Murder Rates: Why Comparing The United States Only To Other Developed Countries

[autosurgeon]

What is overly saturated with guns? Who defines the limit and why?

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[autosurgeon]

A free society is one in which the .gov does not tell you your every move. It tends to be a place of many great experiences but also a large degree of discomfort as we will encounter things every day that we do not personally agree with. The definition of a free man or woman is one that when confronted with this discomfort simply goes on with their day and does not try to forcibly confer their opinion or position on another.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[gryphon]

The definition of a free man or woman is one that when confronted with this discomfort simply goes on with their day and does not try to forcibly confer their opinion or position on another.

Apparently freediver thinks a free country is one that comports with all of his rules.

[freediver]

Mr Tuctom: If my gun were properly secured in a locked safe and was subsequently stolen by a thief, I would simply notify the police that the item was stolen, to include the make, model, and serial number. If my gun was used to commit a crime, the police would have evidence that the criminal was involved in some way with the break in at my house. They can start to track the weapons along these illegal conduits. I would not expect to be on the hook for legal action because as a gun owner, I had exercised proper responsibility by locking my gun away. Pretty straightforward, really. Because most stolen firearms are not coming out of a locked safe. They are coming out of cars and RVs. They are coming out of garages and closets. They are coming out of purses and hunting cabins and everywhere else where we store them unsecured.

As far as the scenario with a depressed wife, I actually had to deal with that about 15 years ago. The solution was also simple. Knowing that my wife was not in a perfect state of mind, I sold one gun(that I'd been planning to get rid of anyway) and stored the rest with a neighbor who had a large gun safe. Problem solved. Unfortunately that marriage ended in divorce. Once the divorce was final, I retrieved my firearms and went on with my life. Easy, peasy, and at no point was I overly burdened or inconvenienced.

As far as the rest of your questions, remember that we are trying to choke off the SUPPLY of guns to the wrong hands. So how do we START to make changes that will eventually do this? How do we break the chain of events where a gun legally sold transitions into the wrong hands? There are only a few ways that a legal gun makes it into an illegal hand. One, they are stolen. Two, they are sold "off the record" with no background checks BY LEGAL GUN OWNERS. Third, they are purchased by legal straw buyers who then sell them into illegal hands (see number two). So, how do we attack the problem? By some of the ways I mentioned, for starters. I don't claim to be the smartest guy out there. There are probably several more ways we could attack this problem. You're a smart guy; suggest something.

But punting and refusing to do anything is not a solution. Saying "NO" to every bit of regulation is not a solution. Denying that illegal sales by legal owners is a problem is not a solution. We can do better than this. It's our responsibility as gun owners to make smart changes that actually work. We can all agree that if we leave it up to politicians, they'll muck it up again.

[freediver]

Mr part deux: I am in no way suggesting that there is not an element of race in our discussion. The FBI statistics show some trains of crimes along the racial divide. I am responding to Mr gryphon's statement that our crime statistics would be a lot better if it wasn't for all those "black thugs". THAT is a disingenuous argument to try and blame everything on black thugs. It completely ignores the contribution to crime and gun deaths and injuries by stupid white rednecks, crazy white militiamen (Timothy McVey, the Hutaree militia), crazy religious zealots (shooting up abortion clinics, the Davidian compound crazies, all white), and the mentally insane (as far as I know, all mass murders were committed by white assailants). You cannot blame one group and ignore the rest.

So, back to square one. Firearms safety and gun crimes are issues that affect all of us. We are all citizens of America. The sooner we start to work for solutions that benefit ALL of our citizens, the better off we'll be.

The first step to solving a problem is recognizing we have one. We have one, the flow of guns into the wrong hands. So how do we fix it? Saying NO to everything is not a solution.

[freediver]

Mr autosurgeon: You hit the nail on the head with your comment about a free society. A free society is one where the government does not instruct your every move. It is also a society where your fellow citizens do not instruct your every move. We've all seen examples of this: morals lessons from the religious right, environment and political correctness lessons from the liberal left. I see gun enthusiasts falling into the same category at times. So many of our fellow gun owners say it's their way or the highway; that we should all have to pack heat to ensure a safe society, and anyone who disagrees with that premise is a bleeding heart liberal ignoramus (or myopic and misinformed, as Mr gryphon said about me). When gun owners talk that way, when they insist on having things their way with no allowing for other opinions or life choices, that is just tyranny of a different form.

[freediver]

Mr gryphon: Your last two posts were far too lengthy for me to reply to with any clarity or focus. I will respond to a couple of things.

"Apparently freediver thinks a free country is one that comports with all of his rules." Since you don't know me personally, I suggest you refrain from making statements like that. I have strong opinions. Just like you and a lot of other people. But one of my favorite words is "compromise". Everybody wins. I don't attack you personally. I expect the same thing in return.

