Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: darrenlobo on July 09, 2015, 08:55:03 PM
-
Murder Rates: Why Comparing The United States Only To Other Developed Countries Is Deceitful
The problem with that limited comparison is the fact that many very poor countries are also very peaceful.
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2015/06/murder-rates-why-comparing-united_29.html
-
Mr Darrenlobo: It's true. Many poor countries around the globe are peaceful, even more so than the US. It might have something to do with the fact that the average person doesn't have the discretionary income to buy a gun, and has no need to do so.
-
http://bearingarms.com/thug-culture-continues-take-lives-gun-violence-myth-persists/
-
http://bearingarms.com/thug-culture-continues-take-lives-gun-violence-myth-persists/
This says a lot "mayor, of course, blames guns for these crimes, not the violent nature of thug culture itself." It seems to NEVER be the fault of a way of life. Lets fix this.
-
Would you be satisfied if our rates were more comparable to Western Europe? If you took blacks out of the equation, our homicide rates would be on par with Germany and lower than France. And we own WAY more guns than they do. (there are 350,000,000 guns in the US).
Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US:
3.4 – White
25.8 – Black
3.2 – Other
What about just violence in general?
Assaults
Definition: 'Assault' means physical attack against the body of another person resulting in serious bodily injury; excluding indecent/sexual assault; threats and slapping/punching. 'Assault' leading to death should also be excluded.
Rate/100,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
USA 294.9 288.2 290.5 291.8 286.4 276.1 262.2
England/Wales 862.8 967.3 1,013.7 939.4 832.9 769.9 729.8
Scotland 1,232.5 1,584.9 1,542.8 1,655.1 1,545.9 1,545.7 1,487.2
Now homicides, yes, we are 4x higher than England (1.2 England v. 5 for US). But you are talking a couple of points per hundred thousand people. Compare that to physical assault resulting in serious bodily injury: 262 for US v. 730 for England or 1,487 for Scotland!
So you think 5 v. 1.2 is horrible for the US, but you are okay with Great Britain having 500-1,200 more violent assaults for the same group?
The difference in our homicide rates is less than 4 (per 100,000).
The difference in our violent assault rates is 1,225 (per 100,000).
4, bad; 1,225 good?
Gun control advocates are always cherry picking stats. They have to because their arguments are nonsensical and based on a ridiculous set of presuppositions. If we walled off a few two square mile plots in several American cities our homicide rate would be practically nothing after the inhabitants killed each other off. The rest of us are very well behaved, thank you very much.
(I pulled these numbers a couple of years ago for something I wrote, and they do change slightly from year to year, but the overall trends are identical).
Mr. freediver, you weren't really afraid of the gun owner at Subway, were you? If you were truly afraid you would have left.
-
Dan you ruined it, throwing out complete and factual numbers and all. :D
-
Mr Gryphon: Before we start calling your numbers complete and factual, I would like to know what information source you are using for said numbers. There are a lot of numbers being thrown around out there. Most of them are incorrect. I try to use FBI and CDC numbers since they usually aren't politicized.
Second, you make exactly the point I have been talking about. If there is such a "thug culture" (as opposed to rednecks, anti-social militiamen, bullies with guns, domestic abusers, etc), then maybe one of the things we should be working for very hard is to stifle the flow of guns from legal hands to "thug" hands. That is key. Assuming every initial firearm purchase is a legal one, how do we stop these firearms from getting into the wrong hands?
As far as the gun owner in Subway, no, I wasn't scared. Just apprehensive and keeping my eye on him. Because I had no idea as to his mental state, his legality, his competence, or his level of intoxication. Should I have to consider such things when I go out for a sandwich?
Your comment "took the blacks out of the equation" is one of the more racist things I've seen in a discussion. Some how I don't think "black thugs" are responsible for all the firearms deaths in our nation.
-
I try to use FBI and CDC numbers since they usually aren't politicized.
You do realize that both of those organizations are ran by bureaucrats....
Thomas R. Frieden, the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009.
James Brien Comey, Jr., the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013.
-
I don't generally trust the Feral Bureau of Instigation, but AFAIK, their compilation of crime statistics is honest.
The feeding of stats to the Fibbies by local departments might be lackadaisical or even deliberately slanted though. Police chiefs are political accessories to the mayors, and sometimes the mayors have a political need for crimes stats to trend in a certain direction.
-
I don't generally trust the Feral Bureau of Instigation, but AFAIK, their compilation of crime statistics is honest.
The feeding of stats to the Fibbies by local departments might be lackadaisical or even deliberately slanted though. Police chiefs are political accessories to the mayors, and sometimes the mayors have a political need for crimes stats to trend in a certain direction.
They are honestly reporting inaccuracies. Chicago exemplifies your second statement.
-
Snip ...Should I have to consider such things when I go out for a sandwich?...
Regardless of visible weapons, the answer is a resounding yes, you should always be evaluating the threat level of the people in your immediate vicinity, at least to some extent. Personal responsibility is the price for freedom.
-
Mr Gryphon: Before we start calling your numbers complete and factual, I would like to know what information source you are using for said numbers.
My data come from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (homicide breakdown by race) and the violent assault rates from the UNODC.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html
-
Your comment "took the blacks out of the equation" is one of the more racist things I've seen in a discussion. Some how I don't think "black thugs" are responsible for all the firearms deaths in our nation.
Not racist at all. Read the FBI white paper on homicide. It talks about race. Or you can call the FBI racists. The numbers don't lie. Blacks are 1/8 the population yet commit homicide eight times more than whites or Asians, etc. That's 64 times more violent. Feel free to look at other crime if you want. Use the FBI numbers and read their conclusions in their published pdf reports.
People try to compare our society with that of Japan and Europe, but we aren't the same. Japan's suicide rate dwarfs ours, yet they have no guns. The homicide rate of non-blacks (whites and others) in America is on par or lower than that of countries like Germany and France. The overall violence in the UK is much greater than America.
Europe is much more homogeneous than America. Given that and America's laws, people should be lauding the U.S. as a model for societal behavior, not condemning it. If you gave our laws and our societal makeup to any other first world country they'd probably be in chaos.
Homicide is a very tiny part of overall crime. Statistically it's nothing more than a rounding error in even violent assaults.
-
I had no idea as to his mental state, his legality, his competence, or his level of intoxication. Should I have to consider such things when I go out for a sandwich?
It's the price of living in a free society. You don't know that about anyone in line in front of you. Ever.
Over 10,000 people are killed annually due to alcohol-impaired driving crashes. One-third of all traffic-related deaths in the United States is the result of alcohol. Almost 300,000 were injured in drunk driving crashes in 2012. 29.1 million people have admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol. The cost to society in health care and lost productivity due to alcohol can be measured in the billions of dollars. According to the CDC, $223.5 billion to be exact.
More than 480,000 people die annually due to smoking. That doesn't include cancers from smokeless tobacco.
If America really cared about people dying and all the other ill effects on society we'd abolish tobacco and alcohol tomorrow. But we don't because we acknowledge that's the price of living in a free society.
-
That seemed to shut him up.
-
Sorry Mr Gryphon, but your posts did not "shut me up". Since we are having a discussion, I'm not sure why you would want to shut me up. Work and chores were more of a priority the last couple of days. I've got some free time today to reply.
I will take a look at your crime statistics and reply in a separate post if I need to.
As far as the racism remark, here's why: the issue of gun deaths and criminality is not a black problem, or a white problem, or a conservative problem, or a liberal problem, or a young problem, or an old problem. It's an American problem. Every year we lose tens of thousands of people to death by firearm. WE do, the citizens of this nation. That means all of us, not just the white ones or the black ones. The black citizens you mentioned live in this country just like you and I. They live under the same laws, walk the same streets, and deserve the same respect. If there is a problem with gun violence among the black community in America, then it's a problem we ALL share. So please don't put yourself in your ivory "white" tower and point fingers at our fellow citizens. If you see an issue with gun violence in a community, which you seem to do when you quote crime statistics, then perhaps you as a responsible gun owner should step up and start being part of the solution.
That's what I'm talking about. We are not talking about alcohol, or smoking, or anything else. This is a forum concerning firearms. I, a fellow gun owner, see a problem with the lackadaisical approach to gun ownership in our country. I see a problem with guns making it into the hands of criminals or the mentally unbalanced. I see an intolerant disregard by gun enthusiasts for the concerns of their fellow citizens. I think we can do better. I'll return to my original contention: Assuming every gun purchase is a legal one, how do we stop guns from ending up into the hands of criminals, no matter what their skin color? If you want to point a finger at someone responsible, look in the mirror. Those guns are flowing from legal hands, which is us, the gun owners.
There's a difference between living in a free society and living in one that is overly saturated with guns. A free society implies that I can walk the streets without constantly worrying about my personal safety or being "on guard". A society that requires me to always carry a gun and be "at the ready" is just tyranny of a different flavor. Just as forcing your fellow citizens to live as you do, with a gun constantly at your side, is also a form of tyranny.
-
Mr Linus203: I'm not following your remark about bureaucrats being appointed by Mr Obama. could you clarify what you mean, please?
-
Freediver, what would you propose for this scenario? Your PERSONAL house was broken into and YOUR HANDGUN which was locked with a gun lock in a locked case which was in a locked safe was stolen. YOUR gun was then used in a CRIME by a CRIMINAL. What do you want to happen to you??
What did universal "background checks" for all gun buyers do?
What did limiting sales do?
How long do we put YOU in jail?
