Gun control thread yay

[fallout ranger]

So do we ban cars because they can kill? Or do we just make sure those that have proven themselves incompetent not be allowed to drive?

 

[welsh]

Well ideally we keep those who are incompetent from driving.

But that invariably fails and then people get caught driving recklessly and intoxicated and they lose that license until they pay penance and are able to get their license back.

Of course sometimes a person kills someone driving recklessly and it becomes vehicular manslaughter.

Theoretically the person could get 20 years, but realistically, they will probably be out in less than 6. Considering the recidivism rate of ex-cons and the general marginalization of ex-cons from society, I wouldn't hold out much hope for reform.
Of course the person who died is still dead.

But speaking of victims, I think its usually rather interesting to examine victimization of firearms. Those against gun control often feel they are the victims of some effort by the state to take away their guns.

Perhaps there is something to that. Afterall, disarming a society and replacing practices of self-help in lieu of state controlled means of conflict resolution has always been part of the civilizing of society. A key element to human development and economic growth is the domestication of violence.

Do you think it a coincidence that the last few years of fairly liberal gun control law we see an increase in violent crime?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

This is not the consequence of the Crack epidemic that hit the US in the 1980s-early 1990s that contributed to rising gang violence.


But back to victims.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

The interesting thing is that the people who seem most zealous to defend their rights to own guns happen to be the people least likely to suffer gun violence.

In contrast those populations that are most likely to be victims of gun violence, generally inner city poor and minorities, are also those people that gun control laws are often trying to protect from such violence.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

This entire argument about "I need a gun to protect myself" ignores that most people who own guns face little real risk. Yet, their desire to own guns ignores the consequence of easy gun ownership laws that contribute to significant distortions in social violence.

Furthemore, while a lot of gun ownership advocates assume a rational person view- that they are of sound and reasonable mind and are not criminals- ignores a number of facts about the people within their community most likely to be victims- women.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Girlfriends and wives are much more likely to be victims than ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, or even husbands.

Furthemore in families-
Children are more likely to be killed then parents
Males are more likely to kill than females.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/family.htm

Now I know some of you are going to say "defensive gun use" of 2.5 million americans outnumbers crime! Obviously guns are being used to protect!

Well, ignoring that if you used the same statistical methods you could assume that 20% of Americans are seeing Aliens, lets look at another figure.

When actually used in defense, was the shooting actually justifiable? Sadly, the number of justifiable uses is also in decline.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm

Number of justifiable homicides each year- maybe 200?
How many wives, girlfriends, husbands, children are killed by guns in the heat of an argument? Somewhere around 4,000 per year.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Look, I am all for hunting, fishing or target shooting, and certainly I don't think that guns should be banned.

But let's be honest, gun ownership is really about power- to hunt, to kill, to shoot, to protect yourself against threats real or imagined. The problem is that although we'd like to give guns to rational people, truth is -

(1) there are lots of holes - as in the Virginia Tech shootings

(2) People, even reasonable people, are likely to do some fairly irrational things sometimes.

Irrational use of a tool for causing violence is the problem.

For those who are anti-gun control its a matter of individual liberty. For those who are pro-gun control its a matter of social peace. In all law there has be some kind of balance between the right of the individual and the protection of society. I would think that the right to own a gun has to be balance against the right not to be shot.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

But speaking of victims, I think its usually rather interesting to examine victimization of firearms. Those against gun control often feel they are the victims of some effort by the state to take away their guns.

Perhaps there is something to that. Afterall, disarming a society and replacing practices of self-help in lieu of state controlled means of conflict resolution has always been part of the civilizing of society. A key element to human development and economic growth is the domestication of violence.

Do you think it a coincidence that the last few years of fairly liberal gun control law we see an increase in violent crime?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

This is not the consequence of the Crack epidemic that hit the US in the 1980s-early 1990s that contributed to rising gang violence.

Here is a fun fact from economist Steven D. Levitt:
"States with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation. Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low abortion states."

It's a sad statement on society as a whole, but it does suggest that the link between stricter gun laws and lower crime rates is perhaps not as strong as one would like to think.

In my personal experience, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did little to nothing to slow the dissemination of firearms. In fact, manufacturers quickly figured out how to exploit the legislation to produce substantially the same products as before. The only thing that really changed were the prices. Furthermore, the AWB had the effect of encouraging smaller, more easily concealable firearms designed around the 10 round limitation of the AWB.

But back to victims.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

The interesting thing is that the people who seem most zealous to defend their rights to own guns happen to be the people least likely to suffer gun violence.

In contrast those populations that are most likely to be victims of gun violence, generally inner city poor and minorities, are also those people that gun control laws are often trying to protect from such violence.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

Of course, one could take a look at the exact same circumstances and draw the opposite conclusions. In the inner city, where crime is most a problem, law abiding citizens have the hardest time attaining a firearm to assert their rights. Unfortunately in our country, these same people tend to be minorities. One could argue that gun control under these conditions is a form of discrimination. The law abiding inner city minority has just as much right to protect himself from violence as does the middle class suburbanite.

This entire argument about "I need a gun to protect myself" ignores that most people who own guns face little real risk. Yet, their desire to own guns ignores the consequence of easy gun ownership laws that contribute to significant distortions in social violence.

Furthemore, while a lot of gun ownership advocates assume a rational person view- that they are of sound and reasonable mind and are not criminals- ignores a number of facts about the people within their community most likely to be victims- women.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Girlfriends and wives are much more likely to be victims than ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, or even husbands.

All the more reason for women to be better armed. Once convicted of a domestic abuse crime in the United States, you lose your right to legally own a firearm for ever. The saddest part about domestic abuse is that the victim often fails to see or chooses to ignore the warning signs, and neglects to take any actions against the abuser. We have an epidemic of domestic abuse in this country, and firearm homicides are a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.

And, while this is completely anecdotal, my wife, who is also a minority, can shoot better then most men I know. Her propensity with a firearm insures that she can meet most physical threats to her safety, despite her diminutive size. She will be the first to tell you that more black women should own guns. She would also be the last person I'd want to hit.

Furthemore in families-
Children are more likely to be killed then parents
Males are more likely to kill than females.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/family.htm

Sounds like we should ban men. The data you sight also fails to make the distinction between homicide by firearm and homicide by assault or any other cause.

Now I know some of you are going to say "defensive gun use" of 2.5 million americans outnumbers crime! Obviously guns are being used to protect!

Well, ignoring that if you used the same statistics you could assume that 20% of Americans are seeing Aliens, lets look at another figure.

