Gun Control

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

If guns are a deterrent, as they claim, then why be anonymous?

States which have decided to allow citizens to carry firearms in public have a choice between what's called open carry (having the gun visible, much like a police officer) or concealed carry.

The benefits of conceal carry is the criminal doesn't know if you're armed or not. You're more likely to have your gun taken from you, if the criminal knows where it is. Also, criminals tend to attack people they consider to be easy targets. Suddenly finding a gun pointed at them may cause them to stop their actions.

The second benefit is the criminal may be wary of even attacking a person without a firearm, because they can't tell who has one and who hasn't. More people can benefit from the deterrent effect without having to carry.



The main problem with what the newspaper did is now criminals, who are seeking a source untraceable firearms, knows which homes to rob. They can watch the home, learn when the inhabitants are least likely be home, and break in. Just in case someone is home, they will be coming in armed and ready to kill.

Another problem is a woman hiding from a stalker or ex-husband may now have her name and address searchable, if she acquired a firearm permit to protect herself and her children.

Finally, any deterrent effect for the neighborhood is now canceled, because criminals know which homes are gun-free zones.



Law enforcement already know who the gun owners are and where they live. If those gun owners do anything which make them a potential danger to society (being convicted of a felony, found mentally ill, etc.) then they'll send a SWAT team down to collect the firearms.

Ironically, the good gun owners (who legally registered their firearms, obtained permits) are punished by what this newspaper has done, while the bad gun owners (criminals who don't register their firearms) have benefited.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

Haven't visited HT for a month or so. After the CT shooting, I figured there'd be a lively debate here

I value "quality of life" over mere "life". Some things are worse than death, IMO. That's the basis behind my view of things. Of course, we all have different opinions of what "quality of life" is.

There are different types of bad guys, who exhibit different types of violent behavior (with or without guns). When it comes to the gun debate, each person has a different bogeyman. It's tough to debate the gun issue when each person has a different fear. Here are some types:


crazy person

(scariest to the general public because they kill randomly. can't buy your safety unless you have body guards, and even then, there's no guarantees. crazy doesn't always mean stupid)

criminal

(they use violence to make a living. they want easy, safe targets. if they think you're too much work, they'll find someone else)

gang member

(generic term for a violent person who enforces their will over a certain neighborhood. if you can buy your way into a better neighborhood, then you're not as concerned about them)

domestic abuser

(uses violence to control family members and how they deal with their negative emotion. general pubic doesn't care about them, as long as they are not in their family)

terrorist

(uses violence for political reasons)

sexual predator

(requires power and privacy to commit their crime)

corrupt official

(very broad definition. could be as big as a DC politician down to community association board member. basically uses their legal power to enforce their will upon others. the threat of violence is indirect. law -> police/military -> violence (from having property taken, being put in jail, or killed)


This list isn't perfect, but the main thing to remember is everyone has a different fear. When people argue, they assume the other person has the same fear as them.

Many Combat Veterans suffer from PTSD - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I do. Mine results from guilt over missing a vehicle mine (actually I knew it was there but my teammates couldn't find it, and I trusted them) that caused two US casualties. To this day, 24 years later, it still causes anguish, but it does not make me want to hurt anyone.

I'm sorry you have to live with that, Kaonohi

Your story makes me think of this Marine captain's decision that got one of his men killed:

http://youtu.be/X1zBZWGKJJY?t=26m11s

I heard just this morning on MSNBC a discussion of the relation between gun ownership and violence against women. The murder rate of women in households with a gun present was said to be 25 times the rate in households without a gun present.

I would say there's a relationship between "gun ownership and homicide" rather than "gun ownership and violence", because violence is a broader term.

I totally agree guns make it easier to kill someone and to act on impulsive feelings, so that would increase the homicide rate.

A woman suffering quietly in an abusive relationship isn't dead, but she sure isn't "living". She'll carry emotional scars with her for the rest of her life.

What movement for gun control?

Brady Campaign is the one I hear about the most.

How do you explain that countries with lower gun ownership have lower levels of gun violence?

Of course levels of gun ownership will affect levels of gun violence.

The question is, does the level of gun ownership affect the level of physical violence?

