Gun control

Gun control

Nothing is more precious than life. The invention of guns makes it easier to take ones life. A single pull of a trigger can decide between life and death. Such lethal weapons are easily available in our society. They can be bought legally at federally owned or private gun stores, and at gun shows. There are far too many guns floating around the United States. With more than 200 million handguns produced in the United States, there is a chance that some of them may fall in the wrong hands. From time to time, sensational shootings provoke public outrage, resulting in the ratification of strict gun control laws. However, due to reactions by gun right proponents, the effectiveness of the governmental action to enforce these gun control laws is deterred. Americans have a long affection for guns based upon their heritage of hunting, sporting, and self-protection during colonial times. In addition, the United States won independence from Great Britain using the guns they possessed. Currently, according to the National Rifles Association (NRA) poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have a constitutional right to hold guns. Gun control opponents also use to argue that gun ownership is a right granted and protected by the United States Constitution, and that tough gun control laws encroach on those rights. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Despite claims from people in favor of guns that it is the citizens’ right to own and carry a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is not protected by the constitution. The Second Amendment states that it is the right for a militia to have weapons, not everyone. The constitution clearly talks about a “well-regulated Militia”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a militia is a trained military force whose members do not belong to a regular army but operate like one, especially to defend their country in an emergency. Today’s version of the “well-regulated Militia” is the National Guard. The constitution means it is the right for the National Guard, the arms forces, and law enforcers to hold guns, not the civil population. Widespread gun ownership lead to an increase of gun related deaths. Even with previous gun control laws in effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law), as indicated by the CDC’s WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, there are 29,569 gun deaths in the United States in the year 2004 alone. It is the second leading cause of deaths after motor crash and, in several states (Firearm Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “Gun Violence Is a Serious Economic and Public Health Problem”, Current Controversies: Guns and Violence, 2005 p. 21). Stricter gun control laws should be put into place since guns lead to deaths of young people due to unintentional gunfire, economic costs on society, and unsafe societies.

From my essay I wrote for class.

This is a public forum, if you were really serious you'd have to have suggested it privately. That is to say, any local cop investigating could just Google it.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I'd posted this link elsewhere but, since the subject has come up here and not been adequately addressed, here it is again:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/62LCPDuff (The article's title is THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JURY: A VERY PECULIAR INSTITUTION.)

Well, it made me wretch before I even finished the introduction:

....In particular, it comprises fifteen persons; its verdicts may be reached on the basis of a bare eight-seven majority......

To me that's beyond sick, where even though 7 out of 15 people may, after hearing all the evidence, 7 out of 15 people could find you innocent & you still go to jail for the long haul.....that's patently obscene!

The Criminal Justice Trial System in Scotland:

....does not necessarily require that the accused should have any
“right” to have his case put to a jury. Nor need it involve a complex selection
procedure, with both sides having plentiful opportunities to challenge potential
jurors on the ground of possible bias. Nor, finally, does conviction require
unanimity on the part of the jury, or <even> a heavily weighted majority......

Justice need not show her face in a Scotish 'Kangaroo' Court, she'd be throw out on that face before the first gavel could fall.

....................................................

I cannot pass this by having read in several places guns kill people I beg to disagree, Why?
A gun cannot get up of a table and shoot someone no more than a knife can get up of the table and stab someone nor a hammer jump up of a bench and cave in someones skull. ( the latter seems to be becoming a favorite weapon of opportunity in UK). It is people who kill they take up the tool and use it and if a gun is not there or the knife they will use other things an iron bar a baseball bat a car. If you really want to stop all this killing then here is a simple way get rid of all the human beings on this planet and it will be a damned site better place let nature live in peace, Oh sorry the carnivores kill the herbivores. Britain got rid of all hand guns from honest legitimate owners a lot of them were historically significant but hey ho they were dangerous now tell me how many criminals went and registered their guns with the police? I bet nary one did so did it stop gun crime did it reduce the number of people getting killed in UK with guns no the numbers of gun incidents have increased so gun control did not work in fact shortly after the introduction of the ban of hand guns Jill Dando was shot dead in front of her house by a man using a pistol. I am British I own firearms most of mine are antiques or nearly 100 years old I look at my little collection as preserving history and I also enjoy shooting them I might occasionally shoot the odd goose or hare but mainly I kill bits of paper stuck to bits of wood. I will bet you most anti gun people know absolutely nothing about guns, but I bet they are damned happy for their soldiers to have guns to protect their freedom though and go kill people who might threaten that freedom. Firearms are here you cannot turn back time you cannot un-invent them but you can be sensible in the way you control them but that would mean a lot of business loosing millions of dollars in the military arms trade and lots of people loosing their jobs. Cant win can you!