When actually used in defense, was the shooting actually justifiable? Sadly, the number of justifiable uses is also in decline.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm

Number of justifiable homicides each year- maybe 200?
How many wives, girlfriends, husbands, children are killed by guns in the heat of an argument? Somewhere around 4,000 per year.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

The chart you provided reflects all justifiable homicides, both by law enforcement and civilians. The individual breakout of civilian shootings is the more useful of the two. One could argue that there have been fewer assaults on police officers, lowering the justifiable homicide rate. Interestingly enough, comparing the overall homicide rate from your prior BJS link to the justifiable homicide rate, I see that both have declined substantially over the ten year period of the statistic (1994 - 2005). With fewer overall homicides, it stands to reason that there are fewer justified ones.

One other thing you need to understand is that justifiable homicide is a defense to a charge of homicide. It does not reflect the number of cases never brought to trial, or those who acted in self defence and were not charged.

Look, I am all for hunting, fishing or target shooting, and certainly I don't think that guns should be banned.

Agreed!

But let's be honest, gun ownership is really about power- to hunt, to kill, to shoot, to protect yourself against threats real or imagined. The problem is that although we'd like to give guns to rational people, truth is -

(1) there are lots of holes - as in the Virginia Tech shootings

(2) People, even reasonable people, are likely to do some fairly irrational things sometimes.

Also agreed, more or less.

We should enforce the laws we have.

For those who are anti-gun control its a matter of individual liberty. For those who are pro-gun control its a matter of social peace. In all law there has be some kind of balance between the right of the individual and the protection of society. I would think that the right to own a gun has to be balance against the right not to be shot.

And here I agree with you as well. The problem in this country is that there can be no reasonable debate on the appropriate controls to conduct this balance, because of extremists on both sides.

I have a permit that certifies me to be able to carry a concealed weapon. It required proof of certain training, and spelled out specifically what my rights to carry were and were not. It also exempts me from the three day waiting period on handguns, although a criminal background check is still required. This approach balances my right to carry concealed and your right not to have a nutcase packing a gun quite nicely. However, when we start talking about having a registration or permitting system, many folks on my side of the issue worry that it will lead to a "government list" that people on the other side could exploit should the political winds change.

I also have firearms that require government permission and a detailed background check to posess as an ordinary citizen. This does not seem like an unreasonable compromise to me either. I would accept licensing provided that it did not restrict my ability to purchase and use firearms anymore then my driver's license restricts my choice in cars. However, many of my peers would not.

I must now get ready to leave for Thanksgiving, and my ability to reply may be limited. However, I am sure others will carry on the fight without me. It was very nice of you to provide links to back up your assertions, and interesting to see how differently two people can view the same information.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" - M.T.

 

[welsh]

Johnny- so your solution to the problem is to arm urban minorities to take the law into their own hands? In the process turn some inner cities into free-fire zones, or, in the more likely case, to allow those who seek guns easier access? Given the chronic problems of poverty and despair that these communities suffer, you would add greater firepower? Shall we perhaps allow them to use food stamps to buy bullets?

Are you kidding?

Or perhaps you are saying their elected representatives, who are generally pro-gun control, are misrepresenting them? Or doesn't the individual in the inner city have the right to pass legislation that takes into consideration their interest? In their circumstances perhaps the right not to be shot is more important than the right to own a gun?

Recently New York has been tracking down straw purchasers who purchase guns from a few licensed dealers in Virginia (where gun laws are lax) and shipping them to Virginia where they are resold for profit. This has been called the Iron Pipeline

Recently, the trade has begun to change. Now in exchange for guns the dealers are making payments in narcotics.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06141/691927-85.stm

Thus a problem that was contained in inner cities is now spreading to the rural and sub-urban areas. The cause is liberal gun laws. Yet no doubt the NRA will use this to justify more gun purchases and more liberal laws?

One might think a better way to deal with this is more effective control, but when the Republicans controlled Congress the NRA was able to pass legislation to protect gun dealers from their participation in such transactions.

(Ironic- because only a small percentage of dealers engage in such transactions, yet they give the others a bad name. Why protect them?)

Perhaps the problem isn't gun control laws, but the existence of a very powerful lobby that supposedly represents gun owners but is generally financed by firearms manufacturers.

As for the justifiable homicides- yes those are cases in which some killed someone else and was ruled that the shooting was justifiable. Considering how many homicides happen each year vs the number of justifiable homicides, I suspect that your chances of killing someone you love far outweighs your chances of actually shooting someone in self-defense.

As for giving guns to women to stop domestic violence- yes, but I fear the result would be more dead husbands and boyfriends.

As for the relationship of firearms and other weapons to homicide-

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Guns seem to be the favored weapon of choice.

It is ironic that you choose to quote Levitt- if anything his quote suggests that by allowing inner city women the right to choice, that were able to focus their economic energies and create more sustainable families. You will also note, from the same book, that Levitt finds that the crack epidemic not only set back the black communities of the inner city by decades but also helped propel the surge of violence in the 1980s-90s. Would you like me to give you the pages?

I suspect that the reason why you really can't have a reasonable debate is because the emotions are so strong. That plus the NRA protects the gun manufacturers and God forbid their profits were put to risk. Interestingly, it was these guys who decided to build a new market for assault style guns in the 1980s in order to support declining profits.


But since the raise the issue of assault weapons-
Re: Assault Weapons-

Many of the weapons chosen for the ban were chosen because of a variety of reasons- light weight, use of plastic and stampings, large clips of bullets but also if it has the ability to be fitted for a bayonet, a grenade launcher and whether the weapon had a threaded barrel for adding a silence or flash suppressor. Also motivating the legislation was a spat of mass murders involving assault weapons as well as a trend in increased sales of assault weapons in the 1980s and 90s, use by militia groups and right wing survivalists as well as rather sensational crimes.

Some of those shooting-

1989 Stockton, CA: 35 young schoolchildren shot on playground with an AK-47

1993 Langley, VA: 5 CIA employees shot with an AK-47

1993 San Francisco, CA: 9 people in a downtown law office shot with various weapons, including a TEC-DC9 assault pistol

1997 North Hollywood, CA: Police officers shot by bank robbers armed with AK-47 assault rifles

1998 Littleton, CO: 13 high school students murdered by two schoolmates armed with TEC-9 assault pistol and Hi-point Carbine assault rifle

2002 Washington, DC area: 13 people shot, 10 killed over two weeks by sniper allegedly armed with Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, a copy of the banned Colt AR-15

Furthermore studies prior to the ban had found that while assault weapons accounted for only about 2-3 percent of all weapons owned in America they did comprise about 6-8 of crimes and was increasing. This was a concern with police forces which used the rise in assault weapons to justify upgrading their own weapons – replacing M-16s with HK submachine guns in SWAT teams and revolvers with 9 mm automatics.

If you look at ATF statistics from the middle of the 1980s until the middle of the 1990s you see that among the top ten weapons used by criminals were assault weapons, and that this number increases from roughly 1985-1995. You also have an increase of assault weapons, especially Chinese made weapons, coming from abroad.