Hey lets change this up a bit. YOUR HANDGUN which was locked with a gun lock in a locked case which was in a locked safe and your spouse is depressed. YOUR wife, knowing where you keep the keys takes the gun then uses in a CRIME, after all suicide is against the law. What do you want to happen to you??
Do you think gun owners don't go though these scenarios?
What after all of the laws YOU want passed do you propose we do then? Remember, you do think this will fix the problem we have with criminals and suicides
-
wow,
Suggesting there isn't a racial component when there's an extremely high relationship is disingenuous.
Suicides should not be part of the discussion. People use all kinds of means to commit that criminal act. Pills, autos, knives, etc.
More people die in auto accidents than ALL types of deaths due to firearms. Why aren't you crying to ban cars? Jumping to a conclusion, death doesn't bother you, only the form of death.
-
As far as the racism remark, here's why: the issue of gun deaths and criminality is not a black problem, or a white problem, or a conservative problem, or a liberal problem, or a young problem, or an old problem. It's an American problem.
The problem could change in the future, you know. We could have a large influx of radical Muslims, for example, and need to deal with that. Sure, it'd be an American problem, but not one that existed before. So some myopic people like you could say that we need to regulate pressure cookers, but in reality pressure cookers have never been a problem before.
If there is a problem with gun violence among the black community in America, then it's a problem we ALL share.
To some extent.
you as a responsible gun owner should step up and start being part of the solution.
It doesn't work that way. We've tried it, over and over. You think some white dude can walk into a black neighborhood and tell them how to behave? LOL. We could accomplish much through legislation, though. Eliminate abortion and many assistance programs. Yes, this would affect everyone, as it should.
We are not talking about alcohol, or smoking, or anything else.
If you are truly worried about untimely deaths in this country, you would naturally start with the highest causes. Murders using guns are nothing more than a rounding error on the number of deaths caused by tobacco. If you really cared, you'd lobby for the ban of tobacco.
Assuming every gun purchase is a legal one, how do we stop guns from ending up into the hands of criminals, no matter what their skin color?
I think we should make a law stating that sales of handguns to felons is prohibited. That'll solve the problem, right? Just make a law.
If you want to point a finger at someone responsible, look in the mirror. Those guns are flowing from legal hands, which is us, the gun owners.
How many guns have you funneled into illegal hands?
There's a difference between living in a free society and living in one that is overly saturated with guns.
No there's not. Not one iota of difference.
A free society implies that I can walk the streets without constantly worrying about my personal safety or being "on guard".
No it doesn't. Who told you that? You are grossly misinformed. Even if guns were eliminated by some magic, what's to stop you or my 5'-2" 120 pound wife from being afraid of someone more powerful than her?
-
What is overly saturated with guns? Who defines the limit and why?
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
(http://i.lvme.me/pzv5j7l.jpg)
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.
-
If criminals are already side-stepping background checks (via theft and straw purchases), what will adding universal background checks accomplish?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Homogeneous society's such as Japan is not a good comparison to the United States.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
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.
News flash--you CAN carry in all those places now.
-
But year in, year out we see the results of poor personal responsibility: stolen weapons and illegal firearms sales
I think we should make illegal gun sales illegal. I think we should make stealing illegal.
-
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.
What do you propose doing so that certain segments of our society stop committing crime and we become as "safe" as Japan? For the purposes of this discussion, let's pretend guns didn't exist since the majority of crime is committed without guns.
-
What do you propose doing so that certain segments of our society stop committing crime and we become as "safe" as Japan? For the purposes of this discussion, let's pretend guns didn't exist since the majority of crime is committed without guns.
Simply finish doing away with the rights of suspects, and get the capture/conviction rate up over 90% like Japan.
In Japan, you commit a serious crime because it's worth the punishment.
In USA, you commit a serious crime because you don't expect to be caught or punished.
-
In USA, you commit a serious crime because you don't expect to be caught or punished.
Yep, and if caught you know the prosecutor will plead the case down so that it doesn't go to trial and clog the court system. If everyone demanded a trial, our court system would grind to a halt. That's why we have career criminals out on the street.
-
Plea bargaining:
A 'system of equal justice' designed to insure that the innocent and the guilty receive equal punishments.
But, in practice, it fails in its goals for 'democratic equality of outcome' because the innocent don't show the expected level of remorse and get punished extra for not being apologetic enough.
-
Mr gryphon, you miss my point. Those are illegal. Yet we, the gun owners, are still doing it. Assume every initial gun purchase is legal. How do guns make it into the wrong hands? They are either stolen, or they are sold illegally. By gun owners.
-
Well then by golly lets make it illegal for a gun owner to sell a gun illegally!
What do you want to do, give them double secret probation? It is already illegal!
-
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.
Right. And as you and others here have pointed out lets make crime against the law!! I agree!
When did the whole thought of creating laws to replace common sense come about? As more laws are written to replace common sense the less people have to depend on theirs. Can't make a right turn on a red light (onto a 2 lane road) because people turning in front of you turn into the wrong (right not left) lane (Illegal already) cause an accident. What happens when the light that says "no turn on red" burns out? Who is now at fault the person breaking the law or the person breaking the law?
Adding more laws to make someone feel good is not a reason to create more laws. And admit it, based on your comments you clearly have an agenda and are here to find a way to at least put up a better argument then there currently is. You are "learning to debate".
-
Mr gryphon: Here's the dilemma: If it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals, yet gun owners continue to do so, how do we change that? How do we choke off the supply of guns flowing from legal hands to illegal hands? How do we change our gun culture from one far too casual to one of more sober responsibility? I've suggested a few ways. If those aren't to your liking, then suggest some solutions!
-
Mr Tuctom: As I've said before, one of our goals as a society should be to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the criminal or the mentally unbalanced. Since every initial purchase is (or should be) a legal one, how do we prevent a legal gun from falling into an illegal hand? Look in the mirror. those weapons are coming FROM legal gun owners. So how do we change that? How do we improve upon public safety? It falls to us, the legal gun owners, to change that dynamic.
As far as me having an agenda, you're right, I do. An agenda of sanity and reasonableness. An agenda to change our gun culture to one of more sober responsibility. An agenda of getting rid of BS arguments and outright lies and having a discussion based on facts, not fiction. An agenda of changing our gun culture from within, not having something we don't like rammed down our throats from other factions.
As far as "learning to debate", I don't think so. I'm well into my 50s. I think I can hold my own in a discussion.
-
Mr gryphon: Here's the dilemma: If it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals, yet gun owners continue to do so, how do we change that? I've suggested a few ways.
I don't remember you suggesting any ways to stop gun owners from illegally selling guns to prohibited persons (e.g., felons or underage). Maybe I am mis-remembering, though. Robyn Anderson legally purchased guns and then turned them over to the two underage Columbine shooters. Neither the federal government nor the state of Colorado charged her or prosecuted her.
Maybe the government should enforce our current laws instead of making additional ones. Just a thought.
-
Robyn Anderson legally purchased guns and then turned them over to the two underage Columbine shooters. Neither the federal government nor the state of Colorado charged her or prosecuted her.
Dan I think freediver wants to make this more illegal ;D
Or is freediver saying that criminals don't follow the laws so we need to make more laws that affect the non criminals more?
-
Or is freediver saying that criminals don't follow the laws so we need to make more laws that affect the non criminals more?
This^.
It's a psychotic desire to punish 80 million people who didn't kill anybody after the perp who did kill somebody is safely in prison.
What do you expect when somebody comes here to lecture us on "Commie Sense Gun Laws" to put an end to "Gun violence"?
I'll admit it threw me off guard a bit when he bought a membership. Maybe Bloomberg fronted him $20 for it.
-
Dan I think freediver wants to make this more illegal ;D
Or is freediver saying that criminals don't follow the laws so we need to make more laws that affect the non criminals more?
Apparently the 20,000 + firearm laws we have on the books today are not stopping the criminal behavior, but ONE MORE LAW will fix the problem.
-
Mr gryphon: Actually I've suggested a couple of ways to stop the illegal transfer of weapons: universal background checks for all gun transfers, and mandatory locked storage for all firearms. There are several other things we could do.
Ms Anderson should have prosecuted under the law as being an accessory to murder. You're right, we should enforce the laws already on the books. Put the responsibility squarely on gun owners, where it belongs.
-
Mr part deux: Since you don't think any of my ideas will be effective, what would YOU do to stop the flow of guns into illegal or mentally incompetent hands? Those guns are coming from somewhere! They aren't just appearing out of thin air!
-
Mr citizenshaverights: I am always amused when people resort to name calling (commie sense gun laws). When they do that, it means they have nothing constructive to say. I put in my own 20 bucks because a: I'm a gun owner who believes in second amendment rights and b: I have some input to make on our gun culture. If you don't like my opinions, too bad for you. I don't particularly care for Mr Bloomberg and his politics. I think he's the kind of over-reaching politician we all need to be wary of.
He's also an example of why we all need to take the long view in this discussion. We have problems with gun deaths and gun criminality in our society. The general public grows ever more weary of death after death, massacre after massacre. If we gun owners continue to exist in denial, then eventually public opinion will change to the point where the Bloombergs of the world will have their way. Then legislation will be passed that we REALLY don't like.
We are the "experts". We are the ones who have a vested interest in how this all ends up. We are the ones who have the most to lose if the public opinion turns against us. So rather than hide behind the 2nd amendment and pat ourselves on the back, we need to be proactive. Engage ALL our citizens in a friendly, constructive way, not just the ones who agree with us.