I read through most of the debate but I'm from none of those countries but I've heard of banning guns, gun control and neither work.
I recall they came to the door one time when I was out and asked for the pellet gun of my young son and he gave the policeman the 22
rifle. Ahh... well they kept that and came back to ask for the rifle again and this time ended up with the 306. Wasn't a good thing so
I told my sons and the police no one touches my rifles but me and they shouldn't be touching them without my consent.
They asked for my registration and I told them I just never got around to it. they didn't even ask for my permit to own a firearm.
But now Canada threw that ridiculous thing out as in my opinion governments only enact laws to enable more government jobs for their
friends and family. they couldn't care less about the laws they enact.
When I look at a social problem, I ask what is the root cause. Why does everyone want to bandaide solution a problem as serious as murder?
Just as many other huge problems that they close their eyes to the root and bandaide just to open up jobs for theirs that are closing or to enable
more jobs for friends or families and we the general public are helpless to stop them from wasting our tax dollars.
You say well lets deal with the education, homelessness, abuse etc. and bang, there goes some job openings for these people who don't have
the faintest idea of how to handle the situation.
The Bible says, "Is there no man here with wisdom to discern and make judgment?" Obviously not or not enough of them to make a voice.

Well, Smileyfaze, while I understand your reaction to the Scottish criminal jury system, I'd mention that perhaps you yourself don't… Have you never wondered why so many non-Americans seem aghast at our 2nd Amendment? It's much the same thing operating: Different history, different experience; different views — but still rigidly blinkered, just like ours. One need not embrace post-modernism, multi-culturalism and moral relativism to see why others think differently than we about our unique circumstances.
Nor need we do so to grant others their traditions, institutions and blinders… (One should and would expect academics to try to "see" without the blinders, eh? Else, they'd be editorialists!)

There seems little to no reason to doubt the efficacy of Scottish justice — which is rightly (you'd have to agree, right?) the concern of Scotsmen?

And if it makes you feel less chastised: I still remember how I first reacted to the details of French jurisprudence… Live and learn. And accept that the world is bigger and more varied than you can know.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

There seems little to no reason to doubt the efficacy of Scottish justice — which is rightly (you'd have to agree, right?) the concern of Scotsmen?

In the end, it is their system----they never experienced any better, which in itself is just another good reason to reflect on the damn good luck & fortune I had to be born into a wonderful & free Country like ours, & never having to deal with the type of system described as existing in Scotland.

After all I enjoy the fact that I will always have the unalienable right to own & bear arms, & they can enjoy their 8/15^ths. legal protections.


May God bless them------even rj.

Just leave me be with my system & lifestyle, & they can sleep well knowing that I will never infringe upon theirs.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Just leave me be with my system & lifestyle, & they can sleep well knowing that I will never infringe upon theirs.

They can't sleep well, being incredibly prone to dyspepsia! Their sleep is never quite able to be

the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the ravell’d sleave of care,
The death of each day’s life, sore labour’s bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature’s second course,
Chief nourisher in life’s feast.

Lest they be Scots, and better than every other!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

They can't sleep well, being incredibly prone to dyspepsia!

Yes, I think it's because they are proponents of big government.

.....An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

(Ronald Reagan said this about government, I mention for the benefit of those without computers. "…is like a baby:")

..................

Originally posted by Schizen:

It is people who kill they take up the tool and use it and if a gun is not there or the knife they will use other things an iron bar a baseball bat a car.

I'm going to stop you there. No.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Schizen:

It is people who kill they take up the tool and use it and if a gun is not there or the knife they will use other things an iron bar a baseball bat a car.

I'm going to stop you there. No.