You believe that other people should be able to own guns even though you, your wife, your children, and grandchildren will grow up in and live in a more violent society than the contrary?

I see guns as a tool of violence, but not the cause of violence. IMO, the cause of violence are things such as over crowding, economic inequality and instability, mobility and the breakdown of community, etc.

Although there is no way to track the number of firearms that permanently leave the state, independent estimates made during the late-1990s by the Department of the Attorney General and the City & County of Honolulu Police Department placed the total number of privately owned firearms in Hawaii at roughly one million.

I would note that many owners own more than one firearm (just like women own more than one pair of shoes).

High rates of gun ownership threatens our freedom to live in a peaceful environment.

I agree that guns can add fuel to an already violent situation (criminals fighting over drug selling territory). I also believe an armed society is a polite society (mostly law abiding folks who may be preyed upon by criminals). And by armed I mean carrying a firearm on their person.

A "peaceful environment" may be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how it's achieved. An exaggerated example, but a government could achieve a "peaceful environment" by forcing its population to take psychiatric drugs and killing people who refuse.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Owning a gun has nothing to do with the freedom to do whatever you damn well please.

I agree. Actually, gun ownership puts more responsibilities and limitations on the owner. (Smart) gun owners will avoid situations with the potential for conflict, because they don't' want to lose their right to own a gun.

Gun ownership is directly related to violence on innocent bystanders - that's where "personal freedom" ends, when it ADVERSELY affects the public health, safety, and welfare.

Gun ownership doesn't automatically imply illegal use of a gun. Bad people use gun to hurt innocent bystanders. Good people use it to protect innocent bystanders (mainly themselves).

What concerns them is unrealistic and unmitigated paranoia - pull it out of the air odds, break ins, black helicopters, big government

Gun owners who spout conspiracy theories are annoying and embarrassing. All sides are guilty of paranoia, though. It's paranoia to think a gun owner is eager to shoot someone.

Do you consider Utah a dangerous place to live? They allow licensed conceal carry gun owners to carry in schools (K-public college). Utah should be a blood bath, right? Mormons must be ultra violent, right?

If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, you might think about moving

Poor people are less able to buy their safety, by moving to a better (and more expensive) neighborhood.

organize a Neighborhood Watch program

I totally agree with you here. Situational awareness, cardio, and community do more for personal safety than having a firearm. A firearm is there as insurance, in case nothing else works.

Loss of community is a major cause of society's problems. A lot people who fear a Mad Max scenario sadly believe they can hold out on their own without the help of neighbors.

Where we differ is whether we want an armed or unarmed community.

then tell us why the inconvenience suffered by gun owners and prospective gun owners under much tighter restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammunition outweighs the death of children in their classrooms

2009 Firearm Homicides: 11,493
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

2009 Fatal Car Crashes: 33,808
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1105.pdf

Maybe Americans need to give up their love affair with cars.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

For those who absurdly believe that having more guns in the hands of more civilians will help stop shooters at public rampages

It is absurd to believe that the mere ownership of a gun is enough to protect oneself and others. Regular and effective training is required. Often police and soldiers need to seek training on their own, beyond what the government gives them.

On another hand, there's very little an unarmed citizen can do to stop a shooter on a rampage, unless they are lucky enough to talk the shooter down.

Brendan McKown

For what little details I could find, it seems McKown suddenly came face to face with the gunman, so he was at a disadvantage. McKown then attempted to draw his gun on someone who already had their gun out (and I assume pointed at him). This is a common mistake. One needs to create "breathing room" before drawing your weapon. Without knowledge of the exact situation, it's hard to say what he should have done instead, but he could have acted like an unarmed shopper until he had the advantage of surprise.

Mark Wilson

Arroyo (gunman) had wounded his son and was taking aim to kill him. That's when Wilson shot him from behind. Unfortunately, Wilson did not know Arroyo was wearing body armor. Wilson died, but he distracted Arroyo from his primary target.

Wilson was actually safe in his apartment when he saw Arroyo shooting in the street. Unfortunately, Wilson brought a handgun to a rifle fight.

Their question is, why did the shooter have guns that were registered to his mother.

I assume this was before details were released about the fact that his mother owned the guns and he took them. My question is how did she secure (or fail to secure) her firearms.