-
freediver, ever hear of "fast and furious"? What do you propose we do to prevent the US GOVERNMENT from not only knowingly allowing but encouraging illegal gun sales?
If you want to stop lets start at the top.
Also freediver I don't think citizenshaverights called you a name. He simply stated that "commie sense gun laws" is why you are here.
-
Mr gryphon: Actually I've suggested a couple of ways to stop the illegal transfer of weapons: universal background checks for all gun transfers, and mandatory locked storage for all firearms. There are several other things we could do.
Neither of which stops the illegal sale or transfer of guns from FFLs or legal owners to prohibited persons which is what we were talking about and what I quoted. Here's a reminder:
Mr gryphon: Here's the dilemma: If it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals, yet gun owners continue to do so, how do we change that? I've suggested a few ways.
I don't remember you suggesting any ways to stop gun owners from illegally selling guns to prohibited persons (e.g., felons or underage).
Talking to you is like talking to Nigel Tufnel. My head hurts.
-
freediver, also you keep saying we need universal background checks, but almost all gun crime is via handguns, and handguns ALREADY have universal background checks. The only guns that don't are privately sold long guns, shotguns and rifles. The number of long guns used in crimes are a tiny fraction of all gun crime, but even universal background checks wouldn't have prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook, or Aurora because all of those long guns were purchased legally.
You're tilting at windmills. Just saying, "I know this won't work, but we have to do something!" won't cut it. But you know what would work? If more people carried guns!
-
Mr freediver: excuse me -- I've not read every post in this thread but I have read enough to understand you think the force of Government (an organization which in many ways resembles a gang) should be used to restrict rights -- including gun rights. Might I kindly suggest this organization may not be the right one for you.
Be well.
-
Mr gryphon: since you claim that handguns are already covered by background checks, then how do you explain that handguns make it into the hands of criminals? Is it magic? Is it some sort of space-time warp? Please explain to me the conduit by which these guns flow.
Universal background checks are only part of the picture, and only part of the solution. I'm suggesting we need a more thorough makeover of our gun culture. I've made these suggestions throughout this thread. I'm not sure what else I can say.
Show me an example of a modern society that was improved with more guns. Not a theoretical example. A real one.
-
Mr TheQ: like you I share of healthy skepticism of government intervention. But I also see gun owners acting irresponsibly while dwelling in complete denial of the effects of their actions. Something has to change.
Since this is a gun rights organization, why wouldn't it be the right one for me? Perhaps you could explain further.
-
Mr gryphon: since you claim that handguns are already covered by background checks
For some reason I was thinking that all handgun purchases had to be done through FFLs due to federal law (with some exceptions for family members), but I was wrong on that point. Although many states do require it, or at least PD checks like Michigan. The only other thing you've talked about is mandating 100 million gun owners purchase $3,000 gun safes (because anything under about $1,500 can be breached pretty quickly (60-90 seconds) with a battery powered saber saw as I previously told you). And that's for large upright safes. Those small bedside/under bed safes can both be easily stolen or even opened by a kid. Almost every one of those are junk.
Even if the gun industry could make 1 million gun safes a year, it would take 100 years for everyone to even be able to buy one.
You haven't proposed one solid solution. The one and only thing that would have a chance of working--and it would take decades--is an immediate, 100% ban on guns in America, and that isn't going to happen.
-
Mr gryphon: since you claim that handguns are already covered by background checks, then how do you explain that handguns make it into the hands of criminals? Is it magic? Is it some sort of space-time warp? Please explain to me the conduit by which these guns flow.
We covered this already. They are stolen, bought via straw purchasers, or a legal gun owner decides to become a criminal. Which of these scenarios would be prevented by a background check?
-
Since this is a gun rights organization, why wouldn't it be the right one for me? Perhaps you could explain further.
Ummmm...because you propose government enforced gun control?
Andy Schor owns guns too. You are looking like an Andy Schor gun owner.
-
Mr. Freediver... How would making it mandatory that guns be in a locked box in my home make it harder for criminals to get guns? I'm pretty sure they'd just take the box. I'm also pretty sure if I ask the rapist breaking into my home to wait a minute while I get my key to unlock my locked up gun so I can defend myself that he'd comply because he's an upstanding citizen.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Mr gryphon: you point out one of the loopholes that I've suggested we close: universal background checks. Since they ARE NOT required for handgun purchases, and this is the weapon most used in crime, wouldn't this be a good place to start? Remember, since we are concerned about violent crime, we want to choke off the flow of guns to criminal hands.
Your comment about safes is way off the mark. I'm in the market for a new gun safe. The one I intend to buy at Cabela's costs $1100, is upright, has stainless steel bolts, and holds about 25 long guns and/or handguns. It can be bolted to the floor and weighs 500 pounds. No thief will be able to saw into it with a saber saw. If you know of a saber saw that can cut hardened steel, please let me know. I'd love to have something that tough for my woodworking projects. There are plenty of other safes out there, large and small, that would secure weapons. So cost and availability are not really reasons for not securing your firearms.
Remember, gun crime, accidental deaths, and mass shootings by the mentally ill are not problems we will solve in a week. It will take time. But we have to start somewhere. We need to change our gun culture from one of casualness to one of serious responsibility.
As far as a 100% ban on guns, no one is suggesting such a ludicrous proposition.
-
Mr thamm: So you're saying that legal gun owners are breaking the law and sending guns into the hands of criminals, how do you propose we stop this practice? We are all concerned about violent crime!
-
Mr TheQ: I confess that I don't follow the Andy Schor remark. Could you explain?
-
Mr redwingsrule6971: real simple, bolt the box to something solid. Easy to do. And there are plenty of safes out there that can be opened in about two seconds. They either have a biometric lock that opens only to your fingerprint, or a speed dial combination lock. We just bought the latter for our son in law for under $100. I used one in the FFDO program. They work great.
Do you have a problem in your neighborhood with rapists breaking into houses?
-
Mr. Freediver... It's actually Ms. Redwings6971. And yes, I do. Last summer there were two rapes in my neighborhood. Not my city...my neighborhood.
Those two seconds could cost me my life. As a woman, I have been in several instances where a gun could have helped me. This was before MI was shall issue. I was powerless. I refuse to be a victim again. Locking up MY guns in MY home to protect MYSELF against criminals who have no regard for the law does nothing except make my odds of becoming a victim and statistic greater.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
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).
If criminals are already side-stepping background checks (via theft and straw purchases), what will adding universal background checks accomplish?
Mr gryphon: since you claim that handguns are already covered by background checks, then how do you explain that handguns make it into the hands of criminals? Is it magic? Is it some sort of space-time warp? Please explain to me the conduit by which these guns flow.
Universal background checks are only part of the picture, and only part of the solution.
We covered this already. They are stolen, bought via straw purchasers, or a legal gun owner decides to become a criminal. Which of these scenarios would be prevented by a background check?
Mr thamm: So you're saying that legal gun owners are breaking the law and sending guns into the hands of criminals, how do you propose we stop this practice? We are all concerned about violent crime!
Yes, I am saying that some gun owners break the law. You have also said that some gun owners break the law. We agree on that point.
My disagreement comes with your solution of "universal background checks." I have twice asked you directly how a background check prevents any of the ways criminals get guns, since the background checks are already being avoided.
I quoted previous posts for your reference. I eagerly await your response.
-
They either have a biometric lock that opens only to your fingerprint, or a speed dial combination lock.
And most of those can be easily broken into. There are lots of youtube videos showing how easily they are opened, often just by banging on them, including Stack-On and AMSEC (but the others seemed to far not all that much better). Here are four being opened by a three year old, but there are others that open just about as easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erGOJxQIf5c
We just bought the latter for our son in law for under $100.
Does he have it bolted down to the floor so no one cal walk off with it like you are telling all of us to do?
-
Mr. Freediver.......... .......
Those two seconds could cost me my life. As a woman, I have been in several instances where a gun could have helped me. This was before MI was shall issue. I was powerless. I refuse to be a victim again. Locking up MY guns in MY home to protect MYSELF against criminals who have no regard for the law does nothing except make my odds of becoming a victim and statistic greater.
Well stated from real experiences ... thanks for sharing. :)
How an individual decides to protect themselves and how they choose to keep their firearms in their private home are INDIVIDUAL decisions. How does a politician in Washington or Lansing or "My" City Hall, know what is best for me in my city, my neighborhood, my house, or on my body? Let me make my own decisions about my personal protection and don't try to make me responsible for some criminal that decides to break the law.
-
No thief will be able to saw into it with a saber saw. If you know of a saber saw that can cut hardened steel, please let me know.
I bet that hardened steel is only around the lock. The body of the safe itself will be two sheets of cold rolled steel separated by fiber board that can be cut with a battery powered sawzall. (That's what I meant when I wrote saber saw, a battery powered reciprocating saw with a metal blade).
-
Bah I can cut any steel with a reciprocating saw and a diamond encrusted blade.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
Mr TheQ: I confess that I don't follow the Andy Schor remark. Could you explain?
Andy Schor is the leader of the Michigan legislature gun control wing.
I'm sure Sara Brady owns guns too.
-
An electric Metabo will also easily cut steel plate. My millwright contractors do it every day. That you just need an 120v outlet. And they are cheap.
-
I use a 18V (battery) 4.5" angle grinder to cut and grind cold rolled steel in excess of 1/4" on a pretty regular basis. Compared to that, the steel that is used for most safes is tissue paper.
-
Didn't know they had battery powered angle grinders. I've only seen 120v electric and pneumatic. So there are a handful of different types of small, battery powered tools that easily will cut through the majority of gun safe bodies.