That wants some 'splainin', Johnny. People have been killing each other for a loonngg time, and guns are relatively recent in the list of things people have used to kill each other. I can't be certain of course, but I'm still reasonably sure that in the first murder mentioned in the Bible, Cain didn't use a gun to kill his brother. Further, if you want to check I am all but certain that all the things mentioned by Schizen have been used to commit murder. Iron bars and baseball bats are excellent for crushing skulls (especially iron bars-- give me a section of 1" square keystock about a foot and a half long and I guarantee even a weakling won't have to strike twice to kill with it), and automobiles have certainly been used to commit murder. Just because you don't want it to be so changes nothing: murder springs from the heart of a man, only the tool he uses to carry it out changes.

"Murder springs eternal in the human breast."

Alexander Jaybro, 2012

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

......Just because you don't want it to be so changes nothing: murder springs from the heart of a man, only the tool he uses to carry it out changes.

What you are basically saying then is that humans seem to be inherently violent, & that said-----if you agree with that, would you then also agree that humans must make a conscious effort not to be violent when conditions are conducive for violence?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Further, if you want to check I am all but certain that all the things mentioned by Schizen have been used to commit murder.

Yes, but that's not the point.

Some people drive trucks. Some people drive cars. Some people ride motorbikes. It does not follow that if I do not ride a bike, I will ride a truck.
If I don't have a hammer, I won't necessarily use a screwdriver.

It's a fallacy to think that all potential murder weapons are inherently interchangeable. There is no such thing as a drive-by poisoning, or a carefully-planned temporary insanity. Murder weapons are not chosen by chance.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Murder weapons are not chosen by chance.

If premeditated, I can agree to a degree, but murders committed in a fit of rage--not premeditated--any viable item will suffice. When I was in combat, & my pistol was emptied, & my rifle was emptied, the VC weren't going to stand politely by while I chose my weapon carefully,,,,no, I grabbed whatever I could --immediately-- because it was either him/them or me, & being that I am here typing this to you---it was him/them, & I chose well.

Now, you can say that that wasn't murder, & I'd agree, but for our discussions sake here & now, you would be pedantic in doing so.

Killing is killing....it terminates the life of another. Period.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Further, if you want to check I am all but certain that all the things mentioned by Schizen have been used to commit murder.

Yes, but that's not the point.

Some people drive trucks. Some people drive cars. Some people ride motorbikes. It does not follow that if I do not ride a bike, I will ride a truck.
If I don't have a hammer, I won't necessarily use a screwdriver.

It's a fallacy to think that all potential murder weapons are inherently interchangeable. There is no such thing as a drive-by poisoning, or a carefully-planned temporary insanity. Murder weapons are not chosen by chance.

I swear, some people just can't get out of their own way. So set on the idea of getting rid of guns that you can't even see the fallacy of your argument. I don't have a gun, but I do have a crowbar. Do you think that I can't use it if I get angry enough to kill??? For that matter, I've seen a tool called a fubar that looks to be as mean a weapon as you can lay your hands on if you're of a mind to use it that way, the legitimate use of the tool involves breaking up wooden structures amongst other things. It's a wrecking bar. I fancy it could be used to murder though, and do a good job of it too.

Fubar.....Well named..I like.....

........

They make Fubars in several sizes, from small ones that a homeowner might have in his toolkit on up to very large ones that first-responders would use to free people from wrecked vehicles or buildings. Any of them can be used to commit murder, of course--- but their legitimate use is that of a wrecking bar.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Now, you can say that that wasn't murder, & I'd agree, but for our discussions sake here & now, you would be pedantic in doing so.

Doesn't matter a jot whether it's considered murder or not. It's a mile away from either a premeditated murder plot, criminal war, or crimes of passion. Again, the argument is not that other methods aren't available, but the assertion that one is just as easy and frequent as the other. I'm sure, by your own admission, you would be much more effective and lethal with your rifle and pistol. If you wanted to kill, with the least risk to yourself, that is the weapon you would choose.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I swear, some people just can't get out of their own way. So set on the idea of getting rid of guns that you can't even see the fallacy of your argument. I don't have a gun, but I do have a crowbar. Do you think that I can't use it if I get angry enough to kill???