Their guess, based on their collective experience, is that the shooter maybe forged the mothers name to get the guns but they don't know.

I suppose it's possible for CT governments employees to be incompetent enough not to notice that a male is registering a firearm under the name Nancy.

Googling "connecticut firearm registration" gets you these registration requirements for handguns: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614

"You will also be required to submit to a background investigation, criminal history check and submit fingerprints and photographs in connection with your application. The licensing statute also contains a “suitability clause” which provides that the issuing authority may deny such application, if it determines that the applicant is not a suitable person to possess or carry a pistol or revolver. The suitability clause applies both to the issuance of new permits and revocation of existing permits. Applicants must provide proof you are legally and lawfully in the United States, such as a birth certificate, or U.S. Passport. Legal Alien Residents must provide Alien Registration numbers and 90-day proof of residency. Naturalized citizens require proof of citizenship."

States can be bad at providing clear information about their firearm registration/permitting requirements. I had to go to NRA's website to find out that CT requires the registration of "assault" weapons, which I believe

EVERY gun owner should have such a safe, and it should be a legal requirement.

I agree, along with proper installation (bolted to a building's structural member in a way that prevents prying).

Of course, you fall into the issue of what type of safe is legally required, or rather, how much will it cost? Will it need to be installed by someone specially licensed? Does it need to be inspected?

What a gargantuan burden it would be on our economy let alone our freedom to put armed guards in every parking lot, in every mall, in every church, at every intersection, etc.

It would be cheaper to allow licensed citizens to conceal carry in such places

Gun control will not stop violence, but it will minimize it and that is the goal.

Gun control my stop gun violence, but it may also increase other forms of violence. The total amount of violence are caused by other social issues.

But the statistics show that she put her life in higher extreme danger when a gun became involved.

Do you remember the source of that statistic? I'm curious about the wording of "when a gun became involved". Does that mean she has the gun or the criminal brought his own gun to the crime?

Anyone who has several rounds of ammunition in their home is a paranoid gun nut.

One definition of "several" is more than two. So one round means you're suicidal. Two rounds means you want to commit murder-suicide. Three means you're a paranoid gun nut.

People buy a lot of ammo for training (shooting is a perishable skill). Some buy in bulk to save money or to hedge against shortages. And yes, there are gun nuts who buy a lot because they are nutty.

If self-protection is the goal, a shot gun with with half a dozen shells would be more than sufficient to hold off a small army.

Unless we're talking about nuclear tipped shotgun shells, I don't think 6 shells will hold off a small army that wants to kill you.

If one gun is not sufficient for home protection, then why two? five? ten? one hundred?

Why do people own more than one pair of footwear? Why do we have running shoes, hiking boots, dress shoes, high heels, pumps, slippers, etc?

People own multiple firearms for many reasons. Each model has it's pros and cons. Firearms are also recreational. You can't shoot skeet with a handgun (I guess you could, if you're really good).

Handguns are inferior to rifles and shotguns, but are concealable (for licensed conceal carry holders) and portable. Shotguns are good for home defense with flexible choices of ammunition, but it's hard to train someone to use shotguns effectively, and they are slower to reload. Magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles have a lot of good defensive points, but they are more expensive to buy, own, and fire.

Then why does this not happen in relatively gun free zones like England, Japan, Singapore, etc.?

Gun free zones cease to exist when the entire country is relatively gun free. Or to quote Syndrome from "The Incredibles": "When everyone's super, no one will be."

America is a young country that was born out of guns (pioneers hunting for survival, revolutionaries fighting for independence from Europe, and as Americans who conquered the Native Americans). It's a gun country (for the time being). It's within a gun country that gun free zones can exist (which those pesky bad guys seem to ignore).

Assault weapons should be banned from the general public

To earn brownie points with gun owners, you should be aware that they consider "assault weapons" to be firearms capable of fully automatic, burst, or select fire. Think of the firefights from the movie "Heat".

The term "assault weapon" is problematic because there are differing definitions. I'm no legal expert, but I heard the definition needs to be nailed down for gun control laws to resist challenge.