I've got a $1,000 safe, probably nearly identical to what freediver is going to purchase. It will keep my grandkids out and the random smash and grab, but I have no illusions that it would keep out someone who knew I had guns and broke into my house to steal them. They would come prepared with very modest battery powered tools that could easily cut right through the double steel walls. And if not they could use my tools in my garage!
Here's what you can do with a $50 tool in under two minutes. This is a Browning ProSteel safe. Not cheap. This "careless" gun owner lost all of his guns in a five minute home robbery.
(http://cdn.gunsafereviewsguy.com//gsrg/_files/uploads/saw-attack_browning-prosteel.jpg)
-
Best thing is to limit access to the safe. Make it hard to get to. But the fact is given enough time anything can be cracked.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
freediver, educate yourself. You're welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHAyRO566sU
-
Mr gryphon: since you claim that handguns are already covered by background checks, then how do you explain that handguns make it into the hands of criminals? Is it magic? Is it some sort of space-time warp? Please explain to me the conduit by which these guns flow.
Universal background checks are only part of the picture, and only part of the solution. I'm suggesting we need a more thorough makeover of our gun culture. I've made these suggestions throughout this thread. I'm not sure what else I can say.
Show me an example of a modern society that was improved with more guns. Not a theoretical example. A real one.
That is extremely simple and I will give you two. Israel and Switzerland. Then i will point out the increasing murder rate in the UK and Sweden that DOES NOT INVOVE GUNS. Then to pour a bit of salt on it I would point out that the UK has the Highest gun crime rate in Europe currently and that includes Eastern Europe where gun ownership is much more possible post Soviet era. Sir you argue the same crap that end in brit's being stripped of their guns unless you go through massive background checks and getting a handgun is near impossible. Yet the UK has a serious gun problem from a rather active blackmarket that has nothing to do with legal gun owners at all.
You make demands and accuse people of criminal intent or possible criminal intent and when called out for doing so blame the other person? Member or not you are a troll and and you can take the rationalization of only being reasonable and go put back in the copy of Mien Kampf you took it out of.
Michael
-
Speaking of straw purchases and Robyn Anderson, as I was before, here's something I read today elsewhere:
Another example, straw-buying. Should be a fairly straightforward case. But, it takes some work. And, ultimately, you are facing the prospect of sending a young female – often a single mother – to prison for a non-violent crime of buying a gun and giving it to her “boy-friend”. Prosecutors just don’t want to do this when they have violent criminals to deal with.
How many people get put in prison for straw purchases/sales? Very, very few, if any. A cop was recently convicted of a straw purchase. The only reason they got him for that was because he was arrested for a bank robbery. And plotting a massacre of fellow law enforcement officers.
He could have received 15 years in prison and fines totaling $500,000 for the straw purchase alone, but he didn't. He got probation. A straw purchase from an FFL is actually two crimes, a) the purchase itself, and b) causing an FFL to keep false records.
-
How many people get put in prison for straw purchases/sales? Very, very few, if any. A cop was recently convicted of a straw purchase. The only reason they got him for that was because he was arrested for a bank robbery. And plotting a massacre of fellow law enforcement officers.
Tell that to Bruce Abramski and Manuel Eduardo Pena.
Abramski, like David Olofson, is living proof that it is entirely unreasonable to expect a fair trial in the feral court system.
Pena gets a bit less sympathy from me.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/supreme-court-hear-form-4473-perjury-case/#more-265569
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/south-texas-federal-jury-convicts-cbp-officer-straw-purchasing-firearms
-
Tell that to Bruce Abramski
Abramski is the cop I referred to in my post.
-
Abramski is the cop I referred to in my post.
Holy chit, you're right.
Somehow I totally missed seeing anything about him and a bank robbery.
So the total BS charge of straw purchasing for a legal end user is just an added 'eff you' charge on a guy who they already had on federal bank robbery charges?
-
Yes.
-
Mr gryphon: Your last two posts were far too lengthy for me to reply to with any clarity or focus.
Of course they were. I cited actual facts. You had no response. Even after five pages of replies you still had no response.
As far as a 100% ban on guns, no one is suggesting such a ludicrous proposition.
No, but I am saying that that is the ONLY thing that has even a remote chance of ending gun crime. How do you think that will go down with the American public?
Mr gryphon: Here's the dilemma: If it is already illegal to sell guns to criminals, yet gun owners continue to do so, how do we change that?
Make it more illegal?
Ms Anderson should have prosecuted under the law as being an accessory to murder. You're right, we should enforce the laws already on the books. Put the responsibility squarely on gun owners, where it belongs.
So put the responsibility on gun owners who commit ILLEGAL ACTS, right?
The general public grows ever more weary of death after death, massacre after massacre. If we gun owners continue to exist in denial, then eventually public opinion will change to the point where the Bloombergs of the world will have their way. Then legislation will be passed that we REALLY don't like.
Although it may sound logical to you, in reality that's not the way it works or is working. Even the anti-gun drumbeats after Sandy Hook gained zero traction. Not one iota. Despite the crime we have--and we will always have crime regardless of whether we have guns or not--America has become more pro-2A. More and more states are expanding their "stand your ground" laws, legalizing open carry, enacting Constitutional Carry, eliminating gun-free zones, mandating CLEOs sign off on NFA items, and much more. I assume you have been reading the MOC newsletter, so you are well aware of all of these pro-2A law changes across America.
Mr Tuctom: If my gun were properly secured in a locked safe
Objection, your Honor, statement calls for a conclusion by the witness.
stored the rest with a neighbor who had a large gun safe.
Kinda hard to carry a gun for self-defense when you have given them all away. I trust your friend had a CPL else you were violating the law.
Mr linux203: 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.
Gun owners never get everything they want. We want Constitutional Carry across the USA. Period. Anything less than that is a compromise. We are always compromising. What you are suggesting, though, is a loss of rights, a loss of freedoms from what we currently have. As the Senate subcommittee said to Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, we want an expansion of rights.
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
How about enforcing current gun laws? How about enforcing current laws, period? The man that murdered Kate Steinle in SF that got all the news recently was a felon, had been deported five times, and was ordered held on ANOTHER immigration detainer, but San Francisco is a "Safe Harbor" city and they refused so they let him go free and he stole a gun from a federal agent and murdered Kate Steinle. How many criminals are plead down to lesser charges and put back out on the street over and over and over again? We've got murderers with twenty previous arrests who never spent a day in prison or even a day in jail outside of their booking time. You realize that only a very small portion of our society are violent criminals, right? How about we just deal with them and not persecute the honest citizens of America?
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 accurate. It's not only guns, it's everything else as well. How about free speech? You've got people in Canada being prosecuted for hate crimes for doing book reviews that talk about Muslims and people in the UK being prosecuted for hate crimes for preaching what the Bible says because it talks about homosexuality. Although tangentially related to guns, you had the RCMP break into people's houses and take their guns without warrants. No one has gone to prison yet or even get fired, and no one will.
In some post you asked about what country is more safe because of guns (I tried to find it but overlooked it apparently), I started crafting a lengthy response offline. I made charts using countries in Europe and Northern Asia. Almost without exception the countries with more guns had less murders, and vice versa.
I also thought I'd mention that the US has a firearms ownership rate of over 110 while the US Virgin Islands has a firearms ownership rate of, well, we don’t know, but it is minuscule because they have very tight gun control. The US murder rate is 4.7. The US Virgin Islands murder rate is 50 – 60 depending on the year.
But you know what? None of that matters. I'll tell you a country that is safer because of guns, and that's America. Yes, we have gun crime, but we have more lawful self-defense uses of firearms. If guns were magically eliminated from the earth we'd have more innocent people getting violently assaulted and murdered than we do today. So America is safer because of guns, not more dangerous.
You want to talk about violent crime? Look to the UK. But you refused to address that. We might have 3 more homicides people per 100,000, but they have hundreds to over a thousand more violent assaults per 100,000 than we do. That's what being unable to defend yourself looks like. Maybe you want to end up in a hospital. I don't. It's a choice.
-
According to Heritage, Hong Kong is freest at least as far as economic freedom.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Good ole USA? #12...
-
Maybe freediver can move to Hong Kong. We can always hope.
-
Maybe freediver can move to Hong Kong. We can always hope.
Don't get your hopes up. I hear they have good internet connections in Hong Kong.
-
Sorry I haven't replied, ladies and gentlemen, but I was working and out of the country. I'll do my best to get back into the discussion as soon as I've had a chance to review some of the postings. I do enjoy a lively discuss, and it looks like we have a few new players.
-
Welcome back Freediver!! Find a country with good internet connections!! :D
-
Ms redwingsrule6971: I applaud your stance. You took a look at the crime in your neighborhood, decided you weren't going to be a victim, and took action. Excellent! I would suggest a couple of other things. If you've done these already, I apologize for preaching to the choir.
Tactical shooting is a completely different scenario than range shooting. In addition to arming yourself and practicing on the range, I would offer the idea that you do two more things: take a tactical shooting course which practices skills such as close in "tussle" type shooting as well as considerations for your surroundings and how to wound/kill an assailant, There's a very big difference between shooting holes in a target and shooting to kill someone quickly. Second, I would include a hand to hand combat class in your training. Depending on the scenario, you may not get a chance to use your gun or it may not be effective. Learning a few self defense techniques may make the difference if you ever have to use your skills.
Most importantly, go through the mental prep that you'll need to kill someone. It takes a mind shift, not always an easy one, to take a life. You need to make that decision beforehand. And run through different scenarios so that you're mentally ready.