Where's the fallacy? You haven't demonstrated one, in fact your example doesn't answer what I said.

The simple fact remains that weapons are not interchangeable. Intent and availability are not enough to ensure execution. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

People pick up a gun if they intend to inflict harm, or threaten it. They pick up a crowbar if they don't have any other option. A crowbar, or a baseball bat, or a toaster, or an ashtray, are weapons of opportunity, not weapons of intent. Some murders happen due to intent, some due to opportunity.

Uh, Johnny---- Would you like to try committing murder with a crowbar, to see if a jury would agree with your theory??? Hmmm. Thought so.

If you commit murder, premeditated, I have doubts the judge and jury is going to give a rip what weapon you used. Example: You hated your neighbor enough to want to kill, a hammer was available to you so you grabbed that, came up behind your neighbor and swung with all your might, crushing your neighbor's skull. I guarantee you won't get a lighter sentence because you used a carpenter's hammer rather than a .357 magnum.

Several years back now, in the town I live in a wife and her boyfriend conspired to murder her husband. The weapon of choice was a crossbow. The judge and jury didn't let up on them because it was a crossbow instead of a rifle, premeditated murder and conspiracy were still what they were, so--- sentence was passed and carried out.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Uh, Johnny---- Would you like to try committing murder with a crowbar, to see if a jury would agree with your theory??? Hmmm. Thought so.

Hmmm. I thought you might not have been listening. Thank you for confirming that. This is nothing to do with what happens after a potential murder, but what happens to cause it.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I guarantee you won't get a lighter sentence because you used a carpenter's hammer rather than a .357 magnum.

What on earth makes you think I would think that? Wherever would you get that from? How is that anything to do with the subject at hand?

Nobody is saying that murdering person A using weapon #1 is in any way a different crime from murdering person A using weapon #2. What has been said is that having a gun available increases the likelihood of murder being committed - it's purpose-built, effective and can be operated at a safe distance. When you have a nail to drive in, and you don't have a hammer, you might use a screwdriver, but you're more likely not to.

You can have a gun available and never kill anybody. Guns, by themselves, do not increase the likelihood of murder. Murder springs from the heart, if it's not there then the tool will not, in and of itself, do the dirty deed. If murder IS in the heart, then ways and means will be found-- and a surprising choice of potential weapons exist to carry it out.

But, since you're so blinkered that you believe that guns cause men to murder, I reckon there isn't much hope for reason here.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

.....What has been said is that having a gun available increases the likelihood of murder being committed - it's purpose-built, effective and can be operated at a safe distance......

Sounds logical.....to you, but it might even be a little more convincing if you had some overwhelming evidence (in-depth studies) that your suppositions are more than just suppositions, & have some basis in documented fact.

Let's talk availability for a moment, shall we?

Let's say I have it in for my neighbor, and in my mind I have good reason for it. Now, I don't have a gun or license to carry one, so in order to secure a gun through legal channels I first have to get a license (FOID card here in Illinois) go through the mandatory background checks, wait a week and so on. In order to do it through illegal channels I have to know somebody who will sell me a hot gun on the sly. I'd have to ask around for this, and that creates a problem because the more people you speak to, the more chance there is that your secret will get out and you'll get busted. So, getting a gun creates problems.

Suppose I instead choose a fubar as my weapon of choice. I don't possess one, so in order to get one I go to the local Home Depot, select the tool, go to the cash register and pay for it, then walk out of the store with my newly acquired murder weapon. Since I paid cash, there wasn't a need for ID so nobody could swear that I wasn't any other homeowner looking for a tool for a home project.

You've seen the photo of the fubar that I posted, suppose I swing this thing at my neighbor's head, do you think it likely I will have to hit twice? OK, maybe if it helps get my rage down--- there's tales and to spare of men who kept hitting long after their victim had ceased being part of this world-- but to kill initially? Look at that thing and tell me that more than one blow would be necessary.

Anybody can buy one, no ID needed so long as you pay cash.


MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Edit, add-on: ANY weapon gives opportunity. Intent springs from the heart, not the weapon. What I just wrote above should tell you that, right enough--- and if I ever kill somebody with a fubar, I half expect any detective worth his salt might find this post and see the intent plain enough.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

ANY weapon gives opportunity. Intent springs from the heart, not the weapon.