If you want the statistics I would be glad to provide them for you. I doubt many of the other posters care. But you can get much of this from the ATF: National Firearms Tracing Center.That many of the mass murders that were committed in the late 80s -90s were committed with semi-automatic weapons, often converted is widely known.

Clinton’s passing of these bills actually followed George Bush (1) who had passed an executive order in March of 1989 placing a temporary ban on the import of certain assault rifles. The temporary ban became permanent and was later expanded, much to the ire of the NRA. Clinton latter expanded the ban by executive order to include assault style handguns like the Uzi. This was further expanded in 1988. The law was a difficult battle in Congress, but eventually was passed 235-195. With Republican seizure of Congress it was anticipated that the ban would be repealed. It was promised (much like the old – “I will not be a tax and spend politician”/”I will not get us involved in foreign wars”” bit from George Bush- remember those promises?) Well. It almost got repealed in 1996, but again it was a sad day for the NRA. NO vote was passed in the Senate and the bill died. Happily for gun enthusiasts, manufacturers have been able to make minor or cosmetic modifications to formerly banned weapons to evade the restrictions.

But has the ban worked? Well it banned the TEC-9 (at least temporarily).

Well if you use gun traces to study the number of guns being investigated in relations to crime. IN 1993 the 19 assault weapons listed on the ban accounted for 8.2% of all ATF traces. In 1995 they accounted for only 4.3% of traces.

http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/awfinal1.htm

"Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of
ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. "

To which one can find a summary-
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/March97/130nij.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- According to a study of short-term trends since the 1994 assault weapons ban became law, the ban may be linked to declines in the criminal use of assault weapons, violent crime and the number of enforcement officers killed by assault weapons. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was required by statute to be conducted within 30 months following the enactment of the assault weapons ban as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime Act. The report's authors warned that more time was needed to determine the long-term impact of the ban

States with no assault weapons ban when the federal ban took effect also experienced a 10.3% decline in homicides, compared to
no decline (0.1%) in states with assault weapons bans. It also appears that only one police officer is known to have been killed
with an assault weapon during the period from June 1995 to May
1996, compared to seven from January to May 1995, and nine in 1994."

But I agree- generally the manufacturers were able to manipulate their way around the law- thanks to a Republican Congress. Subsequent reports never really followed up. To be fair, gun violence was in decline during this period, but it seemed the assault ban did help propel further decline in gun violence.

Anyway- it makes little sense. Gun Control is one of those topics that few will ever make peace.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Johnny- so your solution to the problem is to arm urban minorities to take the law into their own hands? In the process turn some inner cities into free-fire zones, or, in the more likely case, to allow those who seek guns easier access? Given the chronic problems of poverty and despair that these communities suffer, you would add greater firepower? Shall we perhaps allow them to use food stamps to buy bullets?

I do not, nor have I ever, recommended "taking the law into your own hands". Having the ability to defend yourself and your loved ones from undue harm is a core principal of US case law. For example, there is the case of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black man and his family, who in 1925 while under attack from a white mob, fired into the mob, killing one of the mob members. Twelve white jurers found that Dr. Sweet had the unalienable right to defend himself and his loved ones from undue harm while in his home. I don't think anyone else should be denied that right, regardless of their economic status. That is quite different from advocating vigilante justice.

Or perhaps you are saying their elected representatives, who are generally pro-gun control, are misrepresenting them? Or doesn't the individual in the inner city have the right to pass legislation that takes into consideration their interest? In their circumstances perhaps the right not to be shot is more important than the right to own a gun?

Yes, I do believe their elected representatives are very often misrepresenting them. Since you read the Levitt book as well, you know the argument against gun buybacks as ineffective. Why put a feel good bandaide on the situation, when you could be focusing the resources on where they are needed, namely economic development.

And the right not to get shot is not related to the right to own a gun. Most of the people who are doing the shooting do not have the right to own a gun. It's the people who do, ironically enough, who are most often the ones being shot.

I do want to keep this from turning into a chicken and egg argument, especially considering I may not be available for the next few days to fight it. Your point is that there are too many guns available to the wrong people. I concede your point. We should stop the wrong people from owning guns. My point is that we should not restrict the right people from owning guns or being able to protect themselves from the wrong ones.

Recently New York has been tracking down straw purchasers who purchase guns from a few licensed dealers in Virginia (where gun laws are lax) and shipping them to Virginia where they are resold for profit. This has been called the Iron Pipeline

Recently, the trade has begun to change. Now in exchange for guns the dealers are making payments in narcotics.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06141/691927-85.stm

Yeah, that's a tragedy. It's also a crime. It goes back to putting guns into the hands of the wrong people. In the interest of full disclosure, I was signatory to an FFL when I worked in a gun store to put myself through college. As often as we were audited, I am somewhat incredulous that no enforcement action has been taken to close these license holders down. But my point remains the same. What they are doing is a crime. There are laws on the books to punish and prevent such things from happening. Those laws should be enforced.

Thus a problem that was contained in inner cities is now spreading to the rural and sub-urban areas. The cause is liberal gun laws. Yet no doubt the NRA will use this to justify more gun purchases and more liberal laws?

One might think a better way to deal with this is more effective control, but when the Republicans controlled Congress the NRA was able to pass legislation to protect gun dealers from their participation in such transactions.

I submit to you that the problem is liberal enforcement, not liberal gun laws.

(Ironic- because only a small percentage of dealers engage in such transactions, yet they give the others a bad name. Why protect them?)

I wonder this as well. Unfortunately, it is true of most things in life. Doesn't take a whole lot of bad apples to tarnish the bunch.

Perhaps the problem isn't gun control laws, but the existence of a very powerful lobby that supposedly represents gun owners but is generally financed by firearms manufacturers.

Yeah, politics suck, and big corporations have way too much influence. A flaw in the system. Wish I could have a perfect advocate, but I don't. So I work with what I've got.

And I still vote for enforcement over even more laws.

As for the justifiable homicides- yes those are cases in which some killed someone else and was ruled that the shooting was justifiable. Considering how many homicides happen each year vs the number of justifiable homicides, I suspect that your chances of killing someone you love far outweighs your chances of actually shooting someone in self-defense.

As for giving guns to women to stop domestic violence- yes, but I fear the result would be more dead husbands and boyfriends.

As for the relationship of firearms and other weapons to homicide-

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Guns seem to be the favored weapon of choice.

At the end of all arguments, killing anyone outside of legitimate, appropriate defense of myself or my loved ones, would probably not constitute a justifiable homicide. Which would make me a criminal, deserving of punishment commisurate to my crime, not to my means of doing it. It is no more or less right to kill someone without provocation whether you use a knife, a car, or a gun.

Chances are higher that one of my loved ones would be killed by a criminal with a gun then the likelihood that I would justifiably shoot someone. Unfortunately, far more homicides are committed then prevented. I can't be everywhere with everyone to protect them at all times. But where I can be, I would like the ability to do so.