Mega clips should be banned from the general public

To earn brownie points with some gun owners, the proper term is "magazine". Here's an image for your reference. http://rexgrigg.com/clipmag.jpg On the left is a clip. On the right is a magazine.

Many gun owners will use "clip" though. They won't mind if you use "magazine".

Strict screening needs to be in place on who can own a handgun or rifle

I guess we'll have to agree on what "strict" is. Here's the Hawaii requirements for handguns:

You must be 21 years old and a U.S. citizen.
You must be fingerprinted and photographed for a criminal background check and affirm by affidavit your mental health and lack of drug or alcohol addiction or criminal background.
You authorize release of your medical history and give the name and address of your doctor (if any).
Your doctor is required to release any mental health information pertinent to your acquiring firearms.
A drunk driving record, history of serious psychiatric diagnosis, or any treatment for alcohol or drug abuse will result in denial of your permit.

Owning multiple weapons and/or assault weapons is a mental health issue that needs to be addressed.

I know many people who own multiple weapons, and they are level headed people. Because they make choices you don't agree with, you get to slap the "mentally ill" label on them? Is that your idea of health care reform?

He said his parents encouraged him to take the gun to school for "self protection."

If his parents explicitly encouraged him, then they are irresponsible. It is also possible he misinterpreted something they said or just lied. I wasn't able to find more information about that.

Regardless, if he brought their gun to school, then they did not have it sufficiently secured, which is a big problem.

A company is marketing bullet proof back packs for your kids to wear to school.

Companies also sell all manner of CDs for unborn children to listen to, for parents who are afraid their chid won't be able to compete academically with other children. There's a lot of money to be made from fear.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

A gun advocate on TV said teachers should be armed.

If the advocate means teachers should be required to arm themselves, then that's a bad idea on many levels.

Rather, teachers should be allowed to carry, only if they are licensed to and want to.

no point having the gun in a desk where he/she couldn't get to it quickly

Another problem is there's more of a chance of a negligent discharge when a gun is transferred from one storage place (carrying case) to another storage place (desk). Far better for the teacher to holster their weapon (concealed holster) at home and never touch it throughout the school day.

If gun possession by the general population is a deterrent to gun violence as proposed by the NRA and its minions,........then why do we have metal detectors at the Capitol building in DC with massive number of law enforcement personnel who are well armed.

Gun possession is a deterrent against all forms of violence, not just gun violence.

A deterrent deters, but does not prevent. Layers off security are more effective than putting all your eggs in one basket.

Deterrents work better on people who don't want to die. Criminals looking for money or rape tend to value their lives and go after easy targets. Angry people (like terrorists), are willing to die to kill.

The NRA's solution to the massacre at Sandy Hook is armed guards at all our schools.

Armed guards are expensive. Allowing adults working at schools to conceal carry, if they are licensed, willing, and trained, is more pragmatic.

I also heard that Bushmaster sales are going through the roof.

I'm not surprised. Gun owners are panicking. I heard one store has a poster of Obama with the label "Salesman of the Year".

Columbine had an armed guard on duty at the time of that massacre. How did that help - free guns or not?

Here's a pro-gun article on that issue: http://www.examiner.com/article/fact...-lives?cid=rss

Here's CNN's timeline of events: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/col....Time.Line.htm

By engaging the shooters, the guard forced them to stop shooting students and turn their attention towards him. He also forced them to take cover inside of the building, deterring them from going after students hiding behind cars.

Unfortunately, the guard couldn't be in two places at once. The shooters continued to shoot students in the hallways and library. There were also adults, but none of them were armed.

The problem with the argument is, as an MSNBC commentator poiinted out, that there aren't any armed guards in banks any longer

Some questions to ask about the disappearance of armed guards in banks:

Is there less currency (physical money) in circulation now than before? Our banking system has gone more and more digital.

Are the serious criminals finding it easier and more profitable to steal money "virtually"? An FBI agent told me about a ring of credit card thieves who made millions in a matter of weeks, with no physical risk to themselves. They weren't even hard core criminals. He called sophisticated amateurs.

If only the crack heads are holding up banks, then banks don't need armed guards anymore. In fact, with liability issues, it may make less financial sense for them to have armed guards.