The main issue is death/injury not intent and we have had this discussion before.

I already pointed out that you could use the same argument about pillows, a violent intent leading to smothering.

So - once more for the kiddies.

Bloodthirsty intents are more likely to lead to death or injury the more lethal the weapon.

A gun is the WMD of personal weapons, some even worse than others (handgun versus machine gun for example).

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

.....What has been said is that having a gun available increases the likelihood of murder being committed - it's purpose-built, effective and can be operated at a safe distance......

Sounds logical.....to you, but it might even be a little more convincing if you had some overwhelming evidence (in-depth studies) that your suppositions are more than just suppositions, & have some basis in documented fact.

Oh, for goodness' sake. You've got this far in the debate without reading the literature?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

We performed a review of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on homicide rates.
Major findings: A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Guns availability and homicide rates across nations.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.
Major findings: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Gun availability and state homicide rates, 1988-1997
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Gun availability and state homicide rates, 2001-2003
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.
Major findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Gun availability and state unintentional firearm death rates
We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups.
Major findings: For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

Gun availability and deaths to children.
We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for 5-14 year olds across the 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide. The state rates of non-firearm suicide and non-firearm homicide among children are not related to firearm availability.

Gun versus non-gun suicide by children
We analyzed data from the Arizona Childhood Fatality Review Team comparing youth gun suicide with suicide by other means.
Major findings: Children who use a firearm to commit suicide have fewer identifiable risk factors for suicide, such as expressing suicidal thoughts. Gun suicides appear more impulsive and spontaneous than suicide by other means.

Gun availability and deaths to women.
We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

You can have a gun available and never kill anybody. Guns, by themselves, do not increase the likelihood of murder. Murder springs from the heart, if it's not there then the tool will not, in and of itself, do the dirty deed.

For a start, see the studies quoted above. Secondly, I would love for it to be the case that things were as simple and naive as you make it out to be. Unfortunately, human beings do not work that way. The presence of guns does increase the homicide rate.

Let's look at other examples of human behaviour. Let's start with, say, eating.

It would be nice and tidy to say that people who are obese are fat solely because they want to be, or because they have no self-discipline. And to a certain extent, that's true. If you're hungry, you will seek out something to eat, and probably won't care what it is as long as it does the job. But that's not the full story. The nature of the food, where it's located on your office desk, whether you can smell it or not, all change your behaviour regarding whether you will have the impulse to eat it or not. People are more likely to snack if snack food is available.

People are more likely to travel if they have a car. People are more likely to cook if they have a well-equipped kitchen. People are more likely to buy products if they look attractive. And people are more likely to commit murder if they don't have to beat the other person to death with their own hands.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

You've seen the photo of the fubar that I posted, suppose I swing this thing at my neighbor's head, do you think it likely I will have to hit twice? OK, maybe if it helps get my rage down--- there's tales and to spare of men who kept hitting long after their victim had ceased being part of this world-- but to kill initially? Look at that thing and tell me that more than one blow would be necessary.

Your example is somewhat contradictory. If you have to go down to Home Depot and buy a murder weapon, that's premeditation, not rage. As for buying a gun, the fact that it's a difficult and long process is actually a pretty effective argument for gun control, thanks for that. The problem occurs when a gun is already available to you, that's why availability is a factor.

And your example is a minority case anyway. Gang warfare, armed robbery, crimes of passion and opportunity - all these have very different patterns, ones where guns are a huge advantage.

And as string says, guns are more deadly by an order of magnitude.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

It is people who kill they take up the tool and use it and if a gun is not there or the knife they will use other things an iron bar a baseball bat a car.
I'm going to stop you there. No.

sadly he's dead on.
take someone who is very good in using the environment around them as a tool for destruction and you'll understand.

Human nature... reckon someone has brought that up before?

Continued irrelevance...

People who eat are more likely to poop. But people with a nice kitchen aren't necessarily obese. Cause and effect aren't related to what you have as much as what you do with it. How deadly a gun is becomes irrelevant when you don't use it for murder. It is the best tool for the job if you intended to murder someone tho, just as a nice kitchen is the best way to get fat if that's what you wanna do with it.