I'll also submit to you that more dead abusers does not weigh heavily on my conscious, as it conforms to my views on self defence.

It is ironic that you choose to quote Levitt- if anything his quote suggests that by allowing inner city women the right to choice, that were able to focus their economic energies and create more sustainable families. You will also note, from the same book, that Levitt finds that the crack epidemic not only set back the black communities of the inner city by decades but also helped propel the surge of violence in the 1980s-90s. Would you like me to give you the pages?

Levitt's book was absolutely fascinating, particularly the chapters on crime and poverty. I am not sure what you are arguing, though. I agree that the crack epedimic was horrible, particularly to the black community. I'll go further and say that I think it is unconscionable that we punish crack offenders to the magnitude of ten times harsher then cocaine. It had a disproportionate effect on black men, incarcerating a significant portion during and beyond their prime wage-earning years. Crack and feel good legislation meant to address it have had far reaching consequences.

But again, I wonder what this specifically has to do with the concept of gun control?

At this point, I've snipped out all the AWB commentary. I am well aware of what was gained and lost in FOPA, and that George the First initiated the import ban and Clinton expanded it.

The debate will get much more interesting in light of the Heller case. It would be nice if the Supreme Court settled the "collective vs. individual right" once and for all. It's a big risk for both sides, but if it comes down my way, my side will have less to worry about, and maybe we can have a more reasoned debate.

We can always site the high publicity school and public shootings, but as you know, these are a small percentage of homicide problem. Timothy McVeigh did more with a truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel then any one of these guys did with their "assault weapons". The Tec 9 became the DC-9. After the 86 ban, a $200 Mac-11 has become a $3000 Mac-11. The AR gained some cache as an "assault weapon". In the end, the gains were marginal for the political capital spent. Should have spent the effort on poverty or effective drug policy. Probably would have gotten the same, if not better, returns. Oh well, woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Actually, FOPA did have the effect of severely limiting public access to full auto weapons by virtue of market effects. A registered full auto receiver for an AR is running around $9000. You could achieve the same effect by tying the NFA tax with inflation, instead of keeping it at $200 where it has been since the 30s. Make post 86 NFA weapons legal to those who are willing to go through the hoops to own them. Collect a realistic $2000 tax and put it towards enforcement. I get my machine gun to go and terrorize paper plates, the government gets to know I've got it with a clean background, and we all get money to minimize gun crime. How's that for compromise?

Anyway- it makes little sense. Gun Control is one of those topics that few will ever make peace.

Very true. Happy (and safe) Thanksgiving to you and yours.

 

[TheWesDude]

from what i have read:

the 2nd amendment was to guarentee the citizens have the ability to own guns. when the law was written the citizens were the militia but they understood that it may not always be that way so they specifically added that amendment.

the original founders were very aware of checks and balances.

the president is not chosen by the people but rather by elected officials. that was because the common man was seen as stupid at that time and they wanted to be sure that the elected officials who hopefully would be smarter than the common man would be able to choose who led the executive branch.

but they acknowladged that the executive and legislative branches would become corrupt so they wanted to be sure the common man could defend themselves from tyranny in all forms, BOTH domestic and foreign. afterall, they had just kicked the english out of america, they wanted to be sure that if it ever needed to happen again it could.

 

[Tagaziel]

Paople often brag about the second amendment as their God given right to own, use, stock firearms etc., all the while forgetting the context in which it was enacted - to provide the US with a ready and able militia that can be mobilized at minimum cost in the event of a war. Now, is there any reason for such a militia to exist?

None at all.

I don't really get the whole affinity for firearms that is so widespread in the United States - Europe does have extremely strict laws concerning firearms (except for Switzerland, but that's a different, screwed up case), yet we don't have nearly as much problems as America, at least to my knowledge.

If any, I'd propably be going for ASGs and see how they work when customized and loaded with steel BBs >:3

 

[Kyuu]

I don't believe (though I admit I could be wrong) that the 2nd amendment was intended to arm the general public. The intent was to allow militias, which are comprised of non-military personnel by definition, to be armed, because militias were important to the USA's ability to defend itself. Of course, militias are obsolete nowadays, and, quite possibly, the 2nd amendment with them. You also have to keep in mind what comprised firearms when the constitution was drafted: muzzle-loaded, rather inaccurate (by today's standards) muskets and pistols. Considering how long it takes even a trained rifleman to reload one of those things, they really weren't much of a danger as far as mass-murdering went. Certainly a large difference between that and even a semi-auto, 9mm pistol with a 10-round magazine.

I think the only reason that the 2nd amendment hasn't been repealed is not because it even makes sense anymore, but because Americans are indoctrinated with the notion of the Constitution as an almost holy document that shouldn't and can't be touched. Of course, if the Constitution was really that perfect and unalterable, black people would still only count as 2/3rds (or was it 1/3rd?) of a person.

Going on and on about self-defense and yadda yadda misses one big point: there are places where guns are, in fact banned. Last I heard, none of those places were being overrun with gun-toting criminals, defenseless civilians constantly in fear of their lives. The fact is, guns are used much, much more often in heat-of-the-moment crimes against family, friends, and strangers and by criminals and homicidal fools to kill than they are used in self-defense. And, unlike any of the other possible weapons you might point out that one family member might use against another -- the knives in the kitchen, the car in the garage, the Louisville Slugger in the closet -- guns serve no other even marginally useful purpose.

I mean really, where does anyone get the notion that more people with guns = safer? More people with guns = more people getting shot.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Going on and on about self-defense and yadda yadda misses one big point: there are places where guns are, in fact banned. Last I heard, none of those places were being overrun with gun-toting criminals, defenseless civilians constantly in fear of their lives. The fact is, guns are used much, much more often in heat-of-the-moment crimes against family, friends, and strangers and by criminals and homicidal fools to kill than they are used in self-defense. And, unlike any of the other possible weapons you might point out that one family member might use against another -- the knives in the kitchen, the car in the garage, the Louisville Slugger in the closet -- guns serve no other even marginally useful purpose.

Kyuu, did you even read what was said or do you a think a new page calls for same argument repeated? Great, there are places that don't have VIOLENCE GALOR OH NOEZ! Did you just skip over when I said there are places that don't have VIOLENCE GALORE OH NOEZ! that have loose to no gun control laws, or does that not fit your fantasy?

Again, I already said, just because a gun may not be readily availabe to your precious "Average Joe" doesn't mean another method of violence isn't. Those "heat-of-the-moment" moments aren't voided by the absence of guns. Just because a gun is made to kill, doesn't mean taking it away will take away the killing.