"You are grossly misinformed." Just because you and I disagree, that doesn't mean I'm grossly misinformed. I could say the same thing about you. But I don't. We are having a discussion on an open forum. I work hard at keeping myself informed from a lot of sources. So, you state your opinion, your facts, your viewpoint. I'll state mine. That's how this works.

[autosurgeon]

You don't get it.. My way may not be your way.. So don't follow my way. Ignore it do something else.. But don't tell me I cannot go my way because it offends or bothers you. That is what most gun owners want. They want to be left alone. I for one could care less what criminals do as they will do what they want and ignore laws no matter how many we make. However their behaviour and use of firearms has nothing to do with me and my use of firearms.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[linux203]

But one of my favorite words is "compromise". Everybody wins.

com·pro·mise
noun: compromise; plural noun: compromises

    1.    an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising

    1.    settle a dispute by mutual concession.
    2.    accept standards that are lower than is desirable.
    3.    weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.
    4.    bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.

Nobody wins in a compromise.  There is no compromise in Universal Background Checks (what you are advocating for).  What in the left wing agenda is being conceded to gun owners by UBC?  Not a damn thing.

Trading OC in a CPFZ for CC in a OCPFZ is a compromise.  But I guarantee that Demanding Moms and Mayors Against All Guns will be screaming at the top of their lungs that SB442 should be vetoed and schools become no carry period.  They aren't interested in compromise.  Not one bit.

You would have gun owners compromise away everything.  Today it's UBC.  Tomorrow it's standard capacity magazines.  Next week it's online ammo purchases.  Next month, ammunition that can be fired from a pistol.  Next year, ban all semi automatic weapons.  The year after that, ban all forms of carry.  A line has to be drawn.

When gun owners talk that way, when they insist on having things their way with no allowing for other opinions or life choices, that is just tyranny of a different form.

tyr·an·ny
noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies

    1.    cruel and oppressive government or rule.

Tyranny is a special term reserved for governments and rulers.  By definition, gun control advocates are pushing for a more oppressive government.  Gun rights activists push for more liberties.  Liberty allows a personal choice.

[thamm]

If criminals are already side-stepping background checks (via theft and straw purchases), what will adding universal background checks accomplish?

[gryphon]

Timothy McVey, the Hutaree militia, the Davidian compound crazies, all white

I am not aware that any of these people you mentioned here killed people with illegal guns.  Even the case(s) of one or two people shooting abortion doctors didn't happen with illegal guns as far as I know.  The police even returned hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition and almost all of the guns to the Hutaree Militia.  They did destroy a couple of illegal firearms (machine guns) though.

Also, you are misstating what I wrote above about comparing the murder rates of the US and Europe.

[CitizensHaveRights]

If criminals are already side-stepping background checks (via theft and straw purchases), what will adding universal background checks accomplish?

Insuring that in a time of confiscation, there's already a paper trail leading to all of us with guns.

[gryphon]

when they insist on having things their way with no allowing for other opinions or life choices, that is just tyranny of a different form.

You are allowed to have a different opinion and you are allowed to make your own life choices.  If someone does not wish to own or carry a firearm, that is a choice they make.  No one is forcing another to own or carry firearms.

[part deux]

Because most stolen firearms are not coming out of a locked safe. They are coming out of cars and RVs. They are coming out of garages and closets. They are coming out of purses and hunting cabins and everywhere else where we store them unsecured.

please provide the source for your data.

[TucTom]

Mr Tuctom: If my gun were properly secured in a locked safe and was subsequently stolen by a thief, I would simply notify the police that the item was stolen, to include the make, model, and serial number. If my gun was used to commit a crime, the police would have evidence that the criminal was involved in some way with the break in at my house. They can start to track the weapons along these illegal conduits. I would not expect to be on the hook for legal action because as a gun owner, I had exercised proper responsibility by locking my gun away. Pretty straightforward, really. Because most stolen firearms are not coming out of a locked safe. They are coming out of cars and RVs. They are coming out of garages and closets. They are coming out of purses and hunting cabins and everywhere else where we store them unsecured.

So, are you saying personal responsibility and follow the laws that are in place currently? No need to add more laws right?

As far as the scenario with a depressed wife, I actually had to deal with that about 15 years ago. The solution was also simple. Knowing that my wife was not in a perfect state of mind, I sold one gun(that I'd been planning to get rid of anyway) and stored the rest with a neighbor who had a large gun safe. Problem solved. Unfortunately that marriage ended in divorce. Once the divorce was final, I retrieved my firearms and went on with my life. Easy, peasy, and at no point was I overly burdened or inconvenienced.

Again, are you saying personal responsibility and follow the laws that are in place currently? Still no need to add more laws right?

As far as the rest of your questions, remember that we are trying to choke off the SUPPLY of guns to the wrong hands.

