoners, then you didn't read the article either.

typical.

Just keep assuming that your logic and view of the world is correct. Ignore the research.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you obviously never read the linked article. The point is that criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

Which linked article? You have posted so many, that I can't even imagine which one you mean.

Yet...you say the point is that criminals in prison say they would have done it differently had they known their victim was, or might be, armed. THAT, you say, is the point? Well...what the hell exactly is the point, that you are claiming? The only even close to reasonable scenario I can dream of is that the criminals in question were injured severely by gunshots from their would-be victims. In that case, I'm sure they would like to take it back. Otherwise, I can't imagine how your point has any relevance whatsoever.

I understand what you are getting at. You are trying to say that if the criminal knows that the shopowner is armed and is willing to use it, the criminal will be less likely to commit his crime. You think this is a panacea that will prevent crime.

I say that this is not the way the world works, and that you are failingly idealistic.

[wmbwinn]

Chumdawg:

Which linked article? You have posted so many, that I can't even imagine which one you mean.

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

please, read the article. I think it is an excellent research attempt.

There is no such thing as perfect research, especially when based on interviews or polls. But, consider it. I know Mavdog won't consider it, but you might.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

fewer guns in a society results in fewer murders.

Many of the worst civilations of history as to a history of murder did not even have guns. They weren't even invented yet.

As you said earlier (and keep forgetting), guns are not to be equated to the prescence or abscence of crime.

But as I keep saying, criminals will use weapons. Lawful citizens wishing to protect themselves should be armed.

And, there is still the other issue of the defense of the state and the society. That is another reason to be armed. Look at the history of Switzerland. Hitler bypassed that little nation because taking that nation would be horribly expensive in death to Germans. Everyone (perhaps not Mavdog) knows that all men serve in the military in Switzerland by law. All men take their military weapons home for life. All men check back in to the military occasionally to show their weapons to be in good repair. All men check back in with the military at scheduled times to re-demonstrate their ability to use that weapon effectively and correctly and to take care of it. No one wants to fight Switzerland. Imagine if the US was like that...

And, then imagine what crime would look like if all of America was like Switzerland... want to break into a house in Switzerland? Want to break into an ex-US Marine's house when he has his military weapon in his house?

[Mavdog]

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

Hitler very specifically said that he did not invade Switzerland because:
1)it would be too expensive in loss of life
2)it was a small country that he thought he could surround and starve into submission

You can't rewrite history.

The SCOTUS opinion says that guns can be regulated. It also says that such regulations cannot eliminate the guns. It ruled that the laws of Washington DC were unconstitutional because the regulations removed the reasonable ownership and use of the weapons. So, you can't regulate them into non existence. That is what the SCOTUS decision said.

And, it said a lot of other things as well. It said definitively that the Second Amendment protected the right of the private individual to own and bear and use firearms. The right can be regulated but it cannot be regulated into non existence of the ability to own, bear, and use the weapons.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Hitler very specifically said that he did not invade Switzerland because:
1)it would be too expensive in loss of life
2)it was a small country that he thought he could surround and starve into submission

You can't rewrite history.

than why do you attempt to "rewrite history"?

"Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report,"

"Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor"

Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland – Second World War

yep, just as I said.

Or just screaming your opinion if it makes you feel good

let's see, is it a fact or opinion that societies which have the highest rates of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates?

it is fact.

is it fact or opinion that societies that have the higher rates of gun ownership also have the higher rates of accidental death?

it is fact.

case closed. facts that support the opinions.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

than why do you attempt to "rewrite history"?

"Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report,"

"Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor"

Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland – Second World War

yep, just as I said.

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:

The Commission's mandate covers the gold trading and foreign currency transactions conducted by the Swiss National Bank and by private commercial banks. The objects of the investigation are all assets moved to Switzerland including insurable values and cultural assets, both of the victims of the Nazi regime as well as of its perpetrators and collaborators. The relations of Swiss industrial and commercial companies with the National-Socialist economy – especially regarding their involvement in "aryanization measures" and the exploitation of forced labourers – are also examined. Another key topic is Swiss refuge policy in connection with Switzerland's economic and financial relations with the Axis powers and the Allies. The study also includes the post-war period including government measures for the return of unlawfully acquired assets (Washington Accord 1946, Resolution the reporting of dormant accounts 1962).

As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm

The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed.

The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.

That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:



As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm


That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

I'm willing to accept that Germany had an interest in Switzerland's banking services. That does not change the fact that there were other pressing considerations which were the extreme loss of German life trying to conquer the whole armed/trained people of Switzerland.

Hitler is well quoted on this issue. It is established history.

The idea of a trained/armed militia consisting of all citizens is quite valuable to the issues of civil crime control/deterrence and the issues of nation/society protection.

That is what the second amendment is all about.