My gun is a leveling field I have against anyone who wishes to do me harm. But by your, and other analogies, which I have to repeat because you so hastily ignore it just because this thread had another page pop up, is that one incident of gun violence or gun responsibility is not enough to warrant anything. Show me the polls where people are known to be mature adults with their guns.

But since you're so interested in statistics, here's some for you.

Going on and on about self-defense and yadda yadda

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.

Just Facts

Well, gee, that's not a large enough number for you, I guess. I guess you still think "that's not an issue."

More from Just Facts, about Florida's gun control laws.

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

As for Assault Weapons Ban,

* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

Right, guns are made to kill, but I don't know how that automatically means everyone with a gun is a damn criminal.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Firearms people are very liberal. We believe in our individual liberties and our duty to protect and assert them.

You make blanket generalizations based on a stereotype perpetrated in most part by your social environment. You may not know any better, in which case I forgive you your ignorance.
Sounds familiar?

Furthermore, I have firearms because my government trusts my reasonable prudence and care as a sane person, respects my soveriegn rights, and abides in the concept of government by consent of the governed. Does yours trust you?

Why doesn't your government trust you enough to legalize drugs? A person reasonable and sane enough to decide how to put a gun to good use (a petty little device making its owner capable of bringing death with just an itch of a finger) should clearly be reasonable enough to handle a bit marihuana. Or nuclear bombs. Yeah! They can be fun, too! Shoot them up into space, watch the fireworks and enjoy the radio silence. It's a sport, the one to kill the most satellites wins! Of course, they may be capable of killing a few people, but so are cars! Go ban them!

This is a reply to a post on page 2. I wrote this and then refused to read any further after seeing the vast amount of text on the last two pages. So sue me.

 

[welsh]

John- you will probably be traveling so I will wait a response.

But a few thoughts-

(1) the Sweet case you mention is perhaps unique in the sense that the Black doctor didn't get lynched by the white mob.

I mentioned earlier that part of the civilizing of societies was domestication of violence into more legitimate means. This is the difference from allowing social groups (ethnic groups, mobs, gangs, clans) from going to war with each other and having a government utilize the coercive force of law to impose order. It might be noted however, that even before the period of lynching began, African-Americans suffered for decades after the Civil War were subject to high rates of homicide throughout the South.

We may question the use of violence as a means of repression by government, and we may applaud the individual right to protect oneself. But what you are also arguing is to promote the widespread ability of social groups to use violence against each other.

What was experienced by blacks after the Civil War was an early. But we havent' gotten much better when you consider the number of armed groups moving around New Orleans after Katrina. Contrast, however, the civility of San Francisco after its last earth quake or even New York after the most recent black out (a contrast with what was experienced in the 1970s).

True, these were disasters, but one can only look to regions were economies are fragile or politics are in crisis that the capacity of social violence can become quite problematic.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong about the person most likely to shoot you.

You say that its more than likely that a loved one is going to be killed by a criminal. This was not true until fairly recently.

Unfortunately, the chances of your loved ones being killed by a stranger are, probably, quite remote. Much of this depends on where you live and what social class. But I think its safe to say that if you live in an inner city, are poor and probably black and hispanic, and between the age of 15-30, chances are some stranger is going to kill you.

On the other hand if you don't fit into that category, chances are someone who knows you will kill you. YOu might not kill your loved ones - although that's a risk. But there is a possibility that your loved one kills you.

Why? Because before the Crack epidemic hit, chances were that most homicides happen in the home, from people you are closely associated with.

Perhaps you had a fight, perhaps someone is cheating, perhaps you are arguing over money, perhaps your kids are pissed off with you or you are pissed off with them, or perhaps you are just scared someone you know is so angry with you that you shoot them before they shoot you. Or maybe you're just drunk and got reckless and stupid.

From what I have seen for homicides usually they are done for money or out of stupidity.

Drugs and crime explains money and in that sense it makes sense for gangs to be heavily armed. Afterall, they deal with lots of cash and cannot appeal to the state to protect them.

Stupid crimes often happen in the family or among those you associate. These are the cases of homicides involving intimates, family or acquaintenaces. If you are among that population most in favor of gun control- middle class white and probably conservate, than the person you are more likely to kill, or will kill you, isn't a criminal but someone you know and probably love.

This is the problem with right and wrong people distinctions. A person is the right person until they pick up a gun with malice or reckless abandon. Then they begin to become the wrong person.

Of course not everyone is capable of committing violence against another. But the nice thing about guns is that it makes a person much more capable of doing that. Its a form a cheap power.

Truth about people is that sometimes we're good and sometimes we're evil. Sometimes we're rational and sometimes we're not. Usually we are in control of ourselves, and occassionally we lose it.

Which is why I support lockers and storage for guns- to keep them safe. I also encourage training in firearms.

I am not sure if more homicides occur than are prevented. I would actually think that it takes fairly little to prevent a homicide. Often it just means that someone didn't pull a trigger. Cooling off, an alarm system, a little patience, and sometimes the lack of a weapon might be enough. Hard to measure it because there is no data for something that doesn't happen.

As for the assault weapons ban- I think that points out the power of a lobby. But I also think that it suggests that there is no way the democrats, even if they were radically anti-gun (and they're not) could take away the right to own firearms. Just too many people own guns and go hunting or target shooting.

I really don't see why a company that makes a Tec-9, a gun made specially so it doesn't keep fingerprints- should be sold at all. If the assault weapon ban made a Tec-9, or Mac-11 or Ak -47 jump in price- good. I have no problem with drug dealers or other criminals spending more money for guns- let them suffer the costs. If that made it more difficult for a gun collector to own a gun, then he also gets the benefit of a high resell price. Either way, its hard to feel sorry for them. Its also ironic that Tim McVeigh and compatriates were targetting ATF offices but it made sense to use a bomb than an automatic weapon. ATF officers might shoot back. Personally, not only do I think the guy should have been fried, I think he should have been resusciated and fried again, repeatedly for each person who died that day.

AH the Levitt quote- a minor change in the law can have sweeping social consequences. In the case of abortion a national law allowing abortion allowed women across the country to have greater control over their family planning, resulting, indirectly, in a smaller criminal population and declines in crime. Sadly, that trend seems to be changing.

And while I agree with you that liberal enforcement of laws is a problem, the other problem is lack of national rules. But if we had national rules than some states would want more liberal standards (middle income, rural and suburban), and some would want more stiff standards (inner city, lower income).

What standards to have? difficult to do.

 

[fedaykin]

Once again I'm surprised that some Americans actually seem to believe that more guns make for a more peaceful society. Isn't that a paradox?

It's fascinating that, as Welsh pointed out, the advocates of gun ownership are usually the least likely people to be victims of gun crime. It would be interesting to read JohnnyEgo's direct reply to that statement, but for some reason he chose to derail by more or less explicitly saying, once again, that more guns equals better "assertion of rights".