Say you are crazy, armed with a knife or even a standard hand gun: you can't kill that many people before your targets scatter, but if you have a military style assault weapon, really, you can blow off dozens of shots in a minute, you can spray a room full of victims before anyone has a chance to react.

Yup. I agree, it's easier to kill people with a rifle than a knife.

A determined gunman armed with 2 or more full clip handguns (which will always be legal) can quickly kill 20 people, easily.

I believe the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 adults with just handguns. Gun owners are fighting controls on rifles because they know handguns are next. I wouldn't assume magazine fed, semi-automatic handguns will always be legal.

The whole point is getting/keeping the guns out of the bad guys hands

I don't think that's possible. I heard stories of criminals being caught with equipment marked "Law Enforcement / Military Only".

Our country can't stop the flow of illegal drugs, illegal immigrants, etc. We can't stop underage drinking or drunk drivers. I don't think we can stop bad guys from getting guns.

Yes, we could theoretically shut down gun manufacturers and confiscate guns. We won't get them all. In the end, the most powerful and ruthless criminals will still have guns.

But I don't think the general public cares about criminals having guns, because they tend to shoot each other, police, or people too poor to move out of bad neighborhoods. The general public is more afraid of people who randomly shoot people, because anyone can be a victim.

The first person shot and murdered at the Holocaust Museum rampage in NYC was the armed guard!

That's why concealed carry is better than open carry. Surprise and uncertainty works in the good guy's favor. It also means you don't need everyone to carry.

And having an unlicensed gun in your possession is not even a felony, it is a misdemeanor!

I'm going to guess they made it a misdemeanor in Hawaii on purpose, because you hear people move to Hawaii and don't realize they only have 3 days to register their firearm. Once they realize they missed the deadline, they are afraid to report it because they don't' want to get in trouble. If you make it a felony, they definitely won't report their firearm because once you get a felony, you will never be allowed to own a firearm again.

So you make it a misdemeanor because you rather have people report their firearms, than to have a lot of unreported firearms. If they wish to someday confiscate firearms, they want an accurate list of whose doors to knock down.

Being a "sicko" does not mean there is not a lot of forethought and advanced planning before the assault.

Yup. Don't underestimate people you label as "crazy".

I read that the Batman shooter had around 10 theaters to choose from, in his area. He didn't pick the closest, the smallest, nor the largest. He picked the one with the "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...emark-theater/

Oh wait, let's arm the teachers! Those same teachers who are having their salaries cut, being criticized for being lazy and stupid, and having their school supplies cut. But a gun for a teachers is a better expenditure than a book for a student

Teachers forced to carry guns would perform poorly during an incident. Rather, allow any adult working at school to conceal carry if they are licensed and feel confident to do so.

Some of the best trained armed guards working in our nation are members of the Secret Service, assigned to protect the President of the United States.

Tell me ... did that stop someone from shooting Ronald Reagan?

This foolish argument of "more guns will stop the shootings" needs to be put to bed - there is NO PROOF that it works, and plenty of examples to prove that it DOES NOT WORK.

So by that logic, the Secret Service shouldn't bother carrying guns?

Guns do not guarantee anything. This is a misconception held by both pro and anti gun people.

Pro gun people think merely owning a gun makes them safe without any training. They treat gun like a magic talisman. They fail to realize that the gun itself is just one part of what's needed for security.

Anti gun people thing people with guns are unstoppable. That everyone will die instantly from one shot, like in the movies. They think you only need one bullet to defend yourself, because you never miss under stress.

Guns (with proper training) only improve your odds. Nothing in life is guaranteed. You cannot let down your guard because you own a gun.

Legitimate gun owners names and addresses published in a newspaper?

That's bad on so many levels. First of all, the people who really need to know where the gun owners are (police), already know. By making their names and addresses public, these law abiding citizens now become vulnerable to criminals. Criminals will know which houses to rob, to get guns. They also know to bring guns of their own and more people.

Even homes which don't own guns are affected. Now the criminals know which homes aren't armed, and may experience more break ins.

Seeing this breach of privacy, people will be more afraid to register their firearms.

Should we make a list of all HIV+ individuals public record? Are they considered a public health risks? If we can't trust people to be responsible gun owners, can we trust HIV+ people to be responsible with their bodily fluids?