Back to where we started...

A legally owned handgun is traceable back to the owner. So few regulations can be changed to be more effective. Illegally owned handguns have but one purpose and no law will remove them. You will not get them without effectively changing human nature. Either go after them or make it advantageous for people to report them. It's not as hard to come across an illegal gun as it should be.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

For a start, see the studies quoted above. Secondly, I would love for it to be the case that things were as simple and naive as you make it out to be. Unfortunately, human beings do not work that way. The presence of guns does increase the homicide rate.

Yes, by all means, let's see them… (Will you pony-up the cash or credit? Or will you just take their word –and ask me to do the same– and consider yourself enlightened? )

Saucepn, you seem outraged at slightly more than 50,000 deaths a year by gun in the U.S., as if that mattered… Yet you (along with some others) blink twice and say 300,000 abortions a year in the U.S. performed by Planned Parenthood (25-30% of the total) is insignificant.

By your reasoning (and that of the meta-study Harvard "scientists") Planned Parenthood clinics should be banned!

Of course, you don't agree. "To kill all but the right folks, it's as British as a Simple Pie!"

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Oh, for goodness' sake. You've got this far in the debate without reading the literature? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Nope, I have read the facts, veritable facts, not "pro-gun control" propaganda produced by "pro-gun control" activists in the bastion of leftist thinking -- Harvard University (Obama's Alma Mater -- I need not say more), who summarily conclude often, but prove nothing beyond their own creative & unsupported evidence -- common law tactics both.

More RTC, less crime: Since 1991, when violent crime peaked in the U.S., 24 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 100 million. 5 The numbers of gun owners and firearms, RTC states, and people carrying firearms for protection have risen to all-time highs. Through 2010, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low.6 The FBI preliminarily has reported that violent crimes decreased another 6.4 percent in the first half of 2011, translating into a seven percent decrease in the total violent crime per capita rate.7

RTC reduces crime: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., economist John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”8

RTC success: Florida has issued the most carry permits–nearly 2 million—but revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.9 Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel: “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”10 An article on Michigan’s RTC law: “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded.... National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been. ”11

@

Sources:
5. BATFE, firearm manufacturing, export, and import reports, www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm or http://web.archive.org/web/20091126015204/http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm
6. See FBI www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats, BJS www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm, and NRA-ILA www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=128.
7. FBI, Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2011,” table 1, www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011/data-tables/table-1.
8. Lott, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns,” 1996.
9. Florida Division of Licensing, Monthly Statistical Report (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html).
10. David Kopel, “The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits,” Policy Review, July-Aug. 1996, p. 9.
11. “Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don’t believe gun foe scare tactics,” Detroit News, 1/14/01.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I guarantee you won't get a lighter sentence because you used a carpenter's hammer rather than a .357 magnum.

Oh, you would. They have an extra charge they can tack on for using a firearm in commission of a crime, which will add 10 years to the sentence.

Should there be any extra penalty because you used a gun rather than a bow, slingshot, knife, or car? Not too me, he's just as dead.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I guarantee you won't get a lighter sentence because you used a carpenter's hammer rather than a .357 magnum.

Oh, you would. They have an extra charge they can tack on for using a firearm in commission of a crime, which will add 10 years to the sentence.

Should there be any extra penalty because you used a gun rather than a bow, slingshot, knife, or car? Not too me, he's just as dead.

Actually, in the commission of a crime (Robbery, Murder, Rape, etc) if the convicted criminal used a firearm I find getting an extra 10 to 50 years added on to her/his/their sentence a solid message to other criminals, & a proven deterrent.

Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Actually, in the commission of a crime (Robbery, Murder, Rape, etc) if the convicted criminal used a firearm I find getting an extra 10 to 50 years added on to her/his/their sentence a solid message to other criminals, & a proven deterrent.

please give the source of your find.

@johnnysaucepn - I thought your listing of various comparative studies a very useful input as there is comparison of different societies, including different countries, and the effect of gun ownership on casualties through gun incidents. It's a shame that the reference you quoted was not acknowledged.