My question to JohnnyEgo is: how? Where do you see a clear correlation between gun ownership and crime prevention or solution? How many times have you and your friends from the target range have had to at least draw your gun in order to prevent a crime from being committed against you or your loved ones?

Also, you are surely aware that minorities, especially black communities, account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in your country, due to them being also more likely to suffer from the effects of poverty. What's more, murders are mostly intraracial (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm). Under these circumstances, is it really sensible to claim that their problems could be solved or at least alleviated by laxer gun laws, in other words by allowing them to get more guns easier? I think socio-economic problems are far more complex, and giving them more firepower is more likely to deepen the troubles than help inner city minorities "assert their rights".

As if the best way to assert one's rights in America is to own a gun - an instrument of power.

 

[SuAside]

i aint opening no .exe from some dodgy .gov site, welsh!

but seriously, for a small case study on Belgium: http://www.gunfacts.be/wapenbezitcriminaliteitEnglish.pdf

you'll note that more often than not in european countries, suicides are counted twice... once as suicide and another time as murder... nice way to spice up numbers, huh?


@ fedaykin:

about half of the Swiss men receive their Sig 55X assault rifle to take home with them. full auto, WITH ammo. to store in their home....

where are the huge crime numbers? surely, so many automatic guns cause absolute mayhem???

well, actually, they dont.

now dont get me wrong, i dont advocate full auto ownership or anything, but come on... dont get carried away. violence is a social problem, not a matter of LEGAL weapons (which is the only weapons that gun control regulates).

if you want to kill people, you'll find a way. crime is pretty much only affected in the extreme ends of the gun control spectrum: total availability leads to more violence, absolute absence of weapons causes increased violent crime. but inbetween? laws have very little effect on the legal and illegal use of weapons.

 

[fallout ranger]

Here's a quote:




"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"



Who can guess who spoke those words?

 

[fedaykin]

I must admit, I googled. But I laughed my ass off. Damn ironic.

 

[fallout ranger]

That's right, Adolf Hitler.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Here's a quote:

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Who can guess who spoke those words?

Oh man, whoever he is he must be a great man of peace leading his country into a golden age without crime! *sarcasm*

Once again I'm surprised that some Americans actually seem to believe that more guns make for a more peaceful society. Isn't that a paradox?

Funny isn't it? But in truth, I'll take my ability to kill that son of a bitch who's trying to beat me because I'm gay over peace.

The thinking is that if both had a gun nether will shoot eachother. But in reality some one will attack someone else weather ether is armed or not.

As I believe it he gun is just a leveling/overpowering factor that allows the victim to respond to a violent act as it is happening. Its not guns make peace, its hope for the best, act for the best, prepare for the worst.

It's fascinating that, as Welsh pointed out, the advocates of gun ownership are usually the least likely people to be victims of gun crime. It would be interesting to read JohnnyEgo's direct reply to that statement, but for some reason he chose to derail by more or less explicitly saying, once again, that more guns equals better "assertion of rights".

My question to JohnnyEgo is: how? Where do you see a clear correlation between gun ownership and crime prevention or solution? How many times have you and your friends from the target range have had to at least draw your gun in order to prevent a crime from being committed against you or your loved ones?

I'll answer that. No I haven't because I'm too young to carry. I also avoid being seen publicly with my partner so that on the off chance we come across some asshole who doesn't like us fags hanging out in his screwed up vision of his country. I live in a place chock full of such assholes.

If I had a gun would I likely ever use it to defend myself? Probably not, the vast majority of people are nice enough. Its those few that aren't that worry me. I don't ever want to kill anyone. Most attackers are scared off by the first shot. As demonstrated by THIS number. Paladin solo: "Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year." Out of those incidents 200 were considered justifiable homicides. Just because you defend yourself with a gun doesn't mean you kill someone. A knife or a baseball bat are far more lethal and far less a deterrent than a gun. (I know I'm mixing numbers a little bit but the comparison I believe is justified)

Also, you are surely aware that minorities, especially black communities, account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in your country, due to them being also more likely to suffer from the effects of poverty. What's more, murders are mostly intraracial (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm). Under these circumstances, is it really sensible to claim that their problems could be solved or at least alleviated by laxer gun laws, in other words by allowing them to get more guns easier? I think socio-economic problems are far more complex, and giving them more firepower is more likely to deepen the troubles than help inner city minorities "assert their rights".

For a little while. The violence would skyrocket for a few years, then I believe they would settle down dramaticly. I'm not saying violence is a good thing. I'm saying the violent would kill eachother off.

I'm just saying I think thats how it would work. I'm not saying that its a good idea, in fact I believe it is a very bad idea. Kinda like Russia changing from communist to capitalist overnight and totally fucking up that country (china is doing things better). Things must happen slowly and the causes of the problems must be delt with.

As if the best way to assert one's rights in America is to own a gun - an instrument of power.

No, the best way to assert one's rights in America is to say something. A gun is just there to prevent yourself from getting killed.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

You make blanket generalizations based on a stereotype perpetrated in most part by your social environment. You may not know any better, in which case I forgive you your ignorance.
Sounds familiar?

Oohhh...Nice comeback, Rubberband-Man.

Why doesn't your government trust you enough to legalize drugs? A person reasonable and sane enough to decide how to put a gun to good use (a petty little device making its owner capable of bringing death with just an itch of a finger) should clearly be reasonable enough to handle a bit marihuana. Or nuclear bombs. Yeah! They can be fun, too! Shoot them up into space, watch the fireworks and enjoy the radio silence. It's a sport, the one to kill the most satellites wins! Of course, they may be capable of killing a few people, but so are cars! Go ban them!

This is a reply to a post on page 2. I wrote this and then refused to read any further after seeing the vast amount of text on the last two pages. So sue me.

Wow. Excellent points. All brought up by other people on those pages you skipped over. As were my responses. I know, it's a lot of reading, some big words, and no pictures. I doubt I'd want to do all the work either.



Onwards...

Welsh, I hope you had a fine holiday.

I am partial to Sweet because it conforms so closely to my belief in the right of self defense. Since I am a large white man, I may not be the best person to discuss the black experience in the US, as I lack both experience and particular knowledge of the subject. I will submit that guns are effective at killing people, and white folks had a bad tendency to kill a lot of black folks, particularly following the civil war. However, they killed a fair number with a rope as well. You can focus on the tool, but it’s the user that commits the crime.


Ironically enough, I do happen to know a very little bit about a civil rights group called “Deacons for Defense”, by virtue of a lecture on the subject that I heard on NPR by a Tulane University Professor named Lance Hill, who wrote a book called “The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement”. I was fascinated by the lecture, so I bought the book and read it. It was about a group of black men in the 60’s who formed a self defense committee in response to a KKK march in Jonesboro, LA, that was lead by the local sheriff. This group of armed black men informed the sheriff that they would not hesitate to defend themselves. The Deacons managed to stop, in short order, both a cross burning at a black minister’s house, and the use of fire hoses on black children by white firemen to prevent desegregation of the local high school. As a result of their effort of armed resistance, the Klan left Jonesboro, never to return.