The preparation will make all the difference. In the military we had an expression "you fight like you train." I've found it to be true in almost everything I've done.
Best of luck!
-
Mr Pond Scum: I was in Amsterdam. Great city, great internet connections. But I have a life. I prefer to go out and walk around or ride a bike than remain chained to my computer. But thanks for commenting on my personal life. I always appreciate it.
Amsterdam is one of those beautiful cities full of great architecture, bookstores, history, culture, food, etc. And it seems that both its citizens and its visitors don't feel the need to carry a weapon everywhere they go. Must be a cultural thing, I guess.
-
Then don't carry a weapon freediver.. I could care less what you do. However don't tell me or anyone else how to carry out our life. It's not your place or business.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
Mr m.marino: There is a very important difference between Israel/Switzerland and the United States. In the two countries you mentioned all citizens are required to train as part of the military reserves and to maintain a firearm in accordance with their reserve duty. So, all those gun owners have been trained not only in the safety and proper handling of firearms but they have been required to demonstrate proficiency with their firearm not only on a range but in tactical shooting situations. They are also required to maintain their proficiency with frequent training events.
Nothing like that exists in the United States, and that's what I've been saying. The bar to gun ownership has been set so low in the US that the only requirement to own and carry is to be of legal age and not be a felon. No requirements for training, proficiency, licensing, recurrent training, tactical situation training, none of that. As a result we have the free for all that we see played out in the news every week; crime, massacres, accidental shootings, gun theft, etc.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to carry. I'm a firm believer in our rights. I also believe that with that right to carry comes the sober responsibility to be trained and proficient and to understand how to handle tactical situations. I don't see that happening, and that's the change I'm trying to talk about.
-
Mr autosurgeon: It is my place and my life to make input when it affects my personal safety. My personal safety comes into question when I see gun owners behaving irresponsibly. As per the bureau of Justice Statistics over 200,000 guns are lost or stolen every year. Partly from poor storage practices, but mostly from illegal buyers or illegal gun purchases. Many of those 200,000 guns make it into the hands of criminals, which then I have to contend with. Add to that all the accidental deaths and discharges, mass murders, use while under the influence and it all adds up to pretty crummy gun culture.
We the gun owners are to blame. We are the ones who are selling these guns illegally, storing them improperly, allowing them to fall into the wrong hands, or failing to maintain proficiency with them. So as long as your right to carry affects my personal safety, yes, I do get to make inputs. As do our other citizens. We're all in this together.
-
Mr gryphon: We seemed to get sidetracked by the issue of proper storage. I will grant you that no gun safe is perfectly impenetrable and that thieves will target them. I reviewed the BofJ statistics and stolen guns are in the minority. The majority of illegal gun transfers occur with straw buyers, illegal sales (sold it to my cousin lefty, he seems like a good guy), and illegal sales by FFLs. So I come back to my original contention: if we the gun owners are the ones creating the problem (guns going to criminals and crazies), how do we stop this?
And storage is not just about keeping thieves at bay. It's also about making sure your child or grandchild, your depressed wife (I believe you used that scenario), your jealous neighbor (I told you to stay away from his wife) can't get to them easily. So it's a bigger question than just "how easily can we cut one open?"
-
Mr TheQ: Excellent post about the economic freedom rankings. I notice that most of the countries ranked above the US do have stricter gun laws than we do. So I don't think we can use the equation: "more guns=freedom." There are a lot of factors at work.
-
Amsterdam is one of those beautiful cities full of great architecture, bookstores, history, culture, food, etc. And it seems that both its citizens and its visitors don't feel the need to carry a weapon everywhere they go. Must be a cultural thing, I guess.
It's not a choice. It's prohibited. You can neither CC nor OC in the Netherlands.
-
The majority of illegal gun transfers occur with straw buyers, illegal sales, and illegal sales by FFLs. So I come back to my original contention: if we the gun owners are the ones creating the problem (guns going to criminals and crazies), how do we stop this?
Make it illegal?
-
We stop worrying about how the criminal got the tool he or she used. How do you explain criminals having guns in countries with strict gun control and very little civilian ownership..
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
-
right to carry comes the sober responsibility to be trained and proficient and to understand how to handle tactical situations. I don't see that happening, and that's the change I'm trying to talk about.
So, even though you say it is,you really don't think it is a responsibility because you want to create laws that remove the personal responsibility correct?
mostly from illegal buyers or illegal gun purchases. Many of those 200,000 guns make it into the hands of criminals,
So once again you want to make it MORE ILLEGAL because you already know it is illegal. If it is illegal already what do you propose to do? Restrict my rights because there are people who will continue to break the law? These people will continue to break the law even if more laws are enacted. Don't you get it? :-\
-
It's not a choice. It's prohibited. You can neither CC nor OC in the Netherlands.
Dan, it's not nice to point out someones ignorance. :rotfl:
-
Mr autosurgeon: It is my place and my life to make input when it affects my personal safety. My personal safety comes into question when I see gun owners behaving irresponsibly. As per the bureau of Justice Statistics over 200,000 guns are lost or stolen every year. Partly from poor storage practices, but mostly from illegal buyers or illegal gun purchases. Many of those 200,000 guns make it into the hands of criminals, which then I have to contend with. Add to that all the accidental deaths and discharges, mass murders, use while under the influence and it all adds up to pretty crummy gun culture.
We the gun owners are to blame. We are the ones who are selling these guns illegally, storing them improperly, allowing them to fall into the wrong hands, or failing to maintain proficiency with them. So as long as your right to carry affects my personal safety, yes, I do get to make inputs. As do our other citizens. We're all in this together.
What about the numerous guns in Genesee County that were recently reported missing -- from police agencies?!?
-
Mr TheQ: Excellent post about the economic freedom rankings. I notice that most of the countries ranked above the US do have stricter gun laws than we do. So I don't think we can use the equation: "more guns=freedom." There are a lot of factors at work.
That article ranked economic freedom, which has to do with capital restrictions. Gun freedom would fall under "civil rights" which isn't measured by Heritage.
-
Mr TheQ: You make a very good point about lost or stolen firearms from law enforcement people being part of the problem. I would be curious to see what the ratio is of total lost/stolen weapons versus those "contributed" by LEOs. Or the military. As I've said before, it's not the bleeding heart liberals who are supplying guns to the criminals or the insane. It's us, the gun owners.
As far as your comments about economic freedom versus civil rights, it becomes hard to compare apples and oranges. Different countries have different environments when it comes to freedom, guns, safety, and economic mobility. My point was that there are plenty of countries out there who have "freedom" without being awash in firearms.
-
Mr autosurgeon: I think you might want to study up on the gun culture of other countries as far as their criminal use of guns. Yes, there are criminals in every society. Yes, there is crime. The difference is that in societies where guns are harder to obtain, there is less violent crime WITH a firearm. If the bad guys don't have a gun, you have more options. Guns and gun use is usually reserved for criminal on criminal stuff. They can't waste a precious resource on petty crime.
I know the US is a different country than most of Europe or Asia. All I'm saying is that a little balance is in order. More guns do not necessarily equate to more safety. And given the number of guns lost or stolen in the US every year, more guns = more guns lost or stolen.
If we are worried about criminals or the insane having and using guns, shouldn't we worry about how/where they're getting them? Seems logical to me. If I don't want my teenagers to drive my car, I make sure they can't get the keys.
-
Mr Gryphon/Mr TucTom: I know it's illegal to OC or CC in the Netherlands. That's my point. Amsterdam is a large city with plenty of visitors, a diverse mix of ethnicities, and legal prostitution and drugs. Yet somehow, without a lot of armed citizens, they seem to get along pretty well.
Mr Tuctom: We return to the same place in this discussion. If over 200,000 firearms are stolen or lost EVERY YEAR, and we are all worried about gun crime, shootings, and death in our society, how do you propose to solve the problem? The guns are coming from us, the gun owners and firearms dealers. Not from the non-gun owners. So if we TRULY want to stop gun violence and crime and make our streets safer, how do we do that? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
Freediver, I see you are willing to give the Police / Government a pass in regards to their lost weapons (You didn't address what you would do). I would think fixing that problem first would be easier.
Once again you propose less personal responsibilities by creating more laws which already aren't enforced or don't work.
But for now freediver lets stick to one point: How would your creating a law to ensure guns are "secure" prevent stolen guns? Remember you told Gryphon "We seemed to get sidetracked by the issue of proper storage" yet this is one of your major points.
So, everybody lets focus on one of freedivers points at a time. Proper Storage and what freediver wants and our arguments against. Then lets move on to another point.
-
TucTom, I agree with the focusing on an issue at a time and clarifying that point. On safe storage and it's possible impact on illegal gun crime I would like to ask a few points:
1) what would be considered safe storage? Considering there currently are tools that are battery driven that will allow penetration of all but the most durable vaults. This is an issue no matter where in the world you have stored firearms.
2) The issue of storage not just civilian firearms but also the diverse government agencies and how to truly insure security and proper dealing with impounded weapons that are legally impounded (there is unfortunately more than enough evidence that this is NOT done in all cases).
3) How does proper storage truly effect gun crime considering that a large portion of gun crime is done with black market weapons and IF you are going to use Europe for an example than you might want to deal with the very active black market in all forms of illegal weapons that currently happen in many sections of the EU.
4) Does this magical demand of "proper" storage do more than add an additional expense and blockage to gun ownership (as it is used in the UK to block firearm ownership requests often, even in remote areas). If there is not a good body of independent research to support it, are we looking at more laws for laws sake and less truly reasoned action.