We agree, the person / owner has a responsibility as a gun owner (see above). You are the only one here that seems to think we need even more laws even though you agree with the laws in place.

You want to change things but you also agree that the current laws are satisfactory. Which is it that you really want?

[CitizensHaveRights]

You want to change things but you also agree that the current laws are satisfactory. Which is it that you really want?

For people to believe it when he/she says that it's just common sense for being pro-gun to mean being in favor of further anti-gun laws?

[gryphon]

"You are grossly misinformed." Just because you and I disagree, that doesn't mean I'm grossly misinformed.

Call it an abservation on my part, then.  You said:

A free society implies that I can walk the streets without constantly worrying about my personal safety or being "on guard".

Just because you think something doesn't make it true.  As I said, a free society does NOT mean that.  And to repeat my question, even if guns were eliminated by some magic, what's to stop my 5'-2" 120 pound wife from being afraid of someone more powerful than her?  What's to stop you from being afraid of someone more powerful than you?  How about if we make a law that people can't attack others or rob them or rape them or murder them?  Would that make you feel more safe?

[freediver]

Mr linux203: You are using only a partial definition of compromise. I've never ascribed to these zero sum games or negotiations where, if one side wins, the other side loses. That's no way to run a society. Compromise means that each side doesn't get EVERYTHING it wants. Gun owners don't get everything, and neither do the liberal gun haters. But if you didn't get everything you want (unfettered or unburdened access to firearms) that doesn't mean you lost. The two sides in any discussion or negotiation should seek the common ground. We are all citizens of this country and everyone's viewpoint and needs should be respected. In this case, how can we honor the rights of gun owners while better ensuring public safety and firearm competency as well as choking off the supply of guns? I've suggested a few ways. Everyone on this forum is a gun owner. If you don't like my ideas, that's fine. Suggest some of your own. Put out specifics on how we can ensure public safety (minus forcing everyone to carry a gun) as well as keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unbalanced. Put up or shut up, ladies and gentlemen!

As far as tyranny, governmental tyranny is only one form. There is also the tyranny of forcing someone to agree with you or do something they don't want to. That, too, is a form of tyranny; the tyranny of the mob or the selfish or the intolerant. If gun owners only wanted the right to own and reasonably carry firearms, we wouldn't be having most of these discussions. But many gun owners don't want to stop there. They won't be satisfied until they can carry in a church, in the legislature, in a bar (what possible good can come of that), in a school. They want completely unfettered, unregulated access to guns, and the consequences be damned. When confronted by other intelligent, caring people who say they have a different vision for a safe society, many gun owners resort to name-calling (Mr gryphon) or threats. So tyranny comes in many forms.

[freediver]

Mt Tuctom: You pointed out the largest problem in the current gun culture we have in the United States: personal responsibility. If every gun owner secured their weapons properly, learned not only their legal obligations but spent hours on the range getting competent, didn't engage in illegal sales, kept guns away from their crazy family members (Sandy Hook), taught their children firearm safety, and practiced tactical situation shooting before carrying in a mall or a restaurant, we wouldn't be having these conversations. But year in, year out we see the results of poor personal responsibility: stolen weapons and illegal firearms sales, accidental shootings, kids dying from their parents' weapons, and on and on. So, similar to driving laws and aviation laws and medical laws and other regulations, we need to step in and provide some guidance because guns owners have not been demonstrating personal responsibility.

I wish it weren't so. If every gun owner was as conscientious and law abiding as most of the people on this forum (as well as my friends and myself) seem to be, none of this would be necessary. I'm no fan of government intervention. But at some point we have to admit that there is a problem with gun deaths and gun crime in this country, and do something about it. Saying NO to everything is not a solution.

[freediver]

Mr gryphon: For some reason we Americans seem to think we have the only "free" society in the world, and that is a result of our gun culture. Not true. There are plenty of other "free" societies out there: Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Iceland, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, almost all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of the Pacific Island nations, certain nations in the middle east and Africa and Asia and South America. They all seem to get along fine as a "free" society, and they do it without the plethora of guns that we have in the United States. I'm not suggesting that we go the way of Great Britain or Japan, because we are a very different culture. What I am suggesting is that other countries have learned to live in a "free" society with a modicum of gun regulation, a higher degree of personal responsibility on the part of gun owners, and seem to be doing just fine. They have a fraction of the gun deaths and crime that we have in the US. Maybe we could draw a lesson or two from their experience and make our society safer.

And while we're on the subject of "free" societies, I'll be visiting Japan a few times in August. I have learned to appreciate the fact that they have almost no crime. They don't have to lock their bikes or their cars, and I could walk around any major city in Japan at any hour of the night and be perfectly safe. So maybe, just maybe, they're doing something better than we are. We could learn from that.