The Deacons are emblematic of the armed assertion of rights that I believe in. A lot of folks get hung up on the idea of “Big Brother” when it is often “Little Brother” that is the most responsible for the suppression of civil rights in this country. The sheriff that lead the initial KKK parade through Jonesboro is a fine example of a man who’s duty it was to uphold the law and protect all the people of his community. But what do you do when the government official sworn to protect you is the one leading the parade?

This is the oppression I generally refer to when I talk about the armed assertion of civil rights, and the need has arisen several times in this country. There was the “Battle of Athens” in the late 1940s, when a group of WWII GIs lead an armed rebellion against a local government that had seized control of the political process and refused to abide by democratic process. That is a particularly fascinating story as well, and I encourage you to look it up when you have the time.

It’s funny you mention Katrina, because that is another fine example of local government not only failing to protect the citizenry, but actually acting to cause greater harm. I refer you to the Gretna Bridge incident, where the Gretna Police Force forcibly blocked, and in some cases shot at, large numbers of people trying to evacuate New Orleans. I refer you to an account of the situation by “60 Minutes”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/15/60minutes/main1129440.shtml


When the government no longer serves the people, and indeed actually poses them harm, then the right to bear arms and defend one’s life becomes paramount. And all too often, it’s the local government that is repressing the people.

We’ve discussed the crack epidemic, inner-city poverty, and domestic violence in some detail already, and we’re pretty much on the same page. Easy access to guns by the wrong people is certainly part of the problem. But it is a symptom. I don’t want to get too apocryphal, but there is an old story one of my college professors used to tell about diagnostics and troubleshooting:

Two men are walking by a stream, when they see a small child drowning. The first man jumps into the stream without hesitation and pulls the child to safety. No sooner does he get to the bank when he sees another child struggling in the waters. He turns around and pulls the child back. The first man starts noticing more children in the water. He is getting quite worn out, and looks to see how the second man is doing. When he doesn’t see the second man in the water, he looks around and is startled to see the man running along the bank, passing dozens more struggling children. The first man calls out to the second, shouting “Why are you not rescuing all these drowning children?” The second man replies, “I’m going upstream to stop whoever keeps throwing them in the water!”

As a country, we’re mediocre at treating symptoms, and horrible at addressing the root problems. I feel the populace as a whole would benefit far more from actions to address poverty and the drug epidemic then band-aid gun control measures.

I also support safe and locker use for gun storage, and I want to keep them out of the hands of minors. I definitely support training.

Of course, most criminals don’t buy a firearm from an FFL. The NICS check and transfer rules discourage this, and generally do a good job of preventing it. The most common method by which a criminal obtains a gun is via crime, namely straw purchase or theft. Few criminals I know of are particularly concerned about the merits of the “Hostile Environment” finish and lifetime warranty on the HK USP to want to spend $700-900 on one to knock off a liquor store. More commonly, the straw purchase is used to get around age or prior DV convictions.

One method to combat these crimes is via higher taxes, like those placed on cigarettes, to subsidize enforcement of existing gun laws. On the one hand, I do think that higher taxes tend to discriminate against the right of self defense for the lower classes. On the other hand, I want to see more money going towards the root causes of the problem. A tax has the pleasing effect for those against guns of making the cost of entry higher. It would also be more palatable to gun owners then prohibitions. Prohibition has never worked so hot in this country, and with 200 million guns in circulation, I doubt it would do much more then encourage a black market and raise prices. Which is more or less what the AWB did.

Once again I'm surprised that some Americans actually seem to believe that more guns make for a more peaceful society. Isn't that a paradox?

It's fascinating that, as Welsh pointed out, the advocates of gun ownership are usually the least likely people to be victims of gun crime. It would be interesting to read JohnnyEgo's direct reply to that statement, but for some reason he chose to derail by more or less explicitly saying, once again, that more guns equals better "assertion of rights".

I’ve enjoyed my dialog with Welsh, and I generally believe both he and I have answered each other’s assertions. I’m sorry you feel I have been evasive. Perhaps you could provide me with specific quotes on the part of both Welsh and I. If I haven’t answered a question, pose it to me. If I have already answered it, I don’t intend to repeat myself.

My question to JohnnyEgo is: how? Where do you see a clear correlation between gun ownership and crime prevention or solution? How many times have you and your friends from the target range have had to at least draw your gun in order to prevent a crime from being committed against you or your loved ones?

I am blessed to have never needed, as a civilian, to draw down on anyone. But, should that situation ever have the misfortune of occurring, I will at least have the possibility of doing so.

Also, you are surely aware that minorities, especially black communities, account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in your country, due to them being also more likely to suffer from the effects of poverty. What's more, murders are mostly intraracial (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm). Under these circumstances, is it really sensible to claim that their problems could be solved or at least alleviated by laxer gun laws, in other words by allowing them to get more guns easier? I think socio-economic problems are far more complex, and giving them more firepower is more likely to deepen the troubles than help inner city minorities "assert their rights".

As if the best way to assert one's rights in America is to own a gun - an instrument of power.

Welsh posed those questions better then you, and I answered them. I’m sorry if you did not like or understand my answers. But I’m also not inclined to repeat myself. Maybe someone else will be willing to do it for me, or maybe you will be out of luck. I doubt it would make much difference to you either way.

Ah-Teen – I encourage you to look up and consider joining your local chapter of the “Pink Pistols”, an organization that encourages gun ownership and use in the gay community. You also have a formal invitation to come shoot with me any time you would like.
[/url]

 

[welsh]

@ Johnny - Thanks, I had a lovely holiday. I hope you did as well.

Back on topic- I agree that it is hard to tell what effect the AWB had simply because there were so many assault weapons grandfathered in that the value just shot up. Still, the thing is that the guns that were targetted were also enjoying an increased use in crime, including drug related crime. As I recall, many of the right that support the right to own guns and fear the government cite to the Branch Davidians, but this was a group that had illegal automatic weapons.

Just as criminals are often reluctant to use automatic weapons in crimes because its a felony, I think tighter bans on assault weapons, including greater punishment for their use in a crime, might deter their use. The argument that - hand guns are more widely used in homicide than assault like weapons might be right, but I think that's generally a good thing and think that might also suggest that we need more control over handguns as well.

I sympathize for those cases where minorities have struggled against repressive local governments. One of reasons I am generally not sympathetic to greater "state's rights" arguments is that the more local your politics the greater your likelihood of corruption.