The trouble with the situation in the US, it seems to me, is that the box has been opened long ago and guns have been readily available for some time resulting in the large gun-assisted criminality. Studies limited to variations in approach in the US alone inevitably deal with pimples on the face of the larger sore.

On the more positive side I like the concept of increasing punishments if a criminal is found to be carrying a deadly weapon. In my view it should be increased by a further factor if the weapon has been used recently (this should be possible to discover I think).

The mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, is seeking a ban on high calorie drinks in order to combat obesity? I know it sounds daft and he may not get his wish.

Now, if he sought to ban guns, he'd be thought nuttier than a fruitcake, recalled and shot out of a cannon!

Only in America!

Originally posted by ggg-bro:

The mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, is seeking a ban on high calorie drinks in order to combat obesity? I know it sounds daft and he may not get his wish.Now, if he sought to ban guns, he'd be thought nuttier than a fruitcake, recalled and shot out of a cannon!Only in America!

no, only in NYC, pffft. tourists.

Originally posted by string:

@johnnysaucepn - I thought your listing of various comparative studies a very useful input as there is comparison of different societies, including different countries, and the effect of gun ownership on casualties through gun incidents. It's a shame that the reference you quoted was not acknowledged.

I acknowledged it, and mentioned the obvious (well, to someone like me…) shortcomings: The actual data and the original studies, are behind pricey pay-walls. (What –pray tell– is a proxy for gun ownership? Asking questions sometimes leads to getting adequate answers; some people, of course, have no questions — when the "science" confirms their view. That's sociology, folks! Others –correctly, I think– call it politics…) Are we just supposed to leave such things to "our betters"?!

Would you, saucepn, care to respond to my previous post? Specifically, "you seem outraged at slightly more than 50,000 deaths a year by gun in the U.S., as if that mattered… Yet you (along with some others) blink twice and say 300,000 abortions a year in the U.S. performed by Planned Parenthood (only 25-30% of the total) is insignificant.

"By your reasoning (and that of the meta-study Harvard "scientists") Planned Parenthood clinics should be banned!"

Why don't you think so?

Originally posted by string:

.....On the more positive side I like the concept of increasing punishments if a criminal is found to be carrying a deadly weapon. In my view it should be increased by a further factor if the weapon has been used recently (this should be possible to discover I think).

Carrying an illegal weapon by a criminal is a crime in itself in most localities, & only increases the sentence of a convicted criminal if it is used in the commission of another associated crime.

The focus of most newer mandatory sentencing laws is that if the firearm is used it will incur a longer institutional stay, as guests of the State, than if it were merely in the criminals possession (which has a penalty all of it's own).

Originally posted by ggg-bro:

Now, if he sought to ban guns, he'd be thought nuttier than a fruitcake, recalled and shot out of a cannon!

Actually, he's already tried it. You really should look this stuff up ...

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Would you, saucepn, care to respond to my previous post? Specifically, "you seem outraged at slightly more than 50,000 deaths a year by gun in the U.S., as if that mattered… Yet you (along with some others) blink twice and say 300,000 abortions a year in the U.S. performed by Planned Parenthood (only 25-30% of the total) is insignificant."By your reasoning (and that of the meta-study Harvard "scientists") Planned Parenthood clinics should be banned!"Why don't you think so?

Because I don't think they're equivalent. And for the record, I think it's up to me to decide what I'm outraged at.

It's foolish to assume that this is just about number of deaths. That has never been my case. My case has been that guns cause more harm than good.

There are two aspects at play here, that each have their own cause-and-effect. 1) The number of violent assaults are too high, and 2) The results of such assaults are too deadly. Smiley's tight cherry-picking aside, there is some reason to suggest that restrictions on guns will have a positive effect on 1) and much reason to believe it will have a positive effect on 2).

When hand gun ownership declines here, I'll fly all forum members to Grand Rapids for a grand celebration---hotties, food and drinks provided.

People tend get out raged over shit.
Glad I ain't a fetus in this day and age.

http://www.popculturemadness.com/Trivia/Bits/Death-Odds.html

OR....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm


Number of deaths for leading causes of death

**Being a fetus, (A total of 825,564 abortions were reported to CDC for 2008)**
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909


**My out rage told me to add this one**

In the spirit of posting to the level that this discussion often deserves, I offer up the following. Enjoy.