Well, if the media wants to open this can of worms, I hope they find out if any anti-gun politicians own guns or a conceal carry permit; you know, to keep them safe from the rest of us.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

My apologies for the wall of text; I got on this thread late. Also, my apologies for any typos. After all that writing, I ran out of steam for editing.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Gun Control

So by that logic, the Secret Service shouldn't bother carrying guns?

This misperception was already answered in post #199.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

States which have decided to allow citizens to carry firearms in public have a choice between what's called open carry (having the gun visible, much like a police officer) or concealed carry.

Printing the names of those with gun permits has nothing to do with open carry or concealed carry. That is a whole other issue that is best discussed in another thread.

The main problem with what the newspaper did is now criminals, who are seeking a source untraceable firearms, knows which homes to rob. They can watch the home, learn when the inhabitants are least likely be home, and break in. Just in case someone is home, they will be coming in armed and ready to kill.

This is an NRA talking point. So if the criminals are "coming in armed and ready to kill" then the gun in the home is not a deterrent!

Another problem is a woman hiding from a stalker or ex-husband may now have her name and address searchable, if she acquired a firearm permit to protect herself and her children.

This is an NRA talking point. As I just stated, it is very easy to track anyone through public records.

Finally, any deterrent effect for the neighborhood is now canceled, because criminals know which homes are gun-free zones.

This is an NRA talking point. Well if the criminals are "coming in armed and ready to kill," then it doesn't matter whether there are guns in the home or not. It is not a deterrent.

Law enforcement already know who the gun owners are and where they live. If those gun owners do anything which make them a potential danger to society (being convicted of a felony, found mentally ill, etc.) then they'll send a SWAT team down to collect the firearms.

If you have been paying attention here on HT you know that there are people who are not permitted to have guns in their homes yet they have them there anyway. What should be done about that?

Ironically, the good gun owners (who legally registered their firearms, obtained permits) are punished by what this newspaper has done, while the bad gun owners (criminals who don't register their firearms) have benefited.

Only 60% of legally acquired guns are registered and have permits. 40% of guns that are sold are not registered and have no permits. (Therefore the subject newspaper DID NOT have a complete list of gun owners in those counties, only about 60% of them!) I just found out that a gun store which does not require a background check or require registration is only guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony. It is folly for the Justice Dept. to prosecute a misdemeanor and so they go unpunished. This is legislation that was pushed by the NRA (a terrorist organization) and passed by a majority Republican Congress.

Good for the newspaper! I just read that there HAS NOT been an increase in home burglaries and gun theft in the homes that were posted in the last two days since the article appeared. It will be interesting to see if there is an increase in home invasions in those two counties in the months ahead. And I will be watching this. Why is it that when England initiated gun control that gun violence actually went down?

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

This misperception was already answered in post #199.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

Printing the names of those with gun permits has nothing to do with open carry or concealed carry. That is a whole other issue that is best discussed in another thread.

I brought it up because concealed carry is a form of privacy. If you wish to ignore it, by all means.

This is an NRA talking point. So if the criminals are "coming in armed and ready to kill" then the gun in the home is not a deterrent!

If there's a case where criminals know and go in, then yes, in that case it wasn't a deterrent. If the criminals know and decide to hit an easier house, then yes, it was a deterrent.

In the case where the criminals hit a house they know is armed, then they consider the risk worth the reward (gaining firearms illegally).

This is an NRA talking point. As I just stated, it is very easy to track anyone through public records.

So would you say it's futile for a woman to hide from a stalker?

This is an NRA talking point. Well if the criminals are "coming in armed and ready to kill," then it doesn't matter whether there are guns in the home or not. It is not a deterrent.

In the scenario I gave, the reason the criminals came in ready to ready kill was because the home had something they considered valuable enough to take the risk.

there are people who are not permitted to have guns in their homes yet they have them there anyway. What should be done about that?

And that is the enforcement issue gun owners are worried about. You create a ban, but it's the good people who comply while the bad ones don't.

The fact that people who shouldn't have guns have them means law enforcement is ineffective and enforcing those laws.

Now you could ban the further selling of guns. That would slowly dwindle the supply without having to worry about confiscating guns. It would take a while though, because well maintained firearms can last a long time.