That said, I would still be cautious- much depends on the power of different social factions to bring guns to bear and the willingness of the power to repress the weak. Had the Klan been more willing to use violence would the Deacons have succeeded. ANd then there is a the danger of abuse - the Black Panthers justified their use of violence in defense of the rights of Blacks but also to further a very radical agenda. And that went rather badly.

Why does violence happen- I agree that its not about guns so much as other social factors and I would like to see those resolved. Guns may make crime easier, but I don't think it motivates crime. UN studies on conflict indicate that social inequality and poverty may have more to do with it.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/issues/v45n1/012208/012208.web.pdf

We may have more violent gun deaths not so much because we have guns but because we have poverty and inequality. So I agree, we need to get to the root causes of social violence, and are doing a crap job of that. The only thing is that guns are a form of cheap power- the power to take life. With that power it becomes easier to commit a crime, and thus a catalyst. Remove that power and crime becomes more difficult.

But we should also note- even the Swiss are having second thoughts about gun ownership.
Swiss consider gun control - in large part because of rates of sucide and occassional cases of rampages.

What worries me more is the nature of the political game behind gun control and largely, who funds what on the pro-gun side.

Consider for instance the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. One response among the pro-gun crowd was to arm the student body. Why? Because had a few students been armed the shooter might have been killed. Maybe.

But then lets consider college campuses- communities of 18-22 year olds (a big segment of the age demographic most likely to commit crimes), that enjoys a higher rate of both suicide and substance abuse then the rest of society. And as I recall college - an environment in which students may experience many significant changes in the transition for childhood to adult hood in a relatively safety.

Do you really want more guns in a population of sexually active, stoned and drunk 17-22 year olds? Hell, even in the wild west it was not uncommon for towns to pass ordinances in which those passing through had to keep their guns locked away in order to improve local safety.

A lot of this comes from the NRA, which, seems to wish to dominate this discussion and which, I think, doesn't really have the interests of most gun owners at heart.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a_shot_at_the_second_amendment

Consider the article cited above that states with lax gun laws are suffering increases in narcotics and narcotics related violence. Yet the NRA seems to care more about the profits of the industry than the individual owner or about individual safety.

Honestly, I support the right of some individuals to own guns and don't support the right for others. I also don't have a problem with restricting the types of guns that are on the market.

But a total ban? No. We have a long tradition of gun ownership in this country. Hunting and sport fishing are part of the American way of life. The issue of home defense is, I suspect, a consequence of the fabrication of fear, motivated largely by an arms industry wanting to sustain profits when homicide rates were in decline.

The question is that balance between the right to own a gun and the right to live in a society where you don't have to worry about guns. I would hate to think we are becoming a society where its less about one having the right to own a gun to one in which a person feels compelled to have to own a gun.

Yet that seems to be the society that the NRA promotes. And I suspect that the NRA's interest is less about individual owners of guns, but the industry itself.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I've got a temporary pass from the wife while she's watching "Dancing with the Stars", but I've got to keep it brief.

I'm all for very harsh punishment for those convicted of gun crime. I don't know that I have the mind of a criminal, but I'd think the question would be whether or not to use a gun to commit a crime, and not whether it would be an automatic weapon or a semi. In fact, in most cases, I'd imagine my preference would be for something small and easily concealable. I think the factor limiting automatic weapons in crime is availability; they aren't just "around", the legal ones are, for the most part, prohibitively expensive, and contrary to gun-store myth, it requires a little more then just casual effort to turn most semi-autos to full. Stricter mandatory sentencing has placed the heft of punishment on the fact that any gun was used. And that has had some positive effect, both in deterence and incarceration.

Yup, the BPs strayed far from the concept of self defence, and paid the price for their actions.

As to the college population - I went to college in my later 20s, with a bunch of other GIs and LEOs. So my experience was a little different, but I understand your point. Maturity varies considerably in the 18-22 range, and plenty of kids make bad decisions. Guns make it easier for those decisions to have a greater consequence. I would submit that while 18-22 may be the age demographic most likely to commit a serious crime, college students are perhaps not the major component of that crime demographic. Teen suicide is a tragedy, and it's been going on for a long time. Considering the fact that guns are not permitted on most campuses, teens still seem to be offing themselves at a fairly high rate. Pills, drugs, alcohol, and whatnot.

I also understand the commentary regarding the VT shootings. In a similar situation, I would have really wanted to have my gun. Although I do not know for sure, I doubt the sentiment expressed meant that the person advocated the issuance of firearms to the general student body. I imagine they meant they wished those who were issued a permit would be allowed to carry on the campus in the same way they are allowed to carry in other parts of the state. Within a few miles from my house, there was once a shooting at Florida Coastal School of Law. It was ended by two students who went out to their cars parked off campus, retrieved their legally stored guns, and shot the assailant.

As to the NRA, it is something I'll have to post about tomorrow, as I am being forced to call it a night.

Have a good one.

******************************************

One thing I should tell you, right off the bat, is that I am not a member of the NRA, although I am glad it exists when it does something to advance the individual right, and irritated when it fails. As I was at the onset of the Heller case. This is not the first time the NRA has suppressed or attempted to suppress a pivotal case. In general, I believe the NRA benefits from the status quo - an indefinite interpretation of the second ammendment with plenty of opportunity to scare it's members into giving more money for the cause.

In some cases, the actions of the NRA have proven useful to me. Marion Hammer has done a good job in advocating for a right to carry and defend in Florida. I know it's controversial, but we have had civilian carry in Florida for a long time now, it's generally worked quite well, and contrary to popular opinion, we have not become "Dodge City". So I applaud these local efforts and support the NRA in spirit for them.

Unfortunately, on the national level, I have been less then impressed. But now, despite the NRA's efforts, we finally have a case that has the potential to settle the collective vs. individual debate once and for all. I can understand the NRA's reluctance. This could be a major blow to their purported cause if it is decided against us. If it is decided for us, it takes some of the wind out of their sails in terms of scare tactics to fundraise. But like it or not, the chips are on the table, and the NRA could not continue to try and avoid it. So now, albeit reluctantly, the NRA is on my side of this issue, with all their political and financial capital on it as well.

Are they going to exploit the situation to generate money? Definitely. Do I care? Not so much. If Heller goes my way and the NRA has a temporary surplus of funds, great. If Heller goes the other way, the NRA is going to need those funds in order to try and maintain the status quo.

The link you provided is very useful, and a fair and accurate summation of the issue at hand. I think the NRA cares more about the continuation of the NRA then it does about either individual gun owners or the industry.

I can assure you that I don't ever want to make gun ownership compulsory, and there are many people who cannot, and should not, own guns. I am not against reasonable measures to assure that guns are kept away from these people. I am even willing to spend a little more, in the form of taxation, to see that this happens. I support marketing restrictions, in much the same way that cigarette advertising is heavily regulated, and prescription drugs used to be. What I don't advocate are bans based on appearance or function, or unreasonable access limitations for citizens in good standing.