5) lastly who is going to pay for the government agency created to certify the security of different systems (I promise you that will arise and they will want very good pay).
just some points within the topic of storage and safety in storage. hard data please to back up positions, opinions are universal and shall be pointed towards the loo.
Michael
-
Michael, thanks for understanding and sticking with the 1 subject at a time. I believe freediver wants to continue without actually answering a question. Read back and see how many times there was a question posed and never answered (the same way anti gun people do - never actually answer). If everyone wont mind working like this, we can take turns asking specific questions of freediver and wait for answers.
So freediver please tell us what and why instead of "X has to happen" over and over.
-
I can't help but notice that freediver has now avoided this thread since I decided to try to start a one point at a time approach. Freediver, I know you have been on the forums and most likely read my request. So I will ask what is wrong?
You freediver insisted that laws need to change not the rest of us here. Yet you kept asking us what to do. I am willing to listen to and debate your ideas if you actually have full thoughts on your proposal for "change".
-
I can't help but notice that freediver has now avoided this thread since I decided to try to start a one point at a time approach. Freediver, I know you have been on the forums and most likely read my request. So I will ask what is wrong?
You freediver insisted that laws need to change not the rest of us here. Yet you kept asking us what to do. I am willing to listen to and debate your ideas if you actually have full thoughts on your proposal for "change".
Perhaps a troll has been snagged? :)
Eight days with no reply... Hmm, what country is hosting trolls this week?
-
I read a stat the other day that said that guns used in crimes were about evenly split 50/50 between straw purchases from FFLs and stolen firearms. Less than one percent of guns used in crime were purchased in private sales. So that pretty much puts the lie to "universal background checks will make a difference."
-
I read a stat the other day that said that guns used in crimes were about evenly split 50/50 between straw purchases from FFLs and stolen firearms. Less than one percent of guns used in crime were purchased in private sales. So that pretty much puts the lie to "universal background checks will make a difference."
Cite? It'd be an interesting tidbit to have.
-
Perhaps a troll has been snagged? :)
Eight days with no reply... Hmm, what country is hosting trolls this week?
Computer problems or out of town. Always one of the two.
-
Cite? It'd be an interesting tidbit to have.
I read it on TTAG.
-
So one is obtaining a firearm illegally, and the other is obtaining a firearm illegally.
I don't believe the cite... but irrespective, we don't need more laws to stop criminals from committing illegal acts.
-
Computer problems or out of town. Always one of the two.
Maybe the out of town computer is having problems.
-
Cite? It'd be an interesting tidbit to have.
I don't believe the cite.
Numbers are from the feds: the BJS, FBI, and the ATF via the NRA-ILA.
There are three ways to get guns illegally: straw purchases (nearly 50%), theft, and private sales to prohibited people (less than 1%). No percentage is listed for thefts, but if nearly 50% are straw purchases, and less than 1% are private sales, then the remainder "theft" must be about 50%.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the vast majority of criminals in state prison for gun crimes get guns through theft, on the black market, from a drug dealer or “on the street.” Less than one percent get guns from gun shows. (Private sales not requiring background checks).
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), “The most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “about 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.”
The FBI’s stolen firearm file contained over 2 million reports as of March 1995.The BATFE has reported “Those that steal firearms commit violent crimes with stolen guns, transfer stolen firearms to others who commit crimes, and create an unregulated secondary market for firearms, including a market for those who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun.”
Catherine Mortensen
Media Liaison
NRA, Institute for Legislative Action
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/daniel-zimmerman/nra-debunks-bogus-universal-background-check-justification/
-
Cite from the NRA-ILA website:
How criminals get guns—Less than one percent get guns from gun shows.
Straw purchasers— According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), “The most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150805/forty-percent-of-guns-don-t-go-through-background-checks-lie-debunked
-
Straw purchasers— According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), “The most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent.
The answer to that is the passage of my new one-gun-per-decade rationing bill.
-
The answer to that is the passage of my new one-gun-per-decade rationing bill.
Watch it someone who tucked tail may see this and try to use it!
-
Freediver, I see you are willing to give the Police / Government a pass in regards to their lost weapons
Here's an interesting story that details gun thefts from careless cops in Orlando.
An HK UMP submachine gun, an M4 semiautomatic rifle, a Glock 21, and a Glock 23 were stolen from a deputy's car when he left them unsecured overnight a few days ago.
A few months ago two pistols were stolen from undercover cops who left them unsecured in their rental car.
This story also mentions another theft of another submachine gun, a semi-automatic rifle and a .45-caliber Glock pistol stolen from a parked, unmarked Sheriff's Office SWAT vehicle in Orlando. I can think of a number of LEO thefts, including a secret service agent who recently left his guns, including a sniper rifle I believe, in his car in a Marriott parking garage while on assignment and they were stolen. Not the car, just the guns. From the back seat.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-swat-machine-gun-stolen-20150714-story.html
-
And then there's the illegal alien, in the illegal alien sanctuary of San Francisco, who shot a woman with a handgun that was stolen after a federal park ranger left it unattended in a car.
-
Mr Tuctom and Mr linux203: Sorry I haven't replied promptly to any of these posts. I spent the last week and a half going to and from Japan and there's a problem with their internet access there that won't let me make posts. I can read and then compose replies, but I got error messages every time I tried to post. Given my absence I do appreciate your petty and juvenile remarks about trolls, etc. It's very entertaining to see such immaturity demonstrated in what should be a friendly discussion about gun policy. It's something I've noticed about other gun owners; that ridicule seems to be part of the repertoire when you disagree with someone. It reminds me of my teenage granddaughters and their antics.
I hate to disappoint you, but I don't have the time to sit by the computer and respond to every single remark; there just isn't enough time in the day. Given that this thread is now into seven pages and has wandered from the original topic, I'm going to excuse myself from this thread. I look forward to future salty discussions with all of you.
Best of luck, ladies and gentlemen.
-
And once again, choose not to discuss one point at a time. I understand.
-
And once again, choose not to discuss one point at a time. I understand.
http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/
-
And once again, choose not to discuss one point at a time. I understand.
I think the tactic is to just throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks.
-
I might get in trouble for what I am about to post but so be it.
As it is known that i live outside the US and deal with international folks on a regular basis I tend to pick up on speech patterns and they mean a lot. Freediver in writing shows a very distinct British language pattern. Home county even (those who understand that statement will know it is not a complement in the rest of Britain). As such I call not only troll but a pretty poor one at that. I know for a fact that posting in Japan is no problem to any US forum (Have friends who do so daily).
I would strongly suggest that someone might want to check if the ship has leaks and we don't have a mole in the garden. Can't stop them all but the openly divisive can be shown the door. I remember on an earlier post getting told to give reference or retract my statement, has that bar been lowered?
I have seen in this thread many posts that don't support Freediver's position that have gladly given citation of their data. yet the inverse has not been the case. This is a known passive-aggressive style of attack in debate and when called on the floor to actually support the position with real data, tend to scream even louder (or in the case of governments create events to justify actions [There are many examples of this, the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 and the mass murder in the UK are but a few examples]).
Freediver has done a good bit of name calling and than acting as the one harmed. Made statements that normally would demand citation of support and than acted as if it is not his duty to do so. There are many ways of dividing a group and playing the same types of cards that come straight out of Mein Kampf are favorites of the left. It is interesting that it was left wing groups in the US and the UK that both pulled that book from the reading list of school children (upper middle and high school) about the same time they finished killing off latin in school as well.
I apologize for the length of my post but please think on it a bit.
Michael
-
Mr m.marino: sorry to burst your bubble but: British-no, south Philly raised-yes. Mole-no, ex-military and law enforcement-yes. Liberal-no, conservative-no, American-yes. Difference of opinion with some of the Forum participants-yes. Over the course of this thread I have cited numbers, examples, and presented logical arguments. I have refrained from any name calling during those discussions because I think it cheapens the discussion. If you can show me examples of my resorting to name calling I would like to see it.
As far as the rest of your post about Mein Kampf and Latin and schoolchildren, I confess I don't follow your reasoning so I'm not sure how to respond. We were discussing gun policy, and how hundreds of thousands of weapons are stolen or illegally purchased each year in the U.S. And what some fixes might be. Some of my recommendations were met with skepticism. So be it. The fact of the matter is that guns are going from legal hands to illegal hands through us, the gun owners. If we profess to be responsible gun owners, then I think it falls to us to try and come up with solutions that work. Remaining in denial, or blaming someone else, only makes the situation worse.
So, bottom line: if you don't like my solutions to the movement of weapons into the wrong hands, then come up with your own. Propose solutions that work for ALL Americans, not just the ones who like carrying guns.
-
You can't stop people from committing crime unless you lock them up and keep them locked up. You are probably aware that the guy who was shooting at Ferguson cops, Tyrone Harris, was already out on bond for stealing a car, theft of a firearm, and resisting arrest. He already has multiple felonies pending and he's out on the street shooting at cops.
You can't stop someone from making a straw purchase unless you stop gun sales. If they are going to lie to an FFL, they're going to lie to an FFL. If they have a clean record their NICS check will go through and then they'll pass the gun along to a prohibited person. The only way to stop that is to stop gun sales, period.
Are you willing to go that far?
-
You can't stop people from committing crime unless you lock them up and keep them locked up. You are probably aware that the guy who was shooting at Ferguson cops, Tyrone Harris, was already out on bond for stealing a car, theft of a firearm, and resisting arrest. He already has multiple felonies pending and he's out on the street shooting at cops.