Only 60% of legally acquired guns are registered and have permits. 40% of guns that are sold are not registered and have no permits.

Is that a national statistic? A New York one? I believe in Hawaii all legally acquired guns need to be registered, so I assume that's not a Hawaii statistic.

I have no problem with all guns needing to be registered. I'm sure gun owners who are afraid of the government abusing their power wouldn't like that. I figure if things get that bad, we're all screwed anyways.

I just found out that a gun store which does not require a background check or require registration is only guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Do you know which state that gun store is in? I'd like to review that state's gun laws.

I just read that there HAS NOT been an increase in home burglaries and gun theft in the homes that were posted in the last two days since the article appeared.

I would be impressed if criminals were that fast and efficient! I would be even more impressed if the government were able to report those statistics so fast and efficiently.

It will be interesting to see if there is an increase in home invasions in those two counties in the months ahead.

It would. Hopefully, they will also break the statistics down between home listed in the newspaper and those not.

And I will be watching this. Why is it that when England initiated gun control that gun violence actually went down?

Of course if guns disappear, then gun violence disappear. Gun owners are concerned about ALL forms of violence.

Was their gun violence replaced by knife violence? I'll have to go look into that.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

Digging up statistics is quite a bit of work.

In the meantime, I came across this 2007 article from the UK:

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.

So not much progress after 10 years of ban. It's been 5 years since the article came out, so maybe it's gotten better.

Of course I'm interested all forms of violence and not just gun violence. Digging stuff up and trying to verify them is a slow slog.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Gun Control

Thanks MyopicJoe!
Well thought out and written.
Truthful and logical. A+

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

Thanks MyopicJoe!

Thank you for the kind words, MM, but I'm far from perfect. Fear can cloud my judgement. I can be lazy and accept statements without due diligence. I can be blind to statistics which don't support my existing view. It's part of being human. It's good to have other opinions, which make me question my thinking.

We all have different life experiences, which shape our worldview. As long as we question what we think is the truth, there's a chance we may see the world more clearly.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Friggin' damn, mata, your well intentioned butt must be sorer than hell after all that kicking! But hey, it's your incredibly wrong butt you keep sticking out beggging to be kicked.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

it's your incredibly wrong butt you keep sticking out beggging to be kicked.

This is a very complicated issue, with many "solutions" that have pros and cons. We ALL will be sticking our wrong butts out sooner or later. Also, we think the other person is "wrong" because we don't realize they are talking about something subtly different from what we're talking about.

I admire Matapule for joining the peace corps, making a world a better place with his own hands. I like his stories about island cultures which found community/social/non-violent ways to deal with anti-social members. There's a lot of things we Americans can learn from them. Loss of community is a big cause of our problems. Instead of building relationships with our neighbors BEFORE there are conflicts, we ignore them until there's a problem. THEN instead of dealing with them directly, we call the police to solve our social problems.

I totally agree that if you introduce firearms to these island cultures, you will destroy them and their non-violent mechanisms. The thing I'm thinking about is America was born out of a gun culture (pioneers and settlers). The genie's out of the bottle. I wonder about the effectiveness of legislation. It definite will change things, but will it fix things? Also, are we merely trying to suppress the symptoms (gun violence) instead of fixing the root problem (violence, loss of community, lack of individual self-reliance, etc.).

Of course, I have no clue what the effective solutions are. If people want to pursue anti-gun legislation, I think it's good that they're doing something, but they and the pro-gun folks need to constantly ask ourselves, "What is it that I'm afraid of? How is that fear clouding my judgement?"

I personally am fine with however the gun issue goes. While it's legal to own or use firearms, I will train in their use (while realizing they are just one part of self defense and not the most important). When/if they become illegal or made too restrictive, then I will adapt and move on.

The gun industry cares about profits. Anti-gun politicians want votes or political favors. I don't think the safety of the individual is high on either side's list of concerns.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

I'm still a mata fan, but not when it comes to wanting me to be at the mercy of killers. If murderers can have access to guns, assault rifles, tanks, nukes, bazookas, and flame throwers, I want legal access to them too. Take care of the illegals first and then we can talk about the rest.