OK, I have to ask:

It's been said that guns are more deadly than other weapons. So, the question I have to ask is this: If I shoot somebody with a .357 handgun, is that person REALLY going to be more dead than he would be if I brained him with a fubar? Can you offer up statistics proving this?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

There are two aspects at play here, that each have their own cause-and-effect. 1) The number of violent assaults are too high, and 2) The results of such assaults are too deadly. Smiley's tight cherry-picking aside, there is some reason to suggest that restrictions on guns will have a positive effect on 1) and much reason to believe it will have a positive effect on 2).

Wow.. ..your percentages are astonishing, & your logic is unquestionable, your facts & figures are astounding........... ............in your own mind that is...for it's from within your own mind you plucked those ripe cherries from dear friend

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

OK, I have to ask:

It's been said that guns are more deadly than other weapons. So, the question I have to ask is this: If I shoot somebody with a .357 handgun, is that person REALLY going to be more dead than he would be if I brained him with a fubar? Can you offer up statistics proving this?

Of all the weird reasons I've seen for supporting gun ownership I can't say that is the most weird, but it's up there somewhere.
In fact that line of thought has been responded to so many times that I'm inclined not to state the obvious yet again.
But you should try an experiment.
Get a gun and get a "fubar".
Go outside into the street and select a victim, one that is, for example, 50 yards away from you.
Now; without moving. try and kill that person with your "fubar".
I'm not suggesting that you try to kill the victim with your gun because you will probaby suceed, but by now I would expect you have at last got the point.


The same comparison could be made between a gun and a nuclear armed ballistic missile, except that we would use a thousand miles instead of 50 yards. Such weapons are banned by international treaty, excepting some "lucky" nations including the US who have not joined the international ban.
I sense a pattern here.

Originally posted by string:

The same comparison could be made between a gun and a nuclear armed ballistic missile, except that we would use a thousand miles instead of 50 yards. Such weapons are banned by international treaty, excepting some "lucky" nations including the US who have not joined the international ban.
I sense a pattern here.

We are a warlike people, Mallorcan! And don't you forget it, or......Well, you know.

At ant rate, the Supreme Court has spoken.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: (T)he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

I was going to get a gun, but my wife got rid of her's.

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

OK, I have to ask:

It's been said that guns are more deadly than other weapons. So, the question I have to ask is this: If I shoot somebody with a .357 handgun, is that person REALLY going to be more dead than he would be if I brained him with a fubar? Can you offer up statistics proving this?

Of all the weird reasons I've seen for supporting gun ownership I can't say that is the most weird, but it's up there somewhere.
In fact that line of thought has been responded to so many times that I'm inclined not to state the obvious yet again.
But you should try an experiment.
Get a gun and get a "fubar".
Go outside into the street and select a victim, one that is, for example, 50 yards away from you.
Now; without moving. try and kill that person with your "fubar".
I'm not suggesting that you try to kill the victim with your gun because you will probaby suceed, but by now I would expect you have at last got the point.


The same comparison could be made between a gun and a nuclear armed ballistic missile, except that we would use a thousand miles instead of 50 yards. Such weapons are banned by international treaty, excepting some "lucky" nations including the US who have not joined the international ban.
I sense a pattern here.

I'm going to aggravate the heck out of you, but--- no, I don't have the point because you didn't answer the question I asked. I NEVER asked which weapon can kill at a distance--- if I had, then an ICBM gets top billing--- I asked which person is more dead, the one killed with a fubar or the one killed with a gun. In the question, the killing is already an established fact. Only the weapon used to carry out the deed is changed. So--- which victim is more dead, the person hit with a fubar--- feel free to insert axe, baseball bat, tire iron or any other suitable heavy object--- or the person shot with a gun.

"ICBM" gets ruled out because at least so far, only national governments can afford these things and it would be ridiculous to use one on your cheating wife and her boyfriend. Or on a guy who just broke into your house. Or on any of a number of other situations you might find yourself in where killing might be an outcome in a civilian situation. "ICBM"s are "more deadly" only in numbers they kill anyway, not in level of death achieved.