I have to disagree. The US with its massive incarceration rate is hardly crime free. What you have to do is fix the social dynamics that drive crime:
"... increases in the homicide rate—correlated closely with four distinct phenomena: political instability; a loss of government legitimacy; a loss of fellow-feeling among members of society caused by racial, religious, or political antagonism; and a loss of faith in the social hierarchy."
http://www.amazon.com/American-Homicide-Randolph-Roth/dp/0674064119
You can't stop someone from making a straw purchase unless you stop gun sales. If they are going to lie to an FFL, they're going to lie to an FFL. If they have a clean record their NICS check will go through and then they'll pass the gun along to a prohibited person. The only way to stop that is to stop gun sales, period.
Are you willing to go that far?
Of course gun rights haters are willing to go that far, it's actually their goal. It's a fantasy though. Even if there were no legal gun sales there would still be gun sales. Just like with the war on drugs the war on guns will fail miserably.
-
(http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-11-at-8.06.45-AM.png)
-
Hey guys notice that freediver is still not actually answering my question and is going sideways again.
Freediver you wrote "The fact of the matter is that guns are going from legal hands to illegal hands through us, the gun owners. " and I will ask what exactly is it you propose that will not hurt the legal gun owner?
-
Mr m.marino: sorry to burst your bubble but: British-no, south Philly raised-yes. Mole-no, ex-military and law enforcement-yes. Liberal-no, conservative-no, American-yes. Difference of opinion with some of the Forum participants-yes. Over the course of this thread I have cited numbers, examples, and presented logical arguments. I have refrained from any name calling during those discussions because I think it cheapens the discussion. If you can show me examples of my resorting to name calling I would like to see it.
You have on more than one point used innuendo and statement of your personal experience and professional positions to uphold your opinion while not providing a simple citation once. Not once, I went back and triple check as a good cop will do (Form USAR MP). Sorry but that don't fly. You have stated numbers and that you got them from such source but not the source. Three other members of this forum have given direct links to their data to remove any doubt on how they came about the information, you no.
As far as the rest of your post about Mein Kampf and Latin and schoolchildren, I confess I don't follow your reasoning so I'm not sure how to respond. We were discussing gun policy, and how hundreds of thousands of weapons are stolen or illegally purchased each year in the U.S. And what some fixes might be. Some of my recommendations were met with skepticism. So be it. The fact of the matter is that guns are going from legal hands to illegal hands through us, the gun owners. If we profess to be responsible gun owners, then I think it falls to us to try and come up with solutions that work. Remaining in denial, or blaming someone else, only makes the situation worse.
Yes gun policy, which in Mien kampf was one of the items that was described as a need to remove from society so as to remove the ability of those who do not agree to upset or cause social unrest. The Reichstag fire shortly after the DAP gained a majority. Which saw rather wide sweeping laws put into effect to insure the safety of Germans (Outlawing the ownership of certain types of guns without a permit was one of the first). The point in that being that the discussion is being lower to emotional levels only, fear and death are being used very well in the mix.
So, bottom line: if you don't like my solutions to the movement of weapons into the wrong hands, then come up with your own. Propose solutions that work for ALL Americans, not just the ones who like carrying guns.
Freediver you have not answered nor responded to questions of your proposal by myself and one other member, yet have respond to posts after that. It puts you a rather selective and bad light. I live in Scotland which has one of the highest violent crime areas in the UK and by population, in outright violence, the UK out does the US. According to multiple sources in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30081682 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30081682)
http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/news/news-feed/victims-let-down-by-poor-crime-recording/ (http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/news/news-feed/victims-let-down-by-poor-crime-recording/)
If it is need to continue UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crime) Gives even more data and Eurostat has to Break the UK into four groups and the UK is still number 8 (England and Wales) and Number 10 (Scotland) and that is with a well known under reporting. That is violent crime NOT murder. Where Scotland ranks at eight and Northern Ireland at number 10.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail#Violent_crime (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail#Violent_crime)
When looking at the issue of violent crime and murder one also needs to look at the social issues that drive these problems. Also at punishment systems (whether in the code of law or society custom) that work and those that don't. Your rather simple statement of blaming gun owners for guns getting to criminals has all ready been address in an earlier post on this thread which rather close to the questions I first asked in trying to keep this to a single point and resolving that before moving on to the next. I personally don't agree with the gun laws in the UK and is one of many reasons that we are moving. While I have a completely clean record and could have the proper vault put into the house we live in, because it is within the radius of a high risk zone, I have been advised NOT to even start the paperwork until we either move to the country or out of it completely (we are working on the later). As far as to how to deal with violent criminals, and a solution for this type of crime? I tend to support the Greek Patriarch Dracos. It was not nice, but made it rather expensive for those who chose that route. So please give foundation and good data for this opinion you put forward as a complete solution and we will see whether it stands the test of a chain of logic test or not. If you are not willing to support your case then you risk the position of beings seen as not have much substance.
Michael
-
(http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-11-at-8.06.45-AM.png)
Scary guy! Now don't be like the gun rights haters & think that an anecdote proves your case. It's a combination of upbringing & social dynamics that turn someone into a monster like that. The fact that the criminal "justice" system is overwhelmed & had to let him go just shows that we can't depend on it. Stop fantasizing about it becoming fast, just, effective, & efficient. It's the govt, it doesn't work.
-
That graphic came from gun-rights haters. It's from The Trace, the new Bloomberg-funded anti-gun site. But it just shows that criminals are going to be criminals, and people that are close to them but still "legal" will aid them in getting weapons. So the only way to prevent legal people from illegally giving weapons and ammo to prohibited people is to stop all weapons and ammunition sales to everyone. Ban all guns and ammo. Period.
Yet most Leftists state they don't want to do that.
Yet even that won't stop criminals from committing crime and violence. So the innocent will be left to suffer at the hands of the wolves of society.
-
Mr tuctom: you ask what I propose that will not "hurt" the gun owner. Here we part ways on the definition of "hurt". I am looking for solutions to choke off the supply of guns to illegal or "crazy" hands. I am not proposing to "hurt" gun owners. By the figures posted by myself and others, over 220,000 guns PER YEAR are lost or stolen. How do we attack that number? Gun safes are one way. Not a perfect solution, as you pointed out. Universal background checks, also nipping at a small part of the problem. Straw buyers and corrupt gun dealers appear to be the biggest part of the problem. How do we deal with that? Go after the problem. Throw the book at corrupt dealers. Put them in prison, not just pull their license. Track the straw buyers. Which means keeping records and fully funding the ATF and allowing them to do their job. Prosecute LEOS who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. This is not a "sound bite solution" sort of problem. We need to completely alter the gun culture in the US. It requires a multi-faceted, complex approach, and it will not happen overnight. If we are truly committed to making our streets safe, as we should be, then some of these ideas need to be part of the solution. Personally I don't think any of these "hurt" a gun owner. I would think that as gun owners, we would want to be part of the solution. Use our expertise to push for solutions that actually work, not foolish gun bans that haven't worked in the past.
-
Mr m. marino: Again, I confess that I can't quite follow your train of thought. You mention a lot of historical references, yet I don't see how they apply to our discussion. No one in this forum is proposing a ban on guns, least of all me. I am proposing a higher standard of ownership among US, and some more efficient government involvement in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or crazies.
Since you claim to live in Scotland and have to deal with the UK guns laws, might I suggest that you post those shortcomings on a different thread? It truly is apples and oranges between the US and the UK. I just got back from Japan. I admire the country and its people. But I would never propose Japanese style gun laws in the US. We are two completely different cultures.
Best of luck!
-
Gryphon, freedriver, TucTom, M.Marino,
This emphasis on law enforcement as a solution is misguided. It can help somewhat reduce the murder rate but since it doesn't address the root causes law enforcement is more like a band aid than a cure. Matter of fact, I would argue that by enforcing things like the war on drugs law enforcement helps create crime rather than reduce it. Today, we live in a world of the progressives’ creation, somewhere halfway between socialism and liberty. It is a volatile mixture. It is a world increasingly ruled by force; force wielded by a powerfully armed government. Whether it is the force of the income tax, the force of compulsory education, the force of regulation, or the force of law enforcement the effects are clear to all willing to see: a society becoming sicker and more aggressive. We’ve sunk a long way since 1850 when a Frenchman, Frederick Bastiat, wrote in his book “The Law”:
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation.
They’re sure not talking about us like that in France anymore! Progressivism has failed to achieve its lofty ideals. Instead it has created our present situation of crime and murder, war and empire. It is this failure that the advocates of gun control want to cover up. Instead of facing reality they want to blame guns for the problems the implementation of their ideas has created. Before anyone gets too smug, let me emphasize that both political parties have adopted the progressive ideology. Today’s so-called liberals and conservatives advocate different degrees and different aspects of it, but advocate it they do. It’s past time for both sides to realize that the killing will only end, society will only heal by turning it away from being ruled by force and toward voluntary interaction between its members. Liberty is the answer. Implementing it means change at the institutional level, disarming the government and keeping the people not only armed but also organized to defend themselves.
-
Well spoken, Mr darrenlobo!
-
Well spoken, Mr darrenlobo!
Thanks, I got most of it from this article I wrote a few years ago
Progressivism’s Violent World
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/01/progressivisms-violent-world.html
-
I am not proposing to "hurt" gun owners.
Then please explain.
Gun safes are one way. Not a perfect solution, as you pointed out.
What is it you want to "make it perfect"? How do you propose that this is put into place? What would be your requirements to this proposed law?
Universal background checks, also nipping at a small part of the problem.
Okay I will admit I am not a guy who has or knows all of the numbers but being that background checks are already required for handguns and I would guess the majority of crimes are committed with a handgun. What would requiring background checks do? (oh yeah we already have them)
Straw buyers and corrupt gun dealers appear to be the biggest part of the problem. How do we deal with that? Go after the problem. Throw the book at corrupt dealers.
So you propose that the laws that are already in place are actually used? What would need to change? The Government, prosecutors etc not the law.
Track the straw buyers. Which means keeping records and fully funding the ATF and allowing them to do their job.
Are you saying give the ATF more money because they can't but more importantly DON"T already do their job? Please explain fully just what you would want to see.
Prosecute LEOS who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.
Once again the laws are already there. Who's fault is it that the prosecutions are not happening? Please explain what you want that is different.
We need to completely alter the gun culture in the US.
This I believe is your true belief.
If we are truly committed to making our streets safe, as we should be, then some of these ideas need to be part of the solution.
Being committed to making the streets safe should not start with "gun control" because criminals aren't people just like you and I. Then they get a gun and magically become criminals. The are already criminals who then get a gun however they can. And I believe there isn't anything you or I can do to stop it. Think "war on drugs"!!!
Personally I don't think any of these "hurt" a gun owner.
Explain all of the points and I will then judge whether your ideas "hurt" gun owners.
I would think that as gun owners, we would want to be part of the solution. Use our expertise to push for solutions that actually work, not foolish gun bans that haven't worked in the past.
As gun owners we (I believe) are already part of the solution. By carrying we are telling criminals that we aren't going to take it. And they better think twice.
So before we move on with more points lets now address each of these points first.
Thank you.
-
Japan has reached the point at which I think LE makes a difference there.
In USA, you kill somebody because realistically or not, you think you're going to get away with it.
In Japan, everybody knows that defendant's rights are null, and you WILL be convicted, so if you kill somebody there, it's because it's worth it. Very few people really want somebody dead badly enough to willingly go to prison for it.
-
Why is everybody over complicating this
Make illegal gun sales {more} illegal
Make illegal murder {more} illegal
There, I solved the problem
-
Japan has reached the point at which I think LE makes a difference there.
In USA, you kill somebody because realistically or not, you think you're going to get away with it.
In Japan, everybody knows that defendant's rights are null, and you WILL be convicted, so if you kill somebody there, it's because it's worth it. Very few people really want somebody dead badly enough to willingly go to prison for it.
I would argue that in Japan it's the social dynamics that keep murder rates down. Under such circumstances it's easy for LEOs to look good. They may take the credit but it's not true.
-
Why is everybody over complicating this
Make illegal gun sales {more} illegal
Make illegal murder {more} illegal
There, I solved the problem
We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. How many more do you want to lock up?
-
We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. How many more do you want to lock up?
Apparently I didn't drip enough sarcasm in my post???
But, since you brought it up, and a total off topic response, end the war on drugs. Make prison someplace nobody wants to return to.
-
IIRC, the top 2% of violent offenders are responsible for 80-90% of the major violent crimes. And they all have extensive police records.
Seems like it would make sense to chase the drug offenders out of prison and lock up the ultraviolent ones instead.
-
Apparently I didn't drip enough sarcasm in my post???
A wiseguy, nuk, nuk, nuk
But, since you brought it up, and a total off topic response, end the war on drugs.
Actually, it's not off topic it's part of the solution.
-
We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. How many more do you want to lock up?
But, since you brought it up, and a total off topic response, end the war on drugs.
End the war on marijuana. Release everyone whose only conviction is marijuana related. Marijuana poses similar risks to society that alcohol does.
By far, users of marijuana are functional members of society, able to hold a job and purchase their drug. Most other "hardcore" drugs cause people to become non-functional and unemployed. They turn to other crimes to support the addiction.
Fewer incarcerated non-violent offenders makes room to remove violent (and statistically more likely) offenders from society.
-
1
-
By far, users of marijuana are functional members of society, able to hold a job and purchase their drug. Most other "hardcore" drugs cause people to become non-functional and unemployed. They turn to other crimes to support the addiction.
The argument for banning marijuana was it is a gateway drug. For most users that I know, this isn't the case. There's one former "hardcore" drug user that I know that says marijuana was a gateway for him.
I agree other drugs can lead people to crime to support those addictions, shouldn't we simply punish the crime committed? Why punish someone for something that in and of itself directly harms no one else.
If the drug use leads to child neglect, criminalize and punish the child neglect (oh, wait, the government already has). If it leads to crimes against persons, criminalize the crimes against persons (oh, wait...). If it leads to crime against property, criminalize the crimes against property (oh, wait...).
Seriously, these same arguments are used by the gun control crowd. Our answer? Don't criminalize possession, criminalize the acts of abusive possession/use. Why would you suggest drugs be treated any differently?
-
I agree, Q.
-
Q thank you for putting it rather well. Thank you very much.
Michael
-
How true Q
-
I'd be willing to bet an extremely high majority of hard core drug abusers started with MJ.
however, almost every single one started on milk... so now what, ban milk?
personally, IDK what drug someone uses, end the war on drugs.
-
Why would you suggest drugs be treated any differently?
This is something I've struggled with in regards to a myriad of issues. Why is 16 the legal driving age? Why is 18 the age of consent? Why is 21 the drinking age? Why is incest illegal? Why should domestic violence laws be allowed to infringe on someone's freedom of religion? Whose morality decides what laws should be?
Why criminalize an 8 year old driving? Criminalize the accident they cause.
Why have MIP laws? Enforce drunk and disorderly and impaired driving laws we already have.
I tend to have Libertarian philosophies, but struggle when providing liberty yields no possible positive outcomes. But then again, who am I to declare what a positive outcome is?
Liberty, pushed to the limits, can become a society without rule of law. Who decides the balance?
-
Liberty, pushed to the limits, can become a society without rule of law. Who decides the balance?
The reason you struggle is that you misinterpret the issue. It's not a matter of liberty vs law but how do you provide law. The answer is to let the market do so. Institutions voluntarily hired & voluntarily financed can do it better than the corrupt monopoly the govt forces on us. I would point to history as proof that we don't need the govt to provide law & security:
Responsive Law Enforcement: Community policing is seen as responsive to local needs because it is relatively decentralized. Law enforcement in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries was even more decentralized and responsive because the private sector provided for public safety and the enforcement of contracts. When Britain’s Bobbies (public police) later came on to the scene, they were jeered not praised.
Fairer Laws: The Law Merchant was a non-governmental system of commercial-dispute resolution that arose in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Merchants viewed it as fair and abided by its decisions because it was created and administered by and for merchants. The Law Merchant was highly successful until governments began to subvert it and expand their own power. But because government-run legal systems have become increasingly slow and arbitrary, the Law Merchant is returning in the form of private arbitration and mediation services, which now help resolve criminal as well as commercial disputes.
**********
Law and Social Services
Is law possible without the state? Surprisingly, the answer appears to be yes. Bruce Benson (chapter 6) investigates the Law Merchant: the voluntarily evolved and enforced legal system that governed trade among international merchants. The Law Merchant filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, when merchants themselves created a dispute-resolution system that all parties regarded as fair. Today, arbitration and conflict-resolution businesses, like the Law Merchant of yore, offer many advantages over state systems, and have even spread to environmental mediation and community disputes. Stephen Davies (chapter 7) shows how, in the 19th century, local communities and private prosecution associations provided criminal justice.
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=17
-
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.
But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?
-
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.
But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?
-
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?
I got it! I got it!
You hire a company like Pinkerton's is depicted in wild west movies and they kill the non-consenting bad guy for you.
-
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.
But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?
One problem with today's system is the criminalization of just about everything. Many things that are crimes today would better be treated as torts. A system of restitution makes more sense than our out of control system of control & punishment.
-
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?
The only force would be against those who commit crimes & refuse to come to terms with their victims. Remember my point "Institutions voluntarily hired & voluntarily financed can do it better than the corrupt monopoly the govt forces on us." This doesn't require that criminals agree with their restitution/punishment.
-
Good explanation why only fools say "gun violence":
http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/28/thinking-seriously-about-the-virginia-murders-n2044980/page/full
First, the notion that this double murder was “caused” by “gun violence” is patently offensive. It’s offensive to the victims, certainly, and even to the victimizer.
Alison Parker, Adam Ward, and Vicki Gardner were shot with a gun. They were shot by Vester Flanagan, a man who could’ve killed them in any number of other ways, or chosen not to kill them at all. We divest individuals of their humanity, their uniquely human, indeed, divine-like moral agency, when we ignore the reasons for their actions while instead attributing the latter to such impersonal “causes” as “gun violence” or “mental health.”
Second, allusions to “gun violence” and “mental health” are especially pernicious inasmuch as they obscure the evil nature of the deed being explained. To see just how egregious an offense this is, consider some analogies.
Imagine if, while discussing the Holocaust, we spoke about “gas chamber violence,” or while discussing Islamic State mass beheadings, we talked instead of “machete violence.” Or suppose that discussions of the lynching of blacks were peppered with references to “rope violence.” None of this would sit well with decent human beings, for it is clear, or at least it is thought that it should be clear, that such descriptions miss entirely that which is fundamental to the phenomena being described—the perpetrators responsible for these wicked deeds.
The perpetrators deserve to be recognized for the moral agents that they are, and their victims deserve an honest account of their fates.
-
I like the